Conference PaperPDF Available

From Needs to Satisfiers: How Design Thinking Can Inform Organizational Learning Processes

  • July 2017
  • Conference: International Conference Theory and Applications in the Knowledge Economy (TAKE)
  • At: Zagreb
Authors:
Florian Kragulj at Wirtschaftsuniversität Wien
Florian Kragulj
Florian Fahrenbach at Wirtschaftsuniversität Wien
Florian Fahrenbach
Download full-text PDF
Read full-text
Download citation

Abstract and Figures

Needs drive organizational learning and guide organizational change. Current research proposes efficient methods to identify (shared) needs in organizations. However, there is a lack of organizational learning methodologies that utilize knowledge about (shared) needs and promote the development of need‐based solutions. In organizational practice, we face complex social dynamics, which strongly influence such learning processes. Design thinking is one approach to cope with these dynamics and provides a frame for participatory methodologies to develop need‐based solution. In this article, we clarify the concept of shared need. Moreover, we review seminal literature on design thinking to crystallize its basic principles. We consider how these principles could enhance the necessary capacities to turn needs into viable satisfiers. We report from a first attempt to implement these principles in practice and reflect on the results of this organizational learning intervention.
Figures - uploaded by Florian Kragulj
Author content
All figure content in this area was uploaded by Florian Kragulj
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Florian Kragulj
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Florian Kragulj on Aug 03, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
EduardoTomé,GabyNeumann,BlaženkaKnežević
(editors)
ProceedingsoftheInternationalConference
TheoryandApplicationsintheKnowledgeEconomy
TAKE2017–Zagreb,Croatia,12to14July2017

TAKE2017–TheoryandApplicationsintheKnowledgeEconomy II
ISBN978‐989‐20‐7714‐7;ProceedingsofTAKE2017‐TheoryandApplicationsinthe
KnowledgeEconomyConference;Editors:EduardoTomé,GabyNeumann,Blaženka
Knežević;Suporte:Eletrónico;Formato:PDF/PDF/A
CopyrightTheAuthors,2017.AllRightsReserved.
Noreproduction,copyortransmissionmaybemadewithoutwrittenpermissionfromthe
individualauthors.
Papershavebeendouble‐blindpeerreviewedbeforefinalsubmissiontotheconference.
Initially,paperabstractswerereadandselectedbytheconferencepanelforsubmissionas
possiblepapersfortheconference.
Manythankstothereviewerswhohelpedensurethequalityofthefullpapers.
PublishedbyEduardoTomé,Lisbon/Portugal(www.take‐conference.com)
FacultyofEconomicsattheUniversityofZagrebandE4Conferences
Kragulj,F.etal.:FromNeedstoSatisfiers.HowDesignThinkingCanInformOrganizationalLearningProcesses
TAKE2017–TheoryandApplicationsintheKnowledgeEconomy 470
FromNeedstoSatisfiers:HowDesignThinkingCanInform
OrganizationalLearningProcesses
FlorianKraguljandFlorianFahrenbach
WUViennaUniversityofEconomicsandBusiness,Vienna,Austria
florian.kragulj@wu.ac.at/florian.fahrenbach@wu.ac.at
Abstract:Needsdriveorganizationallearningandguideorganizationalchange.Current
researchproposesefficientmethodstoidentify(shared)needsinorganizations.However,
thereisalackoforganizationallearningmethodologiesthatutilizeknowledgeabout(shared)
needsandpromotethedevelopmentofneed‐basedsolutions.
Inorganizationalpractice,wefacecomplexsocialdynamics,whichstronglyinfluencesuch
learningprocesses.Designthinkingisoneapproachtocopewiththesedynamicsandprovides
aframeforparticipatorymethodologiestodevelopneed‐basedsolution.
Inthisarticle,weclarifytheconceptofsharedneed.Moreover,wereviewseminalliterature
ondesignthinkingtocrystallizeitsbasicprinciples.Weconsiderhowtheseprinciplescould
enhancethenecessarycapacitiestoturnneedsintoviablesatisfiers.
Wereportfromafirstattempttoimplementtheseprinciplesinpracticeandreflectonthe
resultsofthisorganizationallearningintervention.
Keywords:organizationallearning,designthinking,innovation,need‐basedsolution
knowledge,co‐creation
1Introduction
Howdoesanideabecomealastingorganizationalinnovation?Howshouldwegoabout
organizationalchange?Senge(2001)arguesthatorganizationalchangecauses“innershifts”
inpeople’svalues,aspirations,andbehaviorsaswellas“outershifts”inprocesses,strategies,
practicesandsystems;profoundchangecausesshiftsinbothdomainsandhappens“from
within”.Wearguethatprofoundchangerequiresustoconsidertheorganization’sinner
dynamicsandmotivations.Takingtheseintoaccount,i.e.,changinganorganizationfrom
“within”,enableslasting“innershifts”.Aconceptreflectingthisinnermotivationareneeds,
whichmotivateourbehavior(Sheldon,Elliot,Kim,&Kasser,2001).Scholarsdemonstrated
thatneedsdriveprocessessuchasstrategydevelopment,productdesign,innovation,and
othervalue‐creatingandknowledge‐intensiveactivities(e.g.Altschuld&Watkins,2014;
Bayus,2008;Goffin,Lemke,&Koners,2010;Patnaik&Becker,1999;Ulwick,2002).Moreover,
wearguethatneedstriggersustainablechangeinorganizations,astheyrevealwhatis
substantiallynecessarytotheorganizationanditsstakeholders.Asanyintentionalchangein
theorganizationisaccompaniedbyacontinuousprocessofcreatingandexploiting
Kragulj,F.etal.:FromNeedstoSatisfiers.HowDesignThinkingCanInformOrganizationalLearningProcesses
TAKE2017–TheoryandApplicationsintheKnowledgeEconomy 471
knowledge,organizationallearningisasuitabletheoreticallenstodescribeandanalyzesuch
changeprocesses.Organizationallearningprocessesfocusedonsharedneedspotentially
transformorganizationsinaprofoundway.
