Design Thinking Methods and Tools for Innovation

Dimitra Chasanidou1, Andrea A. Gasparini2, and Eunji Lee1

1
SINTEF ICT, P.O. Box 124, Blindern, Oslo, N-0373, Norway
{[Link], [Link]}@[Link]
2
University of Oslo Library, P.O. Box 1085, Blindern, Oslo, N-
0373, Norway
{[Link]}@[Link]

Abstract. Design thinking (DT) is regarded as a system of three overlapping

spaces—viability, desirability, and feasibility—where innovation increases
when all three perspectives are addressed. Understanding how innovation with-
in teams can be supported by DT methods and tools captivates the interest of
business communities. This paper aims to examine how DT methods and tools
foster innovation in teams. A case study approach, based on two workshops,
examined three DT methods with a software tool. The findings support the use
of DT methods and tools as a way of incubating ideas and creating innovative
solutions within teams when team collaboration and software limitations are
balanced. The paper proposes guidelines for utilizing DT methods and tools in
innovation projects.

Keywords: Design thinking; Design thinking methods; Design thinking tools;

innovation; Personas; Stakeholder map; Customer journey map

1 Introduction

Design Thinking (DT) has attracted the interest of both scholarly and practitioner
literature because of the applicability of design methods for promoting innovation and
the applicability of DT across many areas, such as in business [25]. The DT is regard-
ed as a system of three overlapping spaces, in which viability refers to the business
perspective of DT, desirability reflects the user’s perspective, and feasibility encom-
passes the technology perspective. Innovation increases when all three perspectives
are addressed. The DT’s ability to solve more complex problems, so-called wicked
problems [6], has designated it in the business milieu as a promising approach for
innovation. A large number of design methods and tools facilitate the DT process and
support fostering innovations in teams, consisting of both designers and non-
designers. From a designer’s or a human–computer interaction designer’s perspective,
this methodology incorporates ideation and creative process attributes, such as empa-
thy for the user, and methods including rapid prototyping and abductive reasoning
[19]. From a business perspective, the establishment of a deep understanding within a
team of targeted users is one of the important components of DT methodology [22].
Businesses recognize innovativeness as a driving factor for business growth to
maintain a competitive advantage in the market and as more likely to offer unique
benefits to customers [26]. Understanding how innovation within teams can be sup-
ported by DT methods and tools captivates the interest of business communities.
However, there are few relevant studies [13, 1, 2] and a lack of specific design guide-
lines on how to foster innovations with DT methods and tools that could be used by
teams of non-designers, such as in a business community. For this purpose, a case-
based qualitative approach was employed in this study, extending a previous work on
DT methods and tools [7]. The research design includes data collection across two
workshops, in order to provide rich insights. The findings support the use of DT
methods and tools as a way of incubating ideas and creating innovative solutions
within teams when team collaboration and software limitations are balanced. In con-
clusion, the paper proposes guidelines for utilizing DT methods and tools in innova-
tion projects.
The paper is organized as follows: Section 2 provides a review of relevant studies;
Section 3 analyzes a list of DT methods and tools that could be used to foster innova-
tions. Section 4 describes two workshops conducted with different setups, while Sec-
tion 5 discusses the results and make suggestions for DT methods and tools. The
study’s limitations are presented as well in the Section 5, followed by the conclusions.

