Attitude. Ability. Action. Outcome.
When an organization decides to implement design thinking they first need to conclude that they have the correct ATTITUDE. This covers for example factors such as mindset and company culture – both as individuals and the organization. Having agreed that the ATTITUDE is correct, the organization should consider its ABILITY to implement the design thinking process. ABILITY relates to the internal skills of individuals, their desire and willingness to learn and is there sufficient financial resources available to support such a process. Having agreed that the necessary skills are available and that financially the organization can support the process, they need to consider what ACTION is required to bring about implementation. This is where they organization considers leadership and team work or collaboration. Collaboration is a vital part of the process and requires consistent focussed leadership at numerous levels within an organization.
Finally, consider OUTCOME, what the organization is aiming for or what the individuals involved are focussed on bringing about. In this theme for example we place factors such as measurability, innovation or competitive advantage. All organisations are driven by profit and require a return on investment. Research has shown that one key factor for organisations disengaging with design thinking is the difficulty to measure the effect design thinking has on the outcome. Justifying return on investment is another.
(Examples are mindset, maturity, culture and failure)
Out in industry design thinking has for the majority been welcome and seen as a new methodology or process for problem solving. However, some academics are not convinced and have proposed design thinking as being a management fad and state that little empirical research has been actioned relative to design thinking in organizational settings (Carlgren, Rauth, et al., 2016, p. 39). In an article these authors question whether design thinking is in fact a new way to execute design or if it may be an alternative format of organising any task that is not directly associated with traditional design? This could be an area of further research. Owen offers an alternate and notes that design thinking has “distinct value to decision makers” (Owen, 2007, p. 16). Owen states that “design thinking is in many ways the obverse of scientific thinking. Where the scientist sifts facts to discover patterns and insights, the designer invents new patterns and concepts to address facts and possibilities” (Owen, 2007, p. 17). Design thinking offers businesses the opportunity to make their intentions real by clearly defining goals, better understanding customers and getting teams properly aligned. The result being improved output (Clark & Smith, 2008, p. 9).
Part of the process of design thinking involves risk taking and this means that users need to accept failure as an outcome in many cases. In 2015, a study was undertaken by the Hasso Plattner Institute in conjunction with the Stanford Design Thinking Research Program to determine the current state of design thinking practice in organizations. The study focused on understanding the reasons for engagement or discontinuing with design thinking by both individuals and organizations. The study found that organizations associated failure as a negative and not a positive learning experience. Individuals within organizations therefore steered away from applying design thinking as this would affect their careers paths.
L. Leifer et al. (2012a, p. 112) contradict this approach and remarked that “prototyping allows practitioners to reframe failure as an opportunity for learning”. The authors also discussed a hypothesis motivated by Weisberg where it was observed that “creative failures are more often explained by the absence of relevant information than the presence of irrelevant information” (L. Leifer et al., 2012a, p. 52). The study also found that design thinking often failed within organizations because of lack of training or the wrong people being trained in a field that they do not have an interest or believe in. The concept of failure is a significant point to explore further in this dissertation, however data collected within the study showed that there were numerous other significant obstacles to the adoption of design thinking within organization including company culture, individual beliefs, financial constraints and lack of measurement processes. The Hasso Plattner Study (2015) recognizes and highlights these issues but does not extend further to analysing the individual processes or steps within the design thinking methodology or offer any discussion on possible solutions (Jan et al., 2016).
In an article Kolkodescribes design culture as nurturing; it does not encourage failure but recognizes that it is rare to get things right the first time. L. Leifer et al. (2012a, p. 108) supports failure as being an important part of the design thinking process. The authors express further that failure should not be artificially avoided and that advanced users of design thinking take risks and do not have a fear of failure. Carlgren, Elmquist, & Rauth (2016a, p. 353) note “the focus on rapid testing of hypotheses, failing and learning from mistakes in design thinking was perceived as difficult in companies with a strong risk-averse culture”. Company culture is the first of ten factors that will be considered when undertaking the research.
