A Model to Support the Formation and Work of Design Thinking Teams

• Autorzy: Paweł Wawrzała
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Purpose: Design Thinking is a frequently recommended strategy used in the operation of companies and organizations. Unfortunately, in many cases the implementation of this approach ends prematurely or is a failure. The purpose of this work is to provide anyone responsible for initiating and/or leading design thinking processes in an organization with a relatively simple model/framework to increase the chances of success of implementing methodologies based on the work of self-organizing teams. Design/methodology/approach: Design Thinking is an often recommended strategy for how companies and organizations should operate. Unfortunately, in many cases the implementation of this approach ends prematurely or is a failure. The purpose of this work is to provide anyone responsible for initiating and/or leading design thinking processes in an organization with a relatively simple model/framework to increase the chances of success of implementing methodologies based on the work of self-organizing teams. Findings: Among the many factors that influence the failure of design thinking implementation, four key ones have been identified to initiate and practice design thinking in various organizations. The proposed model of the interacting four elements visualized as a tetrahedron, can be used by those responsible for implementing the design thinking process as an aid to building an effective team, starting from providing emotional comfort to group members. In addition, the model makes it possible to reveal information gaps at the individual, project team and organizational levels, so it is clear where to target individualized knowledge packages. Research limitations/implications: The model outlined is intended to support the formation stage and effective work of the project team in the organization. The model does not include elements to directly influence the work of the team (e.g., stimulating creativity), however, providing emotional comfort can positively influence the design thinking process itself. Practical implications: The work presents a proposal for a model, the use of which during group-led project processes allows to preserve the cohesion of the working team. The use of the presented tool increases the chances of achieving success in group project work, including the possibility of developing solutions from areas of radical innovation. Practicing the design thinking path requires the process facilitator to have a set of tools and skills developed through long-term practice. The proposed framework lowers the starting threshold for becoming an effective facilitator by identifying only four key elements to support in a team. Social implications: The use of this model is intended to provide the project team with support for its emotional and informational needs. This kind of innovative support for design processes, the author intends, allows for the spread and expansion of design practices that take into account end users. Design Thinking methodology and its derivatives have repeatedly proven their effectiveness in designing and implementing social change. Originality/value: Unlike most works that propose solutions constructed according to a top-down pattern (the organization's goals are primary), the proposed model uses a buttom-up strategy, placing the human being and his needs as the starting point for achieving innovation in the organization. In addition, unlike most of the available literature, which focuses on identifying all potential factors resulting in failures of implementing Design Thinking, it has reduced to four factors that need to be taken care of for easier understanding and acceptance of the process by project team members and the organizational ecosystem.(original abstract)

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Design thinking; Design process

PL

Myślenie projektowe; Proces projektowania

• Czasopismo: Zeszyty Naukowe. Organizacja i Zarządzanie / Politechnika Śląska
• Rocznik: 2022
• Numer: z. 165
• Strony: 383--392

Twórcy

autor

Paweł Wawrzała

• Silesian University of Technology

Bibliografia

• 1. Antony, J., Gupta, S. (2018). Top ten reasons for process improvement project failures. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, 10(1), 367-374. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLSS-11-2017-0130.
• 2. Banathy, B.H. (1996). Designing Social Systems in a Changing World. New York, NY: Springer, https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-1-4757-9981-1.
• 3. Basadur, M., Gelade, G., Basadur, T. (2014). Creative Problem-Solving Process Styles, Cognitive Work Demands, and Organizational Adaptability. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 50(1), 80-115. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886313508433.
• 4. Bingham, C.B., McDonald, R.M. (2022). Productive Tensions: How Every Leader Can Tackle Innovation's Toughest Trade-Offs. The MIT Press.
• 5. Brown, T. (2009). Change by Design: How Design Thinking Transforms Organizations and Inspires Innovation. HarperBusiness.
• 6. Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked Problems in Design Thinking. Design Issues, 8(2), 5-21. https://doi.org/10.2307/1511637.
• 7. Butler, A.G., Roberto, M.A. (2018). When Cognition Interferes with Innovation: Overcoming Cognitive Obstacles to Design Thinking. Research-Technology Management, 61(4), 45-51. https://doi.org/10.1080/08956308.2018.1471276.
• 8. Doorley, S., Witthoft, S., University, H.P.I. of D. at S., Kelley, D. (2012). Make Space: How to Set the Stage for Creative Collaboration (1st edition). Wiley.
• 9. Dunne, D. (2018). Implementing design thinking in organizations: An exploratory study. Journal of Organization Design, 7(1), 16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41469-018-0040-7.
• 10. Gero, J.S., Milovanovic, J. (2020). A framework for studying design thinking through measuring designers' minds, bodies and brains. Design Science, 6, e19. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsj.2020.15.
• 11. Kelley, D., Kelley, T. (2015). Creative Confidence: Unleashing the Creative Potential within Us All (1st edition). Harper Collins.
• 12. Knapp, J., Zeratsky, J., Kowitz, B. (2016). Sprint: How to Solve Big Problems and Test New Ideas in Just Five Days (1st edition). Simon & Schuster.
• 13. Liedtka, J. (2018, September 1). Why Design Thinking Works. Harvard Business Review, September-October, 72-79.
• 14. McLain, D. (2022, February 11). How Leaders Can Communicate Change to a Burned-Out Workforce. Gallup.Com. https://www.gallup.com/workplace/389594/leaders-communicate-change-burned-workforce.aspx.
• 15. Nakata, C., Hwang, J. (2020). Design thinking for innovation: Composition, consequence, and contingency. Journal of Business Research, 118, 117-128. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jbusres.2020.06.038.
• 16. Ospina, J.M.G., Sánchez, D.E.G. (2022). Design thinking traits and cognitive passive resistance: Mediating effect of linear thinking. Management Research Review, 45(9), 1155-1184. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-11-2021-0803.
• 17. Pink, D.H. (2009). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. Riverhead Books.
• 18. Rauth, I., Köppen, E., Jobst, B., Meinel, C. (2010). Design Thinking: An Educational Model towards Creative Confidence. DS 66-2: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Design Creativity (ICDC 2010). https://www.designsociety.org/publication/30267/ Design+Thinking%3A+An+Educational+Model+towards+Creative+Confidence.
• 19. Verganti, R. (2009). Design Driven Innovation: Changing the Rules of Competition by Radically Innovating What Things Mean. Harvard Business Review Press.
• 20. Waidelich, L., Richter, A., Kölmel, B., Bulander, R. (2018). Design Thinking Process Model Review. 2018 IEEE International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation (ICE/ITMC), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICE.2018.8436281.
• 21. Wrigley, C., Nusem, E., Straker, K. (2020). Implementing Design Thinking: Understanding Organizational Conditions. California Management Review, 62(2), 125-143. https://doi.org/10.1177/0008125619897606.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.29119/1641-3466.2022.165.27