EVOLVING LEAN DESIGN THINKING BY EXPLORING SKILLS FOR ...

EVOLVING LEAN DESIGN THINKING BY EXPLORING SKILLS FOR

INNOVATION THROUGH DESIGN

Text

Minor Thesis ReportWageningen University, February 2013

Marie Baartmans (861021.024.110) and Marijn Struik (851004.813.100)

Supervised by Dr. Valentina C. Tassone and Dr. Ir. Marlies Brinkhuijsen

Text

Text

Text

Text

Text

Text

EVOLVING LEAN DESIGN THINKING BY EXPLORING SKILLS FOR

INNOVATION THROUGH DESIGN

PREFACE The document before you presents a research on evolving lean design thinking by exploring skills for innovation through design. This research was conducted by two landscape architecture master students, within the framework of a minor thesis at the chair group Education Competence Studies at Wageningen University. The project was supervised by Dr. Valentina C. Tassone from the chair group Education Competence Studies and Dr. Ir. Marlies Brinkhuijsen from the chair group Landscape Architecture. We want to thank them for their guidance and input during the process of the research project.

Our fascination for the development of skills to foster innovation through design originates from our position as initiators of Happyland Collective. We started this initiative almost two years ago and it has now grown to be a group of thirteen people working on innovative projects on a non-profit basis. The goal of the collective is to address actual, societal problems in the spatial domain and bring them interactively under the attention of stakeholders. Our work for Happyland Collective has given us many experiences, but it has also made us realize the importance of having individual skills for innovation through design. We learn how to think and design for innovation, but we need to develop the skills to undertake the action needed to come to innovation. Thus we see the envisioned outcomes of the research as a first step in a process of applying a combination of Design Thinking and Lean Startup to come to innovations in the field of landscape architecture.

Marie Baartmans and Marijn Struik

SUMMARY The research in this paper builds upon earlier conceptual investigations conducted by Dr. Ronald M. Müller and Katja Thoring (Müller & Thoring, 2012). They compared and integrated the essence and processes of two user-driven innovation strategies, Design Thinking and Lean Startup. The outcome is a combination of both strategies, which is called Lean Design Thinking (Müller & Thoring, 2012). The research described in this report contributes to evolving this method by exploring skills for innovation through design in the fields of design and business.

The knowledge gap we address in this research is that the current state of development of Lean Design Thinking does not yet clearly define which skills are needed when using the integrated process of this method to come to innovation through design. The sophistication of Lean Design Thinking in terms of skills contributes to its application in practice in the fields of entrepreneurship and design, and thus has the potential to be very valuable to come to innovation through design.

The general research question is ‘How can Lean Design Thinking be evolved in terms of skills for innovation through design by comparing and integrating skills in Design Thinking and Lean Startup?’ To answer this question the individual skills for innovation through design in Lean Design Thinking were determined by reviewing, comparing and integrating the skills of Design Thinking and Lean Startup. To divide the general skills from the skills for innovation through design, the framework of design skills by Lawson (2005) was used as a basis.

The integrated list of skills for innovation through design in Lean Design Thinking (see paragraph 4.1) forms the answer to the general research question. This list evolves the method of Lean Design Thinking by helping to clearly define which skills are needed when using the integrated process of Lean Design Thinking to come to innovation through design. The integrated list of skills contributes to the possibility of applying the method in a case study as suggested by Müller and Thoring (2012), as we now understand which skills are needed for this application. Thus the integration of skills from Lean Startup and Design Thinking leads to a sophistication of Lean Design Thinking as an independent method for user-driven innovation.

The final list of skills for innovation through design (chapter 4.1) evolves the method of Lean Design Thinking by helping to clearly define which skills are needed when using the integrated process of Lean Design Thinking to come to innovation through design. The overview of skills contributes to the possibility of applying the method in a case study as suggested by Müller and Thoring (2012), as we now understand which skills are needed for this application. Thus the integration of skills from Lean Startup and Design Thinking leads to a sophistication of Lean Design Thinking as an independent method for user-driven innovation.

Generally the research described in this document is significant, because it leads to a sophistication of Lean Design Thinking and addresses certain gaps. It helps to get a better understanding of the skills that are needed for the application of Lean Design Thinking for innovation through design. For us specifically the most valuable outcome of the research was the realization of the importance of entrepreneurship as a way of thinking, and the combination of design and entrepreneurship that we can use when starting a project or business in the future.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION 07 1.1 General introduction 08 1.2 Topical Background 08 1.3 Problem statement 11 1.4 Knowledge gap 11 1.5 Structure of the report 11

2. RESEARCH DESIGN 12 2.1 Research objective and questions 13 2.2 Explanatory framework 13 2.3 Data collection 14 2.4 Data review 15 2.5 Data analysis 16

3. LITERATURE REVIEW 17 3.1 Selection of the literature for review 18 3.2 Review of skills in Lean Startup for innovation through design 23 3.3 Review of skills in Design Thinking for innovation through design 25 3.4 Comparison of skills in Design Thinking and Lean Startup 28

4. CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION 36 4.1 Conclusion 37 4.2 Discussion 40 4.3 Reflection on the process 41 4.4 Reliability and validity 42 4.5 Limitations 43 4.6 Further research 43

REFERENCES 44

APPENDICES 48 I. Design skills framework 49 II. Literature selection tables 51 III. Review file Marie v1 60 IV. Review file Marijn v1 65 V. Review file Marie v2 70 VI. Review file Marijn v2 74 VII. Review file merged v3 79 VIII. Review file merged v4 84 IX. Glossary 87 X. List of figures and tables 88

1. INTRODUCTION

Text

7

1.1 GENERAL INTRODUCTIONThe research in this paper builds upon earlier conceptual investigations conducted by Dr. Ronald M. Müller and Katja Thoring (Müller & Thoring, 2012). They compared and integrated the essence and processes of two user-driven innovation strategies, Design Thinking and Lean Startup. The outcome is a combination of both strategies, which is called Lean Design Thinking (Müller & Thoring, 2012). Their research was conducted in the context of the fields of the researchers, which are information systems and product design. We contribute to evolving this method by exploring skills for innovation through design in the field of design and business.

The development of innovation through design is important for a broad context in helping to understand and solve complex or wicked problems. Innovation depends on complementary assets such as technological acquisitions, organizational structures, financial and physical resources, and skills (Di Lucchio, 2012, p. 361). Design is gaining importance in facilitating innovation in various applied domains, because design includes the skills and expertise for combining scientific, artistic and intuitive approaches towards a creative effort (De Mozota, 2003, in Di Lucchio, 2012, p. 361). Individual skills needed for innovation through design as described by the book ‘How Designers Think’ (see Appendix I.) are the focus of this research. By formulating individual skills for Lean Design Thinking the innovation curve can become more explicit and measurable. As for effective and efficient innovation the defining and tracking of the learning curve that leads to innovation is central (Ries, 2011).

To evolve the Lean Design Thinking model this research contributes by formulating individual skills that can guide the process in Lean Design Thinking for innovation through design. This formulation of skills was achieved by reviewing and integrating the individual skills in Design Thinking and Lean Startup. The need to evolve Lean Design Thinking lies in the fact that external factors, such as learning through formulated skills, are important to apply the strategy to come to innovation (Jerez-Gomez et al., 2005, in Di Lucchio, 2012, p. 361).

1.2 TOPICAL BACkGROUND The model of Lean Design Thinking can be an ideal method to come to innovation through design (Müller and Thoring, 2012). The model interlaces Design Thinking (ideational variations) and Lean Startup (selection of ideas).

These ideational variations and selection of ideas find their origin in creative thought as a knowledge process (Simonton, 2011). In these paragraphs Design Thinking and Lean Startup are explained as separate and combined entities by their origin, implementation and the relevance of combining both methods in Lean Design Thinking. Design Thinking is a user-driven innovation strategy that starts with a problem, and leads through ideation to a relevant solution. The principles and methods of Design Thinking were developed in the late nineties by the design consultancy IDEO. They used Design Thinking as a way to identify the needs of users to create human centred solutions (Müller and Thoring, 2012, p. 152). Design Thinking fosters innovative solutions by means of ‘tools, techniques and methods to approach different thinking styles and to undertake analysis, synthesis and evaluations of the process development’ (Jones, 1980; Cross, 1984, in Di Lucchio, 2012, p. 363). The process model of Design Thinking (figure 1) was developed by Müller and Thoring and is based on method engineering (Müller and Thoring, 2012, pp. 154).

Figure 1. Process model of Design Thinking (Müller and Thoring, 2012, pp. 154)

8

Lean Startup is a user-driven innovation strategy that starts with an idea, and leads through selection and validation to an innovative business model. The main principle of Lean Startup is to create a continuous feedback loop together with customers during the development of processes and products (Maurya, 2012, in Müller and Thoring, 2012, p. 152). Lean Startup has its origin in ‘customer development’, a method developed by Steven Blank (2006). This method is built on the idea that in the process of product development a starting company also needs to understand the customer by ‘customer development’ (Müller and Thoring, 2012, p. 151). The process model of Lean Startup (figure 2) was developed by Cooper and Vlaskovits (2010), as described in detail by Müller and Thoring (2012, pp. 154). As described in the following paragraphs the methods of Lean Startup and Design Thinking have not only been applied separately, but also as a combination in different contexts.

Lean Startup and Design Thinking are implemented separately in similar contexts, like business, engineering, education, and architecture. Design thinking is used broadly as it is proves in practice that it can change the methods of learning and problem solving (e.g., Dym, Agogino, Eris, Frey & Leifer, 2005; Fricke, 1999; Nagai & Nagouchi, 2003, in Razzouk and Shute, 2012, p. 331). The tools, applications and methods of Lean Startup are used by startups to validate their business models efficiently and effectively

(Grossman-Kahn and Rosensweig, 2012, p. 831). Thus we can state that both methods have been tested elaborately in practice or case studies as separate entities.

Besides their separate applications Design Thinking and Lean Startup have also been applied together in business. The following example of the Nordstrom Innovation Lab illustrates this. The lab is part of the large retailing company Nordstrom, and it has developed the Discovery by Design model. This model combines three innovation strategies: Design Thinking, Lean Startup and Agile & Lean. It uses Design Thinking to formulate the challenges, come to ideas and models for possible solution. Then Lean Startup is used to develop Minimal Viable Products and test them with users to see if they are relevant (Grossman-Kahn and Rosensweig, 2012, p. 836). The model helps Nordstrom to incorporate user-driven innovations in their business and has been successful for some years now. This example of the use of both methods in a business context proves that the application of Lean Design Thinking has potential.

The process model of Lean Design Thinking (figure 3) is the integration of the process models of Design Thinking and Lean Startup (Müller and Thoring, 2012, pp. 159-160). For this integration Müller and Thoring take the beginning of the Design Thinking process (understand, observe, point of view, ideation) and complete this with the customer validation process from Lean Startup (customer discovery, customer validation, customer creation, company building). Then they integrate the aspects of customer discovery from Lean Startup with prototyping of Design Thinking. Where testing by qualitative and metric testing methods is seen as an iterative process that needs to be repeated after each step that has been taken (Müller and Thoring, 2012, pp. 159-160). Thus Müller and Thoring created a model in which both ideation and selection are integrated in one method. In the following paragraphs the problems and resulting knowledge gap of the Lean Design Thinking method are explained. Together these form the basis of this research.Figure 2. Process model of Lean Startup (Müller and Thoring, 2012, pp. 154)

9

Figure 3. Process model of Lean Design Thinking (Müller and Thoring, 2012, pp. 160)

10

1.3 PROBLEM STATEMENTThe central problem this research addresses is that the suggested method of Lean Design Thinking by Müller and Thoring has not yet evolved enough to be applied and thus tested in practice in the fields of entrepreneurship and design. Additionally, Müller and Thoring (2012) state that the method will have to be applied in a case study and that the current application of Lean Startup and Design Thinking need to be researched by means of structured interviews (Müller and Thoring, 2012, p. 161). However, we signal that the method cannot be applied yet in a case study, because it is very important to understand which skills are needed to apply this method.

1.4 kNOWLEDGE GAPThe knowledge gap we address with our research is that Lean Design Thinking does not yet clearly define which skills are needed when using the integrated process of this method to come to innovation through design. To contribute to evolving this method the individual skills in Lean Design Thinking for innovation through design were be determined by reviewing, comparing and integrating the skills of Design Thinking and Lean Startup. The assumption of this research is that the skills that will be derived from Design Thinking and Lean Startup have to be integrated in order to contribute to the process integration that has lead to the development of Lean Design Thinking. These integrated skills develop Lean Design Thinking as a new and independent method. This sophistication of Lean Design Thinking contributes to its application, and thus has the potential to be very valuable to come to innovation through design.

1.5 STRUCTURE OF THE REPORTThe goal of this document is to provide insight in the research process and results. After this introduction the research objectives, questions and the ways in which the research is operated are described in Chapter 2 ‘Research Design’. The results of the research and the answers to the specific research questions are described in Chapter 3 ‘Literature Review’. The general research question is answered in Chapter 4 ‘Conclusion and Discussion’. This chapter also includes the discussion, significance, reliability, validity, limitations and suggestions for further research. The appendices show the detailed results of the research process in the form of selection- and review tables. The terms and concepts used in this document are defined in the glossary.

2. RESEARCH DESIGN

Text

12

2.1 RESEARCH OBjECTIVE AND qUESTIONS The objective of the proposed research was to evolve Lean Design Thinking in terms of individual skills for innovation through design by comparing and integrating skills in Design Thinking and Lean Startup. Based on this objective the following general research question was formulated as the main focus of the research:

How can Lean Design Thinking be evolved in terms of skills for innovation through design by comparing and integrating skills in Design Thinking and Lean Startup?

To answer this general research question the following three specific research questions were formulated. The answers to these questions are described in chapter 3 of this report.1. What skills in Lean Startup lead to innovation through design?2. What skills in Design Thinking lead to innovation through design?3. What are the similarities and differences between identified skills for innovation through design in Design Thinking and Lean Startup?

2.2 ExPLANATORY FRAMEWORk The explanatory framework of this research as shown in figure 4 gives an overview of the relationships between the central concepts. The focus of the research consists of skills for innovation through design. Here it is assumed that skills for design are equal to skills for innovation through design, because design is per definition an innovation skill. Di Lucchio confirms this, as her article states that studies converge on describing design as one of the important factors in the generation of innovation (Di Lucchio, 2012, p. 361). The framework of design skills (Lawson, 2005) includes the skills in Design Thinking. The methods Design Thinking and Lean Startup are reviewed separately in terms of skills for innovation through design. The outcomes of both reviews are then compared and finally combined to come to an integrated set of individual skills for innovation through design for evolving the method of Lean Design Thinking.

Figure 4. Explanatory framework of this research

13

2.3 DATA COLLECTION In order to be able to answer the research question a systematic literature review was conducted. The documents for the review were derived from both scientific papers and grey literature, because not only the theories and methods on the topic are important to study, but also the documents from practice describing the application of the methods and related skills play an important role in the research. The bibliographic database that was used to search for scientific literature is Scopus, as this is largest database for peer-reviewed literature (Sciverse, 2012). For searching grey literature Google was used, as this the best performing and most efficient engine for Internet searches (Deka and Lahkar, 2010).

The search terms that were selected for retrieving the scientific- and grey literature for review are divided in the data sets Methods and Topic as shown in table 1 below. Figure 5 shows the combinations that were made between the search terms as described in this paragraph. The search terms of the data set Methods was part of every combination of search terms, because they are central in the research and including them will make sure the literature is relevant for the review. To collect the literature for review every search term of the data set Methods was ran separately. Each of the the search terms from the data set Topic (innovation through design, skills) were combined with each of the search terms of the data set Methods (Lean Design Thinking, Design Thinking, and Lean Startup). The search term ‘innovation through design’ was formulated to include the relationship between innovation and design, because when using the terms ‘innovation’ and ‘design’ separately the results would have been less specific and thus less relevant to the topic. The Boolean Operator ‘AND’ was used to combine the search terms.

DATA SETS SEARCH TERMSMethods - Lean Design Thinking

- Design Thinking- Lean Startup

Topic - Innovation through design- Skills

Table 1. Data sets and search terms

Figure 5. Combinations of search terms

14

The coverage of the literature review was purposive (Randolph, 2009, p. 4), as the time was limited. This means that only central literature on the topic and innovation strategies was reviewed (Randolph, 2009, p. 4). To select the most pivotal literature the list of results in Scopus was organized by means of the ‘number of citations’ button. In Google webpages were not included in the review to safeguard the reliability and validity of the research. To come to the results for screening a first selection was made in Scopus and Google by means of the following criteria:

Criteria for first selection- Published in English, between 2008 and the present- Scopus: articles from peer-reviewed journals only- Google: conference proceedings from 2012, non-scientific articles or monographs, pdf. files

After this first selection only the first 10 results for each combination of search terms from both Scopus and Google were to be screened in a second selection process. The articles had to answer two or more of the criteria, always including criteria C, positively to be selected for review. The criteria for the second selection of scientific- and grey literature were as follows:

Criteria for second selectionA. One or more search terms of the data set Methods (LDT/DT/LS) are included in the key words, abstract, or titleB. Sources related to the methods of investigation by R. Müller, K. Thoring, L. Di Lucchio, E. Ries, T. Brown and N. Cross are to be includedC. Topical relevance of literature to the research questions (e.g. skills in Lean Design Thinking, Lean Startup and Design Thinking for innovation through design)

2.4 DATA REVIEW To review the literature, screening and deduction were used as the main methods. The screening was put into practice by checking the text for the synonyms described below. Deduction means that the relevant information about skills was selected from the text by reasoning and drawing conclusions with the topic of investigations, the definition of ‘skills’ and the research questions in mind (Deming and Swaffield, 2011, p. 7). The framework described in Appendix I. was used as a reference for defining skills for innovation through design in Lean Design Thinking, Lean Startup and Design Thinking.

Review phases1. The synonyms as described below were scanned and marked in the paper under review 2. Implicit mentions of skills were deduced and marked in the paper under review3. The marked text on skills was checked to see if it’s relevant to Lean Design Thinking, Design Thinking or Lean Startup

The framework of the proposed research was formed by ‘skills for innovation through design’. Within this framework the search term ‘skills’ was used for reviewing the literature. In the book of Lawson there is no mention of a clear definition of ‘skills’, therefore the following definition for ‘skills for innovation through design’ was formulated through deduction: Skills are the principals, strategies and tactics required to identify and understand design problems and design solutions (Lawson, 2005, p. 130).