Purdy & Popan (2016) define the major aspects of design thinking as “understanding the practical and emotional needs of a client, using prototypes or physical models to explore possible ways of achieving goals, and being willing to try different paths even though they may result in failure”. As an example, Apple, leverages failure as learning, viewing it as part of the cost of innovation (Kolko, 2015). The author cites a further example of General Electric(GE) Software Teams learn what to do in the process of doing it, iterating, and pivoting. Employees in every aspect of the business must realize that they can take social risks—putting forth half-baked ideas, for instance—without losing face or experiencing punitive repercussions (Kolko, 2015).
(Examples are current skills, mastering and investment)
Over the past century literacy in science, technology, engineering and math was a core focus for many. The LUMAInstitute is of the opinion “design is becoming the core literacy of the future” (“MAYA Design,” 2010). This opinion is supported by Richard Hendersonin an article published in the Design Management Review in 2006 where he calls for design and innovation to be recognised as the business currency of the future. Henderson notes that for businesses to expand in what he terms the ‘idea-driven economy’, design must be respected and included in their strategies. In Henderson’s experience the most successful companies “rate imagination as a key performance indicator” (Henderson, 2006, p. 77).
On 6 December 2016, the New York chapter of AIGAheld an event titled ‘Citizen! Designer! Now!’ In capturing the essence of the event in Eye on Design (published as part of AIGA, the professional association for design, the oldest and largest not-for-profit membership organization for design in the United States—with 71 chapters and more than 26,000 members), Georgia Campbell (2016) states; Design, like any tool, is only transformational if employed in the right way. It’s not a magic wand, but rather, a chisel used to steadily chip away stubborn problems. It’s a tool best used in tandem with others; alone, designers can only play a limited hand. ‘What designers can and should do is find organizations that are doing good work and put your tools at their disposal,’ said panellist Jake Barton, founder of the studio Local Projects.
In 2016 the World Economic Forum(WEF) reported critical problem solving as being the leading skill that will be required by the year 2020. The report also indicated that within 5 years, over 35% of the skills deemed necessary today will have changed. The report covers what was termed the ‘Fourth Industrial Revolution’ and part of this change would be the need for the global workforce to align it skillset to keep pace. According to Gray (2016) the WEF highlights the ten key skillsrequired by 2020 as being complex problem solving, critical thinking and creativity.
In an interview with WIRED, Charlie Hill, Chief Technology Officer of International Business Machines Corporation Design (IBM) confirmed that IBM is investing more than $100-million to become a design-centred corporation. IBM wants to shift the culture towards a focus on users’ outcomes. This approach hinges on the company-wide implementation of design thinking—a framework for conducting business that puts users’ (i.e. customers’) needs first (Stinson, 2016). IBM is committed to thinking that the systems of the world should work in service of people. At the heart of this human-centred mission is IBM Design Thinking: a framework to solve our users’ problems at the speed and scale of the modern digital enterprise (“IBM Design Thinking,” 2016). Infosys has design thinking at the centre of its organizational strategy and to date have trained 73,000 of its employees in the concept.
In contrast to this Chris Pacione, co-founder and CEO of the LUMAInstitute says that clarification and consideration should be given to the intent for wanting to implement a design thinking program before investing. Pacione notes that if a company has no need to solve wickedproblems then they should not implement a design thinking program (Ketter, 2016, p. 23). At the inaugural Design Forward conference, Sam Yen, event speaker and chief design officer at SAP, commented that design thinking should not be treated as an academic exercise. Yen noted that companies implementing design thinking generally outperform the market (Graves, 2016, p. 43).
Tim Brown supports this and believes that design thinking should be an important part of the school curriculum. Plattner supports Brownin his thinking when stating “It has the potential to engage students in ways that are inclusive of their diversity, makes school learning relevant and real, pressing local and global issues which can enhance one’s motivation to learn” (L. Leifer et al., 2012b, p. 19). A 2015 report undertaken by the Hasso Plattner Institute on the current state of design thinking supports this thinking in so much as it found 42% of the respondents sought training at educational institutions and a further 20% taught themselves (Jan et al., 2016, p. 26). The Report points out lack of theoretical perspective and the subsequent need for retraining individuals in the workforce whose creativity has been ‘beat[en] out’ of them in the education system and daily operations” (Jan et al., 2016, p. 33). Opposed to this is Ogilvie & Liedtkawho question whether design thinking can, or in fact should, be taught to non-designers (Ogilvie & Liedtka, 2011, p. 5). Further research could be undertaken on the effects of introducing design thinking to secondary level students, levels of creative output and cost to industry.