1.1Researchgapandobjectives
Needsmoderateadaptationandlearningprocessesinorganizations(Altschuld&Watkins,
2014).Identifyingandexplicatingneedsoftheorganizationanditsstakeholdersservesasa
startingpointtoprofoundlytransformtheorganization(Altschuld&Kumar,2010;Kaiser&
Kragulj,2016;Patnaik&Becker,1999;Ulwick&Bettencourt,2008).Whendifferentneedsare
takenseriously,measurementsgainthesupportofthestakeholdersconcerned.However,
meetingneedsonanorganizationallevelisvastlymorecomplexthanfindinganoptimumfor
onlyasingleindividual.Thiscanbeillustratedbytwoobservations.
Firstly,differententitiescanhavedifferentneeds.Understandingneedsasnecessities
towardsapurposeimpliesthatanyentitythatfollowsanoverallpurpose,irrespectivelyofits
size(e.g.organization,school,community)canhaveneeds.Asaconsequence,theremightbe
adivergencebetweenneedsofanorganizationandneedsofitsstakeholders.However,
organizationalneedsmightoverlapwithindividualneedstoacertainextentandindividuals
mightshareneedsamongeachother(Kaiser&Kragulj,2016;Kaiser,Kragulj,&Grisold,2016).
Whendevelopingactions,thequestionarises,whoseneedsaretobemetbytheaction?
Secondly,evenifanorganizationanditsstakeholdersagreeon(abstract)needs,thisdoesnot
implyconsensusonhowtomeetthem.Inorganizationalsettings,individualpreferences,
values,expectations,andgoalsinfluencetheindividuals’matchingofneedswithsatisfiers,
i.e.,concretemeansofneedsatisfaction(e.g.actions,decisions,strategies,artefacts).The
questionarises,howshouldanorganizationallearningprocesscopewiththesedynamics?
Wemissaconsistentorganizationallearningmethodologythatclearlyfocusesonneedsas
guidingprinciplesforcreatingviablesatisfiers.Thisshoulddealwithsocialdynamicsin
organizationsaswellasdivergentvaluesandpreferencesofstakeholders.
Sincedesignthinkingusuallystartswithaphaseofformulatingneeds(orproblems)(Razzouk
&Shute,2012;Seidel&Fixson,2013)andinvolvesdifferentstakeholdersinexperimentaland
iterativeprocesses(Johansson‐Sköldberg,Woodilla,&Çetinkaya,2013),wearguethatitisa
suitableparadigmforcreatingviablesatisfierssuchasprocesses,interventions,andartefacts.
Literatureonorganizationallearningpaidlittleattentiononhowtotransformneedsinto
viablesatisfiersadoptingadesignthinkingperspective.Asaconsequence,thereareno
attemptstoexplicitlyincorporateknowledgeaboutneedsintolearninginterventionsthat
followdesignthinkingprinciples.
1.2Researchquestion
Thispaperconstitutesthefirstattempttofillthisgapandaddressesthesetwoissuesinthe
followingway.Firstly,weclarifytherelationbetweenindividualneeds,sharedindividual
needs,andsystemneeds.Weproposeaworkingdefinitionoftheseconcepts.Secondly,
followingaknowledgeperspective,wereviewdesignthinkingliteratureandidentifycore
principlesandconceptswhichcanbeborrowedfromdesignthinking(Whetten,Felin,&King,
Kragulj,F.etal.:FromNeedstoSatisfiers.HowDesignThinkingCanInformOrganizationalLearningProcesses
TAKE2017–TheoryandApplicationsintheKnowledgeEconomy 472
2009).Thirdly,wereportfromafirstempiricalattempttoimplementtheseprinciplesina
participatoryworkshop.Consequently,theresearchquestionsis:
Whatarecrucialdesignthinkingprinciplesthatcouldinformabottom‐uporganizational
learningmethodologytotransformsharedneedsintoviablesatisfiers?
Followingtheactionresearchparadigm,whichcallsforastrongtheoreticalfoundationfor
organizationalinterventions(Eden&Huxham,1996),weconductaliteraturereviewand
investigatedifferentdesignthinkingapproachestobuildastrongtheoreticalfoundationfora
methodologythatshallbeappliedinsmallandmedium‐sizedsocialsystems.Thisreflectsthe
phaseof“actionplanning”(Susman&Evered,1978).
