Advertisement

Intentional Design for Diversity as Pathway to Scalable Sustainability Impact

  • Wouter C. KerstenEmail author
  • Jan Carel Diehl
  • Jo M. L. van Engelen
Chapter
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Sustainable Business In Association with Future Earth book series (PSSBAFE)

Abstract

If a company aims to contribute to a better world it wants to achieve positive sustainability impact on a large scale. It should then foresee that this large, up till global, scale includes many different and often interconnected manifestations. The authors in this chapter discuss a design approach that takes these different manifestations and connections into account from the start. The resulting architecture for the innovation (product, service and business model) is then more adaptive towards different requirements and settings. This positively affects the scalability for implementation and thus impact in multiple markets. The authors also discuss the implications for the management approach needing to be in line with this design approach, in particular regarding goal setting and level of (de)centralisation. They encourage practitioners as well as researchers to further explore this alignment.

References

  1. Ackoff, Russell L. 1971. “Towards a system of systems concepts.” Management Science 17 (11): 661–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ackoff, Russell L. 1973. “Science in the systems age: Beyond IE, OR, and MS.” Operations Research 21 (3): 661–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Assembly, UN General. 2014. “Report of the open working group of the general assembly on sustainable development goals.” General Assembly Document A/69/970, New York 12.Google Scholar
  4. Beitz, W., and G. Pahl. 1992. Engineering design: A systematic approach. London: The Design Council.Google Scholar
  5. Bocken, Nancy M.P., Alison Fil, and Jaideep Prabhu. 2016. “Scaling up social businesses in developing markets.” Journal of Cleaner Production 139: 295–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bradach, Jeffrey L. 1997. “Using the plural form in the management of restaurant chains.” Administrative Science Quarterly 42 (2): 276–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown, Tim. 2008. “Design thinking.” Harvard Business Review 86 (8): 84–92.Google Scholar
  8. Buchanan, Richard. 1992. “Wicked problems in design thinking.” Design Issues 8 (2): 5–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Camillus, John C. 2008. “Strategy as a wicked problem.” Harvard Business Review 86 (5): 98.Google Scholar
  10. Ceschin, Fabrizio, and Idil Gaziulusoy. 2016. “Evolution of design for sustainability: From product design to design for system innovations and transitions.” Design Studies 47: 118–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Checkland, Peter. 1981. Systems thinking, systems practice. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  12. Checkland, Peter. 2000. “Soft systems methodology: A thirty year retrospective.” Systems Research and Behavioral Science 17 (S1): S11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chesbrough, Henry. 2004. “Managing open innovation.” Research-Technology Management 47 (1): 23–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cooper, Robert G. 2008. “The stage-gate idea-to-launch process—Update, what’s new and NexGen Systems.” Journal of Product Innovation Management 25 (3): 213–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cooper, Robert G. 2014. “What’s next? After stage-gate.” Research-Technology Management 57 (1): 20–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Courtney, Hugh, Jane Kirkland, and Patrick Viguerie. 1997. “Strategy under uncertainty.” Harvard Business Review 75 (6): 67–79.Google Scholar
  17. Cross, Nigel. 2001. “Designerly ways of knowing: Design discipline versus design science.” Design Issues 17 (3): 49–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Doran, George T. 1981. “There’s a S.M.A.R.T. way to write management’s goals and objectives.” Management Review 70 (11): 35–36.Google Scholar
  19. Dunne, Danielle D., and Deborah Dougherty. 2012. “Organizing for change, innovation and creativity.” In Handbook of organizational creativity, 569–83. London: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dunne, David, and Roger Martin. 2006. “Design thinking and how it will change management education: An interview and discussion.” Academy of Management Learning & Education 5 (4): 512–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Eisenhardt, Kathleen M., and Henning Piezunka. 2011. “Complexity theory and corporate strategy.” The Sage handbook of complexity and management, 506–23.Google Scholar
  22. Emery, Frederick E. 1981. Systems thinking: Selected readings. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  23. Flach, John M. 2015. “Supporting self-designing organizations.” Journal of Design, Economics and Innovation 1 (2): 95–99.Google Scholar
  24. Hagel III, John, and John Seely Brown. 2006. “Globalization & innovation: Some contrarian perspectives.” Prepared for the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  25. Hart, Stuart, and C. K. Prahalad. 2002. “The fortune at the bottom of the pyramid.” Strategy + Business 26 (1): 54–67.Google Scholar
  26. Inigo, Edurne A., and Laura Albareda. 2016. “Understanding sustainable innovation as a complex adaptive system: A systemic approach to the firm.” Journal of Cleaner Production 126: 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Johansson‐Sköldberg, Ulla, Jill Woodilla, and Mehves Çetinkaya. 2013. “Design thinking: Past, present and possible futures.” Creativity and Innovation Management 22 (2): 121–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Johnson, Steven. 2002. Emergence. New York: Scribner.Google Scholar