Figure 5. Professor Jeanne Liedtka
Jeanne M. Liedtka is a faculty member at the University of Virginia’s Darden School of Business and former chief learning officer at United Technologies Corporation, where she was responsible for overseeing all activities associated with corporate learning and development for the Fortune 50 corporation, including executive education, career development processes, employer-sponsored education and learning portal and web-based activities.
At Darden, where she formerly served as associate dean of the MBA program and as executive director of the Batten Institute, Jeanne works with both MBAs and executives in the areas of design thinking, innovation and leading growth. Her passion is exploring how organizations can engage employees at every level in thinking creatively about the design of powerful futures.
Figure 6. Jeanne Liedtka Design Thinking Model
In confirming the need to master design thinking Ketter (2016, 23) states “design thinking is not the answer to everything, and it is certainly not something you come at lightly”. “True competitive advantage requires non-obvious solutions executed in elegant ways” (Brown, 2015, p. 3). Wolper (2016, 44) supports Brownin the need to master design thinking when stating that it takes discipline and training. The methodology of design thinking that allows viewing of a problem from a different perspective is an important tool or facilitator for society overall. In many cases a tool can be useful, but there are times when lack of training can result in the tool becoming a hindrance (Balaram, 2010, p. 10).
As important as it is to master design thinking, is it important to note that as with any management model or innovation “it can be misused, implemented poorly, or subverted by clever opportunists” (Wolper, 2016, p. 43). L. Leifer, Meinel & Plattner (2012b, p. 90) support the need to master design thinking by noting “at the same time, there is still little understanding of how Design Thinking works in action and how it is best managed”. For this reason, selection of, or association with a reputable and respected independent design thinking may be appropriate for many. The benefits of applying design thinking are real and have been extensively recorded. Design thinking is fundamental to the manner in which contemporary business is adapting and changing approach to their environment (Wolper, 2016, p. 44).
According to Cross (2006, p. 7) design problems are in no way similar to what he terms the ‘puzzles’ that scientist or scholars set themselves. Problems faced by designers are ill-defined, ill structured, or ‘wicked’. Cross remarks that designers (design activity) are generally under pressure to find quick satisfactory solutions (strict timelines) and do have the opportunity for prolonged analysis or ability to use the phrase ‘further research is required’. Designers are solution-focused and not problem-focused, having to learn self-confidence to define and refine their thoughts (Cross, 2006, p. 7). Design thinking has been applauded as been in part revolutionary in allowing individuals and companies to solve or view global wicked problems from an alternate perspective. Designers do not focus on defining problems rather they are solution-focused and fluctuate their thinking between the two forming partial structuring i.e. problem framing (Akpinar, Mengyuan XU2, & Brooks, 2015, p. 154).
(Examples are collaboration, leadership and prototyping).
Successful design thinking requires flexible, overlapping, multidisciplinary teamwork (Seidel & Fixson, 2013). Burkus (2014, 108) agrees when noting that “overly cohesive teams rarely produce outstanding creative works”. The author is also of the opinion “that ‘structured conflicts,’ rather than a nurturing environment, are more effective for innovation” (Burkus, 2014, p. 108). The authors Leifer, Meinel, and Plattner (2011, xiii) believe “high impact teams work at the intersection of technology, business, and human values”. Thus, confirming multidisciplinary team work within design thinking.