2 Design thinking as an innovation approach

Companies and organizations need to innovate in response to the competition and

rapidly changing market demands. For this reason, DT is considered a supportive
approach for a range of business challenges that should be pursued by both designers
and non-designers [25]. Especially for the first phases of innovation, DT has been
argued as a successful method for generating ideas [24]. Several connections between
DT and innovation, as well as factors affecting the growth of innovation, can be found
in the literature [e.g. 14, 25, 4]. According to Harhoff, Henkel, and Von Hippel [17],
“innovation is often a process to which several actors with complementary capabili-
ties contribute.” Similarly, Baregheh et al. [3] defined innovation as a “multi-stage
process whereby organizations transform ideas into new/improved products, ser-
vice[s] or processes,” focusing also on the multidisciplinary aspect of innovation.
On the other hand, DT can also be viewed as “the application of design methods by
multidisciplinary teams to a broad range of innovation challenges” [25]. Seidel and
Fixson [25] studied the adoption of DT by novice multidisciplinary teams. “ If design
thinking is to be widely adopted, less-experienced users will employ these methods
together, but we know little about their effect when newly adopted” [25]. Their
study’s [25] implications are that novice multidisciplinary teams will more likely
succeed in applying DT when they can be guided to combine methods, are aware of
the limits of brainstorming, and can transition from more- to less-reflexive practices.
Moreover, companies adopt multidisciplinary teams during DT processes as a strategy
to increase team performance [30]. The process of innovation and how it is managed
constitute a key strategic issue for companies that rely on multidisciplinary teams. In
turn, the adoption of multiple design perspectives is expected to increase performance
in terms of the quality of decision making or the innovativeness of problem solving
[30]. West et al. [30] examined the relationships among team processes, leadership
clarity, and innovation in a healthcare context. In the innovation process, models of
brainstorming imply that group creativity can benefit from multidisciplinarity, as
brainstorming groups often generate creative and novel ideas, and the group setting is
believed to elicit a higher level of cognitive stimulation [12]. Moreover, higher de-
grees of multidisciplinarity are associated with a broader range of knowledge, skills,
and abilities available to a team [30].
A relevant effect of the DT process that may have on team collaboration is the di-
vergent and convergent thinking [5]. During an innovation process supported by DT,
a team needs first to broaden their thinking, making it divergent, allowing multiple
inputs for their problem area. This creative part of the innovation process usually
results in a correct definition of the real problem [5][15]. In the phase of divergent
thinking, searching relevant information and creating new about the task will give a
better insight and will also balance the lack of entrepreneurial experience a team may
have [15]. As stated by Gurteen’s [15] “creativity and innovation concern the process
of creating and applying new knowledge,” supporting divergent thinking as a relevant
attribute for innovation. The composition of a team is also affecting the process at this
stage. As it was mentioned earlier, the multidisciplinarity is a relevant aspect to take
into account when fostering and stimulating creative inputs [12] in divergent thinking.
The last phase of the innovation process entails putting ideas into action, adopting a
more convergent thinking [5][15] and employ an innovative solution.
Garcia et al. [13] described a study whose workshops used service design tools as
frameworks to generate, develop, prototype, and assess business ideas that could po-
tentially become business opportunities. They argued that both a “designerly mindset”
and the above-mentioned service design toolset might be transferred from design to
entrepreneurship to support the development of new entrepreneurial ventures. Finally,
Beckman and Barry [4] discussed strategies for encouraging innovation through edu-
cation and design of organizations and work spaces, suggesting that design constitutes
of two phases of design: (1) an analytical phase of finding and discovery and (2) a
synthetic phase of invention and creation. They [4] proposed a combination of these
theories that would lead to innovation through observational or ethnographic research,
creating frameworks for understanding data, analyzing new customer needs, and de-
veloping solutions or new products to meet these needs.
Consequently, DT addressed by DT methods and tools is considered supportive for
generating innovation and a number of factors could affect the development of inno-
vativeness. Although DT methods have been connected with generation of innova-
tions, how DT tools foster innovations has received little attention in existing research
and captivates the interest of business communities.
3 Design-thinking methods and tools