2Theoreticalbackground
2.1Needsdriveorganizationallearning
SinceMaslow’sideathatneedsfuelhumanmotivationtranscendedthefieldofpsychology,it
gainedmomentuminthemanagementdiscourse(Wahba&Bridwell,1976).Needsasthe
contentofmotivation,explainhowindividualsdevelopthemselves,pursuegoalsandallocate
personalandorganizationalresources.They"affectthedirection,intensity,andpersistence
ofactivitiesduringwork"(Kanfer,Frese,&Johnson,2017,p.338).Needsarealsocrucial
variablesinorganizationallearning(Rebelo&DuarteGomes,2008).Theiridentificationand
satisfactionconstitute“achangeintheorganizationthatoccursastheorganizationacquires
experience”,whichisfollowedby“achangeintheorganization’sknowledgethatoccursasa
functionofexperience”(Argote&Miron‐Spektor,2011,p.1124).Wedemonstratedthat
organizationsidentifyandaddress(shared)needstomotivatelastingorganizationalchange
(Kragulj,2017).
2.2Needsandsatisfiers
Identifying(shared)needsuncoversthemotivationalforcesof(organizational)behavior.This
allowstoilluminatethedriversofchange,whichiscrucialfororganizationalplanningand
actiontaking.Moreover,knowledgeaboutneedsexplainswhycertainactionarefavored,
plannedortaken.Thisstrengthensajointunderstandingandasharedmentalmodel.
Developingandexploitingrelatedknowledgeenablesorganizationallearningprocessessuch
asinnovation,productdesign,strategyorvisiondevelopmentprocesses(Goffinetal.,2010;
Kaiser,Feldhusen,&Fordinal,2013;Kaiser,Kragulj,Grisold,&Walser,2015;Ulwick&
Bettencourt,2008).
Moreover,needsaredistinctfromsatisfiers,i.e.,concretemeansofneedsatisfaction.While
needsarecloselyconnectedtotheneedfulentityandsensibletotheentity’scontext,
satisfiersaresubjecttocontinuousadjustmentduetoenvironmentalinfluencessuchas
technologicalorlegalconditions.Aneedcanbesatisfiedinmanywaysanddoesnotprescribe
anysatisfieratfirst.Consequently,afocusonneedspotentiallyextendstherangeofpossible
waysofsatisfaction.Developingnewsatisfiersincreasesthenumberofviablealternatives
and,inturn,decreasesthedependenceonaparticularsatisfier(Kruglanski,Pierro,&
Sheveland,2011).Thisweakensthecommitmenttoparticularsatisfiersandgivesagroupthe
necessaryfreedomforjointdecisions.
Kragulj,F.etal.:FromNeedstoSatisfiers.HowDesignThinkingCanInformOrganizationalLearningProcesses
TAKE2017–TheoryandApplicationsintheKnowledgeEconomy 473
3Buildingthegroundforaneedknowledge‐basedorganizationallearningmethodology
Inthissection,weclarifytherelationbetweenindividualneeds,sharedindividualneeds,and
systemneedsandoutlineaknowledgeperspectiveonthetransformationprocessofneeds
intoviablesatisfiers.
3.1Whoseneeds?Needsondifferentlevels
Forthepurposeofthispaper,wefollowabroaddefinitionofneeds,i.e.,needsas
instrumentalnecessitiestowardsapurpose(Frankfurt,1984;Kragulj,2016b).Thisdefinition
isnotlimitedtohumans,butincludessocialsystemssuchasorganizations,companies,cities
orschools.Wearguethatanysuchentitycanbemotivatedbynecessitiestowardsapurpose,
i.e.,needs.Evenifwearenotnecessarilyawareofthem,agencyenablesustobalanceand
satisfyourneeds(Thomson,2005).Throughtheirexecutives,organizationsenacttheiragency
andensurethesatisfactionoforganizationalneeds.Werefertoneedsofasocialsystemas
systemneeds.Theycanoverlap,differorbecontrarytotheneedsofitsstakeholders.A
stakeholderisany“individual[...]whocanaffectorisaffectedbytheachievementofthe
organization’sobjectives”(Freeman,1984,p.46).Dependingonapurpose,goalsorcontext,
individualshavedifferentneeds.Consequently,wecannotinfersystemneedsfromneedsof
individuals,astheymayfollowdifferentpurposes.Werefertotheneedsofstakeholdersas
individualneeds.Inlinewithpsychologicalresearch,wecanassumestableandcommon
patternsinneeds(e.g.Deci&Ryan,2008;Maslow,1970).Individualssharesomeoftheir
needswithotherindividuals.Previousresearchdemonstratedthatindividualneedsin
organizationsaresharedamong70‐95%ofallstakeholders(Kaiser&Kragulj,2016;Kaiseret
al.,2016).Werefertotheseneedsassharedindividualneeds.
Figure1illustratestherelationbetweenthesethreecategoriesofneeds.Organizational
learningprocessesshouldstartwithneedsthatarehorizontallysharedamongentities,i.e.,
amongthestakeholdersofanorganization,andverticallysharedamongtheorganizationand
itsstakeholderstoreachahighlevelofcommitmentandmotivation.Thestarinfigure1points
atsuchneeds.
Figure1:Individualneeds,sharedindividualneeds,andsystemneeds
3.2Threecapacitiestotransformneedsintosatisfiers
Weofferatheoreticallenstounderstandandstructureneed‐basedorganizationallearning
processes.Weapplyaknowledgemanagementperspective,andconceptualizethe
transformationofneedsintoviablesatisfiersasaknowledge‐intensiveprocess.While
Kragulj,F.etal.:FromNeedstoSatisfiers.HowDesignThinkingCanInformOrganizationalLearningProcesses
TAKE2017–TheoryandApplicationsintheKnowledgeEconomy 474
previousresearchfocusedmainlyontheidentificationofneeds(Altschuld&Watkins,2014;
Kaiser&Kragulj,2016;Patnaik&Becker,1999;Ulwick,2002),weoutlinethreecapacitiesthat
arecrucialfortheprocessofdesigningviablesatisfiers(Kragulj,2016a):
1. The“capacitytoidentifyneeds”referstotheprocessofidentifying(shared)needsof
stakeholdersand/ortheorganization.Aspeoplearehardlyawareoftheirneeds,“the
satisfactionofneedsmightnotbepursuedduetolackofknowledge,notlackofurgency.”