Tim Browncalls for collaboration when stating that society no longer needs the standalone creative resource, but what he terms the “interdisciplinary collaborator” (Brown, 2008, p. 87). Confirming this Ketter (2016, 23) states “one of the keys to coming up with innovative solutions is cross-disciplinary collaboration”. Plattner supports the importance of a mind shift towards collaboration being “a key component of problem solving” (L. Leifer et al., 2012b, p. 17). In confirming this Ketter (2016, 24) notes “treat and teach it as a discipline comprised of a powerful set of methods that teams can integrate into their daily work and employ throughout the development process”. This is in line with the collaborative and cooperative approach found within design thinking. Tim Brownconfirms this in a statement on the IDEO website that “complex problems are best solved collaboratively” (Kelley, 2016). Respondents to the 2015 Hasso Plattner Study supported Brown’s thinking when noting that they saw design thinking as “a tool or way for better collaboration in teams across disciplines and organizational levels” (Jan et al., 2016, p. 39).
The competitive environment of innovation and design require people to acquire a new or improved set of skills. One of these skills is ‘design thinking’, an analytic and creative process and inquiry that provides opportunities to create and prototype models, gather feedback, design and redesign for solving ‘wicked’ problems as well as human-centred open problems (Akpinar et al., 2015, p. 151). In supporting this the 2015 Hasso Plattner Study reported that respondents saw “design thinking as a bunch of tools, techniques and a collection of best practices” for solving problem (Jan et al., 2016, p. 41).
(Examples are competitive advantage, innovation, measurability).
In contemporary society where most business or management practices are easily copied, companies are looking towards innovation as a point of difference. Design thinking is seen to be pivotal to this and should, according to Brown, be included in all processes within a company (Brown,2008, p. 86). Brown advocates for using design thinking but acknowledges that limited research has been undertaken regarding the use of design thinking in organisational settings. Research that has been done seems to indicate difficulties in implementation with frustration expressed in online practitioner forums. Proponents of design thinking argue that design thinking has positive effects on innovation but show concern that it may be limiting in industrial settings (Carlgren, Elmquist, & Rauth, 2016b, p. 345). A study undertaken found that design thinking was difficult to implement and that this may be linked to the “inherent characteristics of the concept itself” (Carlgren, Elmquist, & Rauth, 2016c, p. 358). The authors concern supports Brown’s call for design thinking to be reinvented. Martin (2009, p. 7) supports Brown in his belief that design thinking will remain a competitive advantage to those companies willing to engage and devote resources to creating advances in both innovation and efficiency. In a study covering the challenges of using design thinking authors Koppen, Rhinow & Schmiedgen (2015, p. 344) remark “despite being increasingly promoted as an approach to innovation, there is still little evidence of successful impact. Rather, indications suggest that ﬁrms ﬁnd implementation challenging”. The authors further state that their study found elements unique to design thinking itself that makes implementing it particularly challenging.
A study undertaken in 2015 noted that “Design thinking is not necessarily appropriate, nor does it work out well in every environment” (Jan et al., 2016, p. 106). Reasons for discontinuation were noted as problems of leadership, organizational culture and insufficient internal anchoring. No respondents laid blame directly on the design thinking methodology although a strong theme of design thinking being used as a one-off affair was noted. The report noted that several respondents felt they were not doing ‘serious work’ when involved with the methodologyand that other departments even ‘laughed at the name design thinking’. This point lends itself to further investigation of the acceptance of the phrase and if the term design thinking may require an evolution (Jan et al., 2016, p. 113). A study done by Carlgren, Elmquist, et al. (2016b, p. 352) found that it was difficult to determine the value and contribution of design thinking associated with a given project. This led to users forcing quick results and having to justify the use of design thinking to higher management. The authors remarked that there was little research available on how to measure value in innovation projects. Opportunities and methods of measuring this should be researched further. Design thinking can be implemented across many industry sectors for example governments or NGO’s. MAYA Designrecognized the need for a single entity focused on teaching design thinking to organizations requiring guidance in creating more effective and efficient methods for embedding a culture of creativity targeting customer satisfaction (“MAYA Design,” 2010). Governments are typically of this group in that they are not driven by profits, but rather providing better services to their constituents (Smith & Gross, 2015, p. 33). Governments need to satisfy citizen experiences and in doing so are required to better understand human nature or requirements. Over the next few years’ governments around the globe will be under mounting pressure to provide improved services to all citizens. What is of interest is whether this transformation will be driven from within the public sector organization or through external opportunities presented by its citizens? (Smith & Gross, 2015, p. 34).