This definition of skills excludes activities (defined as ‘the conditions in which things are happening or being done’ (Stevenson, 2012) and attitudes (defined as ‘a settled way of thinking or feeling about someone or something, typically one that is reflected in a person’s behaviour’ (Stevenson, 2012) as you need skills to accomplish these two aspects.

15

Synonyms for skill and skilled- Ability- Abilities- Able- Competence- Competencies- Competent- Capability- Capabilities- Capable- Expertise- Expert

The six elements from the framework of Lawson (2005) are the basis for the review. These are explained in appendix I. The column ‘other’ was added to include the skills that do not fit the framework. Table 2 gives an overview of the recording scheme of the reviewed literature on skills for innovation through design within the framework of Lawson’s design skills (2005) from the selected literature on Lean Design Thinking, Design Thinking and Lean Startup.

2.5 DATA ANALYSIS To analyse the marked data the review files were transformed according to the following steps/versions:

Version 1. The marked text was copied as a full quote into the main categories of Lawson (see Appendices III and IV).Version 2. The quotes were divided into the sub categories of Lawson (see Appendices V and VI).Version 3. The review files of Marie v2 and Marijn v2 were merged together and the overlapping skills are combined and paraphrased (see Appendix VII).Version 4. The skills in Lean Startup and Design Thinking were merged to one overview of skills in Lean Design Thinking (see Appendix VIII).

The deduction processes that lead to the described categorizing, combining and paraphrasing in the three versions is structured as follows:

1. We made our own review files while working separately2. We checked the review file of the other while working separately3. We discussed the changes together for both review files4. We discussed the points we could not compromise on with the supervisors

The process as described in this research design was followed and recorded with precision and consistency. The next chapter describes the outcomes of the process and the answers to the three specific research questions.

Table 2. Recording scheme of the reviewed literature

DESIGN SkILLS FRAMEWORk (LAWSON, 2005)

Formulating Representing Moving Bringing p&s together

Evaluating Reflecting Other

Design Thinking

Lean Startup

3. LITERATURE REVIEW

Text

17

3.1 SELECTION OF THE LITERATURE FOR REVIEW To come to the selection of literature for reviewing we followed the process described in chapter 2.3 of this report. The detailed recordings of this process can be viewed in appendix II. In the literature selection tables (appendix II) all the results are described per combination of search terms and rated (+ or -) according to their relevance to the inclusion criteria. This paragraph describes the outcomes from the selection process and some important findings concerning the selected articles.

The articles we derived from the selection process all rated two or more of the inclusion criteria, always including criteria C. The selected articles are shown in table 3 on the next page. The selected literature consists of seventeen articles and one monograph. Of the articles thirteen were mainly focused on Design Thinking, two on both Design Thinking and Lean Startup and one article and one monograph only on Lean Startup. Because we found so much more articles on Design Thinking and less on Lean Startup there are more Design Thinking skills reviewed in this research. This could lead to a less reliable outcome of this research through a disproportional balance between skills in both methods. This limitation could be addressed by conducting a more extensive research as described more fully in chapter 4.6 of this report.

A second limitation we met was that no definitions of ‘skills’ were given in the papers under research. Thus we cannot be sure that the authors of these papers used the term ‘skills’ or its synonyms the same way as they are defined in this report. This is a problem that cannot be solved, unless you anticipate on this in an extensive research by adding selection criteria on the need for papers to give the definitions of ‘skills’.

To make the required separate evaluation of this research possible, we divided the literature and conducted separate reviews (tables 4 and 5). The first two versions of the review files (see appendices III-VI) were made separately and were then switched for a check by the other researcher. The changes were marked and discussed, and if we could not come to a compromise we consulted the supervisors. We divided the literature by means of personal interest, so Marie reviewed more literature on Lean Startup and Marijn more on Design Thinking. To come to a full understanding of both methods we also both reviewed some literature on the other method. The division of the material was determined by means of the amount of pages. The review of the monograph by Eric Ries was split in two: Marijn reviewed chapters 1-7 and Marie chapters 8-14 of the book.

18

SELECTED LITERATURE FOR REVIEW

Title Author(s) Year published IC-A IC-B IC-C Source Method

3a Design Thinking Brown, T. 2008 + + + Scopus DT

3e Design thinking for social innovation: IDEO Brown, T., Wyatt, J. 2010 + + + Google DT

4a Design thinking vs. lean statup: a comparison of two user-driven innovation strategies

Muller, R.M.,Thoring, K.

2012 + + + Google LS/DT

4b Business model innovation and design thinking: a case study of deloitte digital

Gilbert, D.H., et al. 2012 + - + Google DT

4c Establishing design thinking as a third culture in learning and creative environments

Lee, C.H. 2012 + - + Google DT

4d Developing design thinking skills in entrepreneurship educa-tion

Zupan, B., Nabergoj, A.S.

2012 + - + Google DT

4f An exploratory study on the evolution of design thinking: comparison of Apple and Samsung

Chang, Y., Joo, J., Kim, J.


4h Looking at design thinking interventions as artistic interven-tions

Johansson, U., Woodilla, J.


4i Questioning the accessibility of design thinking: how can individual faculty members foster creative capacity in busi-ness students?

Zidulka, A.,Glover, S.


4j Impact of including design thinking competencies in manag-ment education, an experimental study

Agarwal, A.,Salunkhe, U.


4o A designerly approach to enable organisations to deliver product-service systems

De Lille, C., Roscam, E., et al.


4r Skip the silver bullet: driving innovation through small bets and diverse practices

Grossman-Kahn, B., Rosensweig, R.

2012 + - + Google LS/DT

4u Design managment as leading resource to assist entrepre-neurs in the development ...

Di Lucchio, L. 2012 - + + Google LS/DT

10a Innovation through design Moggridge, B. 2008 + - + Google DT

11f Briefing and reframing: A situated practice Paton, B., Dorst, K. 2011 + - + Scopus DT12d What Is Design Thinking and Why Is It Important? Razzouk, R., Shute, V. 2012 + - + Scopus DT

14a The Lean Startup: How Today’s Entrepreneurs Use Continu-ous Innovation to Create Radically Successful Businesses

Ries, E.(monograph)

2011 + + + Google LS

15b Enabling Enterprise Kanban Transformation through Lean Startup Techniques

Anderson, J. 2012 + - + Google LS

Table 3. Selected articles for review (version 1). Note: The numbers in the first column connect to the tables in the appendices

19



4a Design thinking vs. lean statup: a comparison of two user-driven innovation strategies


2012 + + + Google LS/DT






4i Questioning the accessibility of design thinking: how can individual faculty members foster creative capacity in busi-ness students?









4u Design managment as leading resource to assist entrepre-neurs in the development ...

Di Lucchio, L. 2012 - + + Google LS/DT


Ries, E.(monograph)




Table 4. Literature reviewed by Marie. Note: The numbers in the first column connect to the tables in the appendices

20










4h Looking at design thinking interventions as artistic interven-tions






10a Innovation through design Moggridge, B. 2008 + - + Google DT



Ries, E.(monograph)


Table 5. Literature reviewed by Marijn. Note: The numbers in the first column connect to the tables in the appendices

Of the selected literature several papers proved irrelevant to the inclusion criteria after reviewing them. These irrelevancies were not very evident, and were thus not picked up during the selection process itself. Article 4a by Muller and Thoring seemed very relevant at first as it is about the integration of Design Thinking and Lean Startup. However, it does not say anything about skills in both methods. Article 4h by Johansson and Woodilla proved to be focussing on the artistic process in Design Thinking and not on skills at all. Article 4i by Zidulka and Glover is about the accessibility of Design Thinking for business education, but it does not elaborate on skills. Article 4u by Di Lucchio has been a valuable source for framing this research, but it focuses on Design Management and only mentions Design Thinking as a method. Article 10a by Moggridge forms a context for this research, but it is not relevant as it focuses on design and not the methods under investigation.

The irrelevant articles described above were taken out of the further review process. This results in the final list of selected literature (table 6). The following paragraphs of this chapter describe the review of skills for innovation through design in Design Thinking and Lean Startup to come to the final combination of skills that elaborates the method of Lean Design Thinking.

21


























Ries, E.(monograph)




Table 6. Selected articles for review (version 2). Note: The numbers in the first column connect to the tables in the appendices

22

3.2 REVIEW OF SkILLS IN LEAN STARTUP FOR INNOVATION THROUGH DESIGNIn this paragraph the review of skills in Lean Startup is described and linked to the framework of Lawson on skills for innovation through design (appendix I). Thus we answer the first specific research question ‘What skills in Lean Startup lead to innovation through design?’ In order to do this we list the skills (appendix VII) in relation to the Design Skills framework of Lawson (appendix I) and then we discuss certain aspects of the list. These aspects are as follows:

- Reflection on similar skills by different authors (related to their backgrounds and fields)- Reflection on other skills (skills outside the framework)- Reflection on the framework of Lawson (empty categories and use of the framework)- Reflection on the process (reviewing, categorizing and paraphrasing)

List of skills in Lean Startup for innovation through designThe following list of skills in Lean Startup for innovation through design forms the answer to the first specific research question. The list is structured according to the main- and subcategories of the framework of Lawson. The skills are shown in italics within the framework, unless no skills were found in a certain subcategory.

FormulatingUnderstanding design problems: - Leaping (Ries, 2011, p. 92)Identifying: - Describing assumptions (Anderson, 2012, p. 6)Framing: - Lean working (Ries, 2011, p. 111)

RepresentingRepresent design situations: - No skills foundConversing with representations: - No skills found

MovingCreating solutions ideas: - Exploring solutions (Ries, 2011, p. 36; Gilbert, et al. (DMI), 2012, p. 398)Primary generators: - Predicting (Ries, 2011, p. 259)Interpretive and developmental moves: - Experimenting (Ries, 2011, p. 92, 245, 250) - Persevering (Ries, 2011, pp. 113, 147-172)

Bringing problem and solution togetherNo clear order of appearance: - No skills foundProblem and solution are inseparable: - No skills foundParallel lines of thought: - Paradoxical thinking (Smith and Tushman, 2005, in Gilbert, et al. (DMI), 2012, p. 401)Briefing is a continuous process: - No skills found

EvaluatingObjective and subjective evaluations: - Creating customer value (Ries, 2011, p. 253) - Validated learning (Ries, 2011, p. 47, 140, 156, 268, 270)Suspending judgement: - No skills found

ReflectingReflection in action: - No skills foundReflection on action: - Innovation accounting (Ries, 2011, p. 147)

23

List of other skills in Lean StartupThe following skills are skills in Lean Startup that do not fit in the framework of Lawson and thus are not skills for innovation through design. We list them here to get a full understanding of the skills in Lean Startup, though these skills are not part of the answer to the research questions.

- Opportunity identification (DeTienne & Chandler, 2004, in Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 532)- Human resources management and marketing (Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 532)- Lean managing (Optimization, delegation, control, and execution) (Ries, 2011, p. 255)

Reflection on certain aspects of the listIn the review of the papers some skills for innovation through design had an overlap with several other authors. These authors mention the same skill but have different backgrounds and fields of expertise from which they look at Lean Startup. Thus we can conclude that these skills are pivotal to the method of Lean Startup. These skills are as follows:

- Exploring solutions (categorized in moving, creating solutions ideas) (Ries, 2011, p. 36; Gilbert, et al. (DMI), 2012, p. 398) - Experimenting (categorized in moving, interpretive and developmental moves) (Ries, 2011, p. 92, 245, 250; Anderson, 2012, p. 11; Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 536)

The skill ‘Exploring Solutions’ is described or mentioned by two different papers. The backgrounds of the authors are very similar: Ries originates from entrepreneurship and Gilbert comes from the field of business and technology. The skill ‘Experimenting’ is described or mentioned by three different papers. The backgrounds of the authors are quite similar: Ries as entrepreneur, Anderson business (Deloitte) and Zupan and Nabergoj from economics.

The skills in lean Startup that do not fit the framework of Lawson (Appendix I.) are quite interesting. The skills opportunity identification, lean managing, human resources management and marketing are all entrepreneurial skills that are needed to come to innovation. These skills are not necessarily design skills, but they would contribute to design as this field also benefits from entrepreneurial aspects. For example, for design collaboration of talented people is very important, for which human resources management

is needed. And for generating idea for solutions the skill opportunity identification could be useful. A final example is the marketing skills needed in design to sell your ideas to clients. Thus these skills are entrepreneurial, but they are very important for the field of design.

This literature study is built on skills for innovation through design. We constructed our framework based on the design framework of Lawson, which is built on research in the field of design. Therefore entrepreneurial aspects that are important for Lean Startup, like management skills, are not included in the framework.

To get an overview of Lean Startup skills many papers from Lean Startup literature were identified and then reviewing them collected the skills. After this search process the collected Lean Startup skills where implemented into the main- and subcategories from the framework of Lawson. The table in appendix VII lists the skills that were found through this search-collection-implementation effort. However, in several main- and subcategories no skills were found. The main categories ‘representing’ and ‘bringing problem and solution together’ were left empty almost completely. Only in the latter one out of four subcategories was filled. In the main categories ‘evaluating’ and ‘reflecting’ only one subcategory of each was filled with appropriate skills.

By reflecting on these empty categories we came up with the following conclusions. Firstly there are not many skills found to fit in the categories of representing and bringing problem and solution together. This can be explained by the fact that representing and bringing problem and solution together are typical design skills and therefore not described in Lean Startup. The lack of skills for the categories evaluation and reflection are in our viewpoint caused by the amount of literature that we reviewed in the time available. Evaluation and reflection are two important aspects in Lean Startup, because the whole concept of ‘lean’ is built on efficiency by constant evaluation and reflection of the process. Therefore the process cannot do without suspending judgment and reflection in action.

The process of reviewing, categorizing and paraphrasing went quite well. For the review we followed the steps of working separately, checking the other’s work, and discussing the differences. In the review of skills in Lean Startup we encountered two quotes we could not agree on. These were the only moments we had to ask the supervisors about the inclusion of a quote. The first case was in the review file of Marijn (appendix IV) about the quote ‘Startups are full of activities associated with building an institution: hiring creative employees, coordinating their activities and creating a company

24

culture that delivers results’ (Ries, 2011, p. 38). We discussed whether this was an activity or a skill and we could not figure it out. The reaction of Valentina was to exclude this quote, because she thought it is about activities and not about skills. The second case was in the review file of Marie (appendix III) about the quote ‘Systematic recording of customer feedback’ (Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 537-538). We could not agree as Marijn thought it should be categorized in ‘Evaluating’ and Marie thought is belonged with ‘Representing’. The reaction of Marlies was that the quote is about the difference between inventory and analysis. It focuses on gathering data for describing problems. Thus it should be in the main category ‘Formulating’. This we changed in the review file according to her advice.

The skills in Lean Startup from this paragraph and the skills in Design Thinking from the next paragraph together form the input for the final paragraph of this chapter in which the similarities and differences between the skills in Design Thinking and Lean Startup are analysed and described.

3.3 REVIEW OF SkILLS IN DESIGN THINkING FOR INNOVATION THROUGH DESIGNIn this paragraph the review of skills in Design Thinking is described and linked to the framework of Lawson on skills for innovation through design (appendix I). Thus we answer the second specific research question ‘What skills in Design Thinking lead to innovation through design?’ In order to do this we list the skills (appendix VII) in relation to the Design Skills framework of Lawson (appendix I) and then we discuss certain aspects of the lists. These aspects are as follows:

- Reflection on similar skills by different authors (related to their backgrounds and fields)- Reflection on other skills (skills outside the framework)- Reflection on the framework of Lawson (empty categories and use of the framework)- Reflection on the process (reviewing, categorizing and paraphrasing)

25

List of skills in Design Thinking for innovation through designThe following list of skills in Design Thinking for innovation through design forms the answer to the second specific research question. The list is structured according to the main- and subcategories of the framework of Lawson. The skills are shown in italics within the framework, unless no skills were found in a certain subcategory.

FormulatingUnderstanding design problems: - Observing (Brown, 2008, p. 87; Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 537-538) - Discovering what people’s needs are (Brown and Wyatt, 2010, p. 30) - Asking the right questions (Simon, 1969, in Chang, Joo, and Kim, 2012, p. 648; Brown, 2008, p. 87)Identifying: - Constructing a brief (Brown and Wyatt, 2010, p. 30) - Reframing problems in new and interesting ways (Paton and Dorst, 2011, p. 573) - Introduction of restrictions on generating ideas (Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 537-538) -Clearidentificationofthevariablesthatwewishtocheckwiththe user (Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 537-538) - Abstracting frames (Paton and Dorst, 2011, p. 582-585)Framing: - No skills found

RepresentingRepresent design situations: - Using language as a tool (Razzouk and Shute, 2012, p. 336; Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 537-538) - Presenting ideas to potential investors (Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 537-538) Conversing with representations: - Visualizing (i.e., depiction of ideas) (Razzouk and Shute, 2012, p. 336)

MovingCreating solutions ideas: - Generating new ideas (Boland and Collopy, 2004, in De Lille, Roscam, et al., 2012, p. 467; Brown, 2008, p. 87; Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 533-538; Razzouk and Shute, 2012, p. 336)

- Imaginating, looking for opportunities, promoting active thinking, integrating (Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 537-538)Primary generators: - Imagine solutions (Brown, 2008, p. 87)Interpretive and developmental moves: - Designing aesthetics (Razzouk and Shute, 2012, p. 342) - Choosing the right answers (Simon, 1969, in Chang, Joo, and Kim, 2012, p. 648) - Persevering (Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 537-538) - Making concrete (Evans, 2011, in De Lille, Roscam, et al., 2012, p. 467-468) - Experimenting (Gilbert, et al. (DMI), 2012, p.398; Razzouk and Shute, 2012, p. 342)

Bringing problem and solution together-No clear order of appearance: - Iterating problem and solution (Rowe, 1987, in Chang, Joo, and Kim, 2012, p. 648) Problem and solution are inseparable: - Integrative thinking (Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 533- 534; Brown, 2008, p. 87)Parallel lines of thought: - No skills foundBriefing is a continuous process - Reframe the brief (Paton and Dorst, 2011, p. 583; Brown and Wyatt, 2010, p. 30) EvaluatingObjective and subjective evaluations: - Iterating (Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 537-538) - Test models, generate feedback, modify model/redesign, re- evaluate model, to take decisions (Razzouk and Shute, 2012, p. 342) - Divergent thinking (Brown and Wyatt, 2010, p. 31)Suspending judgement: - No skills found

ReflectingReflection in action: - Adaptive working (De Lille, Roscam, et al., 2012, p. 467)Reflection on action: - Having a holistic view (Razzouk and Shute, 2012, p. 336; Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 537-538)

26

List of other skills in Design ThinkingThe following skills are skills in Design Thinking that do not fit in the framework of Lawson and thus are not skills for innovation through design. We list them here to get a full understanding of the skills in Design Thinking, though these skills are not part of the answer to the research questions.

