See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: [Link]

net/publication/333670705

Design Thinking: A New Phenomenon in Creating Innovation (Persian&

English)

Article · June 2019

CITATIONS READS

0 4,267

3 authors:

Sahar Heydarabadi Mahdi Eradatifam

University of Tabriz Tabriz Islamic Art University
11 PUBLICATIONS 19 CITATIONS 7 PUBLICATIONS 7 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Aida Shahbazi
University of Auckland
8 PUBLICATIONS 7 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Aida Shahbazi on 22 June 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Design thinking and Innovation:
Review and framework for future research
Abstract:
In today's competitive world, Companies need creative and multifaceted solutions to
be able to cope with their rivals in confronting challenges; here, a new method called
'Design Thinking' emerges. Design thinking is the process of creating new and
innovative ideas to solve particular problems. In this paper, we review the literature
to improve our understanding of design thinking and its role in creating innovation in
organizations and enriching domestic studies on the topic. Also, the other objective of
the researchers is to familiarize managers of organizations with the concept of design
thinking, its stages, and application to gain a competitive advantage over competitors.

Keywords:
Design thinking, Innovation, Problem-Solving

1. Introduction
This rapid and accelerating market shift towards integrated
products and services has spurred significant changes in how
companies invest in innovation, train their employees, and engage with
their customers. Among these, one of the most visible and arguably, the
successful trend is a board based investment in design thinking (Roberts
et al., 2016, pp.11-34). Design thinking, as a concept, has been slowly
evolving and coalescing over the past decade. One popular definition is
that design thinking means thinking like a designer. More concretely,
Tim Brown of IDEO has written that design thinking is "a discipline
that uses the designer's sensibility and methods to match people's needs
with what is technologically feasible and what a viable business
strategy can convert into customer value and market opportunity
(Martin, 2009). Design thinking is promoted as a user-centered
approach to innovation. It has been introduced as a management
approach that brings creativity and user-centeredness to organizations
as a new way of working (Brown, 2008, pp.84-92).
Design thinking has also started to receive increased attention in
business settings. This is because the design of products and services is
a major component of business competitiveness, to the extent that many
known companies have committed themselves to become design
leaders (Razzouk & Shute, 2012, pp. 330-348). Design thinking is
fundamentally about how designers think and what tools and methods
they use in their profession. During the past decade, design thinking has
become a popular topic within the design and especially business
communities. Business leaders and managers have adapted design
thinking as a part of their companies' innovation process, and the
business community has given a new flavor to the term. Design thinking
has become an exceedingly discussed phenomenon in business and
design-related media. In this regard, design thinking can be successfully
applied in all management-related issue as a tool to solve problems and
enhance innovation (Schmiedgen et al., 2015, p. 144).
A review of the literature on design thinking suggests that it is a
management practice deserving increased attention from scholars. An
examination of both theoretical work and actual management practice
reveals a process that is both internally consistent and coherent, and that
constitutes a distinctive practice (Liedtka, 2014). We believe design
thinking is a remarkably under-used tool for achieving strategic
business initiatives that are increasingly driven by the need for
innovation (Lockwood, 2009).
Making innovation happen is a craft and an art; understanding how
it happens is a science. Innovation is grounded as deeply in psychology
and culture as in science and technology (Nordfors, 2009). Innovation
is the mechanism by which organizations produce the new products,
processes, and systems required for adapting to changing markets,
technologies, and modes of competition (Lawson & Samson, 2001, pp.
377-400). Design methods are innovative. Taking advantage of design
thinking can help business leaders make their intentions real by clearly
defining goals, profoundly understanding customers, and getting their
internal teams aligned to deliver results (Lockwood, 2009).
The purpose of this study is to review recent research in the area
of design thinking, to organize and summarize them. A literature review
can either serve as the background for an empirical study or as an
independent, standalone piece that provides a valuable contribution in
its own right (Jesson et al., 2011; Okoli & Schabram, 2010, pp. 1-46).
This research was based on a structured literature review, following the
recommendations of Creswell (2014), Easterby-Smith et al., (2015),
and Tranfield et al., (2003). So, it is structured as follows. First, the
employed method for the literature review is described in section 2,
before the research gap and questions are formulated in section 3.
Section 4 deals with the concept of design thinking, and then the process
of design thinking are discussed. In section 6, the role of design thinking