A large number of design methods and tools facilitate the DT innovation process.
Alves and Nunes [1] surveyed various sources from both industry and academia and
collected more than 164 methods and tools related to service design (SD). The
suggested taxonomy of the selected 25 SD tools and methods [1] provides guidance to
novice participants and enforces team coherence, while it can be supportive for
practitioners. Using a four-quadrant chart, Alves and Nunes [1] clustered the most
relevant methods according to various dimensions, such as the motivation to use it,
the audience, the representations used, and activities in the design process. The major-
ity of these methods are used to understand the problem [1], and thus selecting the
right methods is important especially in first phases of the DT process.
The DT process consists of five stages: empathizing, defining, ideating, prototyp-
ing, and testing [5]. Empathizing relates to direct interaction with users, on whom the
definition is based. Ideation phase includes brainstorming and generating solutions,
while the prototype phase implies rapidly making numerous prototypes. Finally, the
test phase can also include the final implementation. From a design perspective, it is
possible to address DT as the creation of meaning [20] and making sense of things
[9]. Selecting the right tools is undoubtedly important for effective decision making
and communication in a multidisciplinary team. The tools can be physical, such as a
pen, paper, and whiteboard, or software tools with rich graphics that support the DT
process. The tools can also be used to help a team adopt a new perspective on design
tasks, to visualize the system’s complexity and depending on the design stage reflect a
convergent or divergent view of design.
The rest of this section presents six selected DT methods, with a corresponding,
web-based software tool that can be used to implement each method. The criteria for
choosing these methods lie in their visualization techniques and ability to enhance
communication within multidisciplinary teams, but also in their simplicity in use by
non-experts.

3.1 Personas
The persona method can help identify the user’s needs and desires. A persona is “a
user representation intending to simplify communication and project decision making
by selecting project rules that suit the real propositions” [18]. Personas represent a
“character” with which client and design teams can engage and use efficiently in the
design process. The method is used for the development of marketing products, for
communication and SD purposes, to reflect the human perspective of DT [28]. Per-
sonas can be used during the empathizing or defining phases of DT. An example of a
software tool for creating personas is Smaply 1, a web service that hosts and presents
personas and other methods, such as stakeholder maps and customer journey maps.
Smaply provides several options for describing personas, including ready-made ava-
tars, quotes, options for collaboration, and engaging visualizations.

1
Website: [Link]
3.2 Stakeholder map
A stakeholder map is a visual or physical representation of the various groups in-
volved in a particular product or service, such as customers, users, partners, organiza-
tions, companies, and other stakeholders [28]. A stakeholder approach reflects the
human and business perspective of DT. The interplay and connections among these
various stakeholders can be charted and analyzed for various purposes. Curedale [11]
argued for the importance of identifying key stakeholders and their relationships as
part of the defining process in DT. An example of a software tool for creating stake-
holder maps is Stakeholder Circle 2. It was designed to put stakeholders on the man-
agement radar, facilitating regular updating of the assessment as the stakeholder
community changes to reflect the dynamic nature of the project and its relationships.

3.3 Customer journey map

A customer journey map (CJM), which originated from the technique of service blue-
printing [27], describes a collection of touchpoints from the beginning to the end of
the service delivery, as seen from the customer’s point of view. A touchpoint is de-
fined as “an instance or a potential point of communication or interaction between a
customer and a service provider” [16]. The CJM helps to identification of chances for
service innovation and problem areas for service improvement [20]. It is a common
perspective shared by design/consultancy firms and experiential service providers [29,
21], categorizing the method in the human and technical sides of DT. It can be used
during the empathy phase. Visualization of a service user’s experience can be pre-
sented by Touchpoint Dashboard 3, a web-based system for creating CJM. It uses
common visual notations to unite a team and converts the information into an intui-
tive, data-rich map of a customer journey.

3.4 Service blueprint

Introduced by Shostack [27], the service blueprint is a template that shows the steps
and flows of service delivery that are related to stakeholders’ roles and the process.
Service blueprints show the actions between customers and service providers during a
service delivery. It is a process-oriented method for the business and technical per-
spectives of DT and shows all actions, including technical activities. Such a blueprint
may benefit designers in the early innovation process, such as defining a phase, by
showing the series of actions of both in-front tasks—actions that can be seen by the
customer—and back tasks—actions that cannot be seen by customers, such as those
among employees in the back office. A web-based tool for blueprint diagrams is Cre-
ately 4 that is based on the early version of the service blueprint made by Shostack.