- Being empathic (Brown, 2008, p. 87; De Lille, Roscam, et al., 2012, p. 467; Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 536-538)- Collaborating (Brown, 2008, p. 87; Razzouk and Shute, 2012, p. 336; Lee, 2012, p. 510; Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 537-538)- Use technology, disciplined working, being focused, aggregating data, analysing (Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 537-538)

Reflection on certain aspects of these listsSeveral skills from the list of skills for innovation through design are mentioned by more than one author. Most of these authors have different backgrounds and fields of expertise from which they approach Design Thinking. We could conclude from the double mention of a skill by several authors and fields, that these skills are pivotal to the method of Design Thinking. These skills are as follows:

- Observing (categorized in formulating, understanding design problems) (Brown, 2008, p. 87; Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 537-538)- Using language as a tool (categorized in representing, represent design situations) (Razzouk and Shute, 2012, p. 336; Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 537-538)- Generating new ideas (categorized in moving, creating solutions ideas) (Boland and Collopy, 2004, in De Lille, Roscam, et al., 2012, p. 467; Brown, 2008, p. 87; Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 533-538; Razzouk and Shute, 2012, p. 336)- Integrative thinking (categorized in bringing problem and solution together, problem and solution are inseparable) (Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 533-534; Brown, 2008, p. 87)- Reframe the brief (categorized in bringing problem and solution together, briefing is a continuous process) (Paton and Dorst, 2011, p. 583; Brown and Wyatt, 2010, p. 30)- Having a holistic view (categorized in reflecting, reflection on action) (Razzouk and Shute, 2012, p. 336; Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 537-538)

For example the skill ‘Generating new ideas’ is described or mentioned by four different papers. The backgrounds of the authors are very diverse, as De Lille and Roscam come from the field of industrial design engineering, Brown from innovation and design, Zupan and Nabergoj from economics and Razzouk and Shute from educational research.

The skills that do not fit the framework of Lawson (Appendix I.) are quite interesting as they are skills in Design Thinking but they are not Design Skills. Some of these skills are very general, but ‘being empathic’, ‘persevering’ and collaborating’ can be seen as major skills that are crucial in Design Thinking. This because without empathy for the stakeholders, you cannot design for their needs and thus your design is irrelevant. Or without collaboration skills in a team a designer cannot hope to achieve the same level of work for a project. This brings us to the next point, reflecting on the framework of Lawson. This lack of social skills (empathy, communication, collaboration) in the framework is pivotal to the reliability of the framework. As the work of Lawson dates back to the eighties it could be argued that social skills were not very commonly propagated at that time. However, Lawson has updated his work over and over and the latest version was published in 2005. By now he should have incorporated the social skills in his method, as it is now common knowledge that these skills are highly relevant to design.

Three sub-categories are not filled in with any skills from the review. These subcategories are framing, parallel lines of thought, and suspending judgement. As these are categories from the Design Skills framework, this is quite remarkable. We think the limited amount of articles that was reviewed in this research is the cause of this irregularity. Conducting a more extensive research on all the literature on Design Thinking could solve this limitation.

The process of reviewing, categorizing and paraphrasing went quite well. For the review of the skills in Design Thinking we followed the steps of working separately, checking the other’s work, and discussing the differences. During the Design Thinking review we did not encounter any disagreements about quotes, so there was no need do step four and consult the supervisors.

The skills in Design Thinking from this paragraph and the skills in Lean Startup from the previous paragraph together form the input for the next paragraph in which the similarities and differences between the skills in Design Thinking and Lean Startup are analysed and described.

27

3.4 COMPARISON OF SkILLS IN DESIGN THINkING AND LEAN STARTUP In this paragraph the skills in Design Thinking and Lean Startup are compared. By doing this we answer the third specific research question ‘What are the similarities and differences between identified skills for innovation through design in Design Thinking and Lean Startup?’ In order to do this we make sets of similar skills and then explain the similarities by comparing the terms and content per set. The result consists of an analysis of skill sets that are similar and a list of skills that are not similar as shown in table 7.

Analysis of similar skills in Lean Startup and Design ThinkingWe found several skill sets that incorporate similar skills from both Lean Startup and Design Thinking. These are leaping, observing, generating new ideas, experimenting, persevering, and validated learning as shown in the following shortlist. The analysis of these similarities in terms and content are then described in detail per skill set.

- Leaping (Ries, 2011, p. 92; Brown and Wyatt, 2010, p. 30) (categorized in formulating, understanding design problems)- Observing (Brown, 2008, p. 87; Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 537-538; Williams, in Gilbert, et al. (DMI), 2012, p. 400) (categorized in formulating, understanding design problems)- Generating new ideas (Boland and Collopy, 2004, in De Lille, Roscam, et al., 2012, p. 467; Brown, 2008, p. 87; Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 533-538; Ries, 2011, p. 36) (categorized in moving, creating solutions ideas)- Persevering (Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 537-538; Ries, 2011, pp. 113, 147) (categorized in moving, interpretive and developmental moves)- Validated learning (Ries, 2011, pp. 47, 140, 156, 268, 270; Razzouk and Shute, 2012, p. 342) (categorized in evaluation, objective and subjective evaluations)

LeapingThe skill ‘leaping’ (categorized in formulating, understanding design problems) is mentioned by two papers. Below is shown a small table in which the terms and contents per author/paper can be compared. The following paragraphs analyze the terminology and contents per paper in relation to the other papers about the skill ‘leaping’. Author Term Content Brown and Wyatt exploration of embedding the world customer needs of the customerRies leaping ‘go and see for yourself’

Ries has his background in entrepreneurship and his monograph is about Lean Startup. He talks about leaping as an action to go outside and talk with the potential customer in the beginning of the process. This helps the process on ‘constructing customer archetypes by understanding the different problems that certain customers face to find the target customer’ (Ries, 2011, p. 92).

Brown is one of the CEO’s of IDEO, specialized in the field of Design Thinking. Wyatt is the Co-Lead and Executive Director of IDEO. They write about the importance of discovering the needs of customers. Going outside and observe the actual experience, so that the designers become embedded in the lives of the people that they want to help. (Brown and Wyatt, 2010, p. 30)

Both authors discuss the importance of the process for customer development: focusing on users and customers in the beginning of the process. Therefore they mean the same when they talk about leaping or exploration of customer needs. The difference compared to Ries lies in the fact that Brown and Wyatt go even further by saying that the designer needs to become embedded with the world of the user/customer.

28

Table 7. Similarities and differences (page 1/2). Note: The text marked green indicates the similarities and the black text indicates the differences

SkILLS IN LEAN DESIGN THINkING (1-4) Formulating Representing Moving Bringing p&s togetherUnderstanding design problems

- Discovering what people’s needs are (Brown and Wyatt, 2010, p. 30) (DT)

- Asking the right questions (Simon, 1969, in Chang, Joo, and Kim, 2012, p. 648; Brown, 2008, p. 87) (DT)

- Leaping (Ries, 2011, p. 92; Brown and Wyatt, 2010, p. 30) (LS+DT)

- Observing (Brown, 2008, p. 87; Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 537-538; Wil-liams, in Gilbert, et al. (DMI), 2012, p. 400) (LS+DT)

Identifying

- Constructing a brief (Brown and Wyatt, 2010, p. 30) (DT)

- Reframing problems in new and interesting ways (Paton and Dorst, 2011, p. 573)(DT)

- Introduction of restrictions on generating ideas (Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 537-538) (DT)

- Clear identification of the variables that we wish to check with the user (Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 537-538) (DT)

- Abstracting frames (Paton and Dorst, 2011, p. 582-585) (DT)

- Describing assumptions (Anderson, 2012, p. 6) (LS)

Framing

- Lean working (Ries, 2011, p. 111) (LS)

Represent design situations

- Using language as a tool (Razzouk and Shute, 2012, p. 336; Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 537-538) (DT)

- Presenting ideas to potential investors (Zu-pan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 537-538) (DT)

Conversing with representations

- Visualizing (i.e., depiction of ideas) (Raz-zouk and Shute, 2012, p. 336) (DT)

Creating solutions ideas

- Imaginating, looking for opportunities, promoting active thinking, integrating (Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 537-538) (DT)

- Generating new ideas (Boland and Collopy, 2004, in De Lille, Roscam, et al., 2012, p. 467; Brown, 2008, p. 87; Zupan and Naber-goj (DMI), 2012, p. 533-538; Ries, 2011, p. 36) (LS+DT)

Primary generators

- Predicting (Ries, 2011, p. 259) (LS)

Interpretive and developmental moves

- Designing aesthetics (Razzouk and Shute, 2012, p. 342) (DT)

- Choosing the right answers (Simon, 1969, in Chang, Joo, and Kim, 2012, p. 648) (DT)

- Making concrete (Evans, 2011, in De Lille, Roscam, et al., 2012, p. 467-468) (DT)

- Experimenting (Razzouk and Shute, 2012, p. 342; Ries, 2011, p. 92, 245, 250; Ander-son, 2012, p. 11; Brown, 2008, p. 87; Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 536) (LS+DT)

- Persevering (Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 537-538; Ries, 2011, pp. 113, 147) (LS+DT)

No clear order of appearance

- Iterating problem and solution (Rowe, 1987, in Chang, Joo, and Kim, 2012, p. 648) (DT)

Problem and solution are inseparable

- Integrative thinking (Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 533-534; Brown, 2008, p. 87) (DT)

Parallel lines of thought

- Paradoxical thinking (Smith and Tushman, 2005, in Gilbert, et al. (DMI), 2012, p. 401) (LS)

Briefing is a continuous process - Reframe the brief (Paton and Dorst, 2011, p. 583; Brown and Wyatt, 2010, p. 30) (DT)

29

Table 7. Similarities and differences (page 2/2). Note: The text marked green indicates the similarities and the black text indicates the differences

SkILLS IN LEAN DESIGN THINkING (5-7)

Evaluating Reflecting OtherObjective and subjective evaluations

- Iterating (Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 537-538) (DT)

- Divergent thinking (Brown and Wyatt, 2010, p. 31) (DT)

- Creating customer value (Ries, 2011, p. 253) (LS)

- Validated learning (Ries, 2011, pp. 47, 140, 156, 268, 270; Razzouk and Shute, 2012, p. 342) (LS+DT)

Suspending judgement - No skills found

Reflection in action

- Adaptive working (De Lille, Roscam, et al., 2012, p. 467) (DT)

Reflection on action

- Having a holistic view (Razzouk and Shute, 2012, p. 336; Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 537-538) (DT)

- Innovation accounting (Ries, 2011, p. 147) (LS)

-Being empathic (Brown, 2008, p. 87; De Lille, Roscam, et al., 2012, p. 467; Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 536-538) (DT)

-Collaborating (Brown, 2008, p. 87; Razzouk and Shute, 2012, p. 336; Lee, 2012, p. 510; Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 537-538) (DT)

-Use technology, disciplined working, being focused, aggre-gating data, analysing (Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 537-538) (DT)

-Opportunity identification (DeTienne & Chandler, 2004, in Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 532) (LS)

-Human resources management and marketing (Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 532) (LS)

-Lean managing (Optimization, delegation, control, and ex-ecution) (Ries, 2011, p. 255) (LS)

30

ObservingThe skill ‘observing’ (categorized in formulating, understanding design problems) is mentioned by three papers. Below is shown a small table in which the terms and contents per author/paper can be compared. The following paragraphs analyze the terminology and contents per paper in relation to the other papers about the skill ‘observing’.

Author Term Content Brown observe the world in minute detail Zupan and Nabergoj observation none givenGilbert, et al. observation of constraints for innovation

Brown originates from innovation and design as the CEO of IDEO and his paper is focused on Design Thinking. He writes that ‘great design thinkers observe the world in minute detail’ (Brown, 2008, p. 87). He thus explains what Design Thinkers observe (the world) and how they do this (in minute detail). Brown does not specify whether he suggests a visual- or multi-sensuous observation or a certain level of objectivity. However, it is a valuable notion that a detailed understanding of a situation is needed as a starting point for an innovation through design.

Zupan and Nabergoj come from the field of economics and their paper is focused on Design Thinking. They mention the skill ‘observation’, but do not elaborate or explain anything about its use for Design Thinking (Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 537-538).

Gilbert, et al. originate from a background of business and technology and their paper is focused on Lean Startup. They write that ‘Williams drew upon Tim Brown’s approach emphasizing insight, observation and empathy in balancing the dominant constraints of product/service innovation – feasibility, viability and desirability’ (Williams, in Gilbert, et al. (DMI), 2012, p. 400). This links to the quote of Brown described above and elaborates on that by connecting observation to insight and empathy. Williams in Gilbert et al. also puts the notion of observation in the context of Lean Startup and gives it a specific goal: balancing feasibility, viability and desirability. This way a skill from Design Thinking is incorporated in the method of Lean Startup directly.

The notion of Gilbert et al. connects to the necessity described by Brown to use observation (and insight and empathy) to understand the constraints of an innovation. However, Brown is less specific then Gilbert, et al. about the

application of observation. All three authors use approximately the same terminology and refer to the same content, though some are more specific and others more general in their explanation.

Generating new ideasThe skill ‘generating new ideas’ (categorized in moving, creating solutions ideas) is mentioned by four papers. Three of which are focused on Design Thinking and one on Lean Startup. Below is shown a small table in which the terms and contents per author/paper can be compared. The following paragraphs analyze the terminology and contents per paper in relation to the other papers about the skill ‘generating new ideas’.

Author Term Content De Lille, et al. create creating new possibilitiesBrown imagine imagining solutions Zupan and Nabergoj generate generating new ideas Ries seek seeking out innovative solutions De Lille and Roscam have a background in educational research for industrial design engineering. They write that Design Thinkers, besides selecting, have the skills to create an alternative (Boland and Collopy, 2004, in De Lille, Roscam, et al., 2012, p. 467). This statement is the only viewpoint that relates Design Thinking to the ability to act by creating compared to the other papers. The other authors talk about generating new ideas by the power of the mind.

Brown is specialized in the field of Design Thinking and one of the CEOs of IDEO. In his article Brown writes about the idea that Design Thinkers have the skills to imagine solutions for things that are needed or desirable (Brown, 2008, p. 87). He is in that way more specific about what types of imagination Design Thinkers need to be skilled in generating solutions.Zupan and Nabergoj have their background in economics with an interest in Design Thinking. In their article they write that Design Thinkers need to be ‘creative and curious and have a broad understanding to come to new solutions’ (Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 533-538). Compared to the other terms and contents Zupand and Nabergoj write about the skills that are needed to imagine new ideas.

Ries has a background as an entrepreneur specialized in the field of Lean Startup. In his book he talks about seeking innovative solutions by startup founders that have prepared themselves to take that risk and have good

31

overview on future of their industry (Ries, 2011, p. 36). In that way generating new innovative solutions has to do with the right preparation and implementation to succeed. His book emphasizes more on seeking and selecting new solutions in relation to the other authors.

The papers described above generate new ideas and have developed different strategies for them. This reveals potential for learning from each other. By summarizing creating, imagining, generating and seeking four ways of exploring new ideas are stated, that can help to identify potentials by merging or adapting specific parts or aspects. In that way a more holistic view can be conceived on the term ‘generating new ideas’.

ExperimentingThe skill ‘experimenting’ (categorized in moving, interpretive and developmental moves) is mentioned by five different authors of both Design Thinking and Lean Startup oriented papers. Below is shown a small table in which the terms and contents per author/paper can be compared. The following paragraphs analyze the terminology and contents per paper in relation to the other papers about the skill ‘experimenting’.

Author Term Content Razzouk and Shute experiment with systems, holistic/ integrated/symbioticRies experiment(s) specified to conceiving and executing, agileGilbert, et al. experimental in a context of exploration capabilitiesBrown experimentalism as a creative activity to come to new ideasZupan and Nabergoj experimenting by means of ideation and observation

Razzouk and Shute come from the field of educational research and their paper is focused on Design Thinking. They write about ‘experiment with a system’ (Razzouk and Shute, 2012, p. 342). The term and it’s content are not explained any further. However, it is possible to explain his referral to ‘system’ as a set of connected things working together as parts of a mechanism or an interconnecting network forming a complex whole (Stevenson, 2012). Thus we can say that the type of experimenting Razzouk and Shute describe in their paper is more focused on holistic integration and symbiosis compared to the other papers.

Ries has his background in entrepreneurship and his monograph is about Lean Startup. He writes about conceiving and executing experiments (Ries, 2011, p. 245) and the ‘ability to experiment in a more agile manner’ (Ries, 2011, p. 250). He seems more specific than the other authors, as he specifies experimenting as ‘conceiving and executing experiments’. In the first original quote Ries states that Startup founders ‘have to be able to conceive and execute experiments without having to gain an excessive number of approvals’ (Ries, 2011, p. 245). From this we can surmise that a certain level of freedom of decision or independence is needed to experiment in a startup. In the second original quote Ries presses the need for ‘the ability to experiment in a more agile manner’ (Ries, 2011, p. 250). Thus he connects a need for agility to experimentation

Gilbert, et al. originate from a background of business and technology and their paper is focused on Lean Startup. They write about experimenting in a context of being one of their mentioned exploration capabilities (Gilbert, et al. (DMI), 2012, p. 398). The term the paper uses is ‘experimental’ and the context is the ‘exploration capabilities’, both of which are not explained in the text. Thus it is hard to relate this paper to the other papers about experimenting, though the terminology is the same.

Brown originates from innovation and design as the CEO of IDEO and his paper is focused on Design Thinking. He writes about experimentalism, of which he says that ‘Design Thinkers pose questions and explore constraints in creative ways that proceed in entirely new directions’ (Brown, 2008, p. 87). In relation to the other authors he alone mentions experimenting as a creative activity that leads to new ideas.

