Dear researcher,
The critical transformative change that many companies are currently addressing need attention, one perspective is the digitalization process affecting companies to various degree. As practitioners become more enthusiastic about adopting design thinking it becomes increasingly important to deepen scientific scrutiny of the phenomenon. So what can be of use from fields of organizational change that links people-centric practices of design thinking or other research that put strong attention on; background research, empathy towards user needs, problem definition, ideation, prototyping, decision-making, and reflection?
Best,
Anders
it seems you are basically asking how design/ innovation can better meet implementation, particularly in organizational contexts (within the same company)..?
Thank you Brian for your comment.
The point is "what can be of use from fields of organizational change that links people-centric practices of design thinking or other research that put strong attention on.." innovation transformation of organisations internally (yes). And to what extent is a sustainable change process recognized?
Ideas, suggestions..?
the question statement is charged; i am struggling to take it apart and put the pieces together
i struggle to identify your dependent and independent variables - your x and y.
are you looking at critical transformative change / organizational change, and how it is impacted by design thinking (etc), or the other way around?
Promote change, yes, i.e having transformation taking place as a consequence of DT..
Qualitative approaches are also needed and I see that you mention empathy and reflection in the question. What are the employees and the consumers' needs? Kerre
are you referring to change in organizations internal or external to the design thinker?
i am thinking how your question is different from social entrepreneurship or innovation. (my sense is that it may be)
Good Point Kerre,
What approach to use is not focal point at this stage. There are several advantages for each and revealing needs (internal and external) would be important to build upon.
Brian, concerning position of influence by a potential single facilitator both scenarios are worth attention. There are reasons to consider social influence (e.g. power relations etc.) once the snowball (=DT action) is set in motion..
internal versus external would determine who is involved and what the likely target or outcome would be. it would also determine whether it is more related to social entrepreneurship or innovation.
in your mind, why is DT not another innovation method or creative problem solving technique?
with all respect, DT is the basis for perceiving, shaping and adopting new embryotic ideas that can grow to become tomorrows answer for todays questions. Why simply extracting bits of it and package DT as a potential method or problem solving technique when it can be applied throughout the whole innovation cycle? What does another innovation method mean? Creative problem solving technique does that imply that you already know the problem at hand or that you actually get a chance of re-defining your beliefs?
Placing problem-finding in the foreground would be a more relevant starting point and mindset better than a given method because there is less black and white and more ambiguity involved than meets the eye.
to solve problems is another way of saying you are innovating. innovation has its methods, including creativity and creative problem solving. there are a plethora of CPS techniques (20+). so my view is that DT would compete with existing methods, and my question is how is DT unique, relative to existing methods.
DT encompasses numerous creativity excercises. The intention is however to stretch mere ideas to something fruitful and to revise a potential starting point that concerns what to ideate around in the first place.
i think a good study would be to critically examine how DT differs from existing creativity exercises, and what it thus does differently or uniquely. one would consider a number of concepts and constructs as part of such an evaluation
Sounds relevant still it remains a few steps off the initial target question. Anyways, uniqueness is appealing and it sounds like you plan to test a model?
There are two issues that shape everything interesting about what you are asking, and both are difficult to talk about in the context of the question(s) as you have framed it/them. First, everything about the historic behaviors you are observing, and everything about making new behaviors "sustainable" (which better be a flexible and adaptable kind of sustainable or you will be busy cementing obsolescence in place) is going to be about building new habits -- habits of listening, thinking, speaking, and acting -- to replace old habits. Second, everything important about observing habitual behaviors, breaking down old habits, and building new habits has to do with language and associated phenomena, as, for example, listening. Good hunting. Chauncey Bell
Dear Chauncey,
Thank you for addressing context, and how to approach one's surrounding. The redesign of behaviour and action is inevitable. Understanding past as a consequence for shifting behavior and action become critical, yes. Yet, for many this shift is overwhelmingly big due to the fact that process redesign (org/team/ind) do take time... still no one has said that it would be easy.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Social Psychology
- Attitude