on innovation has been studied. The paper concludes with a discussion
of the finding and some final remarks in section 7.
2. Method
In the first phase, the study focused on systematic search based on
articles published in various journals and used the keywords of design
thinking and innovation. Throughout the research, definitions of
keywords and time frame have been continuously reassessed. In the
end, a series of online searches were done to identify the selected
studies. For each specific paper, a copy of the text of the article, along
with a list of all sources, was downloaded. Then, other selected
resources were reviewed. In this research, the database, journals, and
various search engines have been investigated (Appendix 1). Also, the
number of articles (List of journals and search engines) found based on
the keywords is given in Appendix 2. As a result, searching for journals
and search engines using the keywords, 347901 articles were found
during the research period (1397 to 1398).
In the second phase, several articles were rejected in each revision
and were not reviewed. The review process was carried out as follows:
Various article parameters such as title, abstract, content, article details
(author's name, year, etc.) were considered, and the procedure was
followed as follows. At first, the title of review articles and articles that
did not correlate with the questions and objectives of the research were
removed. In the next stage, the abstract of the articles that were left out
of the previous step was considered, and at this stage, the unrelated
articles were removed. During the process, the number of articles fell,
and then the articles were studied based on the content, and some papers
were also rejected at this stage. Finally, the rest of the articles are
researched carefully, and those who do not have the name of the author
or the details of the article are dismissed, and eventually, the remaining
articles enter the next stage and the steps of the process of fundamental
conceptualization theory.
In the third step, after reviewing the articles to fit them into the
study parameters, the methodological quality of the studies was
evaluated. The goal of this step is to exclude articles that the researcher
does not trust in the findings provided; therefore, the articles that need
to be included in the integration may be rejected. In particular, we
evaluated the study to determine if the evidence found is accurate,
relevant, and valid. Vital assessments reduce uncertainty and help the
person to focus (Glynn, 2006, pp. 387-399). Crucial assessment is a
critical element in the systematic review, which provides a complete
evaluation of the research to identify the best articles in a particular
topic (Crowe & Sheppard, 2011, pp. 79-89). A tool usually used to
assess the quality of qualitative research early studies is called the
"Critical Appraisal Skills Programme" (CASP). The ten questions that
help the researcher understand the concept of qualitative research helps
the researcher to highlight the importance of research qualitative
research. These questions focus on:
1. Research objectives, 2. Research logic, 3. Research plan, 4.
Sampling method, 5. Data collection, 6. Reflection, which includes the
relationship between the researcher and participants, 7. Ethical
considerations, 8. Data analysis accuracy, 9. The clear expression of
findings, 10. Value of research (Appendix 3).
At this stage, the researcher gives a score to each of these
questions and then creates a form; therefore, he can aggregate the scores
assigned to each article and evaluate the results. When using this tool,
the researcher read the article in full so as to re-discover the content,
then focus on a CASP criterion at one time (such as the research
purpose) and strive to provide evidence in the chosen form of the article
on the primary criterion (Such as the goal) and its sub-criteria (such as
whether the writer has established a goal association).
To create an audit trail, the researcher will electronically delete the
sample quotes from the article as proof and the reason for the author's
performance, and then place the selected comments in the appropriate
line in the CASP explanatory column explaining the issue. The
researcher reduces the score based on the size and extent of his notes.
He continues with all 10 CASP criteria and then tabs the overall score.
Based on the total score and the nature of the supporting document in
the content or any deficiencies noted, the researcher decides to accept
or reject the article. Based on the CASP Rubik's 50-point scale, the
researcher puts in the following scoring system and removes any article
below a good score (below 30).
After doing the scoring in the present study, for each article, based
on the ten criteria mentioned above, the scores were considered, the
professors and experts gave these scores to the content of the articles.
Scores can be found in Appendix.3; the total number of final papers is
50. Figure 1 depicts a summary of the proposed process, and the results
obtained from the present study can be seen in Appendix.4.
 Number of sources
found
N=347901 Number of rejected
articles due to title
N= 344407
Number of articles for
abstract review
N=3494 Number of rejected
articles for abstract
N= 2345
Number of articles later
after the entire content
assessment
N=1149 The number of rejected
articles in terms of
content
Number of articles to N=698
evaluate the quality of
the methodology
N=451 The number of rejected
articles in terms of
methodology quality
Number of final N= 401
article
N=50

