Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaftliche

Fakultät

Nicolas Rösch | Victor Tiberius | Sascha Kraus

Design thinking for innovation: Context

factors, process, and outcomes

Suggested citation referring to the original publication:

European journal of innovation management 26 (2023) 7, pp. 160 - 176
DOI: [Link]
ISSN: 1460-1060, 1758-7115

Journal article | Version of record

Secondary publication archived on the Publication Server of the University of Pots-

dam:
Zweitveröffentlichungen der Universität Potsdam : Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissen-
schaftliche Reihe 176
ISSN: 1867-5808
URN: [Link]
DOI: [Link]

Terms of use:
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License. This does not apply to
quoted content from other authors. To view a copy of this license visit
[Link]
 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
[Link]

EJIM
26,7 Design thinking for innovation:
context factors, process,
and outcomes
160 Nicolas R€osch and Victor Tiberius
Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences, University of Potsdam,
Received 26 March 2022
Revised 19 June 2022
Potsdam, Germany, and
5 January 2023
Accepted 22 February 2023
Sascha Kraus
Faculty of Economics and Management, Free University of Bozen-Bolzano,
Bolzano, Italy and
Department of Business Management, University of Johannesburg,
Johannesburg, South Africa

Abstract
Purpose – Design thinking has become an omnipresent process to foster innovativeness in various fields. Due
to its popularity in both practice and theory, the number of publications has been growing rapidly. The authors
aim to develop a research framework that reflects the current state of research and allows for the identification
of research gaps.
Design/methodology/approach – The authors conduct a systematic literature review based on 164
scholarly articles on design thinking.
Findings – This study proposes a framework, which identifies individual and organizational context factors,
the stages of a typical design thinking process with its underlying principles and tools, and the individual as
well as organizational outcomes of a design thinking project.
Originality/value – Whereas previous reviews focused on particular aspects of design thinking, such as its
characteristics, the organizational culture as a context factor or its role on new product development, the
authors provide a holistic overview of the current state of research.
Keywords Context factors, Design thinking, Outcomes, Process, Systematic literature review
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Design thinking (DT) is an established process used in organizations, which aims to solve
problems and promote innovation (Brown, 2008). By its creative und intuitive nature, DT can be
distinguished from other processes, which are purely analytical (Mansoori and Lackeus, 2020;
Nakata, 2020). Advantages for product or service innovations are promised through DT by a
strong focus on the users’ needs (Brown, 2008). Immersion in the user situation is considered to
enable the discovery of (future) user needs. Other benefits include better decision-making by
reducing cognitive biases (Liedtka, 2015), promoting learning effects (Beckman and Barry, 2007),
and transforming the organizational culture toward innovation (Elsbach and Stigliani, 2018;
Kolko, 2015). In the long term, case studies demonstrate that competitive advantages can be
generated by applying DT practices (Appleyard et al., 2020).
Although design research dates back to the 1960s, the notion of applying design principles
in the business context is still relatively young (Johansson-Sk€oldberg et al., 2013).

European Journal of Innovation © Nicolas R€osch, Victor Tiberius and Sascha Kraus. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This
Management article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may
Vol. 26 No. 7, 2023
pp. 160-176 reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-
Emerald Publishing Limited commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of
1460-1060
DOI 10.1108/EJIM-03-2022-0164 this licence may be seen at [Link]
Consequently, the emphasis of research has long been on defining characteristics to link the Design
realm of design with business and management (Carlgren et al., 2016b; Micheli et al., 2019). thinking for
More research has then been conducted on the possible uses, conditions, and effects in recent
years (Chouki et al., 2021). For a long time, findings were primarily based on case studies
innovation
describing practical applications (Holloway, 2009; Liedtka, 2015). Recently, researchers have
started to use quantitative methodologies to measure the impact of DT (Suci et al., 2021;
Nakata and Hwang, 2020; Nagaraj et al., 2020).
Due to its popularity in practice, scholarly attention on DT has increased over the years, 161
leading to a growing number of publications on DT. However, the wide literature landscape
can be characterized as complex and fragmented. As a consequence, we aim to provide an
overview of the DT field and propose a research framework. For this purpose, we conduct a
systematic literature review.
Our review complements previous reviews by a more holistic approach. Previous reviews
focused on the characteristics of DT (Micheli et al., 2019), on DT and organizational culture
(Elsbach and Stigliani, 2018), and recently on DT and new product development (De Paula
et al., 2022).
Our review contributes to the DT literature by providing a holistic and systematic
overview of DT as an established problem-solving and innovation process in organizations.
In particular, we propose (1) an umbrella definition, which highlights the focal cornerstones of
this specific process, and (2) a research framework, which organizes the findings of previous
and future research. The framework comprises context factors, a basic three-stage process
model unifying previous process conceptualizations, and typical outcomes of DT processes.

2. Methodology
2.1 Sample
This paper aims to provide an overview of the current findings of DT by analyzing the
current literature on this topic. Definitions, characteristics, influencing factors, and impacts
are elaborated based on the literature to create a research framework for DT. For this
purpose, we conduct a systematic literature review (Kraus et al., 2020, 2022; Linnenluecke
et al., 2020; Tranfield et al., 2003) (Figure 1).
The literature sample was retrieved from the databases Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus.
In particular, the search was focused on publications with “design thinking” in the title to
ensure that they deal with DT at their core and not as a side-aspect. The search yielded 794
documents on the WoS and 5,036 on Scopus, which shows that DT can be considered as a
mature research field (Kraus et al., 2020).
Due to our thematic focus, we limited the search to the categories “business” and
“management”. Following the recommendation by Kraus et al. (2020), we included research
articles only. Furthermore, only articles written in English, the standard scholarly language,
were considered. In terms of time, all texts published up until August 27th, 2021 are included
in the review. After applying these filters, the number of articles decreased to 129 papers from
WoS and 184 papers from Scopus.
We then further reduced the literature sample by screening the articles for their thematic
relevance and minimum quality. Different quality thresholds can be applied, such as using
journal rankings or minimum average citation rates of journals (Kraus et al., 2020) or
minimum citation numbers of the articles in the sample, as often used in bibliometric reviews
(Deyanova et al., 2022; Glinyanova et al., 2021; Tiberius et al., 2021). Considering the sample
size and aiming for a rather broad overview of the field, we decided to apply a not too strict
threshold. In particular, we removed articles published in journals with an Impact Factor or
CiteScore smaller than one, which means that each article published in a journal had to be
cited at least once, on average, showing a minimum relevance of the journal. In the next step,
EJIM
26,7

162

Figure 1.
Review process

the merged dataset was checked for duplicates (Linnenluecke et al., 2020), removing another
71 documents. The final dataset contains 164 articles.

2.2 Analysis
As suggested by Kraus et al. (2020), we synthesized the data in a concept-centric manner. For
this purpose, we read the titles and abstracts to obtain an initial overview. Subsequently, we
read the texts completely for a deeper analysis (Denyer and Tranfield, 2009). We used Ma et al.
(2019)’s model for our research framework structure, consisting of context factors, process,
and outcome, to guide our review, and to categorize our findings. We added definitions as a
further basic category. We used Excel to document the findings from the data analysis. In this
process, we summarized the main statements of the articles in tabular form. Finally, we
searched for relationships between the found insights and compiled them into a framework,
which was then used to identify research gaps for future research.

