Advertisement

Design Thinking and Messy Practices

  • Steven Ney
  • Christoph Meinel
Chapter
Part of the Understanding Innovation book series (UNDINNO)

Abstract

This chapter explores the implementation of Design Thinking practices in large organisations. Establishing exploration spaces as well as hunting and gathering for insights set up the process of innovation. Yet, innovation also needs an effective set of practices for leveraging diversity of design teams to transform insights into innovation. Specifically, the chapter looks at the extent to which the implementation of Design Thinking has created spaces in large organisations that are or approximate ‘messy institutions’ (Ney and Verweij Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 33(6), 1679–1696, 2015). These are organisational spaces that put problem-solving methods from different and often contending organisational cultures at the disposal of design teams. The chapter shows how output-oriented practices move the process of innovation by encouraging pragmatism and experimentation. Inclusion-oriented processes ensure that all voices and approaches—even the outliers and extreme users—get a fair hearing in the innovation process. Process-oriented practices, in turn, provide the rules that enable the process to stay on track and produce high outputs based on the best available knowledge. Last chance-oriented practices introduce an element of serendipity designed to accustom Design Thinking teams to failure. Using case studies of large organisations that have introduced Design Thinking, the chapter critically scrutinises the extent to which plurality of practices has supported and promoted the creative reframing of wicked problems. Just like the previous two chapters, we outline the critical lessons learned from implementing the pluralist practices in large organisations.

References

  1. 6, P. (2003). Institutional viability: A neo-Durkheimian approach. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science, 16(4), 395–415.Google Scholar
  2. Bason, C. (2010). Leading public sector innovation: Co-creating for a better society. Bristol, UK: Polity Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Buck, J. A., & Villines, S. (2007). We the people: Consenting to a deeper democracy: A guide to sociocratic principles and methods. Washington, DC: Sociocracy.info.Google Scholar
  4. Carlgren, L., Elmquist, M., & Rauth, I. (2012). Implementing design thinking in large organizations. Proceedings of the IPDM Conference 2012, Manchaster.Google Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.Google Scholar
  7. Carlgren, L., Elmquist, M., & Rauth, I. (2016). The challenges of using design thinking in industry – Experiences from five large firms. Creativity and Innovation Management, 25(3), 344–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cohen, M., March, J., & Olsen, J. (1972). A garbage can model of organisational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cross, N. (2011). Design thinking: Understanding how designers think and work. New York: Bloomsbury Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. De Bono, E. (1989). Six thinking hats. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  11. Doorley, S., & Witthoft, S. (2011). Make space: How to set the stage for creative collaboration. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  12. Douglas, M. (1987). How institutions think. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  13. Douglas, M., & Ney, S. (1998). Missing persons: A critique of personhood in the social sciences. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  14. Dribbisch, K. (2016). Translating innovation: The adoption of design thinking in a Singaporean Ministry.Google Scholar
  15. Hood, C. (1998). The art of the state: Culture, rhetoric, and public management. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Kelley, T. (2001). The art of innovation. London: Profile Books.Google Scholar
  17. Köppen, E. (2016). Empathy by design: Untersuchung einer Empathie-geleiteten Reorganisation der Arbeitsweise. Konstanz und München: UVK Verlagsgesellschaft mbH.Google Scholar
  18. Löffler, J. (2015, September 1). Unser Unternehmen ist eine Soziokratie. Der Freitag.Google Scholar
  19. Martin, R. L. (2009a). The design of business: Why design thinking is the next competitive advantage. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.Google Scholar
  20. Martin, R. L. (2009b). The opposable mind: Winning through integrative thinking. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.Google Scholar
  21. Ney, S. (2012). Making sense of the global health crisis: Policy narratives, conflict, and global health governance. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 37(2), 253–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ney, S., & Verweij, M. (2014a). Exploring the contributions of cultural theory for improving public deliberation about complex policy problems. Policy Studies Journal, 42(4), 620–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ney, S., & Verweij, M. (2014b). Messy institutions for wicked problems: How to generate clumsy solutions. Available at SSRN 2382191.Google Scholar
  24. Plattner, H., Meinel, C., & Leifer, L. J. (2014). Design thinking research: Building innovators. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  25. Rhinow, H. (2018). Design thinking Als Lernprozess in Organisationen: Neue Chancen Und Dilemmata Für Die Projektarbeit. Doctoral thesis, University of Potsdam, Potsdam.Google Scholar
  26. Stickdorn, M. (2012). This is service design thinking: Basics-tools-cases. Amsterdam: BIS.Google Scholar
  27. Suri, J. F. (2005). Thoughtless acts?: Observations on intuitive design. San Francisco, CA: Chronicle books.Google Scholar
  28. Thompson, M., Ellis, R., & Wildavsky, A. (1990). Cultural theory. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Steven Ney
    • 1
  • Christoph Meinel
    • 2
  1. 1.T-Systems InternationalBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Hasso Plattner InstituteUniversity of PotsdamPotsdamGermany

Personalised recommendations