All five authors use approximately the same terminology and refer to similar content, though some are more specific and others more general in their explanation. Zupan and Nabergoj come from the field of economics and their paper is focused on Design Thinking. They write about ‘experimenting, both by seeking new ideas and applying observational techniques’ (Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 536). They do not explain the term experimenting in itself, but they do offer two specific ways in which to experiment compared to the other papers. Razzouk and Shute and Gilbert, et al. discuss quite specific contexts from Design Thinking and Lean Startup in which experimenting is used as a skill. Ries and Zupan and Nabergoj describe certain phases of or means within experimenting. Brown is somewhat different from the rest, though his terms and content are similar, because he is the only author that poses experimenting as a creative activity to come to new ideas

32

PerseveringThe skill ‘persevering’ (categorized in moving, interpretive and developmental moves) is mentioned by two papers. Below is shown a small table in which the terms and contents per author/paper can be compared. The following paragraphs analyze the terminology and contents per paper in relation to the other papers about the skill ‘persevering’.

Author Term Content Zupan and Nabergoj perseverance none givenRies persevere(ance) necessary skill and moment of decision

Zupan and Nabergoj come from the field of economics and their paper is focused on Design Thinking. They mention the skill ‘perseverance’, but do not elaborate or explain anything about its use for Design Thinking (Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 537-538).

Ries has his background in entrepreneurship and his monograph is about Lean Startup. He writes about the ‘unique combination of perseverance and flexibility’ possessed by entrepreneurs (Ries, 2011, p. 113). He also states that ‘every entrepreneur eventually faces an overriding challenge in developing a successful product: deciding when to pivot and when to persevere (Ries, 2011, p. 147). Thus persevering can be considered a key skill for Lean Startup. Also it seems that the moment of deciding when to persevere is very important in the process of developing a startup. At some point all startups reach a point where perseverance (in combination with flexibility) leads to finalizing the effort, whether leading to success or failure.

As Zupan and Nabergoj do not elaborate on their mention of the skill ‘perseverance’, it is not possible here to discuss the use of the skill in Design Thinking. However, the skill is pivotal for the method of Lean Startup devised by Ries and he describes the skill more fully. The moment of decision to persevere is the start of finalizing the experiment and will thus occur in every startup endeavor.

Validated learning The skill ‘validated learning’ (categorized in evaluation, objective and subjective evaluations) is mentioned by two papers. Below is shown a small table in which the terms and contents per author/paper can be compared. The following paragraphs analyze the terminology and contents per paper in relation to the other papers about the skill ‘validated learning’.

Author Term Content Ries validated learning objectively evaluating what customers wantRazzouk and Shute none given mentions specific skills for evaluating models

Ries has his background in entrepreneurship and his monograph is about Lean Startup. He writes about the importance of validated learning for the method of Lean Startup as ‘its most vital function’ (Ries, 2011, p. 47). The elaborated that ‘validated learning is learning the truth about which elements of strategy are working to realize our vision and which are just crazy. We must learn what customers really want, not what they say they want or what we think they should want. We must discover whether we are on a path that will lead to growing a sustainable business’ (Ries, 2011, p. 47). In order to do this Ries explains that ‘the quality of the outcome must be measured objectively. Only by building a model of customer behaviour and then showing our ability to use our product or service to change it over time can we establish real facts about the validity of our vision’ (Ries, 2011, pp. 140, 156, 268, 270).

Razzouk and Shute come from the field of educational research and their paper is focused on Design Thinking. They write about similar skills that Design Thinkers use and that can be interpreted as skills within validated learning. These specified skills are: testing models, generating feedback, modifying model/redesign, re-evaluating models, and taking decisions (Razzouk and Shute, 2012, p. 342). Unfortunately Razzouk and Shute do not elaborate on the content of these skills and they do not really place them in any context.

Ries is very descriptive about validated learning as this is a key skill in Lean Startup. He explains the context, the goal, the means and some sub skills. Razzouk and Shute mention a set of similar skills that Design Thinkers use and that can be interpreted as skills within validated learning. As they do not explain these skills, they cannot be compared to validated learning, except that they seem to represent the evaluation and objective measurement described by Ries.

33

List of differing skills in Lean Startup and Design ThinkingMost skills we found through the review process are different in both terminology and content. Together they form the main body of skills in Lean Startup and Design Thinking. These skills are listed below per main- and subcategory of the framework of Lawson. The skills are shown in italics within the framework, unless no skills were found in a certain subcategory.

FormulatingUnderstanding design problems: - Discovering what people’s needs are (Brown and Wyatt, 2010, p. 30) (DT) - Asking the right questions (Simon, 1969, in Chang, Joo, and Kim, 2012, p. 648; Brown, 2008, p. 87) (DT)Identifying: - Constructing a brief (Brown and Wyatt, 2010, p. 30) (DT) - Reframing problems in new and interesting ways (Paton and Dorst, 2011, p. 573)(DT) - Introduction of restrictions on generating ideas (Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 537-538) (DT) -Clearidentificationofthevariablesthatwewishtocheckwiththe user (Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 537-538) (DT) - Abstracting frames (Paton and Dorst, 2011, p. 582-585) (DT) - Describing assumptions (Anderson, 2012, p. 6) (LS)Framing: - Lean working (Ries, 2011, p. 111) (LS)

RepresentingRepresent design situations: - Using language as a tool (Razzouk and Shute, 2012, p. 336; Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 537-538) (DT) - Presenting ideas to potential investors (Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 537-538) (DT)Conversing with representations: - Visualizing (i.e., depiction of ideas) (Razzouk and Shute, 2012, p. 336) (DT)

MovingCreating solutions ideas: - Imaginating, looking for opportunities, promoting active thinking,

integrating (Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 537-538) (DT)Primary generators:

- Predicting (Ries, 2011, p. 259) (LS)Interpretive and developmental moves: - Designing aesthetics (Razzouk and Shute, 2012, p. 342) (DT) - Choosing the right answers (Simon, 1969, in Chang, Joo, and Kim, 2012, p. 648) (DT) - Making concrete (Evans, 2011, in De Lille, Roscam, et al., 2012, p. 467-468) (DT)

Bringing problem and solution togetherNo clear order of appearance: - Iterating problem and solution (Rowe, 1987, in Chang, Joo, and Kim, 2012, p. 648) (DT)Problem and solution are inseparable: - Integrative thinking (Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 533- 534; Brown, 2008, p. 87) (DT)Parallel lines of thought: - Paradoxical thinking (Smith and Tushman, 2005, in Gilbert, et al. (DMI), 2012, p. 401) (LS)Briefing is a continuous process - Reframe the brief (Paton and Dorst, 2011, p. 583; Brown and Wyatt, 2010, p. 30) (DT) EvaluatingObjective and subjective evaluations: - Iterating (Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 537-538) (DT) - Divergent thinking (Brown and Wyatt, 2010, p. 31) (DT) - Creating customer value (Ries, 2011, p. 253) (LS)Suspending judgement: - No skills found

ReflectingReflection in action: - Adaptive working (De Lille, Roscam, et al., 2012, p. 467) (DT)Reflection on action: - Having a holistic view (Razzouk and Shute, 2012, p. 336; Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 537-538) (DT) - Innovation accounting (Ries, 2011, p. 147) (LS)

34

Other - Being empathic (Brown, 2008, p. 87; De Lille, Roscam, et al., 2012, p. 467; Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 536-538) (DT) - Collaborating (Brown, 2008, p. 87; Razzouk and Shute, 2012, p. 336; Lee, 2012, p. 510; Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 537- 538) (DT) - Use technology, disciplined working, being focused, aggregating data, analysing (Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 537-538) (DT) -Opportunityidentification(DeTienne&Chandler,2004,inZupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 532) (LS) - Human resources management and marketing (Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 532) (LS) - Lean managing (Optimization, delegation, control, and execution) (Ries, 2011, p. 255) (LS)

In this list we considered skills that do not share the same content to be different. However, they do complement each other in design and entrepreneurship skills from both methods of Design Thinking and Lean Startup. This chapter described and analysed the similarities and differences in skills for innovation through design in Lean Startup and Design Thinking. This forms the basis for an integrated list of skills for the sophistication of Lean Design Thinking. This list forms the conclusion and answer to the general research question as described in the next chapter.

4. CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION

Text

36

4.1 CONCLUSIONThis paragraph gives the answer to the general research question ‘How can Lean Design Thinking be evolved in terms of skills for innovation through design by comparing and integrating skills in Design Thinking and Lean Startup?’ The answer to this question is the following list of skills (table 8 and appendix VIII) for innovation through design in Lean Design Thinking and the conclusion that follows. The list is formed by the integration of similarities and differences in skills in Design Thinking and Lean Startup from the previous chapter.

From the final list of skills we can conclude that formulating and moving are the categories in which the most skills are accommodated. Thus these categories seem to be of a main importance in the methods of Lean Startup and Design Thinking. Representing and Reflecting are the categories that have the fewest skills. The first can be explained by the fact that representing is a typical design aspect. However, we expected that reflecting would have more skills, because Lean Startup and Design Thinking are methods in which reflection is of a great importance during the process. This can be explained by looking at the relatively small number of papers under review in this research.

The skills in the subcategories are mostly differing from each other; this causes the list to be quite elaborate. However the skills that have a similar character as discussed in chapter 3.4 are quite important skills in Lean Startup and Design Thinking. These are leaping, observing, generating new ideas, experimenting, persevering, and validated learning. We can conclude that they make up the core skills for Lean Design Thinking. The list is an interesting starting point for developing Lean Design Thinking as an independent method. However, an exhaustive research on all literature on Lean Startup and Design Thinking is needed to come to a complete list of skills for innovation through design in Lean Design Thinking, as described in the paragraph on limitations.

The final list of skills for innovation through design evolves the method of Lean Design Thinking by helping to clearly define which skills are needed when using the integrated process of Lean Design Thinking to come to innovation through design. The overview of skills contributes to the possibility of applying the method in a case study as suggested by Müller and Thoring (2012), as we now understand which skills are needed for this application. Thus the integration of skills from Lean Startup and Design Thinking leads to a sophistication of Lean Design Thinking as an independent method for user-driven innovation.

37


Formulating Representing Moving Bringing p&s togetherUnderstanding design problems

- Discovering what people’s needs are (Brown and Wyatt, 2010, p. 30) (DT)

- Asking the right questions (Simon, 1969, in Chang, Joo, and Kim, 2012, p. 648; Brown, 2008, p. 87) (DT)

- Leaping (Ries, 2011, p. 92; Brown and Wyatt, 2010, p. 30) (LS+DT)

- Observing (Brown, 2008, p. 87; Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 537-538; Wil-liams, in Gilbert, et al. (DMI), 2012, p. 400) (LS+DT)

Identifying

- Constructing a brief (Brown and Wyatt, 2010, p. 30) (DT)

- Reframing problems in new and interesting ways (Paton and Dorst, 2011, p. 573)(DT)

- Introduction of restrictions on generating ideas (Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 537-538) (DT)

- Clear identification of the variables that we wish to check with the user (Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 537-538) (DT)

- Abstracting frames (Paton and Dorst, 2011, p. 582-585) (DT)

- Describing assumptions (Anderson, 2012, p. 6) (LS)

Framing

- Lean working (Ries, 2011, p. 111) (LS)


- Using language as a tool (Razzouk and Shute, 2012, p. 336; Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 537-538) (DT)

- Presenting ideas to potential investors (Zu-pan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 537-538) (DT)


- Visualizing (i.e., depiction of ideas) (Raz-zouk and Shute, 2012, p. 336) (DT)


- Imaginating, looking for opportunities, promoting active thinking, integrating (Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 537-538) (DT)

- Generating new ideas (Boland and Collopy, 2004, in De Lille, Roscam, et al., 2012, p. 467; Brown, 2008, p. 87; Zupan and Naber-goj (DMI), 2012, p. 533-538; Ries, 2011, p. 36) (LS+DT)

Primary generators

- Predicting (Ries, 2011, p. 259) (LS)


- Designing aesthetics (Razzouk and Shute, 2012, p. 342) (DT)

- Choosing the right answers (Simon, 1969, in Chang, Joo, and Kim, 2012, p. 648) (DT)

- Making concrete (Evans, 2011, in De Lille, Roscam, et al., 2012, p. 467-468) (DT)

- Experimenting (Razzouk and Shute, 2012, p. 342; Ries, 2011, p. 92, 245, 250; Ander-son, 2012, p. 11; Brown, 2008, p. 87; Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 536) (LS+DT)

- Persevering (Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 537-538; Ries, 2011, pp. 113, 147) (LS+DT)


- Iterating problem and solution (Rowe, 1987, in Chang, Joo, and Kim, 2012, p. 648) (DT)


- Integrative thinking (Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 533-534; Brown, 2008, p. 87) (DT)


- Paradoxical thinking (Smith and Tushman, 2005, in Gilbert, et al. (DMI), 2012, p. 401) (LS)

Briefing is a continuous process - Reframe the brief (Paton and Dorst, 2011, p. 583; Brown and Wyatt, 2010, p. 30) (DT)

Table 8. Concluding list of skills (page 1/2). Note: The text marked green indicates the similarities, the black text indicates skills from Design Thinking, and the blue text indicates skills from Lean Startup

38



- Iterating (Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 537-538) (DT)

- Divergent thinking (Brown and Wyatt, 2010, p. 31) (DT)

- Creating customer value (Ries, 2011, p. 253) (LS)

- Validated learning (Ries, 2011, pp. 47, 140, 156, 268, 270; Razzouk and Shute, 2012, p. 342) (LS+DT)

Suspending judgement

- No skills found


- Adaptive working (De Lille, Roscam, et al., 2012, p. 467) (DT)


- Having a holistic view (Razzouk and Shute, 2012, p. 336; Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 537-538) (DT)

- Innovation accounting (Ries, 2011, p. 147) (LS)

-Being empathic (Brown, 2008, p. 87; De Lille, Roscam, et al., 2012, p. 467; Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 536-538) (DT)

-Collaborating (Brown, 2008, p. 87; Razzouk and Shute, 2012, p. 336; Lee, 2012, p. 510; Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 537-538) (DT)

-Use technology, disciplined working, being focused, aggre-gating data, analysing (Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 537-538) (DT)

-Opportunity identification (DeTienne & Chandler, 2004, in Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 532) (LS)

-Human resources management and marketing (Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 532) (LS)

-Lean managing (Optimization, delegation, control, and ex-ecution) (Ries, 2011, p. 255) (LS)

Table 8. Concluding list of skills (page 2/2). Note: The text marked green indicates the similarities, the black text indicates skills from Design Thinking, and the blue text indicates skills from Lean Startup

39

4.2 DISCUSSIONImplications and significance of this researchGenerally the research described in this document is significant, because it leads to a sophistication of Lean Design Thinking and addresses certain gaps. It helps to get a better understanding of the skills that are needed for the application of Lean Design Thinking for innovation through design.

We think the research is relevant for researchers, practitioners and educators in fields of design and business. Particularly the experts that researched Lean Design Thinking might find this elaboration of their method interesting. Furthermore the research is of value to experts on the theory or application of Design Thinking and Lean Startup. And finally innovators that are interested in combining design and business could use the research as a source of information and inspiration.

Social skillsThe reliability of the framework of Lawson is doubtful as it misses pivotal social skills like empathy, communication and collaboration. The category ‘other’ in Design Thinking is therefore an important aspect in our review in showing this missing link in the framework of Lawson. The social aspects in Design Thinking are the major skills in its human-centered approach. Without for example empathy you are designing something that lacks a full understanding of the needs of the stakeholders to come to the final product. By missing social aspects like empathy, communication and collaboration it can be concluded that in the eighties when Lawson’s book was published social skills were not commonly considered. We think it strange that this common design knowledge was not incorporated in the latest version of the book as published in 2005. When they understand that the social aspects are missing in the framework Design Thinkers can use the framework to apply skills to enrich their innovation strategies.

Focus on design The framework of this research is built on the framework and definition of design from Lawson (2005). We chose this focus in definition and framework to fit our own backgrounds and thus make it possible to apply the outcomes in our own field. The result of this focus is that we added the category ‘other’ in the review files of Design Thinking and Lean Startup. The skills in the category ‘other’ are design- and entrepreneurial skills that do not fit the framework of Lawson (2005).

The focus on design also explains that the categories ‘representing’ and ‘bringing problem and solution together’ were left empty when categorizing skills in Lean Startup. This can be explained by the fact that these categories are typical for design and therefore do not fit skills in Lean Startup. When using the Lawson framework startup founders need to understand that the focus of the framework is on design and that the mentioned categories are thus not relevant when using the framework to apply skills to enrich their innovation strategies.

Implications for the design fieldThe research on skills for innovation gives us the tool to discuss or reflect on the needed expertise in the field of design. The framework gives an insight in the basic skills to analyse, develop and practice to become specialized. But broadening the framework of design by the category ‘other’ gives another view on the subject of specialization. The research on Lean Startup and Design Thinking shows skills in entrepreneurship and social skills that are also important factors that needs to be taken into account.

In that way the designer needs to pay attention to the basics skills and in adding that extra flavour of entrepreneurial- and social skills. How someone should use these design skills is something that is very personal and has to do with the field in which the design skills are conducted. So, besides the basic understanding the designer becomes a very dynamic professional who is trained in constantly learning new skills. Therefore a designer needs to know besides his basic design skills in which way he distinguishes himself and in which way his profession is distinguished from other designers and design disciplines.

40

Implications of the research for our developmentThrough this research we gained an in-depth understanding of the innovation strategies Design Thinking and Lean Startup. Also we gained insight in what is needed to come to innovation (through design). The review was of course focused on skills, but in the papers we reviewed we read also about attitudes, knowledge, contexts, and examples of innovation. However, the most valuable outcome of the research was the realization of the importance of entrepreneurship as a way of thinking, and the combination of design and entrepreneurship that we can use when starting a project or business in the future.

While conducting the research we realized that design in general is quite focused on content, where Design Thinking and Lean Startup are both more focused on designing processes and the combination of design skills and process/social skills you need for this. This is not very prominent in our education as designers, while the need of process design is growing, as the field of landscape architecture is changing. This change implies that clients no longer play a major role and designers have to increasingly initiate and facilitate projects themselves. In this situation a designer stands at the front end of a process. While conducting the research we encountered this need for process design in the development of a new project in Utrecht, so we started to put our realization into practice. In November 2012 we attended a Startup Weekend in which the Lean Startup method was put into practice. The group during this weekend mostly comprised of web/app developers, marketers and entrepreneurs. We experienced a first application of the Lean Startup principles during this weekend, which enhanced our understanding of the method. We implemented the outcomes of this experience in another new project for Happyland Collective. The challenge in this project is building a platform that brings local initiatives in contact with the supply of plots of land. We will follow the Lean Startup principles to adjust this platform to customer needs and come to a product that truly helps them.