3. Results
3.1 Defining design thinking
Today’s understanding of DT originates from early design research in the 1960s (Elsbach
and Stigliani, 2018), which aimed to disentangle complex unstructured problems into smaller,
well-defined issues to develop better solutions (Beckman and Barry, 2007). Johansson- Design
Sk€oldberg et al. (2013) distinguish between designerly thinking, i.e. the practices and thinking for
competencies of designers applied within the design field, and design thinking, where non-
designers adopt these design practices and competencies to solve particular problems. In this
innovation
regard, Brown (2008) made a push toward the current understanding of DT in a management
context by publishing his experiences with the consulting firm IDEO. According to this
understanding, DT is a human-centered process that combines design methods with a
business view (Brown, 2008; Henseler et al., 2021). Martin (2010) describes this as the balanced 163
blending of analytical and intuitive thinking, which is expected to lead to a competitive
advantage.
Due to different foci and perspectives, a uniform definition is lacking (Liedtka, 2015;
Nakata and Hwang, 2020). Several definitions are listed in Table 1. The definitions show a
wide spectrum of conceptualizations of DT. Some see DT as a discipline (Brown, 2008), an
approach (Elsbach and Stigliani, 2018), attitudes/principles (Kolko, 2015; Shapira et al., 2017),
thinking modes (Martin, 2010), a process (Beckman and Barry, 2007; Beverland et al., 2015;
Glen et al., 2014; Liedtka, 2015; Shapira et al., 2017) or the application of methods (Seidel and
Fixson, 2013). Whereas no understanding can be clearly declared as wrong, the different
authors look at DT from different perspectives and with different foci. While the process
perspective is predominant, the other conceptualizations should also be taken into account.
To consolidate the different views, we propose the following definition:

Author(s) Definition

Beckman and Barry (2007, A generic innovation process, grounded in models of how people learn
p. 25)
Brown (2008, p. 2) 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 (2010, p. 38) A balanced dynamic interplay between analytical thinking and intuitive
thinking
Seidel and Fixson (2013, The application of design methods by multidisciplinary teams to a broad range
p. 19) of innovation challenges
Glen et al. (2014, p. 653) An iterative, exploratory process involving visualizing, experimenting,
creating, and prototyping of models, and gathering feedback
Beverland et al. (2015, A creative and strategic process characterized by the following hallmarks:
p. 593) abductive reasoning, iterative thinking and experimentation, holistic
perspective, and human-centeredness
Kolko (2015, p. 4) A set of principles collectively known as design thinking—empathy with users,
a discipline of prototyping, and tolerance for failure chief among them—is a tool
for creating simple, intuitive and pleasurable interactions and developing a
responsive, flexible organizational culture
Liedtka (2015, p. 927) A hypothesis-driven process, that is problem and solution focused, best suited
to decision context in which uncertainty and ambiguity are high, composed of
empathy, abduction, cocreation and collaboration, visualization and
prototyping, and iteration
Shapira et al. (2017, p. 286) A process and attitude that harnesses creative problem-solving by focusing on
the discovery of root causes and needs, collaborating across disciplines,
cultivating optimism, and experimenting with solutions in order to learn and
adapt more quickly
Elsbach and Stigliani (2018, Design thinking comprises an approach to problem-solving that uses tools
p. 2274) traditionally utilized by designers of commercial products, processes, and Table 1.
environments Definitions of design
Source(s): Authors’ own creation thinking
EJIM Design Thinking is an iterative problem-solving and innovation process in organizations, which is
based on specific principles (such as a focus on user needs, multidisciplinarity, etc.) and uses specific
26,7 methods (such as creative thinking, visualization, experimentation, etc.).

3.2 Design thinking process

Several types of structures of the DT process have been proposed in the literature ranging from
164 three to six stages (Table 2). However, the basic idea of the different process models is the same.
Models with more stages only show a finer subdivision. Three basic stages can be considered as
the fundamental stages of every DT process. They are: (1) acquisition of data about the problem,
(2) idea generation, and (3) testing the ideas (Brown, 2008; Liedtka, 2015). In the other models with
more stages, some stages are split up into sub-stages (Beverland et al., 2015; Liedtka, 2015;
Brown, 2008). The IDEO process model with five stages (Shapira et al., 2017) and the [Link]
model with six stages (Da Silva et al., 2020) are frequently used in practice. The processes are
usually iterative making it possible to go back and forth between individual stages (Brown,
2008). In the following, we focus on the three-stage conceptualization (Liedtka, 2015) as the least
common denominator and relate the stages to the principles and applicable methods, also
referring to the three types of design tools according to Seidel and Fixson (2013).
3.2.1 Data gathering. The starting point of DT is the observation and analysis of the
situation with a focus on the user (Brown, 2008). It is about understanding the identity of the
user and their hidden needs (Furue and Washida, 2017; Nagaraj et al., 2020). A key in this is
building empathy, which means recognizing and understanding of other persons’ sensations,
emotions, thoughts, motives, and personality traits (Brown, 2008; Carlgren et al., 2016b; Glen
et al., 2015). This immersion allows to recognize new possibilities and opportunities (Liedtka,
2020). The information is used to create so-called personas, which depict the typical user and
their characteristics, actions, and needs (Welsh and Dehler, 2013). DT strives for a holistic
view also called gestalt view (Figure 2), a comprehensive understanding of the problem that
includes environmental factors, relationships, background, trends, and user needs (Holloway,
2009). The notion of exploring the whole situation by dividing it into parts and analyzing
connections and patterns stems from system thinking (Buchanan, 2019). With this
knowledge, designers are able to derive the latent user needs (Liedtka, 2015).
Some of the “needfinding tools” (Elsbach and Stigliani, 2018; Seidel and Fixson, 2013) used
in this stage stem from ethnography (Beckman and Barry, 2007) and seek direct contact with
the user, such as participant observation, interviewing, journey mapping or job-to-be-done

Authors Process stages

Beckman and Observe and Notice Frame and Imagine Make and experiment
Barry (2007) Reframe and
Design
Beverland et al. Destabilization Define and Develop Transformation
(2015)
Brown (2008) Inspiration Ideation Implementation
Glen et al. (2015) Problem Observation Visualization/ Ideation Prototype and Viability
finding sensemaking testing testing
Da Silva et al. Understand Observe Define Ideate Prototype Test
(2020)
Shapira et al. Discovery Interpretation Ideation Experimentation Evolution
Table 2. (2017)
Overview of different Liedtka (2015) Data gathering about user needs Idea Testing
design thinking generation
process structures Source(s): Authors’ own creation
 Design
thinking for
innovation