The literature however shows that there has been an increase in the number of organizations choosing to discontinue using design thinking. Some of the reasons offered in a study undertaken by the Hasso Plattner Institute are poor implementation, company culture, change in leadership and measurability (Jan et al., 2016). In contrast, there is growth in the level of interest from scholars and academics wanting to understand this method of problem solving. This dichotomy supports consideration of further research into the possible division between acquisition of knowledge and the implementation thereof. The discomfort amongst current users has led to calls for the reinvention of design thinking. Amongst those advocating considerations for possible change to design thinking is Tim Brown . In an article written by Brown for the Harvard Business Review (Brown,2015, p. 2) Brown remarks on the increasing number of designers and companies using the process and questions whether design thinking can still be considered a competitive advantage. During the same interview, Brown remarked that design thinking was a methodology in constant pursuit of improvement and that possibly design thinking may need some reinvention. Brown stresses that for it to stay a competitive advantage companies must not only practice the process but master it. Brown states that to be successful design thinking requires sustained investment. Brown’s partner, David Kelley, along with Hasso Plattner (SAP), is an original founder of the internationally recognized Stanford d.school. The d.school is a major advocate of design thinking and offers higher education teaching in the methodology.
In November 2016, Harvard Business Review, published an article by Tim Brown (IDEO) titled ‘Leaders Can Turn Creativity into a Competitive Advantage’. In this article Brown (2016) mentions that efficiency is no longer enough to ensure success. Throughout the article Brown is questioning the future of business reliant on constant innovation and that without employing creativity as a key part of their strategy, many companies will not be sustainable. Essentially what Tim Brown is arguing for “is a shift in emphasis from operational competitiveness toward creative competitiveness” providing organisations with the opportunity to innovate (Kelley, 2016). Organisations are continuously looking for innovations that will provide them with an edge over competitors and in doing this are required to effectively manage the process of change. The ability to manage the processes surrounding change is a pivotal part of business strategy that is reliant on both internal and external expertise support (Buono & Subbiah, 2014, p. 36).
In confirming the influence of design thinking on innovation, Ketter (2016, 23) notes “design thinking is a means to an end, and that end is to accelerate innovation across your organization”. Although design thinking as a process has demonstrated areas of limitation, it is recognized by the World Economic Forum report on future skills as a conduit for innovation. Luchs(Griffin et al., 2015) defines design thinking within innovation and new product development “as a systematic and collaborative approach for identifying and creatively solving problems”. The author continues to describe the process of design thinking allowing for “low risk actions taken to discover, develop, and test an idea” (Griffin et al., 2015, p. 3). This comment is in line with the design thinking steps employed by both IDEO and d.school. The potential role of design thinking in terms of innovation has been noted by several academics (Carlgren, Rauth, et al., 2016, p. 38).
Innovation is an outcome and not a process. Applying design thinking increases the probability of successful innovation (L. J. Leifer et al., 2011, p. xiii). The authors state that innovation is not a chance happening or discover. They confirm “Innovation demands experimentation at the limits of our knowledge, at the limits of our ability to control events, and with freedom to see things differently” (L. J. Leifer et al., 2011, p. xv). Balaram (2010, 9) adds an interesting point to the need for design thinking and references India where 80% of the population still resides in villages, but design only caters for the 20% living in cities. The author believes design needs to be taken to the masses and calls for “a majority world design movement” (Balaram, 2010, p. 9).
1. IDEO is an award-winning global design firm that takes a human-centered, design-based approach to helping organizations in the public and private sectors
2. The Hasso Plattner Institute of Design at Stanford, commonly known as the d.school, is a design thinking Institute based in Stanford University.
3. Tim Brown is CEO and president of IDEO. He frequently speaks about the value of design thinking and innovation to business people and designers around the world. He participates in the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, and his talks Serious Play and Change by Design appear on TED.com.
4. Inventor Thomas Alva Edison was born on February 11, 1847, in Milan, Ohio. He was the last of the seven children of Samuel and Nancy Edison. Thomas’s father was an exiled political activist from Canada. His mother, an accomplished school teacher, was a major influence in Thomas’ early life (http://www.biography.com/people/thomas-edison-9284349).