2
Website: [Link]/
3
Website: [Link]
4
Website: www. [Link]
3.5 Business model innovation
The business model (BM) innovation is about exploring market opportunities; the
challenge is to define what the BM actually entails. The Business Model Canvas
(BMC) [23] is a visual way of handling a BM and related economic, operational, and
managerial decisions. Generally, a BMC describes the business logic of an idea,
product, or service in a simple and visual representation. The BMC mostly reflects the
business perspective of DT and can be effectively used in the ideation phase. An ex-
ample of BM innovation web-based tool is Strategyzer 5. It includes the nine building
blocks of a BMC with simple Post-it notes that can be placed on the blocks. It also
supports economic analysis, conversations among users, and an engaging interface.

3.6 Rapid prototyping

The rapid prototype (RP) is a quick formation of visual and experiential manifesta-
tions of concepts [22]. It can assist in determining which solutions are technologically
possible. Prototypes can be created and quickly tested using the RP method. It can
thus support communication in multidisciplinary teams in collaborative settings, such
as workshops, by facilitating conversations and feedback regarding solutions for a
particular product or service. The RP reflects more than the technical perspective of
DT and supports the DT prototype phase, which should be robust and fast. An exam-
ple of an RP software tool is Axure RP 6, which provides wireframing, prototyping,
and the specification tools needed. It has a graphical user interface for creating
mockups of websites and applications. Axure RP can help users generate quick ideas
to immediately improve the design and obtain direct feedback.

4 Case study

We conducted workshops with users to investigate how the DT methods and tools
support innovation and collaboration within teams. To gain rich insights into the asso-
ciations between innovation and collaboration, we selected two different setups in
terms of the participants’ backgrounds and motivations for using DT methods through
the tools. The selection of DT tools for the workshops had the prerequisite of provid-
ing both convergent and divergent thinking in a task [14, 15] and simplicity in usage.
Therefore, we selected a web-based tool that incorporates three DT methods, per-
sonas, stakeholder map and CJM. The Smaply tool was found to meet our require-
ments, with an intuitive user interface and attractive visualizations.

4.1 Workshop 1
The first workshop took place in January 2015 and was hosted by an academic library
in a Scandinavian country. Six participants took part in a 2-hour workshop. Due to
5
Website: [Link]
6
Website: [Link]/
some organizational issues, four library staff members were present, together with
two PhD candidates and the three authors of this paper. All the participants had previ-
ously joined different seminars and workshops [10], where the main method used pen,
paper, and SD cards [8]; they were also familiar with one DT method (CJM). None of
the participants had used Smaply before, but they had very good computer skills. The
objective here was to use the Smaply tool to transfer a service from a previous work-
shop, and the second task was to develop a new service. In their previous workshop
some days ago, the participants used DT method, the CJM for a working project, us-
ing SD cards, post-it notes, and paper. The CJM envisioned how a university re-
searcher could gain access to, borrow, and download e-books by using a library web-
site.
Divided into three groups, all participants were informed about the process and
were active during the workshop. Each one of the authors joined one group, with an
assistive participant role during the process, mainly to facilitate and observe the flow
of activities. The groups worked with one laptop each and in the same room, allowing
communication and collaboration with one another. Field notes taken during the pro-
cess and screenshots of the generated material from Smaply were used as data collec-
tion methods. After a short introduction to Smaply, the participants worked consecu-
tively on the three tasks, personas, stakeholder maps (Fig. 1) and CJM, with a small
break between tasks. At the end, they joined a short discussion with the facilitators to
share their personal reflections.

Fig. 1. Artifacts from Workshop 1 (left) and Workshop 2 (right).

4.2 Workshop 2
The second workshop took place in February 2015 and was hosted by university facil-
ities. Seven participants, both MSc and PhD students, took part in a 2-hour workshop.
The participants had no prior experience with workshops, but they had previously
utilized other DT methods and tools (business modeling). None of the participants had
experience with Smaply, but they had very good computer skills. The objective in this
workshop was to use the Smaply tool as a part of their semester project, where they
would utilize SD for a new application (app) service.
The participants were divided into three groups, with both students and one of the
authors of this paper having the same role as in the previous workshop. All partici-
pants were informed about the process. The three groups worked with their laptops in
the same room, allowing communication and collaboration with one another. Field
notes taken during the process and screenshots from the generated material were used
as data collection methods. After a short introduction to the Smaply tool, the partici-
pants worked on the three tasks, with a small break between tasks. Finally, they joined
a short discussion with the facilitators to share their personal reflections.

4.3 Results
Overall, the workshops had positive outcomes; the participants were actively involved
and worked during the 2 hours of the sessions. Once the participants became familiar
with the tool and the process, it was easier for the authors of this paper to observe the
process. Table 1 summarizes the results from both workshops, with the corresponding
objectives, DT methods, and three related characteristics: type of thinking that DT
reflects, collaboration, and multidisciplinarity of the groups.
The first main observation for the first workshop is related to the technical con-
straints of the tool. The objective to replicate a task from a previous workshop gave
the participants training time to familiarize themselves with the user interface of
Smaply. Creating personas seemed easier than the other two tasks, and one group
enjoyed the simplicity of the interface. The other two tasks (stakeholder map and
customer journey) were more complex for the participants, where they followed an
iterative process to improve the first task (personas). Some participants mentioned
encountering technical issues when performing the customer journey task in Smaply,
which was the most important task for them (tool-driven collaboration). One group
created three customer journeys, reporting the “the lack of richness of Smaply” and
other technical issues regarding icons, labels of buttons, space limitations, and diffi-
culty in using personas in customer journeys.
Another observation topic for the first workshop was how they will overcome the
constraints of the tool. Generally, all the groups worked intensively, but they shifted
the focus away from the real task. One group ended up with a new solution, apart
from redesigning the service. For the other groups, the final results didn’t provide new
services and innovations, but the compromise between discussion and accomplish-
ment of the task gave fruitful reflections on Smaply. One group followed a more co-
operative pattern throughout the workshop, sharing ideas and supporting each other to
accomplish the tasks. The other groups interacted more on problem solving for the
Smaply interface.
 Table 1. Summarized findings

Objective DT method Type of Collabora- Multidisci-

(with Smaply) thinking tion plinarity
Workshop 1 a. Personas Convergent Method- Yes
Redesign a ser- driven
vice, design a b. Stakeholder map Divergent Method- Yes
service driven
c. Customer journey Convergent/ Tool- Yes
map Divergent driven
Workshop 2 a. Personas Convergent Method Yes
Redesign part of a driven
service, design a b. Stakeholder map Divergent Method Yes
service driven
c. Customer journey Convergent/ Method Yes
map Divergent driven

The second workshop demonstrated different results. The first main observation
was the extensive cooperation during the session. Before working on the tasks, the
groups engaged in long discussions about different aspects of the tasks and tried to
frame and conceptualize the tasks in relation to their previous experiences in DT
methods (method-driven collaboration). Generally, the participants defined their roles
in group work, where one participant was interacting with the software and the rest of
the group members were discussing about how to proceed with the task. Especially
after the first task (personas) the discussions opened up to the overall picture of the
project and became more animated concerning project-related problems, such as how
to solve dependencies among stakeholders. The groups also faced some technical
issues with Smaply, but they were secondary in general. One group couldn’t delete a
stakeholder from the stakeholder map after the user created it. The discussions regard-
ing Smaply were at the concept level, such as about the meaning of a concept such as
“persona,” but not at the technical level, for example, how to create a persona. The
groups ended up with new solutions and fresh perspectives on the project.