165

Figure 2.
Attributes of design
thinking

analysis (Liedtka, 2015). Consumers can also be actively involved in the process through
co-creation (Leavy, 2012; Luotola et al., 2017). Rather than observing users individually,
crowdsourcing allows to observe groups (Macdonald and Elahee, 2016; Mount et al., 2020).
Stephens and Boland (2015) emphasize the importance of aesthetic knowledge and active
involvement of the bodily senses for immersion and understanding of a situation.
3.2.2 Idea generation. In essence, ideation is about developing hypotheses of possible
solutions to a problem or user needs (Liedtka, 2020). Framing and reframing the previously
collected data helps identify patterns and generate ideas (Beckman and Barry, 2007).
It involves looking for hidden problems to better understand the composition of the problem
and target points for solutions (Carlgren et al., 2016b). Collaboration among multidisciplinary
teams can be a critical success factor when developing ideas by including multiple
perspectives and complementary knowledge (Brown, 2008; Li, 2002; Seidel and Fixson, 2013).
To generate ideas, teams first use divergent thinking to develop an extensive range of ideas
and, second, convergent thinking to analyze and narrow down these ideas (Carlgren et al.,
2016b). New solutions emerge from the development of diverse ideas from large stakeholder
groups, which are used in the confluence of analysis and intuition to develop new solutions
(Nagaraj et al., 2020). Abductive reasoning is key to connecting intuitive and analytical
thinking (Martin, 2010) by asking “what if?” (Liedtka, 2015) and “what might be?” (Martin,
2010). As a result of diverse ideas and abductive reasoning, curiosity and openness within DT
teams are increased, and ingrained behavioral patterns are broken (Liedtka, 2015).
Typical idea generating tools are associated with brainstorming and visualization (Seidel and
Fixson, 2013). Brainstorming requires high team reflexivity by regular discussions about the ideas
EJIM within the team (Seidel and Fixson, 2013). For brainwriting, concepts are first written down
26,7 individually and then discussed in a group, whereas speedstorming is inspired by speed dating
(Thompson and Schonthal, 2020). Visualization allows presenting the ideas and detecting
unnoticed possibilities by making the ideas tangible through illustration by diagrams, drawings,
Post-it notes or scribbles on whiteboards (Carlgren et al., 2016b). Mind mapping can connect the
mass of information and get a common understanding within the team (Liedtka, 2015). Narratives
and storytelling (Liedtka, 2015) or sociodrama (Wyman et al., 2012) are further tools in this stage.
166 3.2.3 Testing. In the testing stage, the previously developed and selected ideas and
assumptions are subsequently converted into prototypes and tested with experiments
iteratively by repeating them several times with additional new adjustments until the ideal
solution is found (Carlgren et al., 2016b). A principle within this phase is learning in action
(Liedtka and Kaplan, 2019). In contrast to prototyping in engineering where a technically
advanced test model is created, prototyping represents ideas by creating a product with minimal
input to obtain feedback for the concept (Glen et al., 2015). The generate-test cycles allow for
quick feedback and new knowledge that is directly reintroduced into new combinations to
obtain the best fit between user-need, environment, and product characteristics (Nagaraj et al.,
2020). Admitting mistakes offers valuable insights in this regard (Carlgren et al., 2016b).
Idea-testing tools are intended to assess the solutions on three dimensions: the level of
desirability for users, the technical feasibility, and the business viability (Elsbach and
Stigliani, 2018). Success on these three dimensions provides the opportunity for innovation.
Rapid prototyping makes ideas tangible by building small models with little effort and
minimal cost (Brown, 2008). In this regard, there are connections to pragmatism by observing
which solution works and using the reflections to test new possibilities (Dalsgaard, 2014).
A popular tool to test the formulated assumptions from the previous phase with external
stakeholders is field experiments (Liedtka, 2015; Micheli et al., 2019).

3.3 Context factors

3.3.1 Application context. The application areas of DT are predominantly in problem-solving
and innovation (Dell’Era et al., 2020). The three stages of data acquisition, ideation, and testing
allow DT to be used for problems that are particularly difficult to define (Liedtka, 2015). In
addition, the application fields can be characterized by uncertainty and ambiguity (Elsbach and
Stigliani, 2018; Luotola et al., 2017). Therefore, DT is also used within crises to find innovative
solutions (Cankurtaran and Beverland, 2020). Nevertheless, the problem does not necessarily
have to be challenging (Nakata and Hwang, 2020). Within research and development, DT can be
used in both phases (Magistretti et al., 2021b). Nakata (2020) suggests that DT can be used as a
part of product development to be applied in the front-end of the process (Brand et al., 2021), and
in the back-end to apply another approach like Stage Gate, which, in contrast, is based on
analytical decision-making and milestone planning. DT can also be used to transform an
organizational culture by integrating its principles and values, such as user focus, norms of
collaboration, risk-taking, ambiguity, experimentation, learning from failure, and design-led
strategic thinking (Elsbach and Stigliani, 2018). Case studies demonstrate that DT is applicable
in many ways, regardless of the industry, such as in topics like promoting sustainability (Buhl
et al., 2019; Geissdoerfer et al., 2016; Shapira et al., 2017), financial services (Vetterli et al., 2016) or
in the digital context (Przybilla et al., 2020; Shafiee et al., 2021). At the management level, it can
support strategy development (Cagnin, 2018; Knight et al., 2020; Ben Mahmoud-Jouini et al.,
2016). In areas such as the commodity industry, which usually has little innovation potential, DT
can be applied to develop better service offerings for users (Rau et al., 2017).
3.3.2 Organizational factors. For the implementation of DT, non-designers need to learn the
design skills and principles of dealing with ambiguity and uncertainty, developing a holistic view,
and collaboration in teams among divergent thinking and convergent thinking (Dym et al., 2006).
Therefore, participants must train to overcome cognitive obstacles when conducting the process Design
(Butler and Roberto, 2018). It can take some time for the innovative capabilities of DT to be fully thinking for
utilized (Ben Mahmoud-Jouini et al., 2019). For the implementation in existing structures, scholars
recommended using a facilitator who teaches the design methods, moderates through the stages,
innovation
and when necessary, mediates between the design process and barriers within the organization
(Daniel, 2016; H€olzle and Rhinow, 2019; Starostka et al., 2021; Wrigley et al., 2018). At the
organizational level, conflicts can arise when DT interferes with existing processes and structures
or does not go hand in hand with the organizational culture (Carlgren et al., 2016a; Coco et al., 2020). 167
Therefore, the organization should have a strategic vision and clear goals known among
employees and linked to the DT process (Dunne, 2018; Wrigley et al., 2020). In addition, it is
necessary to define precisely the guidelines and responsibilities previously (Carlgren et al., 2016a;
Wrigley et al., 2020). When introducing DT into existing projects defined by strict metric goal
achievement and efficiency, conflicts may arise between the design process and previous project
work (Dijksterhuis and Silvius, 2017; H€olzle and Rhinow, 2019; Nakata, 2020). Nevertheless,
scholars suggest not to apply DT as a rigid process but rather as an agile method that provides a
variety of tools for different situations and can be applied in different ways (Chen and Venkatesh,
2013). In order to use the full capacity of DT, the majority of employees can be authorized to
participate in opportunity finding and should be familiarized with the DT process and tools
(Appleyard et al., 2020; Liedtka and Kaplan, 2019).