4.3 REFLECTION ON THE PROCESS Things that we would have done differentlyTo be critical on our process and product the first thing that we would have done differently is making a research design where the skills of different methods are more balanced. We now know that this would lead to incorporating more Lean Startup papers. The second thing is to work with two frameworks, one for design and one for entrepreneurship, to review the skills. In that way we would have had a more holistic view on the skills for Design Thinking and Lean Startup. During our process we only used a design framework, therefore there is need for further research with a focus on entrepreneurship to get a better understanding on the skills for Lean Design Thinking. To conclude we are now more aware and can in a certain way predict which steps will have certain outcomes if it comes to a literature review.

Formulating and conducting a scientific researchBy doing a minor thesis at a non-design chair group it broadened our scope within the field of science. As a student we faced the problem on how to balance scientific research and design. Until now we lacked information and experience in conducting a scientific research, as our discipline is not very scientific. By only focusing on research it helped us to get a clear view on science by working at a non-design department was a great opportunity to develop a scientific mindset and a scientific way of working.

We became aware of this scientific mindset during a Lean Startup weekend in Groningen. By working out two ideas in a group of entrepreneurs and designers we had the opportunity to reflect and test the gathered information that we found during our proposal and research on the combination of skills for innovation in design and entrepreneurship. By testing theory, questioning our beliefs, and respect the facts and evidence that came out of practice we learned to take a distance and get an understanding of what a scientific mindset could be.

This mindset was achieved by a scientific way of working in that sense that we learned to formulate, specify and structure a scientific research. The process of doing a research helped us to put our knowledge into action in getting an understanding on how to conduct a research. By being explicit about the steps that needed to be taken this minor was a perfect preparation for our major thesis. We came a step closer to discovering how to balance scientific research and design.

41

Thinking as an entrepreneurThrough the reading the papers about Lean Startup and Design Thinking we became aware of the fact that a designer can, besides designing the product, also design the process, how to arrange the context in such a way that the implementation of the product will be more serviceable and effective? This entrepreneurial attitude gives us the tools for Happyland Collective to bring landscape architecture not to the end product but to the beginning of the process. Therefore other skills are needed and in that way the theory of Lean Startup and Design Thinking on entrepreneurial and social skills forms a guide for broadening our scope.

First step in the application of innovation strategiesBesides approaching our discipline from another perspective we also used the Lean method to build a product called ‘Green Cubes’. Green Cubes are wooden boxes for vegetables that are linked with social media. By building a prototype Green Cube and a prototype website we could test and see what the potential customers liked or disliked and if they wanted to buy the product. By using the Lean Startup process in a small-scale project we could easily learn and link the process to an implementation in landscape architecture. Therefore we are now using this method in one of our projects in Utrecht, where it is used to get an idea of how to design not for but with people.

This research was a way of testing the theory of Design Thinking and Lean Startup in practice. It gave us a good insight in how to make a product and use the human centered process for the preparation of starting up a company in the near future.

4.4 VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY

As validity and reliability are very difficult to define in a qualitative research such as this, these terms are described by means of the following alternative criteria (Trochim and Donnely, 2007, p. 149; in Kumar, 2011, p. 185).

1. Dependability (reliability): By giving a detailed description of the process of collection, interpretation, integration and evaluation of the data we ensured the dependability of this research. The extensive and thorough description of the process (Kumar, 2011, p. 185) makes it possible for others to reproduce the research and come to the same results as much as possible.

2. Credibility (internal validity): To ensure the credibility of this research, we should have involved external experts in the research and design process as much as possible. These participants would be able to confirm, validate and approve the results of the project and thus judge the credibility of the process and products. We were not able to involve external experts on the topic, because we had limited time for this research and it was only intended as a product within a university context. Thus the credibility is not ensured, which would be necessary for a scientific publication of the results.

3. Transferability (external validity): The transferability of this research is that the sophistication of Lean Design Thinking in terms of skills for innovation through design can generally be used in different contexts and settings in the fields of design and business and is thus transferable and generalizable.

42

4.5 LIMITATIONS The limitations of the conducted research are threefold. Firstly the research was done by design students in a limited time of four months and in a university context. Thus the research was not conducted by fully qualified researchers, though the process was of course under supervision from experts. Secondly, in the same line, the product was not made by an inter-disciplinary team of experts from design and entrepreneurship. The focus came from the field of design, and it would be good to include an entrepreneur to balance this. Thirdly the outcomes of the research need further research and detailing before they can be realistic enough to be implemented, as described in the next paragraph. The results of the thesis serve as an inspiration for designers, managers and researchers and for interested parties to broaden their view and help the synthetic thinking processes concerning the investigated methods.

4.6 FURTHER RESEARCH The conducted research as described in this report gives an inducement to further research to dive deeper into the topic. The need for a continuation of this research is twofold. Firstly a more extensive literature study by fully qualified, interdisciplinary team of researchers could contribute to this purposive review to develop a more comprehensive set of skills. This could even be extended further by adding interviews with experts from practice that work with Design Thinking or Lean Startup or a combination of both methods.

Secondly we researched skills in Design Thinking and Lean Startup within the Design Skills framework of Lawson. Also our backgrounds are in design, and thus we interpret the data from the point of view of designers, and it would be interesting to have an entrepreneur interpret the research as well. In that way this is a design-oriented research towards Lean Design Thinking skills. Thus it would be interesting to conduct further research focused the skills from an entrepreneurial framework and point of view.

Thirdly the skills for innovation through design in Lean Design Thinking that form the result of this research should be connected to the process suggested by Müller and Thoring (2012). This way the skills will be arranged per phase and divided in main- and sub skills and thus will become more directly applicable in relation to the process model of Lean Design Thinking. This step would be the final sophistication needed to apply the method in case studies as intended by Müller and Thoring (2012, p. 161).

REFERENCES

Text

44

Agarwal, A., Salunkhe, U. 2012. Impact of Including Design Thinking Competencies in Management Education, an Experimental Study. Boston: International Design Management Research Conference 2012 Proceedings

Anderson, J. 2012. Enabling Enterprise Kanban Transformation through Lean Startup Techniques. Boston: Proceeding of Lean Software and Systems Conference 2012

Blank, Steven G. 2006. The Four Steps to the Epiphany. Foster City, California: Cafepress.com in Müller, Roland M., Thoring, Katja. 2012. Design Thinking vs. Lean Startup: a Comparison of Two User-Driven Innovation Strategies. Boston: International Design Management Research Conference 2012 Proceedings

Bødker, S., & Christiansen, E. 1997. Scenarios as Springboards in Design. In Melles, Gavin. 2010. Curriculum Design Thinking: A New Name for Old Ways of Thinking and Practice. Sydney: DTRS8 Conference ProceedingsBoland, R., and Collopy, F. (2004). Design matters for management. In R. Boland, R. and F. Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, June 2008, 84-92 in De Lille, C., Roscam, E., et al. 2012. A Designerly Approach to Enable Organizations to Deliver Product-Service Systems. Boston: International Design Management Research Conference 2012 Proceedings

Brown, T. 2008. Design Thinking. Harvard Business Review, http://www.hbr.org

Brown, T., Wyatt, J. 2010. Design Thinking for Social Innovation: IDEO. Stanford Social Innovation Review 8 (1), pp. 30-35

Chang, Y., Joo, J., Kim, J. 2012. An Exploratory Study on the Evolution of Design Thinking: Comparison of Apple and Samsung. Boston: International Design Management Research Conference 2012 Proceedings

Deka, Sanjib K., Lahkar, Narendra. 2010. Performance Evaluation and Comparison of the Five Most Used Search Engines in Retrieving Web Resources. Online Information Review 34 (5), pp. 757 - 771

De Lille, C., Roscam, E., et al. 2012. A Designerly Approach to Enable Organizations to Deliver Product-Service Systems. Boston: International Design Management Research Conference 2012 Proceedings

Dell’Era, C., Marchesi, A., Verganti, R. 2010. Mastering Technologies in Design-Driven Innovation. Research Technology Management, March 2010, 12-23. in Wrigley, C. and Bucolo, S. 2012. New Organisational Leadership Capabilities: Transitional Engineer the New Designer? Boston: International Design Management Research Conference 2012 Proceedings

Deming, M. Elen and Swaffield, Simon. 2011. Landscape Architecture Research: Inquiry, Strategy, Design. New York: Wiley & Sons

Di Lucchio, L. 2012. From Eco-nomy to Eco-pathy: a different model of supply-chain for Design. Boston: International Design Management Research Conference 2012 Proceedings

Dym, C. L., Agogino, A. M., Eris, O., Frey, D. D., & Leifer, L. J. 2005. Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 94, 103– 120. in Razzouk, Rim, and Shute, Valerie. 2012. What Is Design Thinking and Why Is It Important? Review of Educational Research 82 (3), pp. 330–348Evans, M. (2011) Empathizing with the Future: Creating Next-Next Generation Products and Services., The Design Journal, Volume 14, Number 2, June 2011 , pp. 231-251(21) in De Lille, C., Roscam, E., et al. 2012. A Designerly Approach to Enable Organizations to Deliver Product-Service Systems. Boston: International Design Management Research Conference 2012 Proceedings

Fink, Arlene. 2010. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: from the Internet to Paper. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publishers

Fricke, G. 1999. Successful Approaches in Dealing with Differently Precise Design Problems. Design Studies, 20, 417–429. in Razzouk, Rim, and Shute, Valerie. 2012. What Is Design Thinking and Why Is It Important? Review of Educational Research 82 (3), pp. 330–348Gilbert, D.H., et al. 2012. Business Model Innovation and Design Thinking: a Case Study of Deloitte Digital. Boston: International Design Management Research Conference 2012 Proceedings

Grossman-Kahn, Benjamin and Rosensweig, Ryan. 2012. Skip the Silver Bullet: Driving Innovation through Small Bets and Diverse Practices. Boston: International Design Management Research Conference 2012 Proceedings

45

Jerez-Gomez, Pilar, Cespedes-Lorente, Jose, and Valle-Cabrera, Ramon. 2005. Organizational Learning Capability: a Proposal of Measurement. Journal of Business Research 58, pp. 715– 725

Johansson, U., Woodilla, J. 2012. Looking at Design Thinking Interventions as Artistic Interventions. Boston: International Design Management Research Conference 2012 Proceedings

Kumar, R. 2011. Research Methodology: A Step-by-Step Guide for Beginners, 3rd ed., London: Sage

Lawson, Brian. 2005. How Designers Think: The Design Process Demystified. Fourth Edition. Oxford: Architectural Press

Lee, C.H. 2012. Establishing Design Thinking as a Third Culture in Learning and Creative Environments. Boston: International Design Management Research Conference 2012 Proceedings

Maurya, A. 2012. Running Lean: Iterate from Plan A to a Plan That Works. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly. in Müller, Roland M., Thoring, Katja. 2012. Design Thinking vs. Lean Startup: a Comparison of Two User-Driven Innovation Strategies. Boston: International Design Management Research Conference 2012 Proceedings

Moggridge, B. 2008. Innovation Through Design. International Design Culture Conference

Mozota de, B.B. 2003. Design Management: Using Design to Build Brand Value and Corporate Innovation. New York: Allworth Press. in Di Lucchio, L. 2012. From Eco-nomy to Eco-pathy: a different model of supply-chain for Design. Boston: International Design Management Research Conference 2012 Proceedings

Mulder, Martin. 2001. Competence development - Some background thoughts. Wageningen University

Müller, Roland M., Thoring, Katja. 2012. Design Thinking vs. Lean Startup: a Comparison of Two User-Driven Innovation Strategies. Boston: International Design Management Research Conference 2012 Proceedings

Nagai, Y., & Noguchi, H. 2003. An experimental study on the design thinking process started from difficult keywords: Modeling the thinking process of creative design. Journal of Engineering Design, 14, 429–437. in Razzouk, Rim, and Shute, Valerie. 2012. What Is Design Thinking and Why Is It Important? Review of Educational Research 82 (3), pp. 330–348

O’Sullivan, David and Dooley, Lawrence. 2009. Applying Innovations. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage PublishersPaton, B., Dorst, K. 2011. Briefing and Reframing: a Situated Practice. Elsevier: Design Studies 32, pp. 573-587

Randolph, Justus J. 2009. A Guide to Writing the Dissertation Literature Review. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation 14 (13), pp. 1-13

Razzouk, R., Shute, V. 2012. What is Design Thinking and Why is it Important? Review of Educational Research 82 (3), pp. 330–348

Ries, Eric. 2011. The Lean Startup: How Today’s Entrepreneurs Use Continuous Innovation to Create Radically Successful Businesses. New York: Crown Business Publishers

Rowe, P. 1987. Design Thinking. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press in Chang, Y., Joo, J., Kim, J. 2012. An Exploratory Study on the Evolution of Design Thinking: Comparison of Apple and Samsung. Boston: International Design Management Research Conference 2012 Proceedings

Sciverse. 2012. About Scopus. Elsevier Properties S.A. Website viewed on 25-10-2012 on http://www.info.sciverse.com/scopus/about

Simon, H. 1996. The Sciences of the Artificial, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press in Chang, Y., Joo, J., Kim, J. 2012. An Exploratory Study on the Evolution of Design Thinking: Comparison of Apple and Samsung. Boston: International Design Management Research Conference 2012 Proceedings

Simonton, Dean Keith. 1999. Creativity as blind variation and selective retention: Is the creative process Darwinian? Psychological Inquiry 10, pp. 309-328. in Müller, Roland M., Thoring, Katja. 2012. Design Thinking vs. Lean Startup: a Comparison of Two User-Driven Innovation Strategies. Boston: International Design Management Research Conference 2012 Proceedings

46

Simonton, Dean Keith. 2011. Creativity and Discovery as Blind Variation and Selective Retention: Multiple-Variant Definition and Blind-Sighted Integration. American Psychological Association 5 (3), pp. 222–228

Smith, W.K., Tushman, M.L. 2005. Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization Science, 16(5): 522–536 in Gilbert, D.H., et al. 2012. Business Model Innovation and Design Thinking: a Case Study of Deloitte Digital. Boston: International Design Management Research Conference 2012 Proceedings

Stevenson, Angus. 2012. Oxford Dictionary of English (3rd ed.) Oxford: University Press

Trochim, William M.K., Donnely, James. 2007. The Research Methods Knowledge Base (3rd ed.). Mason (OH): Thomson Custom Publishing, in Kumar, R. 2011. Research Methodology: A Step-by-Step Guide for Beginners, 3rd ed., London: SageZidulka, A., Glover, S. 2012. Questioning the Accessibility of Design Thinking: How Can Individual Faculty Members Foster Creative Capacity in Business Students? Boston: International Design Management Research Conference 2012 Proceedings

Zupan, B., Nabergoj, A.S. 2012. Developing Design Thinking Skills in Entrepreneurship Education. Boston: International Design Management Research Conference 2012 Proceedings

APPENDICES

Text

48

APPENDIx I. DESIGN SkILLS FRAMEWORkTo compare the innovation strategies Design Thinking and Lean Startup the process of design formulated by Brian Lawson in ‘How Designers Think’ was used as a framework in which the design process is seen as a generic feature that can be used in different domains of design (Lawson, 2005, p. 4). This appendix shows the relationships between the main- and sub categories in a diagram (figure 6) and explains them by means of quotes from ‘How Designers Think’ (Lawson, 2005).

The framework offered by ‘How Designers Think’ as shown below was useful for identifying skills in Design Thinking and Lean Startup. The result is a clear overview of skills to evolve the innovation through design process in Lean Design Thinking.

Detailed explanations of the main- and sub categories, quoted from ‘How Designers Think’ (Lawson, 2005)

Formulating‘Formulating is described as ‘understanding problems and describing them’ (Lawson, 2005, p. 291).

- Understanding design problems: finding, starting, understanding, and exploring problems - Identifying: reformulating and structuring ill structured or wicked problems by making them explicit and developing their characteristics - Framing: selectively viewing in a particular way a period, phase or activity. Thereby creating and manipulating frames

Representing‘Moves are most often made through some form of representation. They may be described in words or put into computers or, most common of all, visualized through drawings of one kind or another, we shall call these skills representing’ (Lawson, 2005, p. 291).

- Representing design situations: by drawing, model making and computing representations- Conversing with representations: The ability to execute representations and manage them (drawings, diagrams, visionary drawings) and working with multiple representations

Moving‘Solutions are sometimes developed and sometimes abandoned. We might see this whole group of skills as to do with making moves and we shall therefore refer to them as moving’ (Lawson, 2005, p. 291).

- Creating solutions ideas: this can be a new move that may be made which has not been seen before or a move that may alter or develop the existing state of the solution - Primary generators: designers often develop early ideas before they have understood the problem (Darke, 1978). A frame can be seen as a window on the problem space, a primary generator as a window on the solution space- Interpretive and developmental moves: Interpretive is the transformation of an existing idea into a different one carrying through some of the original characteristics. Development is an idea developed further and gives clarity to more detail or substance.

Bringing problems and solutions together‘Design process as a negotiation between problem and solution with each seen as a reflection of the other by the activities of analysis, synthesis and evaluation’ (Lawson, 2005, p. 62).

- Problem and solution are inseparable: problem and solution are better seen as two aspects of a description of the design situation rather than separate entities- No clear order of appearance: thinking about solutions and thinking about problems seem inextricably interwoven in the design process- Briefing is a continuous process: briefing can continue to take place throughout the process than to assume it is simply an early stage never to be returned to- Parallel lines of thought: the ability to think along parallel lines, deliberately maintain a sense of ambiguity and uncertainty and not to get too concerned to get to a single answer too quickly seem to be essential design skills

49

Evaluating‘The way moves are regulated is most obviously through the use of some kind of evaluation of them against some set of criteria however precisely or vaguely understood. Thus there are a whole range of skills which we shall refer to as evaluating’ (Lawson, 2005, p. 291).

- Objective and subjective evaluations: designers must be able to perform both objective and subjective evaluations and be able to make judgments about the relative benefits of them even though they may rely on incompatible methods of measurement- Suspending judgement: Knowing when and how to evaluate as an individual, in groups, and design teams is a core design skill

Reflecting ‘Keep the whole design activity on course towards its target by reflection on the state of the design and the monitoring on the overall process’ (Lawson, 2005, pp. 291-299).

