Abstract
Design Thinking helps people innovate by mobilising a plurality of approaches, skills and perspectives. This is why exploration spaces in large organisations (discussed in Chap. 4) need large reservoirs of variegated (and even contending) ideas. In this chapter, we look at how Design Thinking generates and manages these pools of contending ideas, frames and perspectives. In particular, this chapter reviews two ways of creating a plurality of views for exploration. First, the chapter examines the way multi-disciplinary teams contribute to these reservoirs of ideas. Relying on the available evidence, the chapter depicts how DT implementation programmes encouraged and mobilised a plurality of views and perspectives within DT teams. Second, the chapter also shows how methods of qualitative social science and ethnography enable design teams to ‘hunt and gather’ insights from users and stakeholders (Plattner et al. Design thinking research: Measuring performance in context. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012). Here, again based on available empirical evidence, the chapter looks at the effects the introduction of these methods have had on large organisations in the private and public sectors. Like Chap. 4, this chapter draws lessons from the analysis of the implementation cases.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
As well as the more commercialised variations from market and consumer research.
- 2.
That said, Rhinow reports of a “fly-on-the-wall” approach where Design Thinking teams sat next to a colleague and observed how this colleague interacted with a computer.
- 3.
In the jargon of deliberative democracy, engagement with user voices brought about the ‘transformation of preferences’ and assumptions.
- 4.
Arguably, efficiency is a very strong and jealous value.
- 5.
This, of course, echoes the standard argument in favour of citizen participation and deliberation. Not only do citizen participation processes yield normative benefits (i.e. it is morally good for democracies to involve citizens in the decisions that affect their lives) but also functional or instrumental benefits (i.e. the quality of outputs and outcomes is better and these decisions are more readily accepted by citizens) (Bohman 1998).
- 6.
Which is somewhat ironic, given that Design Thinking is supposed to foster ‘creative confidence’.
- 7.
Twenty qualitative interviews generate an immense amount of data that would keep a team of experienced social scientists busy for many weeks.
References
Bohman, J. (1998). Survey article: The coming of age of deliberative democracy. Journal of Political Philosophy, 6(4), 400–425.
Carlgren, L., Elmquist, M., & Rauth, I. (2014a). Design thinking: Exploring values and effects from an innovation capability perspective. The Design Journal, 17(3), 403–423.
Carlgren, L., Elmquist, M., & Rauth, I. (2014b). Exploring the use of design thinking in large organizations: Towards a research agenda. Swedish Design Research Journal, 1(14), 47–56.
Douglas, M. (1987). How institutions think. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Douglas, M. (1996). Thought styles: Critical essays on good taste. London: Sage.
Dribbisch, K. (2016). Translating innovation: The adoption of design thinking in a Singaporean Ministry, doctoral thesis. Potsdam: University of Potsdam.
Fung, A. (2003). Survey article: Recipes for public spheres: Eight institutional design choices and their consequences. Journal of Political Philosophy, 11(3), 338–367.
Kingdon, J. W. (1984). Agendas, alternatives and public policies. Boston, MA: Little Brown.
Köppen, E. (2016). Empathy by design: Untersuchung einer Empathie-geleiteten Reorganisation der Arbeitsweise. Konstanz und München: UVK Verlagsgesellschaft mbH.
Martin, R. L. (2009). The opposable mind: Winning through integrative thinking. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
Plattner, H., Meinel, C., & Leifer, L. J. (2014). Design thinking research: Building innovators. Berlin: Springer.
Rauth, I., Carlgren, L., & Elmquist, M. (2014). Making it happen: Legitimizing design thinking in large organizations. Design Management Journal, 9(1), 47–60.
Rhinow, H. (2018). Design thinking Als Lernprozess in Organisationen: Neue Chancen Und Dilemmata Für Die Projektarbeit. Doctoral thesis, University of Potsdam, Potsdam.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Ney, S., Meinel, C. (2019). Hunting, Gathering and Taking It Home: Bringing New Perspectives and Perceptions into Organisations. In: Putting Design Thinking to Work. Understanding Innovation. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19609-7_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19609-7_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-19608-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-19609-7
eBook Packages: Business and ManagementBusiness and Management (R0)