3.4 Outcomes
3.4.1 Organizational Level. The use of DT can improve the performance of firms (Suci et al.,
2021). Regarding the development of products, due to the user-focus, products can be developed
that have high utility and meet the needs of users (Chen et al., 2018). In doing so, radical
innovations can be encouraged (Radnejad et al., 2020; Tiberius et al., 2021). Furthermore, DT can
be used to develop the ability of company’s brand ambidexterity (Zheng, 2018), helps with the
strategy development (Liedtka and Kaplan, 2019; Holloway, 2009), and strengthens the
organizational culture (Snyder et al., 2018), and the formation of dynamic capabilities
(Magistretti et al., 2021a). Beverland et al. (2015) showed how DT supports brand ambidexterity,
the ability to pursue two different strategic paths, consistency and relevance, simultaneously.
This is about exploiting the existing resources available to a company, which can lead to
incremental innovations. On the other hand, exploring new possibilities through new knowledge
and experimentation can lead to radical innovations (Beverland et al., 2015; Zheng, 2018).
Moreover, recent studies indicate the elements of DT can be categorized as dynamic capabilities
for innovation, by sensing opportunities, seizing them, and transforming or reconfiguring the
resources (Kurtmollaiev et al., 2018; Liedtka, 2020; Magistretti et al., 2021a). At the team level, DT
promotes a team’s overall performance (Nakata and Hwang, 2020; Suci et al., 2021). In addition,
DT team outcomes demonstrate high levels of creativity (Lee et al., 2019; Meinel et al., 2020).
3.4.2 Individual level. On an individual level, the DT process enhances participants’ creativity
(Lee et al., 2019; Kim, 2020; Cummings and Yur-Austin, 2021; Sandorova et al., 2020). In addition,
cognitive biases are released, and inertia is broken, allowing for new directions to be taken
(Liedtka, 2015; Nagaraj et al., 2020). It also results in higher levels of psychological empowerment
(Roth et al., 2020) and self-confidence (Rao et al., 2021; Liedtka, 2020). Moreover, DT can be helpful
to build entrepreneurial skills (Lynch et al., 2021; Sarooghi et al., 2019).

4. Discussion
4.1 Research framework
The systematic literature review provides an organized outline of the growing number of
publications on the still evolving DT field. Based on the current literature, we propose a
EJIM framework that includes the process stages, principles and tools, and that also reflects the
26,7 context factors and outcomes (Figure 3). Furthermore, the framework can be used to identify
research gaps.
4.1.1 Context factors. Several organizational factors can foster the DT process. On the one
hand, the necessary equipment has to be provided in physical form with rooms and resources
required for the application of DT (Wrigley et al., 2020). On the other hand, DT should not
collide with existing processes and align with the organizational culture (Carlgren et al.,
168 2016a). A decisive factor for the conditions that need to be created is how DT is implemented
and on which levels it is applied (Starostka et al., 2021). In the case of DT’s application as a
method for a specific project, the organizational conditions need to be created to prevent DT
from colliding with existing guidelines (H€olzle and Rhinow, 2019). Adopting DT as a mindset
in an organization affects the strategic vision and organizational culture in addition to
structural conditions (Wrigley et al., 2020). The principles need to be in line with the
organizational culture. For example, in organizations that focus mainly on efficiency, the
culture would have to be adapted to the principles of DT or an independent environment for
the design mindset must be created (Dunne, 2018). In addition, elements such as empathy,
user focus, creativity, willingness to experiment, openness to failure can enrich the
organizational culture and encourage employees to actively seek innovation together (Coco
et al., 2020; Elsbach and Stigliani, 2018; Kolko, 2015). The type of leadership style plays a vital
role in the implementation of processes. Here, the need for research has not yet been met. An
impetus for research on leadership styles is offered by Nakata (2020). She recommends a
leadership committed to coaching for DT, which does not restrict employees but encourages
them to be creative and supports them. Until now, the factors for the composition of teams
and the individual factors have been largely disregarded. Diversity and multidisciplinarity
within design teams are essential components for defining problems and generating ideas
(Seidel and Fixson, 2013). It is assumed that too large teams will have adverse effects
(Thompson and Schonthal, 2020). Here, studies could provide insights into how design teams
should be composed.

Figure 3.
Design thinking
framework
In contrast to the organizational perspective, research is stall scarce on which characteristics Design
individual participants must have before the DT process, which attributes potentially thinking for
interfere with design principles, and how this affects the outcome. Participants are expected
to build empathy, present their ideas in physical or rhetorical form, and work together in
innovation
teams (Micheli et al., 2019). Thereby, the question could be explored whether people need
specific capabilities to participate in the process and how individual characteristics that are
not compatible with DT’s mindset can be better integrated.
4.1.2 Design thinking process. The center of the framework describes the DT process. The 169
analysis showed the different interpretations of the individual process steps, which have a
creative process for problem-solving in common. Differences are more in the structure and
wording than in the actual content. For the framework, a three-stage categorization of the
process steps according to Liedtka (2015) was chosen, consisting of the stages of data
gathering about user needs, idea generation, and testing. However, the choice of three higher-
level stages is not meant to exclude models with multiple sub-steps. Subsequently, the
frequently quoted elements of Carlgren et al. (2016b) user focus, problem framing,
visualization, experimentation and diversity were classified to the three stages as
fundamental principles. The categorization of management tools in this article was
adopted from Seidel and Fixson (2013) and Elsbach and Stigliani (2018). The search for a
definition indicates three different perspectives on DT in research. This framework combines
all three views: (1) process, in a general three-step process structure; (2) mindset, i.e. the
principles that form the basis for DT mindset; and (3) tools, which are used to carry out the
individual steps. Extensive research exists in determining the characteristics and attributes
of DT (Carlgren et al., 2016b; Elsbach and Stigliani, 2018; Liedtka, 2015; Micheli et al., 2019).
To better determine the selection of design tools, research is needed on the individual effects
of the tools. The possibilities of combinations and connections of methods and tools have also
not yet been considered in studies. Here, critical insights for practitioners can emerge. In
addition, research could be conducted to answer which tools are most effective in specific
situations or industries. Early studies on emerging tools should proceed, including using new
technologies, such as augmented and virtual reality (Earle and Leyva-de la Hiz, 2020) or
netnography, a digital derivative of ethnography for application in social media (Ashman
et al., 2021).
The focus of research on the impact of DT has increased, showing benefits at both the
organizational and individual level. In the early years, research often discussed the use and
impact of DT through case studies describing its implementation in practice (Beverland et al.,
2015; Clune and Lockrey, 2014; Holloway, 2009; Leavy, 2010; Liedtka, 2014; Vetterli et al.,
2016). Case studies are still the most commonly used research method in current DT research
(Knight et al., 2020; Magistretti et al., 2021b; Mount et al., 2020; Pham et al., 2022; Wrigley et al.,
2020). Nevertheless, there was a lack of studies that empirically measured the impact and
benefits of DT to give it a firm place as a tool for innovation management (Micheli et al., 2019).
This research gap has been initially addressed in past studies. Recent empirical studies were
able to confirm the effects previously assumed merely based on case studies. DT has been
shown to significantly impact new product development and innovation (Chen et al., 2018;
Nagaraj et al., 2020; Nakata and Hwang, 2020). Moreover, it promotes teams’ overall
performance (Nakata and Hwang, 2020; Suci et al., 2021). Performing DT leads to increased
creativity on the group level (Lee et al., 2019) and individual level (Cummings and Yur-Austin,
2021; Kim, 2020). Kim (2020) also showed that the individual creative potential influences the
level of innovation. Other individual-level outcomes include increased motivation and
empowerment, which is a mediator for project performance (Roth et al., 2020) and increased
levels of self-confidence (Liedtka, 2020; Rao et al., 2021). In addition to solving problems, the
findings at the individual level indicate that DT is also a means of empowering employees
and developing skills, which leads to a better performance.
EJIM DT can be integrated into the organization’s strategy (Coco et al., 2020) and it can transform the
26,7 organizational culture based on the characteristics of each stage in terms of user focus,
collaboration, risk-taking, ambiguity, experimentation, learning from failure, and design-led
strategic thinking (Elsbach and Stigliani, 2018; Kolko, 2015). Moreover, DT can reduce hierarchies
and foster better decision-making (Liedtka, 2015). Combining analytical and intuitive thinking can
be challenging in organizations that previously relied only on analytical thinking. When
introducing DT, persuasion may also be needed to justify its use and opportunities. For this
170 purpose, Dunne (2018) mentioned harvesting the “low-hanging fruits” first by application in
projects where DT shows quick success and offers a way to train the participants. During
implementation, it is beneficial to introduce a facilitator who can guide the team through the design
process and intervene when necessary (Wrigley et al., 2018). Here, it is important to give the
participants the confidence and free space to develop new creative ways. In order to take full
advantage of the design capabilities, training and time are needed, but this should not be a
deterrent because even inexperienced teams can make progress (Seidel and Fixson, 2013).