(Korolev,2015,p.27).Learninginterventionsshallraiseawarenessforidentifiedneeds
andmayalsoresultinknowledgeabouttherelativeimportanceandinterdependenciesof
theseneeds.
2. The“capacitytojudgeneedsandsatisfiers”referstotheprocessofjudgingthe
potentialityofsatisfiersbeingabletomeetneeds.Thisreflectsasubjectivereasoning
whichestablishesamatchbetweenneedsandsatisfiers(VonHippel&VonKrogh,2016).
Wedecideforaconcreteactionorartefact.Thisisalsothecaseinco‐creationprocesses
(Matthing,Sandén,&Edvardsson,2004).Throughtheinvolvementofpeopleconcerned,
ideasandproposalsarecontinuouslyevaluatedintermsoftheircorrespondingneeds,and
arefinallyacceptedorrejected(non‐satisfiers).
3. The“capacitytodesignsatisfiers”referstotheprocessofcraftingpotentialsatisfiers
(Verganti,2008).Thisincludesmethodologicalskills,technologicalknow‐how,andsocial
skills.Usually,designersanddomainexpertscanreinforcethiscapacity.
Innovationoftenboilsdowntothenoveltyof“thesolutionortheneedor[...]anewmarriage
betweenbothexistingneedandsolution”(Terwiesch&Ulrich,2009).Participative
approachestoinnovation(Maklan,Knox,&Ryals,2008)combineallthreecapacities.This
yieldsthepotentialtoreachlastingresults,astheyarebasedonneedsandinvolve
stakeholders.Examplesincludeco‐creationapproaches,whichemphasizeparticipative
workingwithcustomerstoenhancethe(subjective)customervalue(Prahalad&Ramaswamy,
2004).Thisenablescompaniestodeeplyunderstandandrespondtocustomerneeds.
3.3Designthinkingtocopewithsocialdynamics
“Needsanddissatisfactionwiththecurrentstate,combinedwithadeterminationthatsome
actionmustbetaken“(Razzouk&Shute,2012,p.330)isthestartofdesignthinking.We
employspecificdesignthinkingprinciplestobringthe“capacitytojudgeneedsandsatisfiers”
andthe“capacitytodesignsatisfiers”tolife.Sincedesignthinkingisdescribedasa
heterogeneousandfragmenteddisciplinewithdiversestreamsofresearch(Johansson‐
Sköldbergetal.,2013;Kimbell,2011),weconductedaliteraturereviewondesignthinkingto
crystalizeprincipleswhichcouldenhancethesecapacities.
Wereviewedseminalcontributionsofhighimpact.Onwww.scopus.com,wesearchedforthe
keyword“designthinking”inarticles,abstracts,andkeywordsintheareasofsocialsciences
andbusiness,andreceived763results.Toidentifyarticlesofhighimpact,welimitedthe
resultstoconferencepapers,journalarticles,andreviewsthathavebeencitedatleastten
timesandcameupwith69results(ThesearchstringusedonJune,22017readsas:‘TITLE‐
ABS‐KEY("designthinking")AND(LIMIT‐TO(SUBJAREA,"SOCI")ORLIMIT‐TO(SUBJAREA
,"BUSI"))AND(LIMIT‐TO(DOCTYPE,"ar")ORLIMIT‐TO(DOCTYPE,"cp")ORLIMIT‐
TO(DOCTYPE,"re"))’.Theresultsrangedfrom1994to2015.Wethenexportedtheresults
fromthedatabaseandwentthroughall69articlesbyreadingtitleandabstract.Foranin‐
Kragulj,F.etal.:FromNeedstoSatisfiers.HowDesignThinkingCanInformOrganizationalLearningProcesses
TAKE2017–TheoryandApplicationsintheKnowledgeEconomy 475
depthinquiry,weidentified20articlesthatmettheinclusioncriteria(topicalrelevanceofthe
documentsfortheresearchquestionandtheidentificationofparadigms,principles,and
assumptions).Weconductedacontentanalysistofindcommonpatternsofparadigms,
principles,andassumptionsinthesearticles(Krippendorf,2004).
Weidentifiedtenprinciples.Theseinformthedevelopmentofaconcretemethodtodesign
satisfiersbasedon(shared)needs.Theyemphasizemethodologicalcoreassumptions
commonlyimplementedindesignthinkingapproachesandanswerthequestionswhomto
involveinsuchprocessesandwhatcircumstancesenablethesuccessofanintervention.In
detail,adesignthinkinginterventionstartswithhumanwantsandneeds.Consequently,
methodstoidentifyneedsareofutmostimportanceinthisstep.Next,designthinkingisa
practicalapproachthatisboth,interventionistandtransformative.Itaimsattackling“real
world”socialproblemscharacterizedbycomplexityanduncertainty.Assuch,designthinking
canbedescribedasasocialpracticeandisbasedonabductivereasoning.Itunifiestheoryand
practiceandisaparticipatoryapproachthatinvolvesstakeholders.Indesignthinking,
problemsaresolvedfromaninterdisciplinaryperspectiveandcanbesituatedinthesystems
thinkingdiscourse.Asdesignthinkingcallsforarelaxationofrationalinfavorofintuitive
cognitiveprocesses,itbalancesanalyticandcreativethinking.Designthinkingoftenincludes
experimentalmethodsandseveraliterationstryingtosolveaproblemortestingaprototype.
Itemploysspecificmethodssuchasframesetting,sketchingorvisualization.Itusesresearch
methodsfromethnographyandotherqualitativeapproaches.Thedetailedresultsofthein‐
depthanalysisarepresentedintable1.
Table1:Designthinkingprinciplesidentifiedintheliterature
#PrincipleDescriptionSources
1HumancenteredDesignthinkingstartsfromhumanwants,
needsandvalues;itintertwinesobjective
andsubjectivecriteria;foradesigned
artefact,processorstrategy,theend‐useris
theultimatejudge.
(Avital,Boland,&Lyytinen,
2009;Beckman&Barry,2007;
Brown,2008;D’Ippolito,2014;
Dorst,2011;Fraser,2007;
Glen,Suciu,&Baughn,2014;
Melles,Howard,&Thompson‐
Whitesidec,2012;Razzouk&
Shute,2012;Seidel&Fixson,
2013)
2Practical;
interventionist;
transformative
Designthinkingisanapproachthattackles
uncertain“realworld”andcomplexsocial
problems,whichare“ill‐defined”and
“wickedproblems”;designthinkingiswidely
applicableindomainssuchasstrategy
development,businessmodelsorpolicy
making.
(Avitaletal.,2009;Brown,
2008;Dalsgaard,2014;Dorst,
2011;Fraser,2007;Glenetal.,
2014;Hobday,Boddington,&
Grantham,2012;Kimbell,
2012;Leavy,2010;Melleset
al.,2012;Razzouk&Shute,
2012;Stempfle&Badke‐
Schaub,2002)
Kragulj,F.etal.:FromNeedstoSatisfiers.HowDesignThinkingCanInformOrganizationalLearningProcesses
TAKE2017–TheoryandApplicationsintheKnowledgeEconomy 476
#PrincipleDescriptionSources
3Reflectivepractice
andmakingsenseof
things
Designthinkingisanactivesocialpractice;it
isbasedonabductivereasoning;indesign
thinkingpractice,thinkinganddoingare
intertwined;designthinkingistheoryin
practice.
(D’Ippolito,2014;Dalsgaard,
2014;Glenetal.,2014;
Kimbell,2012;Lloyd,Lawson,
&Scott,1995;Seidel&Fixson,
2013;Stempfle&Badke‐
Schaub,2002)
4Participatoryand
teambased
Designthinkingisaparticipatoryapproach
andtakesintoaccountdifferentstakeholders
withinsocialsystems;solutionsoftenemerge
inteams.
(Brown,2008;Dorst,2011;
Hobdayetal.,2012;Melleset
al.,2012;Seidel&Fixson,
2013;Stempfle&Badke‐
Schaub,2002)
5InterdisciplinaryDesignthinkingtakesintoaccountan
interdisciplinaryviewonaproblem;design
thinkingitselffollowsdifferentdiscourses
andepistemologicalroots.
(Avitaletal.,2009;Dalsgaard,
2014;Dorst,2011;Melleset
al.,2012;Seidel&Fixson,
2013)
6Situated,embedded
andsystemsthinking
approach
Designthinkingtakesintoaccountthewhole
system,notonlypartsofit;itisasituated
andembeddedpractice.
(Avitaletal.,2009;Beckman&
Barry,2007;Brown,2008;
Dalsgaard,2014;Hobdayet
al.,2012;Leavy,2010;Melles
etal.,2012;Razzouk&Shute,
2012)
7Pragmatism;
abductivereasoning;
certaincognitive
processes
Abductivereasoning,inoppositeto
inductionanddeduction,isthemainwayof
reasoningindesignthinking;cognitively,
designthinkingcallsforarelaxationof
rationalreasoningandfocusesonintuitive
processesandheuristics;itincludesvisual
thinkingandbalancesanalyticandcreative
thinking.
(Brown,2008;Dalsgaard,
2014;Dorst,2011;Fraser,
2007;Goldschmidt,1994;
Leavy,2010;Lloydetal.,1995;
Öztürk&Türkkan,2006;
Razzouk&Shute,2012;Seidel
&Fixson,2013;Stempfle&
Badke‐Schaub,2002)
8Creative:discovery
(solutionsthrough
finding)ormaking
(synthesizingwhatis
alreadyknown)
Designthinkingreliesonthecreative
capacitiesofhumans;ittriestosolve
problemsholisticallyandcreatively;ituses
constraintsasspringboards.
(Avitaletal.,2009;Brown,
2008;D’Ippolito,2014;Dorst,
2011;Fraser,2007;Glenetal.,
2014;Hobdayetal.,2012;
Mellesetal.,2012;Razzouk&
Shute,2012;Seidel&Fixson,
2013)
9Emergent;
interactive;iterative;
experimental
Prototypingincludesmanyproblems,which
areseldomfullydefined;oftenseveral
roundsoftrialanderrorarenecessaryto
solveaproblem;indesignthinking,
processes,problems,andsolutionsco‐evolve
inincrementalstepsforward;designthinking
isexploratoryandavoidsnecessitiesof
choice
(Avitaletal.,2009;Beckman&
Barry,2007;Brown,2008;
Dalsgaard,2014;Dorst,2011;
Fraser,2007;Glenetal.,2014;
Hobdayetal.,2012)
Kragulj,F.etal.:FromNeedstoSatisfiers.HowDesignThinkingCanInformOrganizationalLearningProcesses
TAKE2017–TheoryandApplicationsintheKnowledgeEconomy 477
#PrincipleDescriptionSources
10Process‐like;uses
certainmethods,
tools,andtechniques
Designthinkingoftenfollowsthreestepslike
“inspiration,ideation,implementation”or
“userunderstanding,exploration,new
strategies”;designthinkingprocessesstart
withdeeplyunderstandingusers,customers,
andstakeholderswithethnographicmethods
suchas“unfocusgroups”;itusesthe
methodsofsketching(visualization),
imagery,prototypingandscenario
development;designthinkingworkswith
framesand(re)framingsituations:design
thinkerstrytochangetheframeforagiven
problemsituation,oftencompletely.
(Avitaletal.,2009;Brown,
2008;Dalsgaard,2014;Dorst,
2011;Fraser,2007;Glenetal.,
2014;Goldschmidt,1994;
Hobdayetal.,2012;Öztürk&
Türkkan,2006;Razzouk&
Shute,2012;Seidel&Fixson,
2013;Stempfle&Badke‐
Schaub,2002)
4Communidataproject
4.1Overalldescriptionoftheproject
Inthissection,weoutlinehowweimplementedthedesignthinkingprinciplesidentifiedinan
actionresearchproject.Thegoalwastospecifypreviouslyidentifiedsharedneedswhichisa
prerequisiteforsubsequentlydevelopingviablesatisfiers.Inthefollowingdescription,we
indicatetheimplementeddesignthinkingprinciplesandgivetheirnumbers(seetable1)in
squaredbrackets.
Theoverallaimoftheongoingproject“Communidata”istoenhancetheusabilityofopen
dataandtheiraccessibilityfornon‐expertusers[4].Itisajointresearchprojectincooperation
withaViennesedistrictandledbytheWUViennaUniversityofEconomicsandBusiness.
Communidataconsistsofseveralconsecutivesteps[10](seefigure2).
Figure2:TimelineoftheCommunidataproject
Thefirststepcoveredtheidentificationofsharedneedsofthecitizensintherespective
district[1].Thisprovidesaneed‐basedroadmaptodetermineinwhichcrucialareasopendata
applicationsshouldhelpcitizenstoimprovetheirlives[6].Theoverallprojectstartedfrom
thepremisethatthereisasetofidentifiableandwidelysharedneedsofthepopulationof
therespectivedistrict.Toidentifytheseneeds,weemployedBewextra(Kaiser,Fordinal,&
Kragulj,2014;Kaiser&Kragulj,2016),aparticipativebottom‐upapproachtoidentifyshared
needsinsocialsystems[1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,10].Thismethodologyresultedinacatalogueof
Kragulj,F.etal.:FromNeedstoSatisfiers.HowDesignThinkingCanInformOrganizationalLearningProcesses
TAKE2017–TheoryandApplicationsintheKnowledgeEconomy 478
12hypothesesaboutsharedandcontextualizedneedsinthedistrict(seetable2).Theseneeds
werevalidatedbyasubsetofindividualsliving,working,andgoingtoschoolintherespective
district(surveyparticipants;N=122).Theacceptanceratereflectsthedegreetowhichsurvey
participantssharetheseneeds(seetable2).
Table2:Identifiedneedsandtheiracceptancerate
Needfor…Acceptancerate
cleanliness84%
positiverecognitionofthedistrict 76%
aestheticsandbeauty 79%
highlyecologicallycompatiblemobility 76%
localsupply83%
security81%
modernityandcontinuousdevelopment 77%
opportunitiestomeetandfeelconnected 77%
asupportivepoliticalframe 77%
goodhumanrelations 79%
education80%
opportunitiestospendspareandleisure‐time 85%
4.2Workshopdesignandresults
Accordingtothescopeofthispaper,wefocusonafollowupworkshopthatweconductedin
April2017.Itshallbeseenasthefirstphaseofacomprehensivedesignthinkingprocessin
whichidentifiedneedsaretransformedintoviablesatisfiers.Inparticular,theworkshop
aimedatconcretizingpreviouslyidentifiedsharedneeds(seetable2)bydevelopingindicators
[1].Fifteenmultiplicatorsofthedistrict(socialworkers,theprincipalofthedistrict,landscape
planners,andmembersoftheAustrianfederalchamberofcommerce)jointlydeveloped
indicatorsthatallowtospecifywhenacertainneedisfulfilled.
Astheresultsshow,theseindicatorsareeithermoreobjective,i.e.theyareeasilymeasurable
andintersubjectivelyverifiable,ormoresubjective.Inthelattercase,indicatorsrequiresome
kindofformalizationsuchasmeasuringthroughsubjectiveself‐assessment.Giventhe
exampleofthe“needforsecurity”,table3depictstheresultingquotesofparticipants
reflectingattributesthatindicatorsshouldhave.
Theseindicatorsmakeneedsbettermeasureableandbringthemonesteptowardsits
satisfaction.Whilesomecanbeeasilyaddressed(thosewhicharemoreobjective),others
requireadeepengagementoftheindividualsandtheirexperienceinthedesignprocess.