- Reflection in action: designers are more or less continually reflecting on the current understanding of the problem and on the validity of the emerging solution or solutions - Reflection on action: this can be seen as a combination of asking which problems have been examined and neglected and then asking if the process involved in representing, formulating and moving have all been brought to bear the case- Guiding principles: this can be seen as collecting precedents or references

Figure 6. Main- and sub categories of the Design Skills Framework

50

APPENDIx II. LITERATURE SELECTION TABLESThis appendix includes the tables used to record the selection process of the literature for review. In total 18 unique articles and one monograph were collected through this process. After running the first selection as described in the research design, the found literature was recorded and screened according to the criteria for the second selection as shown below. The final list of literature for review is included in paragraph 3.1 of this report.

The scheme below shows the results for every combination of search terms in Scopus and Google. Please note that these results are not unique and include some overlap. The numbers of the search combinations coincide with the numbering of the tables shown in this appendix. Two of the results were conference proceedings including many articles. The selection of articles from these documents are recorded in tables #16 and #17 at the end of this appendix.

Criteria for second selection The articles will have to answer two or more of the inclusion criteria, including criterium C, positively (+) to be selected for review. The criteria are as follows:

A. One or more search terms of the data set Methods (LDT/DT/LS) are included in the keywords, abstract, or titleB. Sources related to the methods of investigation by R. Müller, K. Thoring, L. Di Lucchio, E. Ries, T. Brown and N. Cross are to be includedC. Topical relevance of literature to the research questions (e.g. skills in Lean Design Thinking, Lean Startup and Design Thinking for innovation through design)

# COMBINATIONS OF SEARCH TERMS RESULTS SCOPUS

RESULTS GOOGLE

01 Lean Design Thinking 0 002 Lean Startup 0 003 Design Thinking 1 104 Lean Design Thinking AND Lean Startup 0 105 Lean Design Thinking AND Design Thinking 0 006 Lean Startup AND Design Thinking 0 107 Lean Design Thinking AND Innovation through design 0 108 Lean Design Thinking AND Activities 0 009 Lean Design Thinking AND Skills 0 010 Design Thinking AND Innovation through design 0 211 Design Thinking AND Activities 1 012 Design Thinking AND Skills 1 013 Lean Startup AND Innovation through design 0 114 Lean Startup AND Activities 0 115 Lean Startup AND Skills 0 2

51

#03 COMBINATION OF SEARCH TERMS: “DESIGN THINkING”

Title Author(s) Year published Date found Inclusion criteria Source Overlap

A B C

a Design Thinking Brown, T. 2008 29-10-2012 + + + Scopus

b Review of evidence-based practice, nursing research and reflection: Levelling hierarchy

Mantzoukas, S. 2008 29-10-2012 - - - Scopus

c Integrated sustainable life cycle design: A Review

Ramani, K., et al. 2010 29-10-2012 - - - Scopus

d Affordance based design: A relational theory for design

Maier, J.R.A., Fadel, G.M.

2009 29-10-2012 + - - Scopus

e Design thinking for social innovation: IDEO Brown, T.,Wyatt, J.

2010 29-10-2012 + + + Google

#04 COMBINATION OF SEARCH TERMS: “LEAN DESIGN THINkING” AND “LEAN STARTUP”


A B C

a Leading innovation though design. DMI con-ference proceedings (inclusion rating based on the separate articles see table #16)

Bohemia, E.,Liedtka, J.,Rieple, A. (editors)

2012 30-10-2012 + + + Google

#02 COMBINATION OF SEARCH TERMS: “LEAN STARTUP”


A B C

a Lean software development: A tutorial Poppendieck, M., Cusumano, M.A.

2012 29-10-2012 + - - Scopus

52

#06 COMBINATION OF SEARCH TERMS: “LEAN STARTUP” AND “DESIGN THINkING”


A B C

a Lean software development: A tutorial Poppendieck, M., Cusumano, M.A.

2012 29-10-2012 + - - Scopus 2a

b Leading innovation though design. DMI con-ference proceedings (inclusion rating based on the separate articles see table #16)


2012 30-10-2012 + + + Google 4a

c Think like a startup Mathews, B. 2012 30-10-2012 - - + Google

#07 COMBINATION OF SEARCH TERMS: “LEAN DESIGN THINkING” AND “INNOVATION THROUGH DESIGN”


A B C



2012 30-10-2012 + + + Google 4a

b Social Innovation in Brazil Through Design Strategy

Cipolla, C., Moura, H.

2012 30-10-2012 - - - Google

c Toyota’s secret: the A3 report Shook, J. 2009 30-10-2012 - - - Google

#10 COMBINATION OF SEARCH TERMS: “DESIGN THINkING” AND “INNOVATION THROUGH DESIGN”


A B C

a Innovation through design Moggridge, B. 2008 30-10-2012 + - + Google

b Leading innovation though design. DMI con-ference proceedings (inclusion rating based on the separate articles see table #16)


2012 30-10-2012 + + + Google 4a

53

#11 COMBINATION OF SEARCH TERMS: “DESIGN THINkING” AND “ACTIVITIES”


A B C

a Destination, imagination and the fires within: Design thinking in a middle school classroom

Carroll, M., et al. 2010 29-10-2012 + - - Scopus

b Using a studio-based pedagogy to engage students in the design of mobile-based media

Mathews, J.M. 2010 29-10-2012 - - - Scopus

c A taste for practices: Unrepressing style in design thinking

Tonkinwise, C. 2011 29-10-2012 + - - Scopus

d From engineering design research to engi-neering pedagogy: Bringing research results directly to the students

Borgford-Parnell, J., Deibel, K., Atman, C.J.

2010 29-10-2012 + - - Scopus

e Conversations with the marketplace: An ap-plication of design thinking and sociodrama action methods in an innovation workshop

Wyman, G., Holland, V.M., Yates, S.

2012 29-10-2012 + - - Scopus

f Briefing and reframing: A situated practice Paton, B., Dorst, K. 2011 29-10-2012 + - + Scopus

g Case studies using multiuser virtual worlds as an innovative platform for collaborative design

Merrick, K.E., Gu, N., Wang, X.

2011 29-10-2012 + - - Scopus

h Representation of design intents in design thinking process model

Sun, Z., Liu, J. 2009 29-10-2012 + - - Scopus

i Engineering design processes in seventh-grade classrooms: Bridging the engineering education gap

English, L.D., Hudson, P.B., Dawes, L.

2012 29-10-2012 + - - Scopus

j Business Design: Becoming A BilateralThinker

Fraser, H. 2010 30-10-2012 - - - Google

54

#12 COMBINATION OF SEARCH TERMS: “DESIGN THINkING” AND “SkILLS”


A B C

a Product design engineering - a global edu-cation trend in multidisciplinary training for creative product design

de Vere, I., Melles, G., Kapoor, A.

2010 29-10-2012 + - - Scopus

b Developmental trajectories in design thinking: an examination of criteria

Carmel-Gilfilen, C., Por-tillo, M.

2010 29-10-2012 + - - Scopus

c Marrying content and process in computer science education

Zendler, A., Spannagel, C., Klaudt, D.

2011 29-10-2012 - - - Scopus

d What Is Design Thinking and Why Is It Im-portant?

Razzouk, R., Shute, V. 2012 29-10-2012 + - + Scopus

e Development and implementation of an inno-vative engineering design process

Jou, R.-Y. 2012 29-10-2012 + - - Scopus

f Designing Transformations: Schools of excel-lence

Marie Fairburn, S. 2011 29-10-2012 + - - Scopus

g Myth of the design process De Los Reyes, A. 2009 29-10-2012 + - - Scopus

h Implications of Spatial Abilities on Design Thinking

Sutton, K.,Williams, A.

2010 30-10-2012 + - - Google

i Business Design: Becoming A Bilateral Thinker

Fraser, H. 2010 30-10-2012 - - - Google 11j

#13 COMBINATION OF SEARCH TERMS: “LEAN STARTUP” AND “INNOVATION THROUGH DESIGN”


A B C



2012 30-10-2012 + + + Google 4a

55

#14 COMBINATION OF SEARCH TERMS: “LEAN STARTUP” AND “ACTIVITIES”


A B C

a The Lean Startup: How Today’s Entrepreneurs Use Continuous Innovation to Create Radi-cally Successful Businesses

Ries, E. 2011 30-10-2012 + + + Google

#15 COMBINATION OF SEARCH TERMS: “LEAN STARTUP” AND “SkILLS”


A B C

a The Lean Startup: How Today’s Entrepreneurs Use Continuous Innovation to Create Radi-cally Successful Businesses

Ries, E. 2011 30-10-2012 + + + Google 14a

b Lean software and systems conference pro-ceedings (inclusion rating based on the sepa-rate articles see table #17)

Willeke, E. (editor) 2012 30-10-2012 + - + Google

56

#16 SCREENING OF ARTICLES IN DMI CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS (#4a) (1/2)

Title Author(s) Year published Date found Inclusion criteria

A B C

a Design thinking vs. lean statup: a comparison of two user-driven innovation strategies


2012 30-10-2012 + + +

b Business model innovation and design think-ing: a case study of deloitte digital

Gilbert, D.H., et al. 2012 30-10-2012 + - +

c Establishing design thinking as a third culture in learning and creative environments

Lee, C.H. 2012 30-10-2012 + - +

d Developing design thinking skills in entrepre-neurship education


2012 30-10-2012 + - +

e The mindset beyond the myth-evaluating the future practice, applicabillity and teaching of design thinking through workshop challenges

Schneider, D., Moser, K.

2012 30-10-2012 + - -

f An exploratory study on the evolution of de-sign thinking: comparison of Apple and Sam-sung


2012 30-10-2012 + - +

g Designing empowerment: design thinking for social impact

Sharma, A. 2012 30-10-2012 + - -

h Looking at design thinking interventions as artistic interventions


2012 30-10-2012 + - +

i Questioning the accessibility of design think-ing: how can individual faculty members fos-ter creative capacity in busniss students?


2012 30-10-2012 + - +

j Impact of including design thinking compe-tencies in managment education an experi-mental study


2012 30-10-2012 + - +

k The role of role-play: intangible systems rep-resentations for business innovations

Thoring, K.,Muller, R.M.

2012 30-10-2012 + + -

l Mapping the design mind King, A.,Parmar, B., et al.

2012 30-10-2012 + - -

m Improving innovation strategic decision-making through the collaboration with design consultancies

Calabretta, G., Gemser, G., et al.

2012 30-10-2012 + - -

n Co-designing business models: reframing problems

Gudiksen, S. 2012 30-10-2012 + - -

57

#16 SCREENING OF ARTICLES IN DMI CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS (#4a) (2/2)


A B C

o A designerly approach to enable organisations to deliver product-service systems


2012 30-10-2012 + - +

p Renaissance 3.0: speaking design Jervis, J. 2012 30-10-2012 + - -

q Broading Horizons: an emerging research agenda modelling design led innovation across secondary education

Wright, N., Wrigley, C., et al.

2012 30-10-2012 + - -

r Skip the silver bullet: driving innovation through small bets and diverse practices


2012 30-10-2012 + - +

s The impact of work-based learning on new design managers

Norman, N., Jerrard, B.

2012 30-10-2012 + - -

t Sense and symbolic objects: strategic sense-making through design

Stevens, J. 2012 30-10-2012 + - -

u Design managment as leading resource to assist entrepreneurs in the development of technological innovations: case evidence from small mexican technology based enterprises established in new technological industries

Di Lucchio, L. 2012 30-10-2012 - + +

58

#17 SCREENING OF ARTICLES IN LEAN SOFTWARE AND SYSTEMS CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS (#15b)


A B C

a Enabling Enterprise Kanban Transformation through Lean Startup Techniques

Anderson, J. 2012 30-10-2012 + - +

b The Handy One Pager of Options for Handling Common IT Services and Operations Issues

DeGrandis, D. 2012 30-10-2012 - - -

c Introducing the Time In State InSITe Visuali-zation

Maccherone, L. 2012 30-10-2012 - - -

d Managing Software Development Risk using Modeling and Monte Carlo Simulation

Magennis, T. 2012 30-10-2012 - - -

e Pull and Perfection McKinney, M. 2012 30-10-2012 - - -

f Kanban in the Project vs. Product Scope Roock, A., Andrezak, M. 2012 30-10-2012 - - -

g Consideration of a multi-layer on-demand scheduling system for complex

Turner, R. 2012 30-10-2012 - - -

h Improvement is broken – How can we fix it? Yeret, Y. 2012 30-10-2012 - - -

59

SYNONYMS FOR ‘SKILLS’

Article code Synonyms in article Comparison to synonyms of the research4b - Capability

- Enabler- Can be interpreted as a synonym for skill- Can be interpreted as a synonym for skill in an indirect way

4d - Capability - Can be interpreted as a synonym for skill4j - Competencies

- Capability- Can be interpreted as a synonym for skill - Not used as a synonym for skill, but only generally

4r - Able- Capability

- Not used as a synonym for skill, but only generally- Can be interpreted as a synonym for skill

14a - Ability- Able- Capability- Expertise

- Can be interpreted as a synonym for skill- Can be interpreted as a synonym for skill- Can be interpreted as a synonym for skill- Can be interpreted as a synonym for skill

15b - Ability- Able (enable, unable)- Capability- Expertise

- Can be interpreted as a synonym for skill- Can be interpreted as a synonym for skill- Can be interpreted as a synonym for skill- Not used as a synonym for skill, but only generally

APPENDIx III. REVIEW FILE MARIE V1

VERSION 1. MAIN CATEGORIES

60

REVIEW RESULTS (1-4)

Formulating Representing Moving Bringing p&s togetherDesign thinking Designers put great emphasis of

empathy and recognition of emo-tions, thoughts, desires and needs of target users (Brown, 2008, in Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 536)

- Clear communication of ideas- Presenting ideas to po-tential investors (Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 537-538)

With a broad understanding, curiosity and creativity they then propose solutions that present a significant improve-ment of the existing ones (Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 536)

Viewing the problem from different perspectives (Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 537-538)

- Introduction of restrictions on generating ideas- Clear identification of the vari-ables that we wish to check with the user- Observation(Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 537-538)

- Looking for opportunities- Imaginating- Making new connections- Promoting active thinking- Generating new ideas(Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 537-538)

Experimenting, both by seeking new ideas and applying observational techniques (Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 536)

With Design Thinking capabilities used in such a situation, one does not choose among the existing alternatives, but is willing and able to create a solution C which is better than A and B (Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 533)

61


Evaluating Reflecting OtherDesign thinking Integrative thinking that we must use to solve

problems, and as an assessment tool to evaluate solutions (Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 533-534)

- Pinch hitting- Relaying- Directing- Facilitating(Anderson, 2012, p. 11)

Iterating (Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 537-538)

- The use of technology- Perseverance- Empathy- Objectivity- Focussing- Aggregation of data- Analytical skills- Holistic view- Action orientation- Teamwork- Cooperation- Active listening

(Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 537-538)

We need to be able to evaluate the new ideas as rigorously as possible (Ries, 2011, p. 271)

Williams drew upon Tim Brown’s approach empha-sizing insight, observation and empathy in balancing the dominant constraints of product/service innova-tion – feasibility, viability and desirability (Gilbert, et al. (DMI), 2012, p. 400)

62


Formulating Representing Moving Bringing p&s togetherLean startup We felt that the Lean Startup

method provided a means for change agents to clearly describe an organizational change plan as a set of assumptions (Anderson, 2012, p. 6)

Every entrepreneur eventually faces an overriding chal-lenge in developing a successful product: deciding when to pivot and when to persevere (Ries, 2011, p. 147)

You have to be able to predict the outcome of the changes you make to tell if the problems that result are really problems (Ries, 2011, p. 259)

The ability to pivot is no substitute for sound strategic thinking (Ries, 2011, p. 172)

They have to be able to conceive and execute experi-ments without having to gain an excessive number of approvals (Ries, 2011, p. 245)

The ability to experiment in a more agile manner (Ries, 2011, p. 250)

Exploration capabilities: ‘responsive, experimental, evolv-ing(Gilbert, et al. (DMI), 2012, p. 398)

Smith and Tushman (2005) also suggested that so-called paradoxical thinking was a key enabler in the simultane-ous pursuit of exploration and exploitation (Gilbert, et al. (DMI), 2012, p. 401)

Improve, enhance, optimize(Anderson, 2012, p. 11)

63


Evaluating Reflecting OtherLean startup The team would be able immediately to assess the

impact of their work, evaluate its effect on custom-ers, and decide what to do next (Ries, 2011, p. 185)

Business skills, such as human resources manage-ment and marketing (Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 532)

Using this kind of setup for calibration, we could begin to vary the conditions of the experiments. The challenge will be to increase the level of uncertainty about what the right answer is while still being able to measure the quality of the outcome objectively (Ries, 2011, p. 270)

Properties that need to be educated in entrepre-neurship are opportunity identification ... (DeTienne & Chandler, 2004, in Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 532)


Only by building a model of customer behavior and then showing our ability to use our product or service to change it over time can we establish real facts about the validity of our vision (Ries, 2011, p. 268)

Teams that work this way are more productive as long as productivity is measured by their ability to create customer value and not just stay busy (Ries, 2011, p. 253)

64

SYNONYMS FOR ‘SKILLS’

Article code Synonyms in article Comparison to synonyms of the research3a - Ability

- Characteristics- Can be interpreted as a synonym for skill- Not used as a synonym for skill, but only generally

3e - Ability- Capacities

- Can be interpreted as a synonym for skill- Can be interpreted as a synonym for skill

4c - Condition- Requires

- Can be interpreted as a synonym for skill- Not used as a synonym for skill, but only generally

4f - Tasks - Can be interpreted as a synonym for skill4o - Ability - Can be interpreted as a synonym for skill11f - Ability

- Art- Can be interpreted as a synonym for skill- Can be interpreted as a synonym for skill

12d - Characteristic- Competency- Able- Features

- Can be interpreted as a synonym for skill- Can be interpreted as a synonym for skill- Can be interpreted as a synonym for skill- Not used as a synonym for skill, but only generally

14a - Ability- Able- Capability- Expertise

- Can be interpreted as a synonym for skill- Can be interpreted as a synonym for skill- Can be interpreted as a synonym for skill- Can be interpreted as a synonym for skill

APPENDIx IV. REVIEW FILE MARIjN V1

VERSION 1. MAIN CATEGORIES

65


Formulating Representing Moving Bringing p&s togetherDesign Thinking Empathy. They can imagine the world

from multiple perspectives – those of col-leagues, clients, end users, and custom-ers (current and prospective). (Brown, 2008, p. 87)