Fig1. Review process

3. Research gap and questions

The main objective of this study is to improve our understanding
of design thinking and its role in creating innovation and enriching
domestic studies on the subject. Also, the other objective of the
researchers is to familiarize managers of organizations with the concept
of design thinking, its processes, and its application in the organization
to gain a competitive advantage over its competitors. Accordingly, the
main question of the study is formed as follows:
• How can organizations create innovation through design
thinking?
To find the answer to this question, we categorized it into the
following questions:
1. What is the process of creating innovation through design
thinking?
2. What are the key elements of design thinking for
embedding innovation in an organization?
 3. What are the challenges and capabilities in implementing
design thinking?

4. The concept of design thinking

Almost, to understand every concept, we need to find out its origin
and roots. Early glimpses and attempts to design thinking goes back to
the 50s and 60s. However, most of these views in the context of
architecture and engineering were fighting the rapidly changing
environment in those times. In the book, Sciences of the Artificial
(1969), Herbert A. Simon was the first to mention design as a science
or way of thinking. After Simon, Nigel Cross discussed the nature of
designers problem-solving in his paper “Designerly ways of knowing”
in 1982. In this paper, he compared designers’ problem solving to the
non-design related problem solutions we encounter in our everyday
lives.
Many representations of DT in the literature are general, are
described at an overall level, and depict the concept as an approach to
creative problem solving (Liedtka et al., 2013) or as an abductive way
of thinking (Martin, 2009). Other representations are precise and
normative, describing a prescriptive process that can be applied to
multidisciplinary settings (Brown, 2008, pp.84-92; Kelley and Littman,
2001; Stanford d. school, 2010). Academic discussions on the concept
of DT are based on literature reviews (Johansson- Sköldberg et al.,
2013; Kimbell, 2011, pp. 285-306; Hassi & Laakso, 2011). Johansson-
Sköldberg et al. (2013) argue that seeking to define what DT 'is' is to
step into an 'essentialist trap.' Collopy (2009), considered one of the
fathers of the concept of DT (Johansson-Sköldberg et al., 2013) also
contests normative descriptions of the concept (Boland, 2012).
Comparing DT with systems thinking, he argues that the two
concepts have many similarities but that discussion about DT would not
be needed system thinking to have secured a foothold among managers;
this did not happen because of the "extremely normative" way it was
presented (ibid). Engwall et al. (2005), who studied middle managers’
perception and use of the Stage Gate Model (Cooper, 1988), also
questioned the essentialist view of models that is common in
management literature today (ibid).
DT has been proposed both as an approach to innovation (e.g.,
Kelley & Littman, 2001; Brown, 2008, pp.84-92) and as a universal
problem-solving approach (Martin, 2009; Liedtka & Ogilvie, 2011;
Liedtka et al., 2013)
The concept of DT is often marketed in "breakthrough," "frame-
breaking," or "transforming" terms, but the studies revealed that the
results often were perceived to be incremental. Involving users to obtain
feedback to support idea and concept selection was perceived by some
to move solutions in the direction of current user needs, thus leading to
incremental innovations as pointed out by innovation scholars
(Verganti, 2008, pp. 436 – 456).
Nevertheless, insights into real user needs were perceived to help
innovation teams go beyond their usual problem and solution frame.
The studies show that DT was used in the area of incremental
innovation or continuous improvement. The main promise in the
literature is the contribution of DT to innovation (e.g., Brown, 2008, pp.
84-92; Martin, 2009).
Design Thinking has been subject of definition attempts for a long
time. Scholars have even highlighted the need to look for a unified
definition that is adequate to design Thinking as the practice of
professional designers. The search has a discourse history of over 40
years. Johansson-Sköldberg et al. (2013) break the history of this
discourse of designerly thinking (p. 123) into five different clusters,
linking a core concept to each cluster:
Table 1: Five discourses of design thinking (from a designer’s profession perspective)