4.2 Limitations and future research

As with every research, this work comes with several limitations. The basis of the systematic
literature review is the dataset of literature on the topic. Here, the inclusion criteria were
limited to articles with “design thinking” in the title. The dataset could be extended by
including other keywords, such as specific design tools. However, the additional screening of
articles with different keywords would have increased the number of articles and thus
probably limited the quality of the analysis. For future research with a more specific focus on
one of the dimensions of DT, additional keywords would be recommended.
In addition, in the sector analysis, only articles with a direct thematic reference to a
particular sector were included. Another approach could be to evaluate all case studies from
the articles and determine the industry distribution. The framework provides a very general
overview of the context factors, process, and outcome. Additionally, effects due to mediators
and moderators within DT should be observed. In the future, it is necessary to explore the
interrelationships more precisely in quantitative terms.
DT continues to offer much scope for future research. In general, the versatility of DT
should be preserved in the future (Beckman, 2020; Johansson-Sk€oldberg et al., 2013). Research
has started to explore the application of DT in diverse industries. Whereas DT seems to be
applicable in many contexts, it is still unclear if differences exist. Additionally, the process
and principles of DT could be transferred to other firm activities, such as entrepreneurial
marketing (Eggers et al., 2020), which can also be a specific vehicle to market innovative,
design-driven products or services.
In his article, Brown (2008) described the characteristics of the design thinker with the five
properties empathy, integrative thinking, optimism, willingness to experiment, and
collaboration. New research could explore which additional traits are necessary and what
weightings the characteristics have for the outcome. This ties into the call for research on how
to compose design teams. The insights can help in planning and assembling DT teams. Case
studies are often used in research to investigate how DT is applied in practice. Thus, research
usually follows an inductive process. Researching more abductively by asking “what might
be” could help develop new potentials for DT.

5. Conclusion
In this paper, the DT literature is analyzed. Based on the dataset, it can be concluded that DT
has gained increased relevance in research in recent years. We propose a consolidated
definition for DT as an iterative innovation and problem-solving process, which is based on
specific principles (such as a focus on user needs, multidisciplinarity, etc.) and uses specific Design
methods (such as creative thinking, visualization, experimentation, etc.). thinking for
Our proposed framework provides a holistic overview of the context factors, the process,
and the outcomes. DT promotes the development of product innovations and the
innovation
development of innovative behavior and capabilities at the organizational and individual
levels. It requires and promotes a culture that allows participants to be creative and considers
failures to be important insights. In addition, at the team level, collaboration should be
possible, allowing for different opinions and breaking down cognitive biases. 171
Several research gaps remain. The effectiveness and efficiency of the DT process and its
distinct methods should further be tested in empirical studies. Regarding the organizational
factors, an urgent need exists for research on leadership styles useful for DT. Research could
provide valuable insights related to the composition of teams in terms of team size and degree
of interdisciplinarity. Besides, no research was found on individual characteristics that have
an influence on the implementation of DT. Although great strides are being made toward DT
becoming a respected process in the management literature, there is still a need for future
research to unleash its full potential.