  29. Jones, Peter. 2014. “Systemic design principles for complex social systems.” In Social systems and design, 91–128. Tokyo: Springer.Google Scholar
  30. Jones, Peter. 2015a. “Design research methods for systemic design: Perspectives from design education and practice.” In Proceedings of the 58th annual meeting of the ISSS-2014 United States.Google Scholar
  31. Jones, Peter. 2015b. “Designing for X: The challenge of complex socio-X system.” Journal of Design, Economics and Innovation 1 (2): 101–4.Google Scholar
  32. Kaplinsky, Raphael. 2011. “Schumacher meets Schumpeter: Appropriate technology below the radar.” Research Policy 40 (2): 193–203. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.10.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kersten, Wouter, J. C. Diehl, and Jo Van Engelen. 2017. “Putting the horse in front of the wagon.” Relating Systems Thinking and Design (RSD6) Symposium, 18–20 October, Oslo, Norway.Google Scholar
  34. Kersten, Wouter C., Marcel R. M. Crul, Jan Carel Diehl, and Jo M. L. Van Engelen. 2015. Context variation by design, working paper version 4.0. Delft University of Technology, Delft.Google Scholar
  35. Kersten, Wouter C., Nguyen H. Long, J. C. Diehl, Marcel R. M. Crul, and Jo M. L. Van Engelen. 2017. “Comparing performance of biomass gasifier stoves: Influence of a multi-context approach.” Sustainability 9 (7): 1140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Khanna, Tarum. 2014. “Contextual intelligence.” Harvard Business Review 92 (9): 58–68.Google Scholar
  37. Korn, Melissa, and Rachel E. Silverman. 2012. “Forget B-School, D-school is hot.” Wall Street Journal. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303506404577446832178537716.
  38. Leavy, Brian. 2012. “Collaborative innovation as the new imperative—Design thinking, value co-creation and the power of ‘pull’.” Strategy & Leadership 40 (2): 25–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lewis, P. J. 1992. “Rich picture building in the soft systems methodology.” European Journal of Information Systems 1 (5): 351–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Martin, Mark V., and Kosuke Ishii. 2002. “Design for variety: Developing standardized and modularized product platform architectures.” Research in Engineering Design 13 (4): 213–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Meadows, Donella. 1997. “Places to intervene in a system.” Whole Earth 91 (1): 78–84.Google Scholar
  42. Meadows, Donella. 2002. “Dancing with systems.” Systems Thinker 13: 2–6.Google Scholar
  43. Monat, Jamie P., and Thomas F. Gannon. 2015. “What is systems thinking? A review of selected literature plus recommendations.” American Journal of Systems Science 4 (1): 11–26.Google Scholar
  44. Muller, Peter C. 1999. “Team-based conceptualization of new products.” Ph.D., University of Groningen.Google Scholar
  45. Ostuzzi, Francesca, Lieven De Couvreur, Jan Detand, and Jelle Saldien. 2017. “From design for one to open-ended design: Experiments on understanding how to open-up contextual design solutions.” The Design Journal 20 (Supp1): S3873–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pagano, Alessandro. 2009. “The role of relational capabilities in the organization of international sourcing activities: A literature review.” Industrial Marketing Management 38 (8): 903–13. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2009.02.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pahl, Gerhard, and Wolfgang Beitz. 1977. Konstruktionslehre (English title: Engineering design. Translated by Arnold Pomerans KW). Springer Verlag, English edition: The Design Council, Heidelberg, English edition: London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Raab, Jorg, and Leon A. G. Oerlemans. 2016. “Shades of wickedness: Attempting to advance the conceptualization and operationalization of wicked problems.”Google Scholar
  49. Radjou, Navi, and Jaideep Prabhu. 2015. Frugal innovation: How to do more with less. United States: The Economist.Google Scholar
  50. Rittel, Horst W., and Melvin M. Webber. 1973. “2.3 planning problems are wicked.” Polity 4: 155–69.Google Scholar
  51. Sargut, Gökçe, and Rita Gunther McGrath. 2011. “Learning to live with complexity.” Harvard Business Review 89 (9): 68–76.Google Scholar
  52. Sevaldson, Birger. 2014. “Holistic and dynamic concepts in design: What design brings to systems thinking.” Relating Systems Thinking to Design: 1–16.Google Scholar
  53. Sevaldson, Birger. 2017. “Redesigning systems thinking.” Form Akademisk-Research Journal of Design and Design Education 10 (1): 1–23.Google Scholar
  54. Simon, Herbert A. 1969. The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  55. Stacey, Ralph D. 1996. Complexity and creativity in organizations. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.Google Scholar
  56. Thompson, James D. 1967. Organizations in action: Social science bases of administrative theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  57. Van Tulder, Rob, and Alex Van Der Zwart. 2005. International business-society management: Linking corporate responsibility and globalization. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wouter C. Kersten
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jan Carel Diehl
    • 1
  • Jo M. L. van Engelen
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, Department of Design Engineering, Design for SustainabilityDelft University of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Faculty of Economics and BusinessUniversity of GroningenGroningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations