Content uploaded by Cara Wrigley
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Cara Wrigley on Sep 22, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tdci20
Download by: [University of Sydney Library] Date: 08 March 2017, At: 17:59
International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation
ISSN: 2165-0349 (Print) 2165-0357 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tdci20
Principles and practices of a design-led approach
to innovation
Cara Wrigley
To cite this article: Cara Wrigley (2017): Principles and practices of a design-led approach to
innovation, International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21650349.2017.1292152
Published online: 01 Mar 2017.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 9
View related articles
View Crossmark data
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DESIGN CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION, 2017
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21650349.2017.1292152
Principles and practices of a design-led approach to innovation
Cara Wrigley
Design Innovation Research Centre, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, Australia
ABSTRACT
Innovation activities worldwide have been enhanced by the use of design,
due to organizations utilizing it to create more eective methods of problem
solving. Though there is evidence to suggest the concept of design-led
innovation (DLI) is gathering momentum – both within design practice
and academia, little has been published to assist in undertaking such an
activity. Recent studies have categorized DLI as a perspective rather than an
evidence-based practice. This paper reects on both extant literature and
seven longitudinal DLI case studies to produce 20 best practice principles
aimed to serve as a set of ‘ground rules’ for DLI practitioners. Its purpose is
to foster a common understanding of DLI as a research domain and process.
Arrived at in consultation with DLI Catalysts embedded within various
organisations over a 12–24month project implementation timeframe,
these 20 principles represent a set of capabilities analyzed as being not
only essential for the implementation of DLI, but of great assistance in
overcoming its associated challenges. The author presents future work in
this newly established area, as well as highlighting the principles themselves
as a focus of future research. This is the rst paper which distils the principles
of DLI from a non-literature perspective.
1. Introduction
e role of design in organisational innovation has been the subject of much research – particularly
in the design and development of new products (Dorst, 2011; Verganti, 2008). More recently, it has
become widely understood that design can add signicant value to a rm’s strategic capabilities beyond
the development of a product or service (Borja de Mozota, 2010; Bruce & Bessant, 2002; Von Stamm,
2003). Design has redened itself from a purely downstream, manufacturing-related activity, to one
which adds strategic value to business (Battistella, Biotto, & De Toni, 2012; Brown, 2008; Martin, 2009).
is union of design and strategy is referred to as design-led innovation (DLI). DLI is a process for
business transformation, providing a mechanism where businesses are able to create an alternative
competitive advantage in the fast-paced global marketplace (Bucolo, Wrigley, & Matthews, 2012).
e concept of DLI has emerged in the last decade as a topical hybrid area of research, its rapid adop-
tion by both large and medium-sized rms worldwide has drawn attention to design and its strategic
value to organisational innovation (Bucolo & Wrigley, 2014). However, the adoption and use of DLI
remains fragmented, and there is little evidence (merely opinion) concerning the description of such
an innovation approach (Dong, 2015). Although researchers have called for a comprehensive approach
© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
KEYWORDS
Design-led innovation;
design principles; design
management; design
strategy; design practice
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 1 June 2016
Accepted2 February 2017
CONTACT Cara Wrigley cara.wrigley@uts.edu.au
2 C. WRIGLEY
to DLI both in academia and in practice, DLI largely remains focused on individual case studies,
approaches and isolated outcomes. While such attempts are important in providing broader generic
case studies and guidelines for implementing DLI, they fall short in contributing to the advancement
of DLI as a research domain or providing overarching guidance for the governance of DLI programs.
Further, it has been observed that many projects are labeled as DLI, despite the fact that they do not
abide by the essential principles of DLI. Frequently, methods such as Design inking are being applied,
but in too narrow a sense. is is the case for instance when Design inking eorts are made with
little consideration to the organisational governance structures required to leverage and maintain
such a business transformation, or to turn the results of such eorts into long-term benets for an
organization and its stakeholders (Kester, 2004). Arguably the problems in applying DLI in practice
are mirrored in scholarly work. Research indicates a more holistic coverage of DLI issues, such as
educational (Keeley, Walters, Pikkel, & Quinn, 2013) or cultural dimensions (Kyn & Gardien, 2009)
have emerged in isolation, with little mention of a uniting set of rules for how DLI should be executed.
Against this backdrop, this paper presents the 20 Principles of DLI – arrived at in consultation with
DLI Catalysts embedded within various organisations over a 12–24month project implementation
timeframe, but also drawing on the experience of the author and existing DLI literature. ese 20
principles set out to strengthen the theoretical core of DLI, so it can grow beyond its current bound-
aries (Borja de Mozota, 2002), and guide DLI initiatives in practice, in order to live up to its claim of
being an enabler of holistic and sustainable business transformation (Verganti, 2009).
2. The misuse and abuse of the term ‘Design’
Design; by historical denition, describes the process of planning, creating ideas, and implementing
ideas to improve the articial environment (Simon, 1969). In today’s economic environment, design
is being viewed as a critical strategic business resource, revealed through the success of design-inten-
sive organisations such as Apple, Proctor and Gamble, and General Electric. ese rms have acted
upon a deeper understanding of customers, and of subtle meanings in society, to deliver distinct value
propositions to customers and stakeholders (Verganti, 2008, 2009). Design, and the notion of Design
inking, is oering businesses a viable alternative to traditional, internal improvement approaches
as the key source for innovation. DLI provides a structured approach to the integration of Design
and Design inking as a mode of thought (Kyn & Gardien, 2009). DLI is the utilization of Design
inking within an innovation framework, and should not be confused with Design inking (Bucolo
et al., 2012). Unlike Design inking, DLI requires three components for an outcome to be considered
innovative: (i) user needs (also called human-centered design), (ii) technology (the core intellectual
property) and (iii) a business model (strategic value oering) (Bucolo & Matthews, 2011). ese areas
nominally identify the balance between multiple sectors (or silos) of any innovative business (Bucolo
et al., 2012) and leave the exploratory skills of the DLI team to the non-linear, unstructured ‘familiar
uncertainty’ of Design inking.
3. Design-led innovation
e term ‘design-led’ is dened by Bucolo and Matthews (2011) as the tools and approaches which
enable Design inking to be embedded as a cultural transformation within a business. For example,
the use of a narrative tool can be applied to explore each DLI component (user needs, technology
and business model) through visual storytelling mediums, enabling visions of the future to be quickly
prototyped (Zurlo & Cautela, 2014). More specically, being design-led requires a company to have a
vision for top line growth within their business, which is based on deep customer insights and expanded
through customer and stakeholder engagements, with the outcomes being mapped to all aspects of the
business to enable the vision to be achieved. By contrast, Design inking describes the way designers’
think and work to solve problems, typically from multiple perspectives, iteratively improving possible
solutions (Dorst, 2011; Kimbell, 2011; Beckman & Barry, 2008), whilst synthesizing the user’s needs
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DESIGN CREATIVIT Y AND INNOVATION 3
with what is technologically feasible and economically viable (Brown, 2008). Beckman and Barry (2007)
propose the core elements of Design inking are to circulate around value creation as the outcome
of problem-solving to improve the articial environment. Design rests within a problem state, repre-
sented through Beckman and Barry’s (2007) Innovation Process Framework. is framework consists
of the foundations of concrete (tangible) and abstract (intangible) worlds, intersected with analytic and
synthetic modes of thought. Design inking bridges the concrete worlds of problem identication
(observation) and problem-solving (solutions) with problem exploration (frameworks) and problem
reframing (imperatives), in order to implement solutions, which connect with the user at a meaning-
ful level. e framework builds upon the theoretical foundations of Owen (1998), who developed an
understanding of how knowledge acts as a bridge between realms of theory and practice; and, Kolb
(1984), who developed a matrix of learning styles underpinning problem-solving. Aligning to Kolb
(1984), Owen (1998), and Beckman and Barry (2007) state that the generation of new knowledge is
critical to progressing within an innovation process. e Innovation Process isolates design within each
of the four problem-solving stages, and links design to innovation – supporting the redened role of
design in organisational innovation.
DLI applies the underlying capabilities of Design inking, a user needs approach (empathy) not
only to the end-user (or consumer), but to partners’ and stakeholders’ needs also, providing a broader
platform for potential radical innovation (Bucolo & Matthews, 2011). DLI also extends the reach of
Design inking from a rm’s cultural philosophy, to an executable, objective-driven process with
the potential to drive top line growth and develop future competitive advantage (Bucolo & Wrigley,
2014). e inclusion of key stakeholders and partners as participants in the innovation process injects
greater scope for participatory design (Verganti, 2008). From these stakeholders’ needs, an ‘outside-in’
approach to business model innovation can be derived by integrating the values of relevant stakeholders
and prototyping (and experimenting) with these possible future constructs (Wrigley & Straker, 2016).
With the addition of design as an explorative lens within innovation processes, businesses are better
equipped to make sense of market opportunities and customer needs (Acklin, 2010). However, design
Figure 1.Design-led innovation framework (Bucolo et al., 2012).
4 C. WRIGLEY
tends to be limited to the management arena and is oen not leveraged at the higher strategic levels
of a rm. To overcome this, the DLI framework (Figure 1) builds upon Kolb (1984), Owen (1998),
and Beckman and Barry (2007) frameworks to assist a rm in the transformation to being design-
led. e DLI framework illustrates an iterative process that can assist companies to explore, capture
and realize the strategic value that design can bring to a business. is process allows designers to
integrate the tools and theories of their profession into a business context, represented by the four
quadrants created by the operational-strategic and external-internal axes. Central to this process is
the opportunity or value proposition that is informed by all aspects of the business. Starting with the
observation stage, the rm considers its customers at the commencement of the design process by
identifying its complete value chain. In the context of this framework, reframing is used to identify and
understand the meaning behind observations. ese informed insights can then be used to structure
the central opportunity to create a new value proposition. At this stage, it is possible to develop a new
competitive strategy that can then be prototyped and tested with stakeholders, in order to review and
challenge the existing brand message. is continual gure eight (innity loop) in the context of this
study was undertaken by the DLI Catalyst and the Design Champion.
4. The catalyst and the champion
Norman (2010) states that there is a huge gap between research and practice, proposing the new role
of a Transitional Developer. is role acts as the intermediary, translating research ndings into the
language of practical development and business, while also translating the needs of business into
issues that researchers can address (Norman, 2010). Martin (2011, p. 84) coined the term for a team
of Design inking coaches – ‘innovation catalysts’ – who could help managers work on initiatives
throughout the organization. In line with this proposition, Wrigley (2016) introduced the role of
a ‘Design Innovation Catalyst’ whose role within an organization is dened as the translation and
facilitation of design observation, insights, meaning and strategy, into all facets of the organization.
In recent case studies, Design Innovation Catalysts have been embedded within companies, enabling
engagement with many dierent internal and external stakeholders (Wrigley, 2013; Martin, 2011).
is is a vital aspect of the role, as they are iteratively prototyping solutions against the central value
proposition of the rm. Wrigley (2013, p. 5) states that a
Design Innovation Catalyst, must have the ability to design around the organisational constraints and barriers
while translating the language impediment that designers encounter when conversing with businesses and their
needs. e visual language of design can assist in this communication as well as the delivery of tangible outcomes
and additionally be used as a tool to facilitate a conversation between the two parties. is ‘facilitator’ needs to
speak both languages along with the ability to unpack design expression whilst simultaneously working within
the constraints of a business model.
In order to support and scaold these Catalysts from the day-today politics of the organization and
to also assist them in managing their research ndings up, Design Champions were selected, usually
nominated by the CEO and senior management as representative of the company. Specically, within
the context of this research, the design champion is positioned within the DLI team ‘primarily as an
advocacy role’. Kyn and Gardien (2009) refer to this role as a ‘passionate champion’ – a role that
they believe increases the success of design-led change. e design champion is a middle manage-
ment employee, who reports directly to the company leaders. e design champion leverages his or
her position and status within the company to advocate and disseminate DLI within the executive
and management levels of the company. e Champion and Catalyst would meet weekly to plan and
discuss the DLI project progress.
5. The design-led journey
Derived from the DLI framework (Figure 1) a DLI approach was developed by the author, consisting
of 3 integrated stages and 10 sub-stages (Figure 2). ese are:
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DESIGN CREATIVIT Y AND INNOVATION 5
• Dissect (understand, reveal and ask);
• Learn (propose, prototype, provoke and reframe); and
• Integrate (design, share and transform).
is overarching framework is a non-linear process, providing the mechanism by which, when
applied, design may be used to transform and dierentiate an organization. e extent to which the
framework is applied is dependent upon the specics of the organization – including size, industry sec-
tor, market position, and corporate culture. Such a framework was used to scaold the Design Catalyst
(12–24month) project inside the organization (as seen in broken lines in Figure 2). Behind each of
the three stages were a series of questions, activities and tools to assist the catalysts in their innovation
approach to their embedded practice inside each dierent organisations (detailed in Appendix A).
6. Research approach
Running from 2012 to 2013 in Brisbane, Australia, the DLI research program saw seven ‘Design-led
innovation (DLI) catalysts’ (postgraduate research students) embedded within various organisations
to apply the DLI framework (Figure 1). Using the DLI Journey (Figure 2) as a foundation, research
questions were posed surrounding the challenges, barriers and opportunities (both perceived and
actual) to adopting a DLI approach within their respective organisations.
e objectives of the embedded research program are summarized as:
(1) To explore the value of DLI to the business.
(2) To pilot the adoption of DLI within the business through an agreed pilot project.
(3) To contribute to the development of the learning community and share common challenges
and strategies utilized to overcome barriers to DLI adoption.
Each DLI Catalyst journey continually moved throughout the DLI Catalyst Educational Framework
(Wrigley, 2013) (Figure 3), which illustrates how the Catalyst absorbs knowledge gained through
research within the university environment, and disseminates and implements this knowledge by
application to the industry project. Importantly, this industry experience is then translated into aca-
demic research as illustrated.
Each week the Catalysts spent 3–4days within the organization, and 1–2days in the DLI Lab on
the university campus. For the duration of the program, the DLI Lab provided a space for organisa-
tions to workshop ideas collectively, test new tools, share learnings, and explore the application of
new knowledge to their industry project. e DLI catalysts undertook action research to explore,
facilitate and demonstrate the uptake of the DLI process. is research method proved most suitable
Figure 2.Design-led innovation journey framework.
6 C. WRIGLEY
for this application as it built upon the natural process of planning, acting and critically reecting on
the results – bridging the gap between practice and theory (Dick, 2002). As the study aimed to identify
a set of capabilities essential for overcoming challenges associated with the implementation of DLI,
regular consultations with the DLI Catalysts were carried out over the duration of the project. Seven
longitudinal case studies were conducted within seven Australian organisations of varying industry
sectors as outlined in Table 1.
7. Data collection and analysis
Aer each of the seven catalysts spent 12–24months conducting their own action research projects
within the various organisations (detailed in Table 1), semi-structured interviews were conducted with
each catalyst at various times of throughout their engagement (longitudinal embedded projects) and
each individual interview lasted approximately an hour each. ey were questioned in regards to the
design process employed throughout the practice of facilitating a design-led approach to innovation
and were asked to identify principles they deemed important to DLI’s success, and to discuss examples
from their experience. From these interviews, an understanding of the key characteristics required for
DLI to facilitate organisational change was formed through thematic analysis and clustering. During
this process, 32 categories were highlighted as DLI principles. A thematic analysis protocol (Braun
& Clarke, 2006) was used to generate usable results despite dierences in each Catalyst’s experience
and approach to implementation.
8. Forming the principles
ematic analysis (Miles & Huberman, 1999) was conducted on the combined datasets in order
to identify the nature of responses (challenges and opportunities for best practice for DLI) in each
organization, and to compare changes in perceived value and actual project outcomes over time. is
Figure 3.Design-led innovation catalyst educational framework (Wrigley, 2013).
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DESIGN CREATIVIT Y AND INNOVATION 7
Table 1.Participant organization summary.
Industry sector Est. Size and sta
Annual
prot Project description Design catalyst role
Design cham-
pion role
Company
focus
Company
engagement
purpose Value delivered References
A Transportation 1997 Multi-National
(250 + contrac-
tors)
4billion Project uses the devel-
opment of a digital
strategy as a catalyst for
the greater dissemination
of design-led innovation
across all departments
Catalyst worked to
integrate design
at all stages of
the innovation
pipeline to ensure
the firm was able
to encourage and
reward stakeholders
for creativity by pro-
viding the design
skills to articulate
their ideas
Strategic
Development
Director
Aviation
support
Apply DLI to
three projects
to help build
design capacity
in the organi-
zation
A capability to
quickly visualise
and test ideas
with passengers
and stakeholders
and gather deep
customer insights
Price and Wrigley
(2016)
Developing busi-
ness opportuni-
ties through de-
sign propositions
whilst aligning to
the firm’s vision
for the future
Price, Wrigley,
and Dreiling
(2015)
Price et al.
(2015)
B Healthcare 1938 Multi-national 260mil-
lion
‘Innovating 4 Growth’ with
the goal being to redefine
the experience of ageing
and create social value
through the process. To
do this, the consumer
needs to be placed at the
locus of value creation
and innovative strategies
need to be utilized. This
can lead to the conceptu-
alization and implemen-
tation of a co-designed
value proposition and
business model
Role title was project
officer-customer led
innovation
Marketing
Manager
Age care
provider
Seeking assis-
tance to inno-
vate for growth
in a dynamic
environment
Visualise empathy
throughout
the customers
perspective of
the larger issue at
hand rather than
just the interac-
tion points with
the company
Nusem, Wrigley,
& Matthews,
(2017a,
2017b)
(Continued)
8 C. WRIGLEY
Industry sector Est. Size and sta
Annual
prot Project description Design catalyst role
Design cham-
pion role
Company
focus
Company
engagement
purpose Value delivered References
Non for profit
(>4000)
Role responsibility
was to identify and
leverage customer
insights into alter-
native and innova-
tive service, product
and business model
opportunities
Nusem et al.
(2015)
C Infrastructure 1999 Multi-national
(4624)
2.5billion Investigating and demon-
strating how the Design
Led Innovation process
can help the firm gain
foresight into forthcom-
ing disruptive innovations
whilst change developing
business models to lever-
age the coming changes
Role was to demon-
strate the DLI pro-
cess by facilitating
the transformation
of deep customer
insights into busi-
ness models
R&D Manager Energy pro-
duction and
distribution
Seeking assis-
tance to inno-
vate for growth
in dynamic
environment
Mapping of key
drivers and
stakeholders of
the business as
a reflection and
planning tool
Stevenson,
Wrigley, and
Matthews
(2016)
The qualitative
process of gaining
deep customer
insights and
the results and
evidence of
low barriers to
performance of
such tasks
D Manufacturing 1989 SME (<10) –A mapping and exami-
nation of existing custom-
ers, stakeholders and
distribution network, in
search for deep customer
insights and awareness
of the customer. The aim
was to generate an appre-
ciation of the central role
of the company’s value
proposition to the current
and potential customers
and shift the focus of
the firm
Knowledge and tool
broker between
academic theory
and practical firm
expertise
Company
Director
Seeking assis-
tance with
sustainable
business
model and
direction
Product-focused,
and supplier for
retail trade
Provided new
tools, approaches
and reframing
perspectives
Krabye, Wrigley,
Matthews, and
Bucolo (2013)
Table 1.(Continued).
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DESIGN CREATIVIT Y AND INNOVATION 9
Family owned Role was a facilitating
catalyst within the
firm to encour-
age re-thinking
competitiveness
and challenging the
status quo
A facilitator of
change inside the
business in order
to change from
being business
as usual to being
value and future
oriented
Increased aware-
ness, knowledge
and practice in
strategic design
thinking, created
a platform for fur-
ther development
of competitive
practice
E Manufacturing 1985 Micro – SME
(>100)
–Project used a design-led
approach to innovation
in order to provide a new
perspective to challenge
the firm: making corded
blind system completely
child safe
Role was independ-
ent, self-directed re-
searcher embedded
within the research
and development
department
Company
Director
Product and
technology
services; busi-
ness-to-busi-
ness
Seeking assis-
tance to inno-
vate for growth
in dynamic
environment
Main value
delivered was in a
new customer en-
gagement model
where customers
were utilized in
the re-framing
of problems
and co-design a
solution with
Doherty et al.
(2015)
Founded by CEO
F Manufacturing 1965 SME (122) 10–
20mil-
lion
Gathering and analyzing
deep customer insights
that could create a
stronger value propo-
sition for the product
that was launching. A
collaborative approach,
where possible, would
also help the researcher
to share the design-led
approach and teach
key stakeholders new
tools and approaches to
understanding the cus-
tomer and the customer’s
problem
The design catalyst
involved applying
the design-led ap-
proach to generate
buy-in of the value
of using design
thinking to create
better business
model propositions.
Positioned as part of
the marketing and
communications
team, the Product
Manager and
Marketing Manager
were key stakehold-
ers in the research
R&D Manager Specialized
product,
supplier to
retail and
consumers
Seeking assis-
tance with new
product line
emerging
Permanent employ-
ment to continue
to deploy design
thinking tools
and techniques,
in order to
build stronger
relationships with
customers and
various stakehold-
ers in the value
chain
Pozzey, Wrigely,
& Bucolo
(2012)
(Continued)
10 C. WRIGLEY
Industry sector Est. Size and sta
Annual
prot Project description Design catalyst role
Design cham-
pion role
Company
focus
Company
engagement
purpose Value delivered References
More customer
attention is being
placed on the
earlier phases
of new product
development to
ensure greater,
more sustainable
value proposi-
tions and design
briefs that are
strongly defined
G Manufacturing 1955 SME (>300) –To understand and explore
the process landscape
and develop new busi-
ness model concepts for a
future customer support
business
To lead multiple DLI
projects within the
firm, as mechanisms
to inform the larger
customer support
business model
Marketing
Manager
Specialized
product;
supplier to
retail and
consumers
New product
development
to pilot DLI
approach
Saw a fundamen-
tal shift in its
thinking. The firm
now discusses
innovation across
all aspects of busi-
ness, and is doing
so without being
forced by eco-
nomic conditions
to innovate. This is
in part attributed
to the constant
engagement by
the firm with DLI
on a day-to-day
basis
Townson,
Matthews, and
Wrigley (2015)
Family owned
Table 1.(Continued).
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DESIGN CREATIVIT Y AND INNOVATION 11
triangulation of analysis (champions and catalysts) validated the thematic analysis (Patton, 2002), and
provided a richer understanding of the processes and benets gained by the participants. e following
process implemented to formulate the 20 principles of DLI is summarized as follows:
(1) Shaping of DLI understanding from literature.
(2) Identication of joint understanding of DLI through interviews.
(3) Analysis and clustering of understandings into rough principles.
(4) Identication and grouping of set principles using a focus group.
(5) Renement of the identied principles.
(6) Reection and renement of the 20 principles.
e resultant principles are presented in the following section. Each principle is discussed in terms
of its denition, its coverage in DLI research, and the implications of principle adherence/non-ad-
herence in practice.
9. The empirical results: DLI principles
Overall each of the seven organisations and catalysts implemented DLI dierently and with various
outcomes despite having the same framework and project scaolding and external supervision. e
diversity in outcomes and approaches was due partly to the dierence in the number of sta, industry
sector, prot turnover and motivation for design innovation on the whole. However, the aims of this
paper are not to compare the outcomes from each project but rather to develop distinct principles that
have resulted from the DLI processes. From this analysis 20 DLI principles and practices were formed
and are described in Table 2, company examples are given as supporting evidence in the following
section. Overall the ‘DLI Principles’ are dened in this context as:
• A set of ‘rules’ or guidelines.
• e requirements and obligations when employing DLI.
• A system of behavior.
9.1. DLI Dialog Principle
e DLI Dialog Principle discourages semantics. Visualization methods (Liedtka & Ogilvie, 2011)
employed within DLI allow for those in dierent roles and professions; who use dierent terminology,
to share ideas and brainstorm without being hindered by strict denitions. Academics too share this
problem – where more time is spent classifying than dening and solving. e end result is that visual
thinking leads to less time talking (more commonly arguing) and more time doing (collaborating and
solving the problem). Many projects were caught up in the ‘buzz word’ of design within the organ-
ization. By eliminating the dialog and naming of the process until aer results had surfaced within
the company this allowed people to get involved early on and not be excluded in the process due to
semantic connotations. An example of this was seen from rm G who termed the project ‘customer-in-
spired design’ instead of DLI as they felt it gave a more relevant description of what DLI could oer
to the organization. It was interesting to note that majority of the executive level roles were engineers,
including the Managing Director of which the term ‘design’ was felt to host dierent connotations.
9.2. DLI Culture Principle
DLI Culture Principle leads collaborative change. Change in this context refers to a business which has
been transformed by the application of DLI principles – skills typically not present (or valued) within
existing corporate structures. ese transformations can require a shi in several critical aspects of
what dene the business – its culture; its organisational structure; or the way the business interacts with
12 C. WRIGLEY
or engages with its customers. Such transformations are rarely successful without collaboration across
all organisational departments and functions. Early buy-in is required in order for the organization
as a whole to own and accept the change. DLI applies a problem and understanding based solution to
make this happen. Firm E faced this problem when the project was unable to break the departmental
connes of product manufacturing. e teams perception and understanding of ‘design’ was seen as at
a product manufacturing oering, as they had oen outsourced this skill to consultant industrial design
rms. It was dicult to shi this perception especially outside the department the DIC was housed in.
9.3. DLI Fact Principle
DLI Fact Principle uncovers latent emotional needs. Deep customer insights are uncovered, previously
hidden or not openly, obviously or thoroughly understood, customer needs. DLI allows these needs
to be leveraged into new products or services, and perhaps ultimately a change in business model.
ough design uses a similar toolkit, it is the collective application of these tools as part of a larger
process that allows DLI to reframe the ‘wrong’ question to get the ‘right’ answer. is was seen through
rm A where it was demonstrated through the project (Price & Wrigley, 2016). Where the original
declining sales problem was addressed by rst uncovering latent needs through a deep customer insight
method, the re-framed solution was then co-designed with the rm and the implementation phase of
the project (which many others would have le at handover) came to fruition.
9.4. DLI Relationship Principle
DLI Relationship Principle de-silos innovation. For change to gather momentum an understanding
of all operational levels of the organization, and the needs of internal and external stakeholders must
be understood. is cannot happen where innovation is considered the realm or responsibility of
one department or corporate function. DLI engages those previously not involved in the innovation
pipeline to table their ideas and provide alternate perspectives previously not considered. A good
example of this can be seen through rm D, as they went from production to purpose through the
12months the catalyst was there. e rm consisted of two General Managers with diering visions
Table 2.Design-led innovation principles.
No. Principle Practices
1 DLI Dialog Principle The DLI Dialog Principle discourages semantics
2 DLI Culture Principle DLI Culture Principle leads collaborative change
3 DLI Fact Principle DLI Fact Principle uncovers latent emotional needs
4 DLI Relationship Principle DLI Relationship Principle de-silos innovation
5 DLI Possibility Principle DLI Possibility Principle provides a platform for radical thinking
6 DLI Facilitation Principle DLI Facilitation Principle indicates that tools facilitate the process not the solution
7 DLI Results Principle DLI Results Principle helps set the right targets
8 DLI Questioning Principle DLI Questioning Principle teaches listening is not inaction
9 DLI Ideals Principle DLI Ideals Principle requires consistent application to lead to best practice
10 DLI Resistant Principle DLI Resistant Principle challenges the most ingrained status quo
11 DLI Assumption Principle DLI Assumption Principle questions the boundary assumptions of Systems Thinking
12 DLI Action Principle DLI Action Principle crafts the fast prototypes, as failure is a necessary part of success
13 DLI ‘Why’ not ‘What’ Principle DLI ‘Why’ not ‘What’ Principle explains that the designs the business model not the
product
14 DLI Time Principle DLI Time Principle focuses on top line growth
15 DLI Lasting Change Principle DLI Lasting Change Principle is a full-time role
16 DLI Commitment Principle DLI Commitment Principle requires ground work for buy-in
17 DLI Value Principle DLI Value Principle teaches the value of the customer perspective
18 DLI Conduct Principle DLI Conduct Principle operates without company culture bias
19 DLI Intersection Principle DLI Intersection Principle amalgamates to create by seeking out and exposing
dynamic tensions
20 DLI Intuition Building Principle DLI Building Intuition Principle has rules, but they need not be followed
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DESIGN CREATIVIT Y AND INNOVATION 13
(and subsequent department) for the company. Much of the project consisted of breaking down these
silos and building a mutual relationship through a shared vision and strategy.
9.5. DLI Possibility Principle
DLI Possibility Principle provides a platform for radical thinking. Conservative growth targets chased
by senior management are usually in response to corporate bonus structures, negating the drive for
long term more radical innovations. Playing it safe can only lead to incremental changes, radical
changes may be required to generate value, however, corporate culture can prevent individuals coming
forward with drastically dierent ideas. DLI promotes the sharing of disruptive ideas, and provides
an environment where such ideas are encouraged. Risk taking, originality, and anticipation of future
trends are rewarded. is was seen in the success of a newly formed and prototyped business model
design by rm B (Nusem, Wrigley, & Matthews, 2017a, 2017b). is saw a very risk adverse organi-
zation invest heavily in their newly formed value proposition based again on deep customer insights
in response to a changing customer base. In such a risk adverse culture with a conservative board,
such a project took much leadership from the Design Champion (Nusem, Defries, & Wrigley, 2015).
9.6. DLI Facilitation Principle
DLI Facilitation Principle indicates that tools facilitate the process, not the solution. Tools are not the
answer, but rather facilitate the conversation – allowing the right questions to be asked. DLI consists
of more than just a toolset. It is the combination of tools, thinking styles and processes. All catalysts
were interviewed in regards to their approach and use of design tools during their embedded prac-
tice. Results highlight the value of tools expands beyond their intended use to include; facilitation
of communicating, permission to think creatively, and learning and teaching through visualization
(Straker & Wrigley, 2014).
9.7. DLI Results Principle
Incentives drive behavior. KPIs targeting incremental improvements form obstacles to real transfor-
mational change. erefore, alternatives to traditional KPIs must be supported by upper management
to change existing behaviors. Once the rst project is delivered utilizing a DLI approach the outcomes
(results) and these returns on investments can be measured and evaluated by the rm. As seen in the
case of rm B where the new solution was executed, the return on investment was calculated, results
were attributed to the DLI process and in turn increased its appetite for the approach to innovation
to be disseminated in additional departments of the organization.
9.8. DLI Questioning Principle
DLI Questioning Principle teaches listening is not inaction. Frequently, jumping to a solution without
fully understanding the problem destroys value. More is to be gained by uncovering a customer’s real
issues, needs, and desires than by being rst to market with a undesired product. Understanding these
aspects places a company in a better position to produce desired products or services, providing them
a competitive advantage. Firm C took a large team within the R&D department out to customers’
homes to listen to their problems instead of selling them the rm’s services. Results yielded a new skill
of listening to the problems of customers, questioning if their service did indeed oer value and solve
any unresolved customer issues (Stevenson, Wrigley & Matthews, 2016).
14 C. WRIGLEY
9.9. DLI Ideals Principle
e DLI Ideals Principle requires consistent application to lead to the best practice of the DLI frame-
work, and meeting the 10 objectives (signposts) over the three categories of dissect, learn and integrate.
Where this journey begins depends largely on a company’s culture and design maturity. As a result
of both this variance in starting point, and more importantly, the dynamic nature of the market and
greater business environment, DLI is an iterative process. DLI should not simply be applied once
and forgotten, considered ‘done’ or ‘complete.’ is is evidenced by the various outcomes described
in Table 1.
9.10. DLI Resistant Principle
DLI Resistant Principle challenges the most ingrained status quo. Existing business practices are not
easily changed. is is particularly true for larger companies or those where corporate culture or
business identity is heavily tied to a product or service considered ‘key.’ As if to deliberately impose an
obstacle to change, many of these companies have implemented strict ‘change management’ policies –
where even what could be considered a small, perhaps insignicant change is held up to scrutiny.
ough there are good risk management reasons for insisting on such a process, this can hinder pos-
itive change. DLI insists that no one or no ideas are exempt from criticism or questioning. e larger
organisations had stronger more transformational outcomes such as a new business model rm B and
newly implemented digital strategy rm A, however, this being said they indeed have more resources
to invest compared to the smaller SMEs who were indeed more agile.
9.11. DLI Assumption Principle
DLI Assumption Testing Principle questions the boundary assumptions of systems thinking. A system
thinking approach argues that the only way to fully understand a problem is to understand the parts
in relation to the whole. In DLI, these ‘parts’ are considered to be less well dened, or perhaps more
aptly, assumed to be less well understood. is questioning of the location or even existence of system
‘part’ (component) boundaries is of substantial benet when re-framing the problem.
9.12. DLI Fail Action Principle
DLI Action Principle cras the fast prototypes, as failure is a necessary part of success. e concept
of failing fast is intrinsically linked to the notion that all ideas are valid and worthy of further testing.
As a minimum, failures should generate data on what doesn’t work, and prompt a company to further
investigate why. Failures can only be tolerable as part of a process that accepts them as such. Design
integrated companies with the correct mindset or attitude know this and benet from it. ey benet
from less buy-in resistance, sustained momentum towards a solution, and faster prototypes.
9.13. DLI ‘Why’ not ‘What’ Principle
DLI ‘Why’ not ‘What’ Principle explains that the design of the business model not the product stems
from the underlying latent customer need. Individuals have strengths and weaknesses. Typically an
individual chooses a career based on their strengths, oering their services (what they are good at), to
the market. is is a product-orientated oering, and not one based primarily on customer need. To
oversimplify, companies are but a pooled collection of these generally aligned strengths. With their
corresponding service oerings, it is not unexpected that most businesses are product-orientated, with
business models that reect this. DLI allows for a re-evaluation of these existing business models –
designing from the outside in. All catalysts were studied in regards to this principle only to discover
that DLI methods were able to provide fresh, non-obvious ways of understanding customer needs,
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DESIGN CREATIVIT Y AND INNOVATION 15
problems and behaviors that can become the foundation of new business opportunities. Findings
concluded that DLI methods provide the critical layer to understand why customers do and don’t
engage with businesses. Revealing why was not accessible in traditional market research methods and
business model innovation (Price, Wrigley, & Straker, 2015).
9.14. DLI Time Principle
DLI Time Principle focuses on top line growth. DLI is a process focused on business transformation.
Nurturing and developing a culture of innovation within a business is a long-term process requiring
a vision for the future shaped by market analysis and deep customer insights. It requires access to
valuable company resources, which may include production capacity, key personnel, and substantial
funding. ese requirements cannot be met in an environment where a reduction in costs is considered
the key driver of long-term protability or competitive advantage.
9.15. DLI Lasting Change Principle
DLI Lasting Change Principle is a full-time role. ough DLI is an iterative process with no scheduled
endpoint, in order for its application to be successful, DLI should be resourced with the same disci-
pline and thoughtfulness as any large, complex, or important project. Similarly, roles within the DLI
team – such as the DLI Champion, and the DLI Catalyst are full-time roles, requiring a commitment
to the entire process. Where an external individual is embedded within the business as a dedicated
resource, this has two distinct advantages:
(1) A fresh perspective to gage issues no longer apparent to existing employees.
(2) e establishment of trust that can only come from being considered part of the team –
something an external consultant would nd hard to replicate.
9.16. DLI Commitment Principle
DLI Commitment Principle requires groundwork for buy-in. e only way to challenge authority was
by rst completing the ground work (talk without action is rhetoric only). DLI proclaims no idea is
sacred and the non-attachment to ideas and concepts, leave room for new possible future creations. It
was found successful to build agile solutions with the customer to make sure that the concept resonated
with them during conceptualization and implementation. is can be seen in all the DLI projects A-G.
9.17. DLI Value Principle
DLI Value Principle teaches the value of the customer perspective. By focusing on the customer, asking
and answering every question from their perspective it makes sure they are at the center of everything
the organization does and everything they stand for. ey are the reason the business exists and the
reason the company will either remain relevant or not in the future. An example of this disconnect
was in the case of rm E where a value exercise was run with three dierent levels of all sta in the
organization and then compared results. Findings presented were a misalignment of purpose within
the levels and this then prompted the Catalyst to restructure the company strategy and three year
vision plan (Doherty, Wrigley, Matthews, & Bucolo, 2015).
9.18. DLI Conduct Principle
DLI Conduct Principle operates without company culture bias. Communicate change/new visions
and strategies through a collaborative process and remain autonomous from company culture. is
16 C. WRIGLEY
was found to be much easier to do when you are an embedded researcher as opposed to a full-time
employee. Firm politics was found to be in all studies A-G, however, their conduct as a researcher vs.
conduct as an employee meant they were somewhat removed from it, allowing them access to sta
and resources not available to all employees.
9.19. DLI Intersection Principle
DLI Intersection Principle amalgamates to create by seeking out and exposing dynamic tensions and
contradictions internally and externally to the organization. It is at these intersects that the catalyst
learns to manage tensions. By intersecting the study of design theory, management strategy and inno-
vation adoption, DLI proposes and forges future possibilities for successful competitive advantage.
DLI values conicting perspectives and it is at these tension points that the catalysts could introduce
future scenarios in order to leverage these constraints into a solution.
9.20. DLI Intuition Building Principle
DLI Building Intuition Principle has rules, but they need not be followed. Designers have intuitive
design instincts and are not as compliance driven as other disciplines – breaking rules is what makes
design, design. is was a constant variable in the A-G studies where all DLI Catalysts were professional
designers (mainly Industrial Designers). Despite having a framework (Figure 1) and a set of stages
with corresponding design tools (Appendix A), the DLI Catalysts constantly adapted the approach to
best t the context of the longitudinal study. Further research to include and compare non-designers
as catalysts could possibly eliminate this principle in the future.
10. Implications for DLI practice and research through the 20 principles
For practice, the 20 principles provide prescriptive statements on how to scope and implement DLI
as well as normative advice on what not to do. e condensed form of the statements helps to better
master the understanding of a design-led approach to drive innovation inside organisations. ese
principles can also be used as a checklist in order to assure the appropriateness of a DLI approach.
Results may seem simple and some principles obvious in nature, however, the longitudinal research
supporting each of the seven case studies was multifaceted and complex to implement (see Table 2).
e challenge with this newly emerging eld remains in the clarity of purpose, process and application.
For research, the intention is to foster a joint understanding of what DLI actually requires in order
to be applied successfully, i.e. an understanding of what characterizes DLI as a research domain and
what guides its successful use in organisational practice. e related research challenge is thus to
examine how existing methods and tools need to be chosen, extended or revised to incorporate the
extended scope and application areas – be it to be able to visualize relevant information for novel
purposes such as the potential. Further research should concentrate on validating these principles
and practices through further implementation and testing.
In this paper, the 20 principles of DLI are presented. ese principles are considered a starting
point for an important discussion on further shaping the DLI domain both in academia and practice.
e foremost intention is to foster a joint understanding of what DLI actually requires in order to be
applied successfully, i.e. an understanding of what characterizes DLI as a research domain and what
guides its successful use in organisational practice. It is not argued that every single contribution
needs to cover the entire scope of the 20 principles, but every initiative needs to consider its specic
contribution to the overall eld of DLI.
Disclosure statement
No potential conict of interest was reported by the author.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DESIGN CREATIVIT Y AND INNOVATION 17
References
Acklin, C. (2010). Design-driven innovation process model. Design Management Journal, 5, 50–60.
Battistella, C., Biotto, G., & De Toni, A. F. (2012). From design driven innovation to meaning strategy. Management
Decisions, 50, 718–743.
Beckman, S., & Barry, M. (2008). Developing design thinking capabilities. Step Inside Design, 24, 82.
Beckman, S. L., & Barry, M. (2007). Innovation as a learning process: Embedding design thinking. California Management
Review, 50, 25–56.
Borja de Mozota, B. (2002). Design and competitive edge: A model for design management excellence in European
SMEs. Design Management Journal, 2, 88–103.
Borja de Mozota, B. (2010). Design management as core competency: From “design you can see” to “design you can’t
see”. e Journal of Design Strategies, 4, 91–98.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101.
Brown, T. (2008). Change by design. New York, NY: HaperCollinns.
Bruce, M., & Bessant, J. (2002). Design in business. London: Harlow.
Bucolo, S., & Matthews, J. (2011). A conceptual model to link deep customer insights to both growth opportunities
and organisational strategy in SME’s as part of a design led transformation journey. Paper presented at the Design
Management Toward A New Era of Innovation, Hong Kong Convention and Exhibition Center, Hong Kong.
Bucolo, S., & Wrigley, C. (2014). Design-led innovation: Overcoming challenges to designing competitiveness to succeed
in high cost environments. In G. Roos & N. Kennedy (Eds.), Global perspectives on achieving success in high and low
cost operating environments (pp. 241–251). Oxon: IGI Global.
Bucolo, S., Wrigley, C., & Matthews, J. (2012). Gaps in organizational leadership: Linking strategic and operational
activities through design-led propositions. Design Management Journal, 7, 18–28.
Dick, B. (2002). Postgraduate programs using action research. e Learning Organization, 9, 159–170.
Doherty, R., Wrigley, C., Matthews, J., & Bucolo, S. (2015). Climbing the design ladder: Step by step. Revista D: Design,
Educação, Sociedade e Sustentabilidade, 7, 60–82.
Dong, A. (2015). Design × innovation: Perspective or evidence-based practices. International Journal of Design Creativity
and Innovation, 3, 148–163.
Dorst, K. (2011). e core of ‘design thinking’ and its application. Design Studies, 32, 521–532. doi:
10.1016/j.destud.2011.07.006
Keeley, L., Walters, H., Pikkel, R., & Quinn, B. (2013). Ten types of innovation: e discipline of building breakthroughs.
New Jersey: John Wiley.
Kester, D. (2004). e impact of design on stock market performance. An analysis of UK quoted companies 1994–2003.
Design Council. Retrieved July 19, 2016, from http://www.designcouncil.org.uk
Kimbell, L. (2011). Rethinking design thinking: Part I. Design and Culture, 3, 285–306.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Clis, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Krabye, A., Wrigley, C., Matthews, J., & Bucolo, S. (2013). From production to purpose: Using design led innovation
to build strategic potential in a family-owned SME. In J. Cai, T. Lockwood, C. Wang, G. Y. Tong, & J. Liu (Eds.),
Proceedings 2013 IEEE Tsinghua international design management symposium: Design-driven business innovation
(pp. 37–46). Shenzhen: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
Kyn, S., & Gardien, P. (2009). Navigating the innovation matrix: An approach to design-led innovation. International
Journal of Design, 3, 57–69.
Liedtka, J., & Ogilvie, T. (2011). Designing for growth: A design thinking tool kit for managers. New York, NY: Columbia
Business School Publishing.
Martin, R. (2009). e design of business. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
Martin, R. L. (2011). e innovation catalysts. Harvard Business Review, 89, 82–87.
Matthews, J., & Bucolo, S. (2013). Improving opportunity recognition and business performance in small and medium
manufacturing enterprises through design innovation programs. Journal of Asia Entrepreneurship and Sustainability,
9, 116–135.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1999). Qualitative research: an expanded sourcebook. ousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Norman, D. (2010). e research-practice gap: e need for translational developers. Interactions, 17, 9–12.
Nusem, E., Defries, A., & Wrigley, C. (2015). Applying design-led innovation in a not-for-prot aged care provider to
create shared value. In G. Muratovski (Ed.), Design for business (pp. 172–193). Bristol: University of Chicago Press/
Intellect Books.
Nusem, E., Wrigley, C., & Matthews, J. (2017a) Exploring aged care business models: A typological study. Ageing and
Society, 32, 386–409.
Nusem, E., Wrigley, C., & Matthews, J. (2017b). Developing design capability in nonprot organizations. Design Issues,
33, 61–75.
Owen, C. L. (1998). Design research: Building the knowledge base. Design Studies, 19, 9–20.
Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
18 C. WRIGLEY
Pozzey, E., Wrigle y, C., & Bucolo, S . (2012). Unpacking the opportunities for change within a family owned manufacturing
SME: A design led innovation case study. In E. Bohemia, J. Liedtka, & A. Rieple (Eds.), Leading innovation through
design: Proceedings of the DMI 2012 international research conference (pp. 841–855). Boston, MA: DMI.
Price, R., & Wrigley, C. (2016). Design and a deep customer insight approach to innovation. Journal of International
Consumer Marketing, 28, 92–105.
Price, R., Wrigley, C., & Dreiling, A. (2015). Are you on board? e role of design-led innovation in strengthening key
partnerships within an Australian airport. In G. Muratovski (Ed.), Design for business (pp. 42–61). Bristol: University
of Chicago Press/Intellect Books.
Price, R., Wrigley, C., & Straker, K. (2015). Not just what they want, but why they want it: Traditional market research
to deep customer insights. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 18, 230–248.
Simon, H. (1969). e sciences of the articial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Stevenson, T., Wrigley, C., & Matthews, J. (2016). A design approach to innovation in the Australian energy industry.
Journal of Design, Business & Society, 2, 49–70.
Straker, K., & Wrigley, C. (2014). Design innovation catalyst tools to facilitate organisational change. In E. Bohemia,
A. Rieple, J. Liedtka, & R. Cooper (Eds.), Proceedings of 19th DMI: Academic design management conference
(pp. 2600–2617). London: London College of Fashion.
Tow n s on , P. , M at t h ew s , J ., & Wr ig l e y, C . ( 2015, December 6–9) Customer inspired innovation with designer as innovation
catalyst. In ISPIM innovation summit – Changing the innovation landscape. Brisbane: Queensland University of
Technology.
Verganti, R. (2008). Design, meanings and radical innovation: A metamodel and a research agenda. Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 25, 436–456.
Verganti, R. (2009). Design-driven innovation: Changing the rules of competition by radically innovating what things
mean. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
Von Stamm, B. (2003). What are innovation, creativity and design. Management of Innovation, Design and Creativity.
California: John Wiley.
Wr ig le y, C . (2013). Educating the ‘design innovation catalyst’ for change. Consilience and Innovation in Design Proceedings
and Program, 1, 3547–3557.
Wrigley, C. (2016). Design innovation catalysts: Education and impact. She Ji: e Journal of Design, Economics, and
Innovation, 2, 148–165.
Wr ig le y, C ., & S tr a ke r, K. ( 2016). Designing innovative business models with a framework that promotes experimentation.
Strategy and Leadership, 44, 11–19.
Zurlo, F., & Cautela, C. (2014). Design strategies in dierent narrative frames. Design Issues, 30, 19–35.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DESIGN CREATIVIT Y AND INNOVATION 19
Appendix A
DLI stage Sub-stage Driving question Description Design tools
Dissect Understand What business are
you in?
What is your company’s purpose or what is your why? The business model canvas (analysis)
What is your value proposition? Activity map (analysis)
What differentiates you from your competitors? Identify your thinking style and cultural thinking
style
What do you do on a daily basis that reinforces this point of difference? 3 horizons model
What activities could you do less of that do NOT reinforce this point of difference? Innovation audit (incremental, platform or radical)
How would you describe your innovation process and portfolio? Competitor analysis
What is the biggest problem your market is facing? SWOT analysis
How have you addressed this through innovation in your company? Dynamic SWOT analysis
What are the different activities your company undertakes in the three horizons model?
Reveal Who are your stake-
holders?
Describe your customers and or stakeholders? Listening skill development tool
Who are they (name, age, profession)? Journey map
Why have they chosen to purchase or engage with your product and or services? Emotional touch point timeline
What are some of the biggest issues they encounter in their daily lives? Persona
What do they value? What market segmentation data do you have?
What do they need and want? Demographics and psychometrics
What are their aspirations and routines? A day in the life of….
How do you engage with customers? Storyboarding
When was the last time you engaged with a real customer?
Ask Do you have a match-
ing strategy?
Describe your strategy? Constantly question and seek out contradictions
Is everyone in the organization aware and in alignment with the same strategy? What is your why?
Do the internal stakeholders know and or share the same strategy vision? Golden circles
How does your strategy align with your customers? Is your company united in their golden circles?
Do your current product and or service offerings help solve their biggest issue? Activity map comparison
What sort of difference do you make to their lives? Business model canvas analysis
Is your company still relevant?
Learn Propose What are the pro-
posed assump-
tions?
How do you shift your companies perspective from a YOU to a THEM approach? Persona
Describe their issues, concerns, aspirations and values? Build idea maturity rather than absolutes
Test any assumptions about your customers by failing fast and building upon it with insights Narratives
Can you map your assumptions of customers and stakeholder values and insights with your
current company strategy?
Deep customer insights
Build your personas into various narratives for various stakeholders based on the all the
internal information you have as well as any assumptions
5 whys
Value chain analysis
Stakeholder journey mapping
Prototype What are the valued
insights?
Prototype your narrative with your stakeholder to gather deep customer insights Succeed early by failing fast
(Continued)
20 C. WRIGLEY
DLI stage Sub-stage Driving question Description Design tools
This is done through the storytelling/narrative technique followed by a thematic analysis Examples of business model canvas models
Build upon your assumptions with valued insights Narrative
Value proposition assessment
Co-design
Thematic analysis
Persona
Provoke What new meanings
have you created?
If you iterate the (propose, prototype, provoke) process what patterns of meaning are
generated?
Customer interviews
Do the new propositions uncover new meanings? Thematic analysis
What are some of the common patterns of meaning that emerge? Value proposition assessment
Can you validate the meaning of the new offering by provoking your customers’ true
emotions?
Emotional design
How can the use of dead reckoning guide the process
Re-frame What new oppor-
tunities can you
provide value to?
What are some solutions to the common patterns of meaning? Emotional touch point timeline
Are you constantly challenging and seeking alternatives? Re-frame against customer insights
Prototype and evaluate against strategy What is the new value proposition?
What are the alternative product and or service offerings that incorporate the new customer
valued insights?
Compare activity maps
Do they reflect the company strategy? Compare business model canvas
Are they bold enough?
How can we do things differently?
What new business models are possible?
What are the new propositions?
Integrate Design What are the new
product and service
offering?
Design new solutions to capitalize on these opportunities and maximize your capabilities. Design new solutions to the new found problems
What is the revised business model for this new value proposition? Contextualize findings within the business
How different is it to the existing business model? New activity map
How different is this to the existing strategy? New business model canvas
What will need to change? Narratives
What new capabilities do we need?
Which ones are no longer relevant?
How do you ensure we deliver value at each touch point?
How do you map this to all aspects of the business?
Appendix 1.(Continued).
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DESIGN CREATIVIT Y AND INNOVATION 21
Share How do you collec-
tively execute on
this?
How do you share your solutions with the company? Pitching
What are all the blockers from their perspective on why this can NOT be executed? Visual communication
What key activities, assets and relationships do your company require to overcome these
blockers?
Design champions inside the organization
What capabilities do you require and what can you use? Co-design (internally and then externally)
How do you overcome the blockers and co-design the solution with all stakeholders? Narrative of the future of the sector the business
is in
How do you pitch internally? Bring people along internally
How do you sell the idea or process from the bottom up or from the top down?
What are the challenges with communication thins?
How would you communicate it?
Transform How do you execute
and integrate these
learnings across the
entire organiza-
tion?
How will you educate and execute the cultural change in the company required to facilitate
this process?
Activity map today and tomorrow
By learning from the process and encouraging exploration in your employees your company
will be most responsive to change
Business model for tomorrow
How will you disseminate this common language across the company? Customer of tomorrow
How will you ensure constant challenging and refinement of understanding? How do you get there?