5. IDEO defines human-centered design as a creative approach to problem solving that starts with people and ends with innovative solutions that are tailor made to suit their needs.
6. Tim Brown is CEO and president of IDEO. He frequently speaks about the value of design thinking and innovation to business people and designers around the world. He participates in the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, and his talks Serious Play and Change by Design appear on TED.com.
7. David M. Kelley is an American businessman, entrepreneur, designer, engineer, and teacher. He is founder, chairman, and managing partner of the design firm IDEO and a professor at Stanford University.
8. Leonard Bruce Archer CBE was a British mechanical engineer and later Professor of Design Research at the Royal College of Art who championed research in design and helped to establish design as an academic discipline.
9. U.S. social scientist Herbert A. Simon was known for his contributions in the fields of psychology, mathematics, statistics, and operations research. He combined elements of all those fields in a key theory that earned him the 1978 Nobel prize for economics.
10. Tim Brown is also the most cited author on design thinking – article in Harvard Business Review, 2008
11. The Hasso Plattner Institute, shortly HPI, is a German information technology university college, affiliated to the University of Potsdam and located in Potsdam-Babelsberg nearby Berlin.
12. Richard Buchanan is a professor of design, management, and information systems. Currently he teaches at the Weatherhead School of Management at Case Western Reserve University. Previously he was the head of the Carnegie Mellon School of Design.
13. Born on July 30, 1863, near Dearborn, Michigan, Henry Ford created the Ford Model T car in 1908 and went on to develop the assembly line mode of production, which revolutionized the industry. As a result, Ford sold millions of cars and became a world-famous company head (http://www.biography.com/people/henry-ford-9298747).
14. Tim Brown is CEO and president of IDEO. He frequently speaks about the value of design thinking and innovation to business people and designers around the world. He participates in the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, and his talks Serious Play and Change by Design appear on TED.com.
15. Between 1991 and 2003 IDEO had won 346 design awards and since opening its doors registered over 1,000 patents.
16. IDEO defines human-centered design as a creative approach to problem solving that starts with people and ends with innovative solutions that are tailor made to suit their needs.
17. Hasso Plattner is a German businessman. A co-founder of SAP SE software company, he has been chairman of the supervisory board of SAP SE since May 2003. As of November 2016, Forbes reported that he had a net worth of $10.8 billion.
18. The Hasso Plattner Institute of Design at Stanford opened in the School of Engineering in 2005, bringing students and faculty from radically different backgrounds together to develop innovative, human-centered solutions to real-world challenges. Using techniques from design and engineering, the institute, known on campus as the d.school, instills creative confidence and draws students beyond the boundaries of traditional academic disciplines.
19. A wicked problem is a social or cultural problem that is difficult or impossible to solve for as many as four reasons: incomplete or contradictory knowledge, the number of people and opinions involved, the large economic burden, and the interconnected nature of these problems with other problems
20. Distinguished Professor Emeritus at the Institute of Design, one of the six academic units of the Illinois Institute of Technology (IIT) in Chicago.
21. Jon Kolko is the vice president of design at Blackboard, an education software company; the founder and director of Austin Center for Design; and the author of Well-Designed: How to Use Empathy to Create Products People Love (HBR Press, 2014).
22. General Electric (GE) is an American multinational conglomerate corporation incorporated in New York and headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. As of 2016, the company operates through the following segments: Aviation, Current, Digital, Energy Connections, Global Research, Healthcare, Lighting, Oil and Gas, Power, Renewable Energy, Transportation, and Capital which cater to the needs of Financial services, Medical devices, Life Sciences, Pharmaceutical, Automotive, Software Development and Engineering industries.
23. LUMA Institute equips people to be more innovative through a unique system of Human-Centered Design. Learn about training, resources & custom programs (https://www.luma-institute.com/).
24. During the course of his career, Richard Henderson has led some of the nation’s most significant brand identity projects. Richard has seen R-Co. as the vehicle through which he can influence change, shape and illuminate a client’s purpose through brand stories and identity design excellence (http://ideasondesign.net/speakers/speakers/richard-henderson/).