Kragulj,F.etal.:FromNeedstoSatisfiers.HowDesignThinkingCanInformOrganizationalLearningProcesses
TAKE2017–TheoryandApplicationsintheKnowledgeEconomy 479
Table3:Indicatorsdevelopedfortheneedforsecurity(example)
Needforsecurity
Indicator Attribution
“Punctualityinpublictransportation”moreobjective
“IfIdonothavetothinkaboutthebackpackonmyshoulderwhenwalkingonthe
streets”
moresubjective
“IfIknowwhereIcancallinanemergency” moreobjective
“Peopleonthestreetlookwell‐groomedandfriendly“ moresubjective
“Thereareno/lessredlightbarsintheneighborhood”moreobjective
“Thestreetsintheneighborhoodarewellilluminated” moreobjective
“Nofeelingofthreat,IfIamwalkingonthestreet” moresubjective
“IfIknowthepeople,Iammeetingonthestreet” moresubjective
4.3Reflection
Reflectingonthecourseandtheresultsoftheworkshop,weelaborateontwoobservations.
Firstly,formulatingsuchindicatorscanbeseenasthefirststeptoconcretizeand
operationalize(shared)needs.Itisthefirststepofcreatingsatisfiersbasedon(shared)needs.
Thisapproachcloselyfollowsdesignthinkingprinciples.Insodoing,needsatisfaction
becomesreasonablymeasurable.Suchaworkshoppointsatoutcomeswhichviablesatisfiers
mustprovideinordertobeeffectiveintermsof(shared)needs.
Secondly,whereas(shared)needsarerelativelygeneralandfreeofpersonalattributions,
indicatorsforneedsatisfactionarepersonallyloadedwithvaluesand“points‐of‐view”.We
cansatisfyaverygeneralneedformobilityinmanydifferentways.Anexampleforsucha
value‐ladenindicatorwouldbethe“numberofcar‐sharingplacesregisteredinthedistrict”–
reflectingvaluesthatprioritizegreenmobilityandasharedeconomy(moreliberalvalues)
overcarownership(moreconservativevalues).Inthisworkshop,participantsbuilttheground
foranextiterationstepinwhichparticipantsdesignsatisfiersthatareabletofulfillthese
indicators.Weassumethattheresultingneed‐basedsatisfiersaremostviableforthe
individualsconcerned.
5Conclusionandfurtherresearch
Inthispaperweilluminatedinprinciple,howtogenerateviablesatisfierswithinan
environmentofcomplexsocialdynamicsbasedon(shared)needs.Wefocusedontwo
capacitiesofneed‐basedsolutionknowledge,namelythe“capacitytojudgeneedsand
satisfiers”andthe“capacitytodesignsatisfiers”(Kragulj,2016a).Weassumethatthese
capacitiesarecrucialinthetransformationprocessofneedsintoviablesatisfierswithinsocial
systems.Basedonaliteraturereview,weidentifiedtendesignthinkingprinciplesthatmake
thesecapacitieseffective.Ourpreliminaryempiricalfindingssuggestthataconcretemethod
forneed‐basedorganizationallearningshouldaccountforobjective(easilymeasurableand
Kragulj,F.etal.:FromNeedstoSatisfiers.HowDesignThinkingCanInformOrganizationalLearningProcesses
TAKE2017–TheoryandApplicationsintheKnowledgeEconomy 480
intersubjectivelyverifiable)andmoresubjective(somekindofformalizationisrequired)
indicatorstoensureahighstakeholdercommitment.
Furtherresearchshouldconsidercomplementaryliteratureontopicssuchasco‐creationor
openinnovation.Moreover,researchersshouldpayattentiontocontextualfactors
moderatingsuchdesignthinkingprocessesandenablingconditionswhicharecrucialforthe
implementation.Weplantoextendourresearchandrealizeourfindingsinaconcrete
participatorymethodtodesignviablesatisfiersbasedonknowledgeabout(shared)needs.
Acknowledgements
Thisresearchwassupportedbythe“IKTderZukunft”initiativeoftheAustrianMinistryfor
Transport,InnovationandTechnology(FFGgrantnumber855407).
References
Altschuld,J.W.,&Kumar,D.D.(2010).NeedsAssessment.InInternationalEncyclopediaoftheSocial&
BehavioralSciences(Second,Vol.16).Elsevier.
Altschuld,J.W.,&Watkins,R.(2014).APrimeronNeedsAssessment:MoreThan40YearsofResearchand
Practice.NewDirectionsforEvaluation,(114),5–18.
Argote,L.,&Miron‐Spektor,E.(2011).OrganizationalLearning:FromExperiencetoKnowledge.Organization
Science,22(5),1123–1137.
Avital,M.,Boland,R.J.,&Lyytinen,K.(2009).Introductiontodesigninginformationandorganizationswitha
positivelens.InformationandOrganization,19(3),153–161.
Bayus,B.L.(2008).UnderstandingCustomerNeeds.InS.Shane(Ed.),HandbookofTechnologyandInnovation
Management(pp.115–142).NewYork:JohnWiley&Sons.
Beckman,S.L.,&Barry,M.(2007).Innovationasalearningprocess:Embeddingdesignthinking.California
ManagementReview,50(1),25–56.
Brown,T.(2008).Designthinking.HarvardBusinessReview,86(6),84–92.
D’Ippolito,B.(2014).Theimportanceofdesignforfirmscompetitiveness:Areviewoftheliterature.
Technovation,34(11),716–730.