5 Discussion

The use of DT methods and tools is a way of incubating ideas and creating innovative
solutions within teams. Several connections between DT and innovation exist, as
mentioned in Section 2. Our case study raised the issues of type of thinking, collabo-
ration and multidisciplinary in teams as more significant for the growth of innovation.
The DT methods and tools should be handled by both designers and non-designers.
Multidisciplinary teams, consisting of people with diverse competencies and back-
grounds, are more likely to succeed in applying DT when they can be guided to com-
bine methods and can transition from more- to less-reflexive practices [25]. Our par-
ticipants had different backgrounds, even in small groups and generated discussions
during workshops. Our suggestion is to engage different people with various back-
grounds (business, technical, etc.) in order to establish a DT perspective.
Additionally, thinking like a designer may improve the way companies and organi-
zations develop their products and services. All three perspectives of DT are essential
for innovation. Using human- and business-oriented methods, such as stakeholder
maps, thus leaving out the feasibility of the technology, can spark innovation. On the
other hand, relying exclusively on business and technical tools does not help project
effective decisions, especially as the user may prefer another path. Including the us-
er’s perspective and combining convergent and divergent DT methods and tools are
therefore critical. Moreover, DT tools (Table 1) can be used in the first phases of the
DT process and reflect both types of thinking. Our suggestion is to keep both conver-
gent and divergent types of thinking in DT methods or tools for an innovation project.
The use of software tools that support DT methods is also an insightful way of
working with teams. For example, using Smaply to visualize a stakeholder map might
be fun and inspiring, enhancing the work with a visual exercise and an analytical tool.
Engaging interfaces and visualizations help different people adopt new perspectives
on projects that they might have lacked earlier, unless they deal with technical diffi-
culties. Our suggestion is to provide the participants with a training session in the DT
method or tool.
The value of using DT tools in companies is related to the adoption of a broader
view on projects and an effective communication tool for multidisciplinary teams.
The value for teams lies in their shared basis for communication, as they can embody
their own ideas in real time, in collaboration with other partners. This procedure can
lead to making better decisions and visualizing complex system problems and their
potential solutions. Some limitations in our study prevent an unambiguous interpreta-
tion of the findings. We have to note that the generalizability of our results is limited,
and further studies in the field are needed to strengthen the case. However, we think
that our results suggest considering three characteristics when including DT methods
and tools for innovation projects: multidisciplinarity of participants, embedding two
types of thinking, and a training session in the DT method or tool.

6 Conclusion

Understanding how DT tools foster innovations is an area of increasing importance

that has received little attention in existing research. To answer this, we suggest in-
cluding three characteristics in our current understanding of utilizing DT tools, as it
was mentioned above: collaboration, multidisciplinarity and twofold type of thinking.
In view of the fact that organizations are encouraged to adopt DT in the teams where
people may not have prior experience with such methods [25], more collaborative
strategies and engaging tools are required. The results of the study suggest the adop-
tion of a method-driven approach to collaboration while utilizing DT tools. The latter
should be characterized by simplicity and ease of use in order to help the users’ focus
on the method. The need for DT methods and tools to cover both convergent and
divergent type of thinking is in line with the holistic nature of DT. The list of methods
 and tools that we discussed here is only a starting point for additional work in this
field. Further research might focus on how multidisciplinary teams use design meth-
ods and tools for innovation in each design phase and what the most suitable ones are.
Another future research topic could be the functional diversity of a team that could
maximize innovativeness by using these methods and tools. Case studies, field stud-
ies, or similar ones from businesses would be enlightening for this research area.

7 Acknowledgments

We thank our participants of the two workshops and everyone involved in the case
study.