References
Appleyard, M.M., Enders, A.H. and Velazquez, H. (2020), “Regaining R&D leadership: the role of
design thinking and creative forbearance”, California Management Review, Vol. 62 No. 2, pp. 12-
29, doi: 10.1177/0008125619897395.
Ashman, R., Patterson, A. and Kozinets, R.V. (2021), “Netnography and design thinking: development
and illustration in the vegan food industry”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 55 No. 9, pp.
2491-2514, doi: 10.1108/EJM-02-2020-0155.
Beckman, S.L. (2020), “To frame or reframe: where might design thinking research go next?”,
California Management Review, Vol. 62 No. 2, pp. 144-162, doi: 10.1177/0008125620906620.
Beckman, S.L. and Barry, M. (2007), “Innovation as a learning process: embedding design thinking”,
California Management Review, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 25-56, doi: 10.2307/41166415.
Ben Mahmoud-Jouini, S., Midler, C. and Silberzahn, P. (2016), “Contributions of design thinking to
project management in an innovation context”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 47 No. 2,
pp. 144-156, doi: 10.1002/pmj.21577.
Ben Mahmoud-Jouini, S., Fixson, S.K. and Boulet, D. (2019), “Making design thinking work: adapting
an innovation approach to fit a large technology-driven firm”, Research Technology
Management, Vol. 62 No. 5, pp. 50-58, doi: 10.1080/08956308.2019.1638485.
Beverland, M.B., Wilner, S.J.S. and Micheli, P. (2015), “Reconciling the tension between consistency
and relevance: design thinking as a mechanism for brand ambidexterity”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 43 No. 5, pp. 589-609, doi: 10.1007/s11747-015-0443-8.
Brand, M, Tiberius, V, Bican, P.M. and Brem, A. (2021), “Agility as an innovation driver: towards an
agile front-end of innovation framework”, Review of Managerial Science, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 157-
187, doi: 10.1007/s11846-019-00373-0.
Brown, T. (2008), “Design thinking”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 86 No. 6, pp. 84-92.
Buchanan, R. (2019), “Systems thinking and design thinking: the search for principles in the world we
are making”, She Ji, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 85-104, doi: 10.1016/[Link].2019.04.001.
Buhl, A., Schmidt-Keilich, M., Muster, V., Blazejewski, S., Schrader, U., Harrach, C., Sch€afer, M. and
ußbauer, E. (2019), “Design thinking for sustainability: why and how design thinking can
S€
foster sustainability-oriented innovation development”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 231,
pp. 1248-1257, doi: 10.1016/[Link].2019.05.259.
Butler, A.G. and Roberto, M.A. (2018), “When cognition interferes with innovation: overcoming
cognitive obstacles to design thinking: design thinking can fail when cognitive obstacles
EJIM interfere; appropriate cognitive countermeasures can help disarm the traps”, Research
Technology Management, Vol. 61 No. 4, pp. 45-51, doi: 10.1080/08956308.2018.1471276.
26,7
Cagnin, C. (2018), “Developing a transformative business strategy through the combination of design
thinking and futures literacy”, Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, Vol. 30 No. 5,
pp. 524-539, doi: 10.1080/09537325.2017.1340638.
Cankurtaran, P. and Beverland, M.B. (2020), “Using design thinking to respond to crises: B2B lessons
from the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 88, pp. 255-260,
172 doi: 10.1016/[Link].2020.05.030.
Carlgren, L., Elmquist, M. and Rauth, I. (2016a), “The challenges of using design thinking in industry –
experiences from five large firms”, Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 25 No. 3,
pp. 344-362, doi: 10.1111/caim.12176.
Carlgren, L., Rauth, I. and Elmquist, M. (2016b), “Framing design thinking: the concept in idea and
enactment”, Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 38-57, doi: 10.1111/caim.12153.
Chen, S. and Venkatesh, A. (2013), “An investigation of how design-oriented organisations implement
design thinking”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 29 Nos 15-16, pp. 1680-1700, doi: 10.
1080/0267257X.2013.800898.
Chen, S., Benedicktus, R., Kim, Y. and Shih, E. (2018), “Teaching design thinking in marketing: linking
product design and marketing strategy in a product development class”, Journal of Marketing
Education, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 176-187, doi: 10.1177/0273475317753678.
Chouki, M., de Mozota, B.B., Kallmuenzer, A., Kraus, S. and Dabic, M. (2021), “Design thinking and
agility in digital production: the key role of user experience design”, IEEE Transactions on
Engineering Management, in press, doi: 10.1109/TEM.2021.3099094.
Clune, S.J. and Lockrey, S. (2014), “Developing environmental sustainability strategies, the double
diamond method of LCA and design thinking: a case study from aged care”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 85, pp. 67-82, doi: 10.1016/[Link].2014.02.003.
Coco, N., Calcagno, M. and Lusiani, M. (2020), “Struggles as triggers in a design-thinking journey”,
Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 29 No. S1, pp. 103-115, doi: 10.1111/caim.12384.
Cummings, C. and Yur-Austin, J. (2021), “Design thinking and community impact: a case study of
project-based learning in an MBA capstone course”, Journal of Education for Business, Vol. 97
No. 2, pp. 126-132, doi: 10.1080/08832323.2021.1887795.
Da Silva, R.H., Kaminski, P.C. and Armellini, F. (2020), “Improving new product development
innovation effectiveness by using problem solving tools during the conceptual development
phase: integrating design thinking and TRIZ”, Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 29
No. 4, pp. 685-700, doi: 10.1111/caim.12399.
Dalsgaard, P. (2014), “Pragmatism and design thinking”, International Journal of Design, Vol. 8 No. 1,
pp. 143-155.
Daniel, A.D. (2016), “Fostering an entrepreneurial mindset by using a design thinking approach in
entrepreneurship education”, Industry and Higher Education, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 215-223, doi: 10.
1177/0950422216653195.
De Paula, D., Cormican, K. and Dobrigkeit, F. (2022), “From acquaintances to partners in innovation: an
analysis of 20 years of design thinking’s contribution to new product development”, IEEE
Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 69 No. 4, pp. 1664-1677, doi: 10.1109/TEM.2021.
3084884.
Dell’Era, C., Magistretti, S., Cautela, C., Verganti, R. and Zurlo, F. (2020), “Four kinds of design
thinking: from ideating to making, engaging, and criticizing”, Creativity and Innovation
Management, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 324-344, doi: 10.1111/caim.12353.
Denyer, D. and Tranfield, D. (2009), “Producing a systematic review”, in Buchanan, D.A. and Bryman,
A. (Eds), The Sage Handbook of Organizational Research Methods, Sage Publications,
pp. 671-689.
Deyanova, K., Brehmer, N., Lapidus, A., Tiberius, V. and Walsh, S. (2022), “Hatching start-ups for Design
sustainable growth: a bibliometric review on business incubators”, Review of Managerial
Science, Vol. 16 No. 7, pp. 2083-2109, doi: 10.1007/s11846-022-00525-9. thinking for
Dijksterhuis, E. and Silvius, G. (2017), “The design thinking approach to projects”, Journal of Modern
innovation
Project Management, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 32-41.
Dunne, D. (2018), “Implementing design thinking in organizations: an exploratory study”, Journal of
Organization Design, Vol. 7 No. 1, doi: 10.1186/s41469-018-0040-7.
173
Dym, C.L., Agogino, A.M., Eris, O., Frey, D.D. and Leifer, L.J. (2006), “Engineering design thinking,
teaching, and learning”, Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 94 No. 1, pp. 103-120, doi: 10.
1002/j.2168-9830.2005.tb00832.x.
Earle, A.G. and Leyva-de la Hiz, D.I. (2020), “The wicked problem of teaching about wicked problems:
design thinking and emerging technologies in sustainability education”, Management Learning,
Vol. 52 No. 5, doi: 10.1177/1350507620974857.
Eggers, F., Niemand, T., Kraus, S. and Breier, M. (2020), “Developing a scale for entrepreneurial
marketing: revealing its inner frame and prediction of performance”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 113, pp. 72-82, doi: 10.1016/[Link].2018.11.051.
Elsbach, K.D. and Stigliani, I. (2018), “Design thinking and organizational culture: a review and
framework for future research”, Journal of Management, Vol. 44 No. 6, pp. 2274-2306, doi: 10.
1177/0149206317744252.
Furue, N. and Washida, Y. (2017), “Scanning and design thinking: organizational roles for innovation”,
Foresight, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 337-353, doi: 10.1108/FS-11-2016-0051.
Geissdoerfer, M., Bocken, N.M.P. and Hultink, E.J. (2016), “Design thinking to enhance the sustainable
business modelling process – a workshop based on a value mapping process”, Journal of
Cleaner Production, Vol. 135, pp. 1218-1232, doi: 10.1016/[Link].2016.07.020.
Glen, R., Suciu, C. and Baughn, C. (2014), “The need for design thinking in business schools”, Academy
of Management Learning and Education, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 653-667, doi: 10.5465/amle.2012.0308.
Glen, R., Suciu, C., Baughn, C.C. and Anson, R. (2015), “Teaching design thinking in business schools”,
International Journal of Management Education, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 182-192, doi: 10.1016/[Link].2015.
05.001.
Glinyanova, M., Bouncken, R.B., Tiberius, V. and Cuenca Ballester, A.C. (2021), “Five decades of corporate
entrepreneurship research: measuring and mapping the field”, International Entrepreneurship and
Management Journal, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 1731-1757, doi: 10.1007/s11365-020-00711-9.
Henseler, J., Guerreiro, M. and de Matos, N. (2021), “The interplay of marketing and design”, Review of
Managerial Science, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 1129-1137, doi: 10.1007/s11846-021-00470-z.
H€olzle, K. and Rhinow, H. (2019), “The dilemmas of design thinking in innovation projects”, Project
Management Journal, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 418-430, doi: 10.1177/8756972819853129.
Holloway, M. (2009), “How tangible is your strategy? How design thinking can turn your strategy into
reality”, Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. 30 Nos 2/3, pp. 50-56, doi: 10.1108/
02756660910942463.
Johansson-Sk€oldberg, U., Woodilla, J. and Çetinkaya, M. (2013), “Design thinking: past, present and
possible futures”, Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 121-146, doi: 10.
1111/caim.12023.
Kim, T. (2020), “The effect of creative potential on innovation behavior: focusing on design thinking”,
Journal of Distribution Science, Vol. 18 No. 8, pp. 65-74, doi: 10.15722/jds.18.8.202008.65.
Knight, E., Daymond, J. and Paroutis, S. (2020), “Design-led strategy: how to bring design thinking
into the art of strategic management”, California Management Review, Vol. 62 No. 2, pp. 30-52,
doi: 10.1177/0008125619897594.
Kolko, J. (2015), “Design thinking comes of age”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 93 No. 9, pp. 66-71.
EJIM Kraus, S., Breier, M. and Dası-Rodrıguez, S. (2020), “The art of crafting a systematic literature review
in entrepreneurship research”, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Vol. 16
26,7 No. 3, pp. 1023-1042.
Kraus, S., Breier, M., Lim, W.M., Dabic, M., Kumar, S., Kanbach, D., Mukherjee, D., Corvello, V.,
Pi~
neiro-Chousa, J., Liguori, E., Palacios-Marques, D., Schiavone, F., Ferraris, A., Fernandes, C.
and Ferreira, J.J. (2022), “Literature reviews as independent studies: guidelines for academic
practice”, Review of Managerial Science, Vol. 16 No. 8, pp. 2577-2595.
174 Kurtmollaiev, S., Pedersen, P.E., Fjuk, A. and Kvale, K. (2018), “Developing managerial dynamic
capabilities: a quasi-experimental field study of the effects of design thinking training”, Academy
of Management Learning and Education, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 184-202, doi: 10.5465/amle.2016.0187.
Leavy, B. (2010), “Design thinking – a new mental model of value innovation”, Strategy and
Leadership, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 5-14, doi: 10.1108/10878571011042050.
Leavy, B. (2012), “Masterclass collaborative innovation as the new imperative - design thinking, value
co-creation and the power of ‘pull’”, Strategy and Leadership, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 25-34, doi: 10.
1108/10878571211209323.
Lee, J., Jung, Y. and Yoon, S. (2019), “Fostering group creativity through design thinking projects”,
Knowledge Management and E-Learning, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 378-392, doi: 10.34105/[Link].2019.11.020.
Li, M. (2002), “Fostering design culture through cultivating the user-designers’ design thinking and
systems thinking”, Systemic Practice and Action Research, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 385-410, doi: 10.
1023/A:1019933410857.
Liedtka, J. (2014), “Innovative ways companies are using design thinking”, Strategy and Leadership,
Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 40-45, doi: 10.1108/SL-01-2014-0004.
Liedtka, J. (2015), “Perspective: linking design thinking with innovation outcomes through cognitive
bias reduction”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 925-938, doi: 10.
1111/jpim.12163.
Liedtka, J. (2020), “Putting technology in its place: design thinking’s social technology at work”,
California Management Review, Vol. 62 No. 2, pp. 53-83, doi: 10.1177/0008125619897391.
Liedtka, J. and Kaplan, S. (2019), “How design thinking opens new frontiers for strategy development”,
Strategy and Leadership, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 3-10, doi: 10.1108/SL-01-2019-0007.
Linnenluecke, M.K., Marrone, M. and Singh, A.K. (2020), “Conducting systematic literature reviews and
bibliometric analyses”, Australian Journal of Management, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 175-194, doi: 10.1177/
0312896219877678.
Luotola, H., Hellstr€om, M., Gustafsson, M. and Perminova-Harikoski, O. (2017), “Embracing
uncertainty in value-based selling by means of design thinking”, Industrial Marketing
Management, Vol. 65, pp. 59-75, doi: 10.1016/[Link].2017.05.004.
Lynch, M., Kamovich, U., Longva, K.K. and Steinert, M. (2021), “Combining technology and
entrepreneurial education through design thinking: students’ reflections on the learning
process”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 164, doi: 10.1016/[Link].2019.06.015.
Ma, S., Kor, Y.Y. and Seidl, D. (2019), “CEO advice seeking: an integrative framework and future
research agenda”, Journal of Management, Vol. 46 No. 6, pp. 771-805, doi: 10.1177/
0149206319885430.
Macdonald, J.B. and Elahee, M.N. (2016), “Design thinking in online communities: suggestions for
overcoming crowdsourcing issues”, International Journal of Innovation and Learning, Vol. 19
No. 3, pp. 286-298, doi: 10.1504/IJIL.2016.075655.
Magistretti, S., Ardito, L. and Messeni Petruzzelli, A. (2021a), “Framing the microfoundations of
design thinking as a dynamic capability for innovation: reconciling theory and practice”,
Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 38 No. 6, pp. 645-667, doi: 10.1111/jpim.12586.
Magistretti, S., Dell’Era, C., Verganti, R. and Bianchi, M. (2021b), “The contribution of design thinking
to the R of R&D in technological innovation”, R&D Management, Vol. 52 No 1, pp. 108-125, doi:
10.1111/radm.12478.
Mansoori, Y. and Lackeus, M. (2020), “Comparing effectuation to discovery-driven planning, Design