Design thinking clusters Key Literature Core concepts

Design and designerly
The science of
thinking as the creation of Simon, 1969
artificial
artifacts
Design and designerly
thinking as a reflective Schon, 1983 Reflection in action
practice
Design and designerly Buchanan, 1992;
thinking as a problem- Rittel Wicked Problems
solving activity & Webber, 1973
Design and designerly
Lawson, 2006
thinking as a way of Designerly ways of
[1980];
reasoning/ making sense of knowing
Cross, 2006, 2011
things
Design and designerly
thinking as a creation of Krippendorff, 2006 Creating meaning
meaning
(Johansson-Sköldberg et al., 2013)

These different discourses lead to the designer's capability, which

is based on three main categories: "practices," "thinking style," and
"mentality" (Hassi & Laakso, 2011). The discourse on Design Thinking
as it relates to the managerial perspective began in the early 2000s. This
research stream can be divided into three main clusters (Johansson-
Sköldberg, 2013) and labeled design thinking:
 Table 2: Three discourses of design Thinking (from a manager’s perspective)
Design thinking clusters Key Literature Core concepts
Design thinking as a How design thinking is
design company IDEO’s Kelley [2001, 2005] being done?
way of working with Brown [2008, 2009] How anyone can use
design and innovation design thinking?
How successful
Design thinking as a way production companies
to approach indeterminate Dunne & Martin do design thinking?
organizational problems, [2006];
and a necessary skill for Martin [2009] How can any company
practicing manager (manager/ individual)
do design thinking?
Design thinking as part of Boland & Collopy, Design Thinking as an
management theory [2004a] analogy & alternative
(Johansson-Sköldberg et al., 2013)

At a fundamental level, the design is about the process. Many

contemporary theorists have made attempts at re-evaluating the design
thinking process. Reinterpretations of design thinking emphasize
abductive thinking, pragmatic theory, and the interplay between
problem-solution spaces, also known as the “fuzzy front end” (Dorst,
2010, pp. 131-139; Gumienny et al., 2010, pp. 243-249).
Richard Coyne (2005) argues that design thinking is an
understanding between theory and practice, where the “Designer
explores concrete integrations of knowledge that will combine theory
with practice for new productive purpose” (p. 7). Wolfgang Jonas
(2007) illustrates that the design process is embedded in the “Socio-
cultural phenomenon” and follows “Evolutionary patterns with no final
goals” (p. 1365). Tim Brown (2009) argues that the design thinking
process is nonlinear and fundamentally exploratory. Charles Owen
(2006) outlines six primary characteristics of design thinking “Human-
centered focus, environment centered concern, a bias for adaptively,
predisposition toward multi-functionality, systemic vision and ability to
work systematically with qualitative information” (pp. 23-25). Each
designer will have his or her process of design thinking, but common
ground can be found in the mindset and method of a design thinker.
Contemporary scholars agree that there exists no current formal
consensus over what defines design thinking. Reviewing the literature,
significant themes emerge and remain consistent across contemporary
definitions.
Johansson-Sköldberg et al. (2013) suggest that attempting to
create a definition might not yield value or further use. This is a good
point as a too narrow definition might limit the concept of design
thinking and thereby not fully embrace its variety and breadth of use.
One of the most notable works on design thinking that tries to clarify
the confusion and differentiate the many concepts around design
thinking is that of Johansson –Skoldberg et al. (2013). They define two
concepts: "designerly thinking" and "design thinking." Designerly
thinking belongs to the design discourse, describing the practice and
reflections of a professional designer. Design thinking, on the other
hand, refers to the design practices and competence that include uses
beyond design context and used by and for people with nonprofessional
design backgrounds.
Design thinking is key to improving how to learn, think, and do
things that result in ideas, products, communications, services,
experiences, knowledge, or personal, social, and environmental health.
Design thinking is often about topics or situations that are complex,
unfamiliar, and with many possible answers, and are usually directly
related to the rethinking of experience and knowledge. Design thinking
is still a tangible approach to thinking and action based on the
capabilities, values, and human emotions that are essential to success
and well-being.