25. Founded in 1914 as the American Institute of Graphic Arts, AIGA is now known simply as “AIGA, the professional association for design.” When referring to us, “AIGA” will do the trick—not “the American Institute of Graphic Arts,” not “the AIGA,” and not AIGA pronounced as a word (“Ay-guh” or “ā-gə”). Source: http://www.aiga.org/about/
26. The World Economic Forum (WEF) is a Swiss nonprofit foundation, Cologny, Canton of Geneva. … The Forum is best known for its annual meeting at the end of January in Davos, a mountain resort in Graubünden, in the eastern Alps region of Switzerland (https://www.weforum.org/).
27. The First Industrial Revolution used water and steam power to mechanize production. The Second used electric power to create mass production. The Third used electronics and information technology to automate production. Now a Fourth Industrial Revolution is building on the Third, the digital revolution that has been occurring since the middle of the last century. It is characterized by a fusion of technologies that is blurring the lines between the physical, digital, and biological spheres (https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/01/the-fourth-industrial-revolution-what-it-means-and-how-to-respond/).
28. The 10 skills you need to thrive in the Fourth Industrial Revolution . https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/01/the-10-skills-you-need-to-thrive-in-the-fourth-industrial-revolution/
29. Wired is a monthly American magazine, published in print and online editions, that focuses on how emerging technologies affect culture, the economy, and politics. Owned by Condé Nast, it is headquartered in San Francisco, California, and has been in publication since its first issue in March/April 1993 (https://www.wired.com/category/magazine/).
30. IBM is a global technology and innovation company that stands for progress. For more than a century, the company has focused on helping build a smarter planet. With operations in over 170 countries, IBMers around the world invent and apply software, hardware, business consulting, and technology services to help forward-thinking enterprises, institutions and people solve their most complex problems.
31. LUMA Institute is a training and development company that helps organizations and individuals (from K through CEO) learn and leverage the practices of Human-Centered Design. Its services help businesses, schools, and government enlist design to drive innovation and make things better (http://maya.com/news/maya-design-launches-luma-institute-to-teach-design-thinking-to-everyone).
32. wicked problem is a problem that is difficult or impossible to solve because of incomplete, contradictory, and changing requirements that are often difficult to recognize.
33. Jeanne Liedtka and Tim Ogilvie educate readers in one of the hottest trends in business: “design thinking,” or the ability to turn abstract ideas into practical applications for maximal business growth. Liedtka and Ogilvie cover the mind-set, techniques, and vocabulary of design thinking, unpack the mysterious connection between design and growth, and teach managers in a straightforward way how to exploit design’s exciting potential. https://books.google.com.au/books/about/Designing_for_Growth.html?id=HIxh2_ExnXMC&redir_esc=y&hl=en
34. Tim Brown is CEO and president of IDEO. He frequently speaks about the value of design thinking and innovation to business people and designers around the world. He participates in the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, and his talks Serious Play and Change by Design appear on TED.com.
35. a system of methods used in a particular area of study or activity.
36. a non-profit organization that operates independently of any government, typically one whose purpose is to address a social or political issue.
37. MAYA Design, a leading technology design and innovation consultancy, announced today the launch of LUMA Institute, a training and development venture dedicated to teaching the merit and methods of human-centered design in a world of connected products and services (http://maya.com/news/maya-design-launches-luma-institute-to-teach-design-thinking-to-everyone).
38. Harvard Business Review is a general management magazine published by Harvard Business Publishing, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Harvard University. HBR is published six times a year and is headquartered in Watertown, Massachusetts.
39. Dr. Michael G. Luchs is an Associate Professor and is the Founding Director of the Innovation and Design Studio at the College of William & Mary’s Raymond A. Mason School of Business and graduate of University of Texas at Austin in 2008 (Griffin, Luchs, & Swan, 2015).
Who is Tim Brown?
Tim Brown, the most cited author on design thinking is attributed with using the term ‘design thinking’ in 2003. Tim Brown is CEO and President of IDEO. He frequently speaks about the value of design thinking and innovation to business people and designers around the world. He participates in the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, and his talks Serious Play and Change by Design appear on TED.com