Understanding the behaviour of design thinking in complex ... · Understanding the behaviour of...

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


Bothdesignteamshadtonavigatetheirwaythroughcomplexandambiguousterrain,

workingtowardsanoutcomeforabriefthatissubjecttochange.Akeyindicatorofthe

senseofuncertaintyexperiencedthroughouttheprojectwasobservedinthelanguage

usedbetweendesignersduringsensemaking,synthesisandbrainstormingsessions.The

languageexpressedamongstthedesignteamwasoftenundevelopedandrarely

definitive.Repetitivecommentssuchas“mightbethis”and“Idon’tknow”reflectedthe

uncertaintybothdesignteamsfeltthroughouttheprocessoftheproject:

Yeahandallthosethatmightnotbethat,Idon’tknow…


Idon’tknow,Ithinkthatthisishowitisworking?


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


Theuncertaintyofthedesignbriefcreatedanattitudetowardsmanagingtheprocess

thatfocusedonforfeitingcontrol.Resigningcontrolalsoaffecteddiscussionsaroundthe

outcomeoftheproject.Attitudesovertheoutcomeareexpressedinanopen,adaptive

andalsoindefiniteway:

Ifthey[emerginginsights]kindofaligntheywillbealigned.Wedon’tknowyet


I’lldesignitmaybethiswayorthiswaydepending…


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.


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


It’sactuallyonethingIwasthinkingabout,especiallyinthebeginning.

Therewerealotofquestions-wedidn’tknowandhowitwasgoingtowork


Idon’tknow…Ithinkthatthisishowitisworking.Andthentheotherservice

elementswillexpandontheseotherones…Idon’tknow?


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


Theydon’thaveit[thesolution]yet,butit’satoolthatthey[theclient]would

maketohelpthem[thecustomer]determineandrecommendtheideals


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


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


Ithinkthatmighthappenasaresult,becauseyouprobablysay,youknow,goto

thislinkor…(Observation,Phase2,2011)

114

Theuncertaintyandcomplexityoftheprojectbriefamplifieddesignintuition.

Anotherkeyindicatorofintuitionobservedinbothdesignteamswastheuseofsensory

language.Phrasessuchas“Ifeel”dominateddiscussions,showingthatinstinctive

reactionstouncertaintydominatedthedesignprocess:

Ifeellikeitneedstobelikethat


Ifeellikethethemethatispoppingouthereisthis


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


Thetensionbetweendivingintodetailedanalysisandpreservingaholisticperspective

portrayedafinetightropethatbothdesignteamshadtobalance.Theambiguityand

complexityoftheprojectbriefamplifiedthistension;pushingforaneedtorapidly

convergeanddivergethoughtthroughoutalldevelopmentalphasesinordertograpple

withtheuncertaintyandvariableinformationthatpersistedinthiscontext:

Iguessthatwestartedoffquitehighlevelandthenkindofwentindeep

butnotconsistently.Ithinkit’sjust,thelevelofdeepnessismorelikethis,

…sometimessomethingneedstobewelldeveloped


Thetensionbetweendetailedandholisticthinkingaffectedtheunfoldingdesignprocess.

Thefluctuationbetweenopenandadaptiveiteration(holisticthinking)andfocusfor

implementation(problemframing)addedevidencetothepersistenceof‘fuzzy’end-to-

endphases.

Anotherdetailobservedwasthebalancebetweentheamountofknowledgerequiredon

thecomplextaskathandandtheabilitytomoveforwardandfocusonanemerging

theme.Thisdirectlyaffectedthedecisionmakingprocessduringdesigndevelopment.

Decidinghowmuchinformationisneededinordertomoveforwardwithaninsight

forcedtheteamtocriticallyanalysehowmuchholisticanddetaileduserdatathey

requiredinordertomoveforward:

Andyesterdaywewentourseparatewaysandthought“Ok.Whatisthelevelof

detailwecangointoandhowmuchknowledgedowehave”


116

Sometimeswemighthaveoneortwolittle“ohthat’sagoodidea”butit’skindof,

waituntilitcomestoatheme.Don’tjustfocusononeperson.Wehad5different

[user]profilessoyouwanttoreallymakesurewhatyou’rechangingiswhat

mostpeoplearesayingandnotjustone[person]


Balancebetweenconflictingstateswasalsoobservedtoexistinprojectmanagement.