5. Design Thinking process

Within the design process, which is presented in Figure 2, seven
steps can be identified: define, research, ideate, prototype, select,
implement, and learn.

Define Research Ideate Prototype Select Implement Learn

Fig 2. Design thinking process

• First, the design problem and the target audience needs to

be defined. A precise understanding of the problem and its
constraints allows more exact solutions to be developed.
This stage determines what is necessary for the project to
be successful.
• The research stage reviews information such as the history
of the design problem, end-user research, and opinion-led
interviews, and identifies potential obstacles.
 • Ideate is the stage where end-user motivations and needs
are identified, and ideas are generated to meet these,
perhaps through brainstorming.
• Prototyping sees the resolve or working-up of these ideas,
which are presented for user-group and stakeholder
review, before being presented to the client.
• The selection sees the proposed solutions reviewed against
the design brief objective. Some solutions might be
practical but may not be the best ones.
• Implementation sees design development and its final
delivery to the client.
• Learning helps designers improve their performance and,
for this reason, designers should seek client and target
audience feedback and determine if the solution met the
goals of the brief. This may identify improvements that can
be made in the future. While the design process is often
linear, as shown below, it frequently involves revisiting
earlier segments for reworking as it evolves (Ambrose &
Harris, 2011).

6. Design thinking and innovation

Design Thinking is currently enjoying unprecedented attention
from practitioners and attracting increased attention from business
scholars for its potential to foster innovation across a broad spectrum of
organizations and issues (Gruber et al., 2015, pp.1-7). Design Thinking
includes a series of iterative activities: an initial exploratory set of
activities focused on data gathering to identify user needs, design
criteria and problem definition, followed by the generation of ideas,
which are then prototyped and tested. DT is often contrasted with
alternative innovation strategies such as technology-driven and
designer-led innovation (Verganti, 2008, pp. 436 – 456).
The focus of DT within product innovation from companies such
as Apple, Nintendo, and Alessi have led to rapid growth within the
industry of customer-centric designed products (Brown, 2009). Product
Design within large organizations is no longer about creating products
that suit the company and its whims. The advances in user-centered
design, as highlighted by Apple and others have led to product design
becoming increasingly tailored to the individual user's needs
(D‫׳‬lppolito, 2014, pp. 716-730).
Most of the prominent business-consulting firms, including
McKinsey, Accenture, PWC, IBM, and Deloitte, have acquired design
consultancies, evidence of its increasing influence on practice (Liedtka,
2017). IBM has long recognized the value of DT and incorporated it
into many of its services (Martin, 2009; Kolko, 2014; Liedtka, 2018). It
is committed to increasing the uptake of DT and is famed for
encouraging all 388,000 of its employees to practice DT within their
jobs. IBM is increasing their commitment to DT, and in a move
announced on 7th March 2018 (IBM, 2018), they have launched an
online service to allow clients to utilize IBM's DT methods for
themselves. In this way, they have become an online learning platform
and as a result, are in direct competition with existing design
consultants such as IDEO. The recent acquisitions of design-centric
firms by other Management Consultancies ([Link], 2018). DT
is effective for those companies focused on innovation and technology
advances (Dunne & Martin, 2006, pp. 512–523).
Solving that uses tools traditionally utilized by designers of
commercial products, processes, and environments (e.g., designing a
new car or the layout of a new airport). While design thinking was
initially introduced as an approach that would work best when infused
into the culture of an organization, earliest studies of design thinking
focused on identifying the specific tools and methods that might be used
to solve management problems (Kimberly, 2018).
Far more than principles, rules, and procedures, it is a process
most effective when imbued with attitudes and ways of thinking that
have evolved over generations within the community of those who
routinely practice creative invention and synthesis. Significant among
these are ways of thinking from the design fields appropriately referred
to as "design thinking" (Owen, 2006). Applying a design approach to
management practice does not seem to be a bad idea: it could enable
innovation, organizational change, and growth (Johansson & Woodilla,
2009). Design thinking has been increasingly associated with problem-
solving of complex and ill-defined problems, also called 'wicked'
problems (Carlgren, 2013). Another defining aspect with design
thinking is that it is thought to provide value through a customer that