Ability to visualize: Designers work visually (i.e., depiction of ideas) (Razzouk and Shute, 2012, p. 336)

Experimentalism. Significant innova-tions don’t come from incremental tweaks. Design thinkers pose ques-tions and explore constraints in crea-tive ways that proceed in entirely new directions. (Brown, 2008, p. 87)

Integrative thinking. They not only rely on analytical processes (those that produce either/or choices) but also exhibit the ability to see all of the salient and sometimes contradictory aspects of a confounding problem and create novel solutions that go beyond and dramatically improve on existing alternatives. (Brown, 2008, p. 87)

Great design thinkers observe the world in minute detail. (Brown, 2008, p. 87)

Design thinking requires flexibility in thought and action often working with confusing, conflicting and ill-formulated issues first framed by Rittel (Churchman, 1967) as wicked problems (Lee, 2012, p. 509)

Ability to use language as a tool: Designers should be able to verbally explain their creative process forc-ing invention where detail is lacking and expressing relationships not obvious visually (i.e., explanation should go hand in hand with the creative process). (Razzouk and Shute, 2012, p. 336)

By taking a “people first” approach, design thinkers can imagine solutions that are inherently desirable and meet explicit or latent needs (Brown, 2008, p. 87)

Design thinking means, for example, asking right questions and choosing right answers (Simon, 1969, in Chang, Joo, and Kim, 2012, p. 648)

Discover what people’s needs are (Brown and Wyatt, 2010, p. 30)

Design thinkers are able to make insights usable, by making abstract matters tangible. (De Lille, Roscam, et al., 2012, p. 467)

Intuitional risk taking or the gut feelings Beckman and Barry (2007) describe should also be promoted to better follow a line of thinking that may produce more experimental and experiential processes and outcomes. (Lee, 2012, p. 510)

Moving back and forth between the given problem and the testable pro-posals they have in mind (Rowe, 1987, in Chang, Joo, and Kim, 2012, p. 648)

Reframe the brief (Brown and Wyatt, 2010, p. 30)

Predisposition toward multi-functional-ity: Designers should look at different/multiple solutions to a problem (Raz-zouk and Shute, 2012, p. 336)

Higher levels in the hierarchy are as-sociated with a greater ability for the designer to reframe with the client during briefing. (Paton and Dorst, 2011, p. 583)

They think more in terms of creat-ing new possibilities than in terms of selecting between existing alternatives (Boland and Collopy, 2004, in De Lille, Roscam, et al., 2012, p. 467)

The ability to reframe a problematic situation in new and interesting ways is widely seen as one of the key character-istics of design thinking about crucial art of frame communication and new frame adoption. (Paton and Dorst, 2011, p. 573)

66


Formulating Representing Moving Bringing p&s togetherDesign Thinking Making an abstraction from a client’s cur-

rently held frame is a significant strategy by which designers de-structure a situ-ation so that new frames can be com-municated and adopted. Ways to achieve this abstraction were identified as: the use of metaphor and analogy; contextual engagement through research; and, con-jecture, where reframing was assisted by co-exploring the abstracted conjectured view of the situation (Paton and Dorst, 2011, p. 585)

Translation of abstract concepts into concrete instances of potential futures (Evans, 2011, in De Lille, Roscam, et al., 2012, p. 468)

Language co-creation by engineering a dialogical approach, using a context-specific language framework and asking leading questions, were the three ap-proaches designers identified as means to de-structure a situation. (Paton and Dorst, 2011, p. 582)

Locate/use resources - Creating arguments based on evidence - Discern resources by quality and cred-ibility - Find resources by seek and employ up to date sources.- Identify needs and set goals.(Razzouk and Shute, 2012, p. 342)

67


Evaluating Reflecting OtherDesign thinking - Test models

- Generate feedback- Modify model/redesign- Re-evaluate model- Make decisions (Razzouk and Shute, 2012, p. 342)

Future oriented, Design thinkers know how to adopt their way of work to the context and changes in their project. They do not have one way of working, each time they change their process according to the client’s needs and situation. (De Lille, Roscam, et al., 2012, p. 467)

Team members however, may have different learn-ing styles and it is important to recognize these distinctions. (Lee, 2012, p. 510)

Divergent thinking by testing competing ideas against one another, the outcome will be bolder and more compelling. (Brown and Wyatt, 2010, p. 31)Divergent thinking is the capacity and disposition for collaboration across disciplines. It tends to be ex-pressed as openness, curiosity, optimism a tendency towards learning through doing and experimenta-tion. (Brown and Wyatt, 2010, p. 31)

Keep the big picture of the problem in mind while focusing on its specifics. (Razzouk and Shute, 2012, p. 336)

Understand design thinking terms by identifying terms and applying in right context (Razzouk and Shute, 2012, p. 342)

Collaboration. The best design thinkers don’t simply work alongside other disciplines; many of them have significant experience in more than one (Brown, 2008, p. 87)

The design thinkers’ ability to empathize with multi-ple kinds of people and the skill to co-create enables collaboration. (De Lille, Roscam, et al., 2012, p. 467)

Affinity for teamwork: Designers need to develop interpersonal skills that allow them to communicate across disciplines and work with other people. (Raz-zouk and Shute, 2012, p. 336)

68


Formulating Representing Moving Bringing p&s togetherLean Startup Leap: “go and see for yourself”

Understand the potential customer and what problems they have. With that understanding, its possible to craft a cus-tomer archetype a brief document that seeks to humanize the proposed target customer. (Ries, 2011, p. 92)

Startup founders can see the future of their industries and are prepared to take bold risks to seek out new and in-novative solutions to the problems the companies face. (Ries, 2011, p. 36)

Experiment by braking down the grand vision into its components. Than we need to identify which hypothesis to test. Humanize the proposed target customer. (Ries, 2011, p. 92)

Thinker:- Experiment with a system- Build theory- Model a system- Break down a system (Razzouk and Shute, 2012, p. 342)

Lean skill: Remove any feature, process or effort that does not contribute to the learning you seek (Ries, 2011, p. 111).

Entrepreneurs possess a unique com-bination of perseverance (Ries, 2011, p. 113)


Evaluating Reflecting OtherLean Startup Its most vital function is validated learning. Vali-

dated learning is learning the truth about which ele-ments of strategy are working to realize our vision and which are just crazy. We must learn what cus-tomers really want, not what they say they want or what we think they should want. We must discover whether we are on a path that will lead to growing a sustainable business. (Ries, 2011, p. 47)

Innovation accounting: product prioritization deci-sions, deciding which customers to target or listen to, having the courage to subject a grad vision to constant testing and feedback and how to pivot or persevere (Ries, 2011, p. 147)

The Lean principle requires a different type of man-ager one who is skilled in optimization, delegation, control, and execution (Ries, 2011, p. 255)

69


Formulating Representing Moving Bringing p&s togetherDesign Thinking Understanding design problems

- Observation(Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 537-538)

-Viewing the problem from different per-spectives (Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 537-538)

-Williams drew upon Tim Brown’s ap-proach emphasizing insight and ob-servation in balancing the dominant constraints of product/service innova-tion – feasibility, viability and desirability (Gilbert, et al. (DMI), 2012, p. 400)


- Clear communication of ideas- Presenting ideas to potential investors (Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 537-538)


- Looking for opportunities- Imaginating- Making new connections- Promoting active thinking- Generating new ideas(Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 537-538)

With Design Thinking capabilities used in such a situation, one does not choose among the existing alterna-tives, but is willing and able to create a solution C which is better than A and B (Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 533)


Integrative thinking that we must use to solve problems, and as an assess-ment tool to evaluate solutions (Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 533-534)

Identifying

- Introduction of restrictions on generat-ing ideas- Clear identification of the variables that we wish to check with the user(Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 537-538)


...

Primary generators

...


...

Framing

...

Working with multiple representations

...


With a broad understanding, curios-ity and creativity they then propose solutions that present a significant im-provement of the existing ones (Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 536)

Experimenting, both by seeking new ideas and applying observational tech-niques (Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 536)

Briefing is a continuous process

...


...

APPENDIx V. REVIEW FILE MARIE V2

VERSION 2. SUB CATEGORIES

70


Evaluating Reflecting OtherDesign thinking Objective and subjective evaluations

Iterating (Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 537-538)


...

- Transparency- Pinch hitting- Relay- Flow- Direct- Facilitate (Anderson, 2012, p. 11)

- The use of technology, - Discipline- Perseverance- Focus- Aggregation of data- Analytical skills, Holistic view(Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 537-538)

Designers put great emphasis of empathy and rec-ognition of emotions, thoughts, desires and needs of target users (Brown, 2008, in Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 536)

- Empathy(Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 537-538)

- Active listening(Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 537-538)

- Participation(Anderson, 2012, p. 11)

- Teamwork- Cooperation(Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 537-538)


...


...

Guiding principles

...

71


Formulating Representing Moving Bringing p&s togetherLean Startup Understanding design problems

...


...


Exploration capabilities: ‘responsive, experimental, evolving(Gilbert, et al. (DMI), 2012, p. 398)


...

Identifying

We felt that the Lean Startup method provided a means for change agents to clearly describe an organizational change plan as a set of assumptions (Anderson, 2012, p. 6)


...

Primary generators

You have to be able to predict the out-come of the changes you make to tell if the problems that result are really problems (Ries, 2011, p. 259)


...

Framing

...


...


Every entrepreneur eventually faces an overriding challenge in developing a successful product: deciding when to pivot and when to persevere (Ries, 2011, p. 147)

The ability to pivot is no substitute for sound strategic thinking (Ries, 2011, p. 172)

They have to be able to conceive and execute experiments without having to gain an excessive number of approvals (Ries, 2011, p. 245)

The ability to experiment in a more agile manner (Ries, 2011, p. 250)

Improve, enhance, optimize(Anderson, 2012, p. 11)


...


Smith and Tushman (2005) also suggested that so-called paradoxi-cal thinking was a key enabler in the simultaneous pursuit of exploration and exploitation (Gilbert, et al. (DMI), 2012, p. 401)

72


Evaluating Reflecting OtherLean Startup Objective and subjective evaluations

The team would be able immediately to assess the impact of their work, evaluate its effect on custom-ers, and decide what to do next (Ries, 2011, p. 185)

Using this kind of setup for calibration, we could begin to vary the conditions of the experiments. The challenge will be to increase the level of uncertainty about what the right answer is while still being able to measure the quality of the outcome objectively (Ries, 2011, p. 270)

Only by building a model of customer behavior and then showing our ability to use our product or service to change it over time can we establish real facts about the validity of our vision (Ries, 2011, p. 268)

Teams that work this way are more productive as long as productivity is measured by their ability to create customer value and not just stay busy (Ries, 2011, p. 253)



...

Business skills, such as human resources manage-ment and marketing (Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 532)

Properties that need to be educated in entrepre-neurship are opportunity identification ... (DeTienne & Chandler, 2004, in Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 532)

Suspending judgement Reflection on action

...

Guiding principles

...

73



Great design thinkers observe the world in minute detail. (Brown, 2008, p. 87)

Discover what people’s needs are (Brown and Wyatt, 2010, p. 30)

Asking right questions (Simon, 1969, in Chang, Joo, and Kim, 2012, p. 648)


Ability to use language as a tool: Designers should be able to verbally explain their creative process forc-ing invention where detail is lacking and expressing relationships not obvious visually (i.e., explanation should go hand in hand with the creative process). (Razzouk and Shute, 2012, p. 336)


Experimentalism. Significant innova-tions don’t come from incremental tweaks. Design thinkers pose ques-tions and explore constraints in crea-tive ways that proceed in entirely new directions. (Brown, 2008, p. 87)

They think more in terms of creat-ing new possibilities than in terms of selecting between existing alternatives (Boland and Collopy, 2004, in De Lille, Roscam, et al., 2012, p. 467)

Predisposition toward multi-functional-ity: Designers should look at different/multiple solutions to a problem (Raz-zouk and Shute, 2012, p. 336)

Create novel solutions that go beyond and dramatically improve on existing alternatives. (Brown, 2008, p. 87)


...

Identifying

The ability to reframe a problematic situation in new and interesting ways is widely seen as one of the key character-istics of design thinking about crucial art of frame communication and new frame adoption. (Paton and Dorst, 2011, p. 573)

Making an abstraction from a client’s cur-rently held frame is a significant strategy by which designers de-structure a situa-tion so that new frames can be commu-nicated and adopted. (Paton and Dorst, 2011, p. 585)


Ability to visualize: Designers work visually (i.e., depiction of ideas) (Razzouk and Shute, 2012, p. 336)

Primary generators

By taking a “people first” approach, design thinkers can imagine solutions that are inherently desirable and meet explicit or latent needs (Brown, 2008, p. 87)

Intuitional risk taking or the gut feelings Beckman and Barry (2007) describe should also be promoted to better follow a line of thinking that may produce more experimental and experiential processes and outcomes. (Lee, 2012, p. 510)


Moving back and forth between the given problem and the testable pro-posals they have in mind (Rowe, 1987, in Chang, Joo, and Kim, 2012, p. 648)

APPENDIx VI. REVIEW FILE MARIjN V2

VERSION 2. SUB CATEGORIES

74


Formulating Representing Moving Bringing p&s togetherDesign Thinking Ways to achieve this abstraction were

identified as: the use of metaphor and analogy; contextual engagement through research; and, conjecture, where refram-ing was assisted by co-exploring the ab-stracted conjectured view of the situation (Paton and Dorst, 2011, p. 585)

Locate/use resources - Creating arguments based on evidence - Discern resources by quality and cred-ibility - Find resources by seek and employ up to date sources.- Identify needs and set goals.(Razzouk and Shute, 2012, p. 342)

Framing

...


...


Translation of abstract concepts into concrete instances of potential futures (Evans, 2011, in De Lille, Roscam, et al., 2012, p. 468)

Design thinkers are able to make insights usable, by making abstract matters tangible. (De Lille, Roscam, et al., 2012, p. 467)

Design aesthetics by represent innova-tion in an aesthetically coherent way. (Razzouk and Shute, 2012, p. 342)

Choosing right answers (Simon, 1969, in Chang, Joo, and Kim, 2012, p. 648)

Entrepreneurs possess a unique com-bination of perseverance (Ries, 2011, p. 113)


Reframe the brief (Brown and Wyatt, 2010, p. 30)

Higher levels in the hierarchy are as-sociated with a greater ability for the designer to reframe with the client during briefing. (Paton and Dorst, 2011, p. 583)

Parallel lines of thoughtIntegrative thinking. They not only rely on analytical processes (those that produce either/or choices) but also exhibit the ability to see all of the salient and sometimes contradic-tory aspects of a confounding problem (Brown, 2008, p. 87)

75



- Test models- Generate feedback- Modify model/redesign- Re-evaluate model- Make decisions (Razzouk and Shute, 2012, p. 342)

Divergent thinking by testing competing ideas against one another, the outcome will be bolder and more compelling. (Brown and Wyatt, 2010, p. 31)Divergent thinking is the capacity and disposition for collaboration across disciplines. It tends to be ex-pressed as openness, curiosity, optimism a tendency towards learning through doing and experimenta-tion. (Brown and Wyatt, 2010, p. 31)


Future oriented, Design thinkers know how to adopt their way of work to the context and changes in their project. They do not have one way of working, each time they change their process according to the client’s needs and situation. (De Lille, Roscam, et al., 2012, p. 467)

Understand design thinking terms by identifying terms and applying in right context (Razzouk and Shute, 2012, p. 342)

Language co-creation by engineering a dialogical ap-proach, using a context-specific language framework and asking leading questions, were the three ap-proaches designers identified as means to de-struc-ture a situation. (Paton and Dorst, 2011, p. 582)

Empathy. They can imagine the world from multi-ple perspectives – those of colleagues, clients, end users, and customers (current and prospective). (Brown, 2008, p. 87)

The design thinkers’ ability to empathize with multi-ple kinds of people and the skill to co-create enables collaboration. (De Lille, Roscam, et al., 2012, p. 467)

Team members however, may have different learn-ing styles and it is important to recognize these distinctions. (Lee, 2012, p. 510)

Collaboration. The best design thinkers don’t simply work alongside other disciplines; many of them have significant experience in more than one (Brown, 2008, p. 87)

Affinity for teamwork: Designers need to develop interpersonal skills that allow them to communicate across disciplines and work with other people. (Raz-zouk and Shute, 2012, p. 336)


...


Keep the big picture of the problem in mind while focusing on its specifics. (Razzouk and Shute, 2012, p. 336)

Guiding principles

...

76



Leap: “go and see for yourself” Understand the potential customer and what problems they have. With that understanding, its possible to craft a cus-tomer archetype a brief document that seeks to humanize the proposed target customer. (Ries, 2011, p. 92)


...


Startup founders can see the future of their industries and are prepared to take bold risks to seek out new and in-novative solutions to the problems the companies faces. (Ries, 2011, p. 36)


...

Identifying

...


...

Primary generators

...


...

Framing

Lean skill: Remove any feature, process or effort that does not contribute to the learning you seek (Ries, 2011, p. 111)


...


Experiment by braking down the grand vision into its components. Than we need to identify which hypothesis to test. Humanize the proposed target customer. (Ries, 2011, p. 92)

Thinker:- Experiment with a system- Build theory- Model a system- Break down a system (Razzouk and Shute, 2012, p. 342)

Entrepreneurs possess a unique com-bination of perseverance and flexibility (Ries, 2011, p. 113)


...


...

77



Its most vital function is validated learning. Vali-dated learning is learning the truth about which ele-ments of strategy are working to realize our vision and which are just crazy. We must learn what cus-tomers really want, not what they say they want or what we think they should want. We must discover whether we are on a path that will lead to growing a sustainable business. (Ries, 2011, p. 47)


...

The Lean principle requires a different type of man-ager one who is skilled in optimization, delegation, control, and execution (Ries, 2011, p. 255)


...


Innovation accounting: product prioritization deci-sions, deciding which customers to target or listen to, having the courage to subject a grad vision to constant testing and feedback and how to pivot or persevere (Ries, 2011, p. 147)

Guiding principles

...