Decidingwhethertostructureaplanforuserresearchanddevelopment,orrelease

controlandallowforamoreorganicandadaptableprocess,provedtobeasourceof

conflictionforbothdesignteams.However,ultimately,bothteamspreferredorganicand

adaptableprocesses:

Seeyoucantryandbringitdownanduseitaccordingtosystems,butinthe

enditjustcameout-wehadtojustplayitasthecustomerdidaswell


Duringsynthesis,balancingalsooccurredbetweenclarityandcomplexity.Bothdesign

teamsgrappledwithpresentingandclarifyingtheinherentcomplexityintheproblem

whilstnotoversimplifyingorcomplicatingtheproject:

ThisispartofwhatI’masking.ifyouarelookingatthat[thediagram]without

knowing,wouldyouunderstandthat?Orisitmakingitmorecomplicated?


Similarly,thedesignteamwereconstantlyfightingtobalancecustomerand

organisationalneeds.Duringcustomerresearch,thedesignteamfacedthetaskof

balancinginsightsbetweenwhatthecustomersaysversuswhatthecustomerdoes:

Beforetheenactment,afterthefirstworkshops,theideaofthecustomerjourney

thatwasbuilt,wewerelike“ofcoursethisidea!Whydon’twetestit?”andthenit

changed.It’sthesamethinginthecustomerworkshops,theysaysomethingthey

thinkthey’ddobuttheydon’tactuallydointheworkshops


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


119

WhenIwaswritingtheinsightsthatIhad,andobservations,someofthemwere

highlevel-theywerelessspecific.Thereweremorehigh-levelinsights


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


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


I’mjustsketchingawayhere,…eachoftheseliveonthatscale,

butnotnecessarilybepartsofit…


Sketchingwasobservedasatooltoinviteteammembersto‘sync’withanindividual’s

perspective.Asynchronisedconversationemergedfrominteractionswithinthevisual

realm.Thevisualartifactprovidesacentralandcommonfocusforfacilitatingthe

‘buildingupon’groupmembersthoughtsandideas(Vaajakallio&Mattelmäki,2014).

Thismethodfacilitatesacollectivedesignmind:

124

Noworries!Draweverywhere!Soitlookslikeyou’vegotthesetwothingslike

thatandthenyou’vegotthesethingslikethis,which,dothat…maybe?


Oh,OK.That’sinteresting![laughs]…thislookslikeplanetstome!


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


125

Wehadaweekortwoweeksofplanningtheenactmentwhichwasputting

postersonthewall,piecesofpaper,seeing…


Ithinkanothernextstepistighteninguptheblueprints,fromthevaluein[the

service]becausetherearegapsinthatfirstlayeroftheorganisational

journey...butIthink...havingallofthismakesthateasier


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…


BiggerthebetterbecausethevisualthatI’vegotinmyheadis…


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?


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


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


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?


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


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


That’sthethingbecausewearealwaystalkingonbehalfofthecustomer.

Peopleseethatasthecustomerthinking,thecustomer’svoice.


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.


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?