allows the businesses to interact and involve their customers in a
different way and gain insight from them in ways that can be
meaningful and rewarding (Liedtka, 2014). Design thinking is the
ability to solve complex problems, and its human-centered focus can
give start-ups the customer understanding that is critical for their
success.
Design Thinking is a faster and cheaper innovation process, as
often stated in the popular press, is debatable, but design Thinking
offers a set of techniques that seem to reduce the cognitive bias of
innovation teams, stimulate their creative confidence and improve their
learning; mechanisms that all are likely to improve a firm’s innovation
and performance (Olsen, 2015, pp. 182-187). By insisting that
innovation tasks be carried out by diverse, multifunctional teams,
design thinking mitigates the effects of the projection, egocentric
empathy, focusing, and hot/cold biases (Liedtka, 2014).
Design thinking can be an enabler in the innovation process, by
providing a 'safe' space for diverse perspectives to be openly shared, for
new insights to emerge, for knowledge to be created, and empowering
participants in the co-creation of shared visions (Docherty, 2017, pp.
719-724). Design thinking is incorporated into the innovation process
to develop specific solutions to address complex issues. The current
revival of interest for this creative discipline is justified by its effective
method for creating concrete solutions to address organizations' new
needs and requirements in terms of innovation (Pavie & Cathy, 2015,
pp. 1040-1049).
Design thinking has many benefits, including its ability to
articulate itself around and adapt to the organization’s innovation
process. There are five main objectives to this method, including:
• The opening up of the innovation process to include
customers, stakeholders and experts capable of providing
guidance with regards to potential impacts;
• The improved understanding of customer needs and
expectations, by involving these throughout the process;
• The full use and management of new distribution channels
through the cross-disciplinary work;
• The reduction of risks posed by innovations by making an
impact monitoring system central to the innovation
process;
• The redefined role of organizations as actors actively
shaping the future of society (Pavie & Cathy, 2015, pp.
1040-1049).
However, while the view on innovation ultimately affects how DT
is evaluated, innovation as a term is usually not problematized and is
discussed mainly in terms of short-term gains such as creativity boost
or a way to come up with great ideas (i.e., invention rather than
innovation) (Cruickshank, 2010).

7. Discussion and Conclusion

In the practitioner-oriented literature, DT is described as bringing
innovation to the market by converting learning from the user into
viable business outcomes (Dunne & Martin, 2006, pp. 512-523).
The concept of design thinking is expanding heavily, and it is
remembered as a factor for improving innovation in organizations.
However, very few studies, especially in literature and internal
research, have focused on the role of design thinking in creating
innovation in organizations. This study showed that the concept of
design thinking is a valuable tool, and if used properly, it can lead to an
increase in innovation in large enterprises. Also, if design thinking
effectively runs on the level of product and services, many businesses
will gain short-term rewards, and with a long-term commitment to the
process of designing thinking and doing the right organizational
reforms, large businesses can make the economic, functional and social
benefits of this method.
Organizational cultures influenced (both positively and
negatively) the use of design thinking tools (Kimberly & Stigliani,
2018, pp.2274-2306). However, design thinking in organizations
provides new insight into the value of this increasingly popular
approach to problem-solving. In general, it suggests that the use of
design thinking tools in organizations triggers an experiential learning
process that ultimately supports the development of organizational
cultures defined by a user-centric focus, collaboration, risk-taking, and
learning, which in turn support the further use of design thinking tools.
Importantly, the physical artifacts and emotional experiences that result
from the use of design thinking tools provide sources of reflection that
help organizations to build such cultures. (Kimberly & Stigliani, 2018,
pp. 2274–2306). What is missing from the design thinking literature are
aspects such as the feeling of democratization, and the more social
issues of companies being more open to different personalities; how it
helps people connect with like-minded individuals, and the impact on
norms and culture, and reducing unhealthy cultural elements that can
hinder design and innovation (Carlgren et al., 2014, pp.403-423). These
insights suggest that future research may continue to explore the
mediating role of organizational culture on the relationship between
design thinking and innovation.