78



ObservingDesign Thinkers observe the world/prob-lems in minute detail and from different perspectives balancing the dominant constraints of product/service innova-tion – feasibility, viability and desirability (Brown, 2008, p. 87; Zupan and Naber-goj (DMI), 2012, p. 537-538; Gilbert, et al. (DMI), 2012, p. 400)

Discovering what people’s needs are (Brown and Wyatt, 2010, p. 30)

Asking the right questions (Simon, 1969, in Chang, Joo, and Kim, 2012, p. 648; Brown, 2008, p. 87)


Using language as a toolDesign Thinkers verbally explain their creative process and commu-nicate their ideas clearly (Razzouk and Shute, 2012, p. 336; Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 537-538)

Presenting ideas to potential inves-tors (Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 537-538)


Generating new ideasDesign Thinkers create new possibili-ties, alternatives and multiple solu-tions, with a broad understanding, curiosity and creativity, that go beyond and dramatically improve the existing (Boland and Collopy, 2004, in De Lille, Roscam, et al., 2012, p. 467; Brown, 2008, p. 87; Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 533-538; Razzouk and Shute, 2012, p. 336)

- Imaginating- Looking for opportunities- Promoting active thinking (Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 537-538)


Iterating problem and solutionDesign Thinkers move back and forth between the problem and possible solutions (Rowe, 1987, in Chang, Joo, and Kim, 2012, p. 648)


Ability to visualizeDesigners work visually (i.e., depic-tion of ideas) (Razzouk and Shute, 2012, p. 336)

Primary generators

Imagine solutionsDesign Thinkers imagine solutions that are inherently desirable and meet explicit or latent needs (Brown, 2008, p. 87)


Integrative thinking Design Thinkers think integrativelyto solve problems, and to evaluate solutions. They see all of the salient and sometimes contradictory aspects of a confounding problem (Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 533-534; Brown, 2008, p. 87)

APPENDIx VII. REVIEW FILE MERGED V3

VERSION 3. PARAPHRASING QUOTES AND MERGING OVERLAP

79


Formulating Representing Moving Bringing p&s togetherDesign Thinking Identifying

Constructing a brief(Brown and Wyatt, 2010, p. 30)

Reframing problems in new and interest-ing ways (Paton and Dorst, 2011, p. 573)

Introduction of restrictions on generating ideas(Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 537-538)

Clear identification of the variables that we wish to check with the user(Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 537-538)

Abstracting framesDesign Thinkers make an abstraction from a client’s currently held frame to de-structure a situation so that new frames can be communicated and adopted. Language co-creation by en-gineering a dialogical approach, using a context-specific language framework and asking leading questions, are the means to de-structure a situation (Paton and Dorst, 2011, p. 582-585)


Designing aesthetics Design Thinkers represent innovation in an aesthetically coherent way (Raz-zouk and Shute, 2012, p. 342)

Choosing the right answers (Simon, 1969, in Chang, Joo, and Kim, 2012, p. 648)

Making concreteDesign Thinkers make insights usable, by translating abstract concepts into concrete, tangible instances of poten-tial futures (Evans, 2011, in De Lille, Roscam, et al., 2012, p. 467-468)

Experimenting Design Thinkers explore constraints in creative ways that proceed in entirely new directions, both by seeking new ideas and applying observational tech-niques (Brown, 2008, p. 87; Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 536)


Reframe the briefDesign Thinkers reframe with the cli-ent during briefing (Paton and Dorst, 2011, p. 583; Brown and Wyatt, 2010, p. 30)

80



Iterating(Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 537-538)

- Test models- Generate feedback- Modify model/redesign- Re-evaluate model- Make decisions (Razzouk and Shute, 2012, p. 342)

Divergent thinking Divergent thinking is the capacity and disposition for collaboration across disciplines. It tends to be ex-pressed as openness, curiosity, optimism a tendency towards learning through doing and experimentation (Brown and Wyatt, 2010, p. 31)


Adaptive workingDesign thinkers adapt their process and methods to the context and changes in their project, or ac-cording to the client’s needs and situation (De Lille, Roscam, et al., 2012, p. 467)

- Pinch hitting- Relaying- Directing- Facilitating(Anderson, 2012, p. 11)

- Use technology- Disciplined working- Focussing- Aggregating data- Analyzing(Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 537-538)

Apply design thinking Design Thinkers must communicate well and listen actively. In order to do this they must understand, identify and apply design thinking terms in the right context (Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 537-538; Razzouk and Shute, 2012, p. 342)

CollaboratingDesign Thinkers need interpersonal skills to commu-nicate across disciplines and work with other people in teams. They need to cooperate, participate, and integrate in the team. Team members may have dif-ferent learning styles and it is important to recog-nize these distinctions (Brown, 2008, p. 87; Razzouk and Shute, 2012, p. 336; Lee, 2012, p. 510; Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 537-538; Anderson, 2012, p. 11)

Being empathicDesign Thinkers can imagine the world from multiple current and prospective perspectives of colleagues, clients, end users, and customers. This ability to empathize with stakeholders and the skill to co-create enables collaboration (Brown, 2008, p. 87; De Lille, Roscam, et al., 2012, p. 467; De Lille, Roscam, et al., 2012, p. 467; Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 536-538)


Having a holistic viewDesign Thinkers must keep the big picture of the problem in mind while focusing on its specifics (Raz-zouk and Shute, 2012, p. 336; Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 537-538)

81



Leaping They understand the potential customer and what problems they have. With that understanding, its possible to craft a cus-tomer archetype a brief document that seeks to humanize the proposed target customer (Ries, 2011, p. 92)

Insight and observationThey use insight and observation for bal-ancing feasibility, viability and desirability (Williams, in Gilbert, et al. (DMI), 2012, p. 400)


Exploring solutionsStartup founders seek out new and innovative solutions to the problems the companies face. Exploration capabilities are working with ‘loose’ structures, being flexible, responsive, experimental, and evolving (Ries, 2011, p. 36; Gilbert, et al. (DMI), 2012, p. 398)


Smith and Tushman (2005) also suggested that so-called paradoxi-cal thinking was a key enabler in the simultaneous pursuit of exploration and exploitation (Gilbert, et al. (DMI), 2012, p. 401)

Identifying

Describing assumptionsThe Lean Startup method provides a means for change agents to clearly de-scribe an organizational change plan as a set of assumptions (Anderson, 2012, p. 6)

Primary generators

PredictingThey have to be able to predict the outcome of the changes they make to tell if the problems that result are re-ally problems (Ries, 2011, p. 259)

Framing

Lean working They remove any feature, process or ef-fort that does not contribute to the learn-ing they seek (Ries, 2011, p. 111)


Deciding when to pivot and when to persevere (Ries, 2011, p. 147-172)

ExperimentingThey conceive and execute experi-ments by braking down the grand vision into its components. They need to identify which hypothesis to test. This leads to humanizing the proposed target customer. To experiment with a system, they build theory, then model a system and then break down a sys-tem to Improve, enhance and optimize (Razzouk and Shute, 2012, p. 342; Ries, 2011, p. 92, 245, 250; Ander-son, 2012, p. 11)

- Persevering(Ries, 2011, p. 113)

82



Creating customer value(Ries, 2011, p. 253)

Validated learningLearning which elements of strategy are working to realize a vision. This includes learning what custom-ers really want. The quality of the outcome must be measured objectively. Only by building a model of customer behavior and then showing our ability to use our product or service to change it over time can we establish real facts about the validity of our vision (Ries, 2011, p. 47, 140, 156, 268, 270)


Innovation accountingIn order to apply innovation accounting they need to make product prioritization decisions, deciding which customers to target or listen to, having the cour-age to subject a grad vision to constant testing and feedback and how to pivot or persevere (Ries, 2011, p. 147)

Opportunity identification (DeTienne & Chandler, 2004, in Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 532)

Human resources management and marketing (Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 532)

Lean managing Requires skills like optimization, delegation, control, and execution (Ries, 2011, p. 255)

83

REVIEW RESULTS (1-4) LEAN DESIGN THINkING

Formulating Representing Moving Bringing p&s togetherUnderstanding design problems

ObservingThey observe the world/problems in minute detail and from different perspectives. Start-ups use insight and observation for balancing feasibility, viability and desirability (Brown, 2008, p. 87; Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 537-53; Williams, in Gilbert, et al. (DMI), 2012, p. 400) (LS+DT)

Asking the right questions (Simon, 1969, in Chang, Joo, and Kim, 2012, p. 648; Brown, 2008, p. 87) (DT)

Leaping They understand the potential customer and what problems they have. With that under-standing, its possible to craft a customer archetype a brief document that seeks to hu-manize the proposed target customer (Ries, 2011, p. 92; Brown and Wyatt, 2010, p. 30 ) (LS+DT)


Using language as a toolDesign Thinkers verbally explain their crea-tive process and communicate their ideas clearly (Razzouk and Shute, 2012, p. 336; Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 537-538) (DT)

Presenting ideas to potential investors (Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 537-538) (DT)


Generating new ideasDesign Thinkers and Startup founders create new possibilities, alternatives and multi-ple solutions, with a broad understanding, curiosity and creativity, that go beyond and dramatically improve the existing (Boland and Collopy, 2004, in De Lille, Roscam, et al., 2012, p. 467; Brown, 2008, p. 87; Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 533-538; Raz-zouk and Shute, 2012, p. 336; Ries, 2011, p. 36; Gilbert, et al. (DMI), 2012, p. 398) (LS+DT)

- Imaginating- Looking for opportunities- Promoting active thinking(Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 537-538) (DT)

Improve, enhance, optimize(Anderson, 2012, p. 11) (LS)


Iterating problem and solutionDesign Thinkers move back and forth be-tween the problem and possible solutions (Rowe, 1987, in Chang, Joo, and Kim, 2012, p. 648) (DT)


Integrative thinking Design Thinkers think integrativelyto solve problems, and to evaluate solutions. They see all of the salient and sometimes contradictory aspects of a confounding prob-lem (Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 533-534; Brown, 2008, p. 87) (DT)

Framing

Lean working They remove any feature, process or effort that does not contribute to the learning they seek (Ries, 2011, p. 111) (LS)


Ability to visualizeDesigners work visually (i.e., depiction of ideas) (Razzouk and Shute, 2012, p. 336) (DT)

Primary generators

Imagine solutionsDesign Thinkers imagine solutions that are inherently desirable and meet explicit or latent needs (Brown, 2008, p. 87) (DT)

PredictingThey have to be able to predict the outcome of the changes they make to tell if the prob-lems that result are really problems (Ries, 2011, p. 259) (LS)


Paradoxical thinking Lean Design Thinkers apply paradoxical thinking in the simultaneous pursuit of explo-ration and exploitation (Smith and Tushman, 2005, in Gilbert, et al. (DMI), 2012, p. 401) (LS)

APPENDIx VIII. REVIEW FILE MERGED V4

VERSION 4. INTEGRATING SKILLS IN LEAN STARTUP AND DESIGN THINKING

84


Formulating Representing Moving Bringing p&s togetherIdentifying

Constructing a brief(Brown and Wyatt, 2010, p. 30) (DT)

Reframing problems in new and interesting ways (Paton and Dorst, 2011, p. 573) (DT)

Introduction of restrictions on generating ideas(Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 537-538) (DT)

Clear identification of the variables that we wish to check with the user(Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 537-538) (DT)

Abstracting framesDesign Thinkers make an abstraction from a client’s currently held frame to de-structure a situation so that new frames can be commu-nicated and adopted. Language co-creation by engineering a dialogical approach, using a context-specific language framework and asking leading questions, are the means to de-structure a situation (Paton and Dorst, 2011, p. 582-585) (DT)

Describing assumptionsThe Lean Startup method provides a means for change agents to clearly describe an or-ganizational change plan as a set of assump-tions (Anderson, 2012, p. 6) (LS)


Designing aesthetics Design Thinkers represent innovation in an aesthetically coherent way (Razzouk and Shute, 2012, p. 342) (DT)

Choosing the right answers (Simon, 1969, in Chang, Joo, and Kim, 2012, p. 648) (DT)

Making concreteDesign Thinkers make insights usable, by translating abstract concepts into concrete, tangible instances of potential futures (Ev-ans, 2011, in De Lille, Roscam, et al., 2012, p. 467-468) (DT)

ExperimentingThey conceive and execute experiments by braking down the grand vision into its components. They need to identify which hypothesis to test. This leads to humanizing the proposed target customer. To experiment with a system, they build theory, then model a system and then break down a system to Improve, enhance and optimize. Design Thinkers explore constraints in creative ways that proceed in entirely new directions, both by seeking new ideas and applying observa-tional techniques (Razzouk and Shute, 2012, p. 342; Ries, 2011, p. 92, 245, 250; Ander-son, 2012, p. 11; Brown, 2008, p. 87; Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 536)) (LS+DT)

Persevering (Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 537-538; Ries, 2011, pp. 113, 147-172) (LS+DT)


Reframe the briefDesign Thinkers reframe with the client dur-ing briefing (Paton and Dorst, 2011, p. 583; Brown and Wyatt, 2010, p. 30) (DT)

85



Iterating(Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 537-538) (DT)

Divergent thinking Divergent thinking is the capacity and disposition for col-laboration across disciplines. It tends to be expressed as openness, curiosity, optimism a tendency towards learning through doing and experimentation (Brown and Wyatt, 2010, p. 31) (DT)

Creating customer value(Ries, 2011, p. 253) (LS)

Validated learningLearning which elements of strategy are working to realize a vision. This includes learning what customers really want. The quality of the outcome must be measured objectively. Only by building a model of customer behavior and then showing our ability to use our product or service to change it over time can we establish real facts about the validity of our vision (Ries, 2011, p. 47, 140, 156, 268, 270; Razzouk and Shute, 2012, p. 342) (LS+DT)


Adaptive workingDesign thinkers adapt their process and methods to the con-text and changes in their project, or according to the client’s needs and situation (De Lille, Roscam, et al., 2012, p. 467) (DT)

- Pinch hitting- Relaying- Directing- Facilitating(Anderson, 2012, p. 11) (DT)

- Use technology- Disciplined working- Focussing- Aggregating data- Analyzing(Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 537-538) (DT)

Apply design thinkingDesign Thinkers must communicate well and listen actively. In order to do this they must understand, identify and apply design thinking terms in the right context (Zupan and Naber-goj (DMI), 2012, p. 537-538; Razzouk and Shute, 2012, p. 342) (DT)

CollaboratingDesign Thinkers need interpersonal skills to communicate across disciplines and work with other people in teams. They need to cooperate, participate, and integrate in the team. Team members may have different learning styles and it is important to recognize these distinctions (Brown, 2008, p. 87; Razzouk and Shute, 2012, p. 336; Lee, 2012, p. 510; Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 537-538; Anderson, 2012, p. 11) (DT)

Being empathicDesign Thinkers can imagine the world from multiple current and prospective perspectives of colleagues, clients, end us-ers, and customers. This ability to empathize with stakehold-ers and the skill to co-create enables collaboration (Brown, 2008, p. 87; De Lille, Roscam, et al., 2012, p. 467; De Lille, Roscam, et al., 2012, p. 467; Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 536-538) (DT)

Opportunity identification (DeTienne & Chandler, 2004, in Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 532) (LS)

Human resources management and marketing (Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 532) (LS)

Lean managing Requires skills like optimization, delegation, control, and execution (Ries, 2011, p. 255) (LS)


Having a holistic viewDesign Thinkers must keep the big picture of the problem in mind while focusing on its specifics (Razzouk and Shute, 2012, p. 336; Zupan and Nabergoj (DMI), 2012, p. 537-538) (DT)

Innovation accountingIn order to apply innovation accounting they need to make product prioritization decisions, deciding which customers to target or listen to, having the courage to subject a grad vision to constant testing and feedback and how to pivot or persevere (Ries, 2011, p. 147) (LS)


...

86

APPENDIx Ix. GLOSSARYDesign Design is a process and product of cooperative abductive thinking in which a shared understanding of a possible desirable future is created in order to solve complex wicked problems. Adapted from the definition by Bodker and Christiansen (Bodker and Christiansen, 1997, in Melles, 2012, p. 300).

Design ThinkingDesign Thinking is a user-driven innovation strategy that starts with a problem, and leads through ideation to a relevant solution. The principles and methods of Design Thinking were developed in the late nineties by the design consultancy IDEO. They used Design Thinking as a way to identify the needs of users to create human centred solutions (Müller and Thoring, 2012, p. 152). Design Thinking fosters innovative solutions by means of ‘tools, techniques and methods to approach different thinking styles and to undertake analysis, synthesis and evaluations of the process development’ (Jones, 1980; Cross, 1984, in Di Lucchio, 2012, p. 363).

Innovation“Innovation is the process of making changes, large and small, radical and incremental, to products, processes, services that results in the introduction of something new for intended users and other stakeholders involved with the project” (adapted from O’Sullivan and Dooley, 2009, p. 5)

Lean Design ThinkingLean Design Thinking is an adaption of both methods that are mentioned above. They combine the generation of ideas from Design Thinking and the selecting of ideas from Lean Startup in one singular model. Because “the creativity of evolutionary processes can be explained by the combination of generation (variation) and selection of ideas” (Simonton, 1999, in Müller and Thoring, 2012, p. 160).

Lean StartupLean Startup is a user-driven innovation strategy that starts with an idea, and leads through selection and validation to an innovative business model. The main principle of Lean Startup is to create a continuous feedback loop together with customers during the development of processes and products (Maurya, 2012, in Müller and Thoring, 2012, p. 152). Lean Startup has its origin in ‘customer development’, a method developed by Steven Blank (2006). This method is built on the idea that in the process of product development a starting company also needs to understand the customer by ‘customer development’ (Müller and Thoring, 2012, p. 151).

SkillsSkills are principals, strategies and tactics required to identify and understand design problems and design solutions (Lawson, 2005, p. 130).

87

APPENDIx x. LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLESList of figures- Figure 1. Process model of Design Thinking (Müller and Thoring, 2012, pp. 154) - Figure 2. Process model of Lean Startup (Müller and Thoring, 2012, pp. 154)- Figure 3. Process model of Lean Design Thinking (Müller and Thoring, 2012, pp. 160)- Figure 4. Explanatory framework of this research - Figure 5. Combinations of search terms - Figure 6. Main- and sub categories of the Design Skills Framework

List of tables- Table 1. Data sets and search terms- Table 2. Recording scheme of the reviewed literature- Table 3. Selected articles for review (version 1)- Table 4. Literature reviewed by Marie - Table 5. Literature reviewed by Marijn- Table 6. Selected articles for review (version 2)- Table 7. Similarities and differences- Table 8. Concluding list of skills

EVOLVING LEAN DESIGN THINKING BY EXPLORING SKILLS FOR ...

Documents

Transcript of EVOLVING LEAN DESIGN THINKING BY EXPLORING SKILLS FOR ...