Dalsgaard,P.(2014).Pragmatismanddesignthinking.InternationalJournalofDesign,8(1),143–155.
Deci,E.L.,&Ryan,R.M.(2008).Self‐determinationtheory:Amacrotheoryofhumanmotivation,development,
andhealth.CanadianPsychology,49(3),182–185.
Dorst,K.(2011).Thecoreof“designthinking”anditsapplication.DesignStudies,32(6),521–532.
Eden,C.,&Huxham,C.(1996).ActionResearchforManagementResearch.BritishJournalofManagement,7,
75–86.
Frankfurt,H.G.(1984).NecessityandDesire.PhilosophyandPhenomenologicalResearch,45(1),1‐13.
Fraser,H.M.A.(2007).Thepracticeofbreakthroughstrategiesbydesign.JournalofBusinessStrategy,28(4),
66–74.
Freeman,R.E.(1984).Strategicmanagement:Astakeholderapproach.Mashfield:PitmanPublishingInc.
Glen,R.,Suciu,C.,&Baughn,C.(2014).Theneedfordesignthinkinginbusinessschools.Academyof
ManagementLearningandEducation,13(4),653–667.
Kragulj,F.etal.:FromNeedstoSatisfiers.HowDesignThinkingCanInformOrganizationalLearningProcesses
TAKE2017–TheoryandApplicationsintheKnowledgeEconomy 481
Goffin,K.,Lemke,F.,&Koners,U.(2010).IdentifyingHiddenNeeds.London:PalgraveMacmillan.
Goldschmidt,G.(1994).Onvisualdesignthinking:theviskidsofarchitecture.DesignStudies,15(2),158–174.
Hobday,M.,Boddington,A.,&Grantham,A.(2012).Policiesfordesignandpoliciesforinnovation:Contrasting
perspectivesandremainingchallenges.Technovation,32(5),272–281.
Johansson‐Sköldberg,U.,Woodilla,J.,&Çetinkaya,M.(2013).Designthinking:Past,presentandpossible
futures.CreativityandInnovationManagement,22(2),121–146.
Kaiser,A.,Feldhusen,B.,&Fordinal,B.(2013).Visiondevelopmentasaknowledgecreatingprocess.InR.H.
Sprague(Ed.),46thHawaiiInternationalConferenceonSystemSciences(pp.3593–3602).LosAlamitos:IEEE
ComputerSocietyPress.
Kaiser,A.,Fordinal,B.,&Kragulj,F.(2014).CreationofNeedKnowledgeinOrganizations:AnAbductive
Framework.InR.H.Sprague(Ed.),47thHawaiiInternationalConferenceonSystemSciences(pp.3499–3508).
LosAlamitos:IEEEComputerSocietyPress.
Kaiser,A.,&Kragulj,F.(2016).Bewextra:CreatingandInferringExplicitKnowledgeofNeeds.JournalofFutures
Studies,20(4),79–98.
Kaiser,A.,Kragulj,F.,&Grisold,T.(2016).TakingaKnowledgePerspectiveonNeeds:PresentingTwoCaseStudies
WithinanEducationalEnvironmentinAustria.ElectronicJournalofKnowledgeManagement,14(3),114–126.
Kaiser,A.,Kragulj,F.,Grisold,T.,&Walser,R.(2015).ExtendingtheOrganizationalLearningProcessinOrderto
EnableInnovativeIdeas.InProceedingsofthe16thEuropeanConferenceonKnowledgeManagement(ECKM‐
2015)(pp.391–398).Reading:AcademicConferencesandPublishingInternationalLimited.
Kanfer,R.,Frese,M.,&Johnson,R.E.(2017).Motivationrelatedtowork:Acenturyofprogress.Journalof
AppliedPsychology,102(3),338–355.
Kimbell,L.(2011).RethinkingDesignThinking:PartI.DesignandCulture,3(3),285–306.
Kimbell,L.(2012).Rethinkingdesignthinking:PartII.DesignandCulture,4(2),129–148.
Korolev,A.(2015).Needs/WantsDichotomyandRegimeResponsiveness.CriticalReview,27(1),23–48.
Kragulj,F.(2016a).AKnowledgePerspectiveonNeedsasaFoundationforOrganisationalLearningProcesses.In
E.Tomé(Ed.),ProceedingsoftheInternationalConferenceTheoryandApplicationintheKnowledgeEconomy
(TAKE2016)(pp.196–209).Aveiro.
Kragulj,F.(2016b).ConceptualisingNeedstoEnhanceOrganisationalLearningandEnableKnowledge‐based
Innovation.ProcediaComputerScience,99C,225–242.
Kragulj,F.(2017).AKnowledgePerspectiveonNeedstoEnhanceOrganizationalLearning.WUViennaUniversity
ofEconomicsandBusiness.
Krippendorff,K.(2013).ContentAnalysis.AnIntroductiontoItsMethodology.LosAngeles:Sage.
Kruglanski,A.W.,Pierro,A.,&Sheveland,A.(2011).HowmanyroadsleadtoRome?Equifinalityset‐sizeand
commitmenttogoalsandmeans.EuropeanJournalofSocialPsychology,41(3),344–352.
Leavy,B.(2010).Designthinking–anewmentalmodelofvalueinnovation.Strategy&Leadership,38(3),5–14.
Lloyd,P.,Lawson,B.,&Scott,P.(1995).Canconcurrentverbalizationrevealdesigncognition?DesignStudies,
16(2),237–259.
Maklan,S.,