8 References
1. Alves, R., Nunes, N.J.: Towards a Taxonomy of Service Design Methods and Tools. In: 4th
International Conference on Exploring Services Science, pp. 215-229 (2013)
2. Bae, K.M., Lee, K.S., Kim, Y.S.: Relationship between Service Design Tools and Service
Innovation - Focused on Korean Healthcare Cases. Asia-pacific Journal of Multimedia Ser-
vices Convergent with Art, Humanities, and Sociology 4(2), 63-70 (2014)
3. Baregheh, A., Rowley, J., Sambrook, S.: Towards a multidisciplinary definition of innova-
tion. Management Decision 47(8), 1323-1339 (2009)
4. Beckman, S.L., Barry, M.: Innovation as a Learning Process: embedding design think-
ing. California management review 50(1), 25-56 (2007)
5. Brown, T.: Change by design: how design thinking transforms organizations and inspires
innovation. Harper Business, New York, USA (2009)
6. Buchanan, R.: Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues 8(2), 5-21 (1992)
7. Chasanidou, D., Gasparini, A. A., Lee, E.: Design Thinking Methods and Tools for Innova-
tion in Multidisciplinary Teams. I: Innovation in HCI: what can we learn from design think-
ing?. : ISBN 978-82-7368-407-3. p. 27-30 (2014)
8. Clatworthy, S.D.: Service Innovation Through Touch-points: Development of an Innovation
Toolkit for the First Stages of New Service Development. International Journal of Design
5(2), 15-28 (2011)
9. Cross, N.: From a design science to a design discipline: understanding designerly ways of
knowing and thinking. In: Design Research Now, pp. 41-54 (2007)
10. Culén, A., Gasparini, A.A.: Find a Book! Unpacking Customer Journeys at Academic Li-
brary. In: ACHI 2014 The Seventh International Conference on Advances in Computer-
Human Interactions, pp. 7 (2014)
11. Curedale, R.: Design thinking: process and methods manual. Design Community College
Incorporated, Topanga, CA, USA (2013)
12. Fay, D., Borrill, C., Amir, Z., Haward, R., West, M.A.: Getting the most out of multidisci-
plinary teams: a multi-sample study of team innovation in health care. Journal of Occupa-
tional and Organizational Psychology 79, 553-567 (2006)
13. Garcia Mata, L., Deserti, A., Teixeira, C.: Service design tools as frameworks in the genera-
tion of business ideas an action research case study. In: 2013 IEEE Tsinghua International
Design Management Symposium (TIDMS), pp. 338-344 (2013)
14. Gielnik, M.M., Krämer, A.C., Kappel, B., Frese, M.: Antecedents of Business Opportunity
Identification and Innovation: Investigating the Interplay of Information Processing and In-
formation Acquisition. Applied Psychology 63(2), 344-381 (2014)
15. Gurteen, D.: Knowledge, Creativity and Innovation. Journal of Knowledge Management
2(1), 5-13 (1998)
16. Halvorsrud, R., Lee, E., Haugstveit, I.M., Følstad, A.: Components of a visual language for
service design. In: Proc. ServDes 2014, pp. 291-300 (2014)
17. Harhoff, D., Henkel, J., Von Hippel, E.: Profiting from voluntary information spillovers:
how users benefit by freely revealing their innovations. Research Policy 32(10), 1753-1769
(2003)
18. Junior, P.T.A., Filgueiras, L.V.L.: User modeling with personas. In: Proc. CLIHC 2005 Lat-
in American conference on human computer interaction, pp. 277-282 (2005)
19. Kolko, J.: Wicked problems: problems worth solving : a handbook and call to action. Ac4d,
Austin Center for Design, Texas, USA (2012)
20. Krippendorff, K.: The semantic turn: a new foundation for design. Taylor and Francis, Boca
Raton, FL, USA (2006)
21. Lee, E., Karahasanović, A.: Can business management benefit from service journey model-
ing language? In: Proc. ICSEA 2013 Eighth International Conference on Software Engi-
neering Advances, pp. 579–582 (2013)
22. Liedtka, J., Ogilvie, T.: Designing for growth: a design thinking tool kit for managers. Co-
lumbia University Press, NY, USA (2011)
23. Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y.: Business model generation. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, USA (2010)
24. Plattner, H., Meinel, C., Leifer, L.: Design thinking research: studying co-creation in prac-
tice. Springer, Berlin (2012)
25. Seidel, V.P., Fixson, S.K.: Adopting design thinking in novice multidisciplinary teams: the
application and limits of design methods and reflexive practices. Journal of Product Innova-
tion Management 30(1), 19-33 (2013)
26. Shepherd, D.A., DeTienne, D.R. : Prior knowledge, potential financial reward, and oppor-
tunity identification. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 29, 91-112 (2005)
27. Shostack, G.L.: Designing services that deliver. Harvard Business Review 62(1), 133-139
(1984)
28. Stickdorn, M., Schneider, J.: This is service design thinking; basics, tools, cases. BIS Pub-
lishers, Amsterdam, Nederland (2010)
29. Voss, C.: Innovation in experiential services: an empirical view. Diss. London Business
School (2007)
30. West, M.A., Borrill, C.S., Dawson, J.F., Brodbeck, F., Shapiro, D.A., Haward, B.: Leader-
ship clarity and team innovation in health care. Leadership Quarterly 14(4-5), 393-410
(2003)