References
Ambrose, G.; Harris, P. (2011). Design thinking. AVA Publishing, SA.
Brown, T. (2009). Change by Design: How design thinking transforms organizations
and inspires innovation. New York: Harper Collins.
Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86(6): 84-92.
Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked Problems in Design Thinking. Design Issues, 8 (2), 5-
21.
Carlgren, L. (2013). Design Thinking as an Enabler of Innovation. Doctoral
dissertation. Gotenburg: Chalmers University of Technology.
Carlgren, L.; Elmquist, M. & Rauth, I. (2014). Design thinking: Exploring values and
effects from an innovation capability perspective. The Design Journal, 17,
403-423.
[Link]. (2018). Deloitte and EY acquire design agencies Brand first and
Citizen [online]. United Kingdom: [Link].
Creswell, J.W. (2014). In: Research Design: Quantitative & Mixed Methods
Approaches. (4th edn.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cross, N. (2006). Designerly Ways of Knowing. Springer Verlag: London.
Cross, N. (2011). Design Thinking – Understanding How Designers Think and Work.
Berg: Oxford.
Crowe, M. & Sheppard, L. (2011). A review of critical appraisal tools shows they lack
rigor: Alternative tool structure is proposed. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology,
64(1), 79-89.
D’Ippolito, B. (2014). The importance of design for firms’ competitiveness: a review
of the literature. Technovation, 34(11), 716-730.
Docherty, C. (2017). Perspectives on Design Thinking for Social Innovation. Design
Journal, 20 (6): 719-724.
Dorst, K. (2010). The nature of design thinking, Proceedings of the 8th Design
Thinking Research Symposium, 131-139.
Dunne, D & Martin, R. (2006). Design thinking and how it will change management
education: An interview and discussion. Academy of Management Learning &
Education, 5(4): 512–523.
Easterby-Smith, M.; Thorpe, R. & Jackson, P. (2015). Management and Business
Research. (5th edn.). Sage, London.
Glynn, Lindsay. (2006). A critical appraisal tool for library and information research.
Library Hi Tech, 24(3), 387 – 399.
Gruber, M.; de Leon, N.; George, G. & Thompson, P. (2015). From the editors:
Managing by design. Academy of Management Journal, 58(1), 1-7.
Gumienny, R.; Jobst, B.; Meinel, C. & Lindberg, T. (2010). Is There a Need for a
Design Thinking Process? Proceedings of the 8th Design Thinking Research
Symposium, 243-249.
Hassi, L. & Laakso, M. (2011). Making sense of design thinking, Toni-Matti, Mikko
Koria, Markku Salimäki (Eds.), IDBM papers, 1, Publisher: IDBM program,
Aalto University
Jesson, J.; Matheson, L. & Lacey, F.M. (2011). Doing your literature review:
Traditional and systematic techniques. London, UK: Sage.
Johansson, U & Woodilla, J. (2009). Towards an epistemological merger of design
thinking, strategy, and innovation. 8th European Academy of Design
Conference, April 1-3, Aberdee, Scotland.
Johansson, U.; Woodilla, J. & Çetinkaya, M. (2013). Design Thinking: Past, Present,
and Possible Futures. Creativity and Innovation Management, 22(2).
Jonas, W. (2007). Research through DESIGN through research: A cybernetic model
of designing design foundations. Kybernetes, (36)9/10, 1362-1380.
Kelley, T. & Littman, J. (2001). The art of innovation: lessons in creativity from
IDEO. America’s leading design firm. Currency/Doubleday.
Kimbell, Lucy. (2011). Rethinking Design Thinking: Part I. Design and Culture, 3
(3), 285-306.
Kimberly, D. (2018). Design thinking and organizational culture: a review for future
research. Journal of Management, 44(6), 2175-2208.
Kimberly, E. & Stigliani, I. (2018). Design Thinking and Organizational Culture: A