prescriptive entrepreneurship, business planning, lean startup, and design thinking”, Small
Business Economics, Vol. 54 No. 3, pp. 791-818, doi: 10.1007/s11187-019-00153-w. thinking for
Martin, R. (2010), “Design thinking: achieving insights via the ‘knowledge funnel’”, Strategy and
innovation
Leadership, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 37-41, doi: 10.1108/10878571011029046.
Meinel, M., Eismann, T.T., Baccarella, C.V., Fixson, S.K. and Voigt, K.I. (2020), “Does applying design
thinking result in better new product concepts than a traditional innovation approach? An
experimental comparison study”, European Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 661-671, doi: 10. 175
1016/[Link].2020.02.002.
Micheli, P., Wilner, S.J.S., Bhatti, S.H., Mura, M. and Beverland, M.B. (2019), “Doing design thinking:
conceptual review, synthesis, and research agenda”, Journal of Product Innovation
Management, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 124-148, doi: 10.1111/jpim.12466.
Mount, M., Round, H. and Pitsis, T.S. (2020), “Design thinking inspired crowdsourcing: toward a
generative model of complex problem solving”, California Management Review, Vol. 62 No. 3,
pp. 103-120, doi: 10.1177/0008125620918626.
Nagaraj, V., Berente, N., Lyytinen, K. and Gaskin, J. (2020), “Team design thinking, product
innovativeness, and the moderating role of problem unfamiliarity”, Journal of Product
Innovation Management, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 297-323, doi: 10.1111/jpim.12528.
Nakata, C. (2020), “Design thinking for innovation: considering distinctions, fit, and use in firms”,
Business Horizons, Vol. 63 No. 6, pp. 763-772, doi: 10.1016/[Link].2020.07.008.
Nakata, C. and Hwang, J. (2020), “Design thinking for innovation: composition, consequence, and
contingency”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 118, pp. 117-128, doi: 10.1016/[Link].2020.06.038.
Pham, C.T.A., Magistretti, S. and Dell’Era, C. (2022), “The role of design thinking in big data
innovations”, Innovation, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 290-314, doi: 10.1080/14479338.2021.1894942.
Przybilla, L., Klinker, K., Lang, M., Schreieck, M., Wiesche, M. and Krcmar, H. (2020), “Design thinking
in digital innovation Projects—exploring the effects of intangibility”, IEEE Transactions on
Engineering Management, Vol. 69 No. 4, pp. 1635-1649, doi: 10.1109/tem.2020.3036818.
Radnejad, A.B., Ziolkowski, M.F. and Osiyevskyy, O. (2020), “Design thinking and radical innovation:
enter the smartwatch”, Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. 42 No. 5, pp. 332-342, doi: 10.1108/JBS-
02-2020-0044.
Rao, H., Puranam, P. and Singh, J. (2021), “Does design thinking training increase creativity? Results
from a field experiment with middle-school students”, Innovation: Organization and
Management. doi: 10.1080/14479338.2021.1897468.
Rau, C., Zbiek, A. and Jonas, J.M. (2017), “Creating competitive advantage from services: a design
thinking case study from the commodities industry service design thinking can provide the
tools to help companies design value propositions that meet customer needs and sustain
competitive advantage”, Research Technology Management, Vol. 60 No. 3, pp. 48-56, doi: 10.
1080/08956308.2017.1301003.
Roth, K., Globocnik, D., Rau, C. and Neyer, A.K. (2020), “Living up to the expectations: the effect of
design thinking on project success”, Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 29 No. 4,
pp. 667-684, doi: 10.1111/caim.12408.
ova, T., Palencıkova, Z. and Betak, N. (2020), “Design thinking - a revolutionary
Sandorova, Z., Repan
new approach in tourism education?”, Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism
Education, Vol. 26, doi: 10.1016/[Link].2019.100238.
Sarooghi, H., Sunny, S., Hornsby, J. and Fernhaber, S. (2019), “Design thinking and entrepreneurship
education: where are we, and what are the possibilities?”, Journal of Small Business
Management, Vol. 57 No. S1, pp. 78-93, doi: 10.1111/jsbm.12541.
Seidel, V.P. and Fixson, S.K. (2013), “Adopting design thinking in novice multidisciplinary teams: the
application and limits of design methods and reflexive practices”, Journal of Product Innovation
Management, Vol. 30 No. S1, pp. 19-33, doi: 10.1111/jpim.12061.
EJIM Shafiee, S., Haug, A., Shafiee Kristensen, S. and Hvam, L. (2021), “Application of design thinking to
product-configuration projects”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 32
26,7 No. 1, pp. 219-241, doi: 10.1108/JMTM-04-2020-0137.
Shapira, H., Ketchie, A. and Nehe, M. (2017), “The integration of design thinking and strategic
sustainable development”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 140 No. 1, pp. 277-287, doi: 10.
1016/[Link].2015.10.092.
Snyder, K., Ingelsson, P. and B€ackstr€om, I. (2018), “Using design thinking to support value-based
176 leadership for sustainable quality development”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 24
No. 6, pp. 1289-1301, doi: 10.1108/BPMJ-02-2018-0045.
Starostka, J., Evald, M.R., Clarke, A.H. and Hansen, P.R. (2021), “Taxonomy of design thinking
facilitation”, Creativity and Innovation Management. doi: 10.1111/caim.12451.
Stephens, J.P. and Boland, B.J. (2015), “The aesthetic knowledge problem of problem-solving with
design thinking”, Journal of Management Inquiry, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 219-232, doi: 10.1177/
1056492614564677.
Suci, A., Maryanti, S., Hardi, H. and Sudiar, N. (2021), “Embedding design thinking paradigm in a
University’s business assistance to small business”, Systemic Practice and Action Research.
doi: 10.1007/s11213-021-09565-w.
Thompson, L. and Schonthal, D. (2020), “The social psychology of design thinking”, California
Management Review, Vol. 62 No. 2, pp. 84-99, doi: 10.1177/0008125619897636.
Tiberius, V., Schwarzer, H. and Roig-Dobon, S. (2021), “Radical innovations: between established
knowledge and future research opportunities”, Journal of Innovation and Knowledge, Vol. 6
No. 3, pp. 145-153, doi: 10.1016/[Link].2020.09.001.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D. and Smart, P. (2003), “Towards a methodology for developing evidence-
informed management knowledge by means of systematic review”, British Journal of
Management, Vol. 14, pp. 207-222, doi: 10.1111/1467-8551.00375.
Vetterli, C., Uebernickel, F., Brenner, W., Petrie, C. and Stermann, D. (2016), “How deutsche bank’s IT
division used design thinking to achieve customer proximity”, MIS Quarterly Executive, Vol. 15
No. 1, pp. 37-53.
Welsh, M.A. and Dehler, G.E. (2013), “Combining critical reflection and design thinking to develop
integrative learners”, Journal of Management Education, Vol. 37 No. 6, pp. 771-802, doi: 10.1177/
1052562912470107.
Wrigley, C., Mosely, G. and Tomitsch, M. (2018), “Design thinking education: a comparison of massive
open online courses”, She Ji, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 275-292, doi: 10.1016/[Link].2018.06.002.
Wrigley, C., Nusem, E. and Straker, K. (2020), “Implementing design thinking: understanding
organizational conditions”, California Management Review, Vol. 62 No. 2, pp. 125-143, doi: 10.
1177/0008125619897606.
Wyman, G., Holland, V.M. and Yates, S. (2012), “Conversations with the marketplace: an application of
design thinking and sociodrama action methods in an innovation workshop”, International
Journal of Innovation Science, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 77-87, doi: 10.1260/1757-2223.4.2.77.
Zheng, D.L. (2018), “Design thinking is ambidextrous”, Management Decision, Vol. 56 No. 4,
pp. 736-756, doi: 10.1108/MD-04-2017-0295.

Corresponding author
Sascha Kraus can be contacted at: [Link]@[Link]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
[Link]/licensing/[Link]
Or contact us for further details: permissions@[Link]