Theresponsibilitiesoverimplementationwereunclearinthisproject.Whatwasclear

wastheperspectiveandexpectationsthattheclienthadonimplementation.Theclient

emphasizedtheneedforpracticalsolutionsthatcouldbesuccessfullyimplemented:

Weneedtodoitasawaythatworks,notjustaservicethatarrivesandfalls


Thepracticalmindsetoftheclientteamconflictedwiththeemotiveandidealizedvisions

ofthedesignteam.Thisdifferenceinperspectivewasalsoevidentinthewaytheclient

anddesignteamexpressedthemselveswhencollaborating.Identifiedin1.4,thedesign

teamoftenexpressedthemselvesinanemotivemannersignifiedbystatements

emphasisinghowtheyfeltabouttheproblemathand.Incontrast,emotivelanguagewas

notexpressedfromtheclientandlogicappearedtodominate:

Designer:Ifeellikethethemethatispoppingouthereis…

Client:Ithinkit’sjustchangingittoinformationmanagement…


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


Fromourfindingstoday,howthey[themes]allworktogetherasanecosystem


Knowledgeplayedacrucialroleindeterminingwhetherthedesignteamcouldshiftinto

asystemiclevelofthinking.Inparticular,theabilitytotransformholisticinsightsinto

strategicoutcomes.Knowledgewaspivotaltomovingforward:

134

Sothestrategyiskindofthesmallerpartoftheidealjourney.Wecan’tsay

wearebuildingthestrategybecausewehaven’tdonethedetailedresearch


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


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


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


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.


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.


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


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


Asdesignfacilitatorpartofmyrolewiththeprojectmanageristocome

upwiththiscoredesignteamandtheyaremadeupofsomekindofset

criteria,around8-10people,thattraditionallygetblownoutbyafewmore

thanthat.Andthesearekeystakeholdersthatareinvolvedintheprocess.

Theyneedtotakeresponsibilityofthedesign.Theyneedtosignoffthe

designandtheyarealsogatekeeperstotherestoftheirarea


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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?


Wehavethestrategicintentatthebeginningoftheprocess.Itisalwaysat

thebackofourmindthatwhatwearedoingalongthewaydoesn’timpede

thecapabilityofthatinthefuture,anddoprocessbyprocesstogetthere


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


Thedesignremainstruetothecollaborativeeffortsofallcoredesignteammembersand

stakeholders.Itispreservedthroughconstantreflectionovertheintent.Thus,intent

becomesabasemeasureforevaluatingfinalimplementeddesignsolutionsandbecomes

ameasureofinvestment:

Intheprocesswegobackandreviewtheintentstatement;whatwe’vedone

whatwe’vedesigned…doesthatrelatetotheintent?Becausewhatweusuallydo

iswehaveanintentstatementfromthebeginningoftheprocessandthenyougo

throughyourdesign,formulatethehighleveldesignandthenyougettotheend

ofitandgo“oklet’shavealookattheintentstatement”


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


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


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


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


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


Thedesignleaddescribesdesignthinkingasaprocessthatconsidersuserexperiences

andexpectations.Designthinkingguidesteamstoaskspecific,user-centeredquestions

whichinturnguidesamindsettowardsmoreempatheticsolutions.Thedesign

facilitatorarguesthatthevaluebehindadesignapproachliesintheempathetic

considerationforuserexperiences:

Ithinkthevalueaddis,indesignthinking,theuserexperienceaspartof

theprocessandit’salwaysthroughoutourentiredesign.Wealwaysthink

aboutwhataretheuserexperiencesgoingtobe,whatisitgoingtobein

thisinteraction,andmakingsureitiswellconsidered


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


Ithinkdesignthinkingisaboutthewaywhichweneedtocomeupwithour

solutions.Theprocessgetsusthroughit.SolikeIsaid,ourprocessistrialand

testedanddoneoverandoveragainandweknowthatitworks.


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


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


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.

pdf

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.

pdf

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).


https://openideo.com/challenge/localfood/inspiration

294

Howmightwebetterconnectfoodproductionandconsumption?:Refinement(n.d).


https://openideo.com/challenge/localfood/refinement

Howmightwebetterconnectfoodproductionandconsumption?:Realisation(n.d).


https://openideo.com/challenge/localfood/realisation

Howmightwebetterconnectfoodproductionandconsumption?:Refinement(n.d).


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

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

Understanding the behaviour of design thinking in complex ... · Understanding the behaviour of...

Documents

Transcript of Understanding the behaviour of design thinking in complex ... · Understanding the behaviour of...