The Design Thinking Methodology at Work: Semi-Automated Interactive Recovery

Chapter
Part of the Understanding Innovation book series (UNDINNO)

Abstract

The methodology of Design Thinking (DT) suggests a repertoire of methods and techniques that lead to different forms of the DT methodology in practice. Which methods and techniques have been employed is of special interest to stakeholders, such as project managers and researchers. However, the repertoire of these methods and techniques does not convey much concerning the order of employed methods and techniques in practice. Capturing the employed DT methodology is difficult, because the subjectively perceived and objectively employed DT methodology may differ. In our former work, we implemented recovery rules that successfully reconstructed the DT methodology from captured DT project documentation. Our qualitative evaluation shows that the methodology could be reconstructed without human intervention with a confidence of approx. 50–80%. However, in order to draw valid conclusions about DT methodologies use a higher level of confidence must be achieved. Therefore, to proceed from a qualitative to quantitative analysis of employed DT methodologies we extended our recovery approach to a semi-automated recovery approach to (a) increase the completeness and accuracy of the reconstructed methodology and (b) use insights gained during the semi-automated recovery to enhance the recovery rules.

In this chapter, we report on our extended semi-automated recovery approach. As a preliminary result of our experiments, we conclude that our semi-automated interactive recovery approach can be employed to increase the completeness and accuracy of the reconstructed methodology. By using insights gained during the semi-automated recovery to enhance the recovery rules and therefore allow to proceed from a qualitative to quantitative analysis of used DT methodologies.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Thomas Beyhl for producing the in this chapter reported research results and his contributions to the presented figures and text. We also thank the HPI School of Design Thinking for supporting our research by providing design project documentation for our experiments and feedback in general. Dr. Sharon Nemeth for copyediting/language support.

References

  1. Beyhl, T., Berg, G., & Giese, H. (2013a). Connecting designing and engineering activities. In L. Leifer, H. Plattner, & C. Meinel (Eds.), Design thinking research building innovation eco-systems, understanding innovation (pp. 153–182). London: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-01303-9_11.Google Scholar
  2. Beyhl, T., Berg, G., & Giese, H. (2013b). Towards documentation support for educational design thinking projects. In International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education (pp. 408–413). Design Society.Google Scholar
  3. Beyhl, T., Berg, G., & Giese, H. (2013c). Why innovation processes need to support traceability. In: Proceedings of 7th International Workshop on Traceability in Emerging Forms of Software Engineering (pp. 1–4). IEEE. doi  10.1109/TEFSE.2013.6620146
  4. Beyhl, T., & Giese, H. (2015a). Connecting designing and engineering activities II. In H. Plattner, C. Meinel, & L. Leifer (Eds.), Design thinking research building innovators, understanding innovation (pp. 211–239). London: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-06823-7_12.Google Scholar
  5. Beyhl, T., Giese, H. (2015b). Traceability recovery for innovation processes. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Software and Systems Traceability (pp. 22–28). IEEE. doi  10.1109/SST.2015.11
  6. Beyhl, T., & Giese, H. (2016a). Connecting designing and engineering activities III. In H. Plattner, C. Meinel, & L. Leifer (Eds.), Design thinking research—making design thinking foundational, understanding innovation (pp. 265–290). London: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-19641-1_16.Google Scholar
  7. Beyhl, T., & Giese, H. (2016b). The design thinking methodology at work: Capturing and understanding the interplay of methods and techniques. In H. Plattner, C. Meinel, & L. Leifer (Eds.), Design thinking research—taking breakthrough innovation home (pp. 49–65). London: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-40382-3_5.Google Scholar
  8. Beyhl, T., & Giese, H. (2016c). Connecting designing and engineering activities III. In H. Plattner, C. Meinel, & L. Leifer (Eds.), Design thinking research—understanding innovation (pp. 265–290). London: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-19641-1_16.Google Scholar
  9. Brown, T. (2009). Change by design. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  10. Edelman, J. A., & Leifer, L. (2012). Qualitative methods and metrics for assessing wayfinding and navigation in engineering design. In H. Plattner, C. Meinel, & L. Leifer (Eds.), Design thinking research—measuring performance in context, understanding innovation (pp. 151–181). London: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-31991-4_9.Google Scholar
  11. Gumienny, R., Gericke, L., Wenzel, M., & Meinel, C. (2012). Tele-Board in use: Applying a digital whiteboard system in different situations and setups. In H. Plattner, C. Meinel, & L. Leifer (Eds.), Design thinking research—measuring performance in context (pp. 109–125). London: Springer.Google Scholar
  12. Institute of Design at Stanford. (2010). Bootcamp Bootleg. Retrieved October 14, 2015, from http://dschool.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/BootcampBootleg2010v2SLIM.pdf
  13. Kress, G., & Sadler, J. (2014). Team cognition and reframing behavior: The impact of team cognition on problem reframing, team dynamics and design performance. In L. Leifer, H. Plattner, & C. Meinel (Eds.), Design thinking research—building innovation eco-systems, understanding innovation (pp. 35–48). London: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-01303-9_3.Google Scholar
  14. Lindberg, T., Jobst, B., & Gumienny, R. (2008). Is there a need for a design thinking process? In Design Thinking Research Symposium 8 (pp. 243–254).Google Scholar
  15. Lindberg, T., Meinel, C., & Wagner, R. (2011). Design thinking a fruitful concept for IT development? In C. Meinel, L. Leifer, & H. Plattner (Eds.), Design thinking, understanding innovation (pp. 3–18). London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Meinel, C., & Leifer, L. (2011). Design thinking research. In H. Plattner, C. Meinel, & L. Leifer (Eds.), Design thinking understand—improve apply, understanding innovation (pp. xiii–xxxi). London: Springer.Google Scholar
  17. Menning, A., Beyhl, T., Giese, H., Weinberg, U., & Nicolai, C. (2014). Introducing the LogCal: Template-based documentation support for educational design thinking projects. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Engineering and Product Design. Design Society.Google Scholar
  18. Plattner, H., & Meinel, C. (2009). Design Thinking—Innovation lernen—Ideenwelten öffnen. miWirtschaftsbuch: Finanzbuch Verlag GmbH.Google Scholar
  19. Sadler, J., & Leifer, L. (2015). TeamSense: Prototyping modular electronics sensor systems for team biometrics. In H. Plattner, C. Meinel, & L. Leifer (Eds.), Design thinking research—building innovators, understanding innovation (pp. 87–100). London: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-31906823-7_7.Google Scholar
  20. Skogstad, P., & Leifer, L. (2011). A unified innovation process model for engineering designers and managers. In C. Meinel, L. Leifer, & H. Plattner (Eds.), Design thinking—understand—improve apply, understanding innovation (pp. 19–43). London: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-64213757-0_2.Google Scholar
  21. Sonalkar, N., Mabogunje, A., Pai, G., Krishnan, A., & Roth, B. (2016). Diagnostics for design thinking teams. In H. Plattner, C. Meinel, & L. Leifer (Eds.), Design thinking research—making design thinking foundational, understanding innovation (pp. 35–51). London: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-19641-1_4.Google Scholar
  22. van der Aalst, W. & Giinther, C. (2007, July). Finding structure in unstructured processes: The case for process mining. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Application of Concurrency to System Design (pp. 3–12). IEEE.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Hasso Plattner Institute for Software EngineeringPotsdamGermany

Personalised recommendations