Review and Framework for Future Research. Journal of Management, 44 (6),
 2274–2306.
Kitchenham, B. & Charters, S. (2007). Guidelines for performing systematic literature
reviews in software engineering. EBSE Technical Report EBSE-2007-01.
Kolko, J. (2014). Well-Designed: How to Use Empathy to Create Products People
Love. Harvard Business School Press Books, 1.
Krippendorff, K. (2006). The Semantic Turn: A New Foundation for Design.
Published by CRC Press.
Lawson, B. (2006 [1980]). How Designers Think: The Design Process Demystified.
(4th edn.). Architectural Press, Oxford.
Lawson, B. & Samson, D. (2001). Developing innovation capability in organizations:
A dynamic capabilities approach. International Journal of Innovation
Management, 5(3), 377–400.
Liedtka, J. (2017). Evaluating the impact of design thinking in action. Academy of
Management Proceedings, 2017(1).
Liedtka, J. (2018). Exploring the Impact of Design Thinking in Action. Darden
Working Paper Series.
Liedtka, J. (2014). Perspective: Linking Design Thinking with Innovation Outcomes
through Cognitive Bias Reduction. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 32(6), 925-938.
Liedtka, J.; King, A. & Bennett, K. (2013). Solving Problems with Design Thinking:
Ten Stories of What Works. Columbia University Press.
Liedtka, J. & Ogilive, T. (2011). Designing for Growth: A design Thinking Tool Kit
for Managers. Columbia University Press.
Lockwood, T. (2009). Design thinking: integrating innovation, customer experience,
and brand value. (3rd edn.). Published by Allworth Press.
Martin, Roger L. (2009). The Design of Business: Why Design Thinking is the Next
Competitive Advantage. Harvard Business School Press.
Nordfors, D. (2009). Innovation Journalism, Attention Work, and the Innovation
Economy. Innovation Journalism, Initiative 2003-2009.
Okoli, C. & Schabram, K. (2010). A guide to conducting a systematic literature review
of information systems research. SSRN Electronic Journal, 10(26), 1-46.
Olsen Veflen, N. (2014). Design Thinking and food innovation. Trends in Food
Science & Technology, 41 (2), 182-187.
Owen, Charles L. (2006). Design Thinking: Driving Innovation. International
Conference on Design Research and Education for the future, Gwangju.
Pavie, X. & Carthy, D. (2015). Leveraging uncertainty: a practical approach to the
integration of responsible innovation through design thinking. Procedia-Social
& Behavioral Sciences, 1040-1049.
Razzouk, R. & Shute, V]. (2012). What Is Design Thinking and Why Is It Important?
Review of Educational Research, 82(3), 330-348.
Rittel, H. & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Policy
Sciences, 5, 155–169.
Roberts, J.; Fisher, T. R.; Trowbridge, M.J. & Bent, C. (2016). A design thinking
framework for healthcare management and innovation. Healthcare, 4(1), 11-
34.
Schön, D. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action.
 Basic Books, Cambridge, MA.
Schmiedgen, J; Rhinow, H; Köppen, E; & Meinel, C. (2015). Parts without a whole?
The current state of Design Thinking practice in organizations. Stanford,
Hasso-Platner institute.
Simon, H. (1969). The Sciences of the Artificial. (1st edn). MIT Press, Cambridge,
IBM Corporation.
Stanford school. (2010). boot camp bootleg.
Tranfield, D.; Denyer, D. & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing
evidence-informed management knowledge by means of a systematic review.
British Journal of Management, 14, 207-222.
Verganti, R. (2008). Design, Meanings, and Radical Innovation: A Meta model and a
Research Agenda. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25(5), 436 –
456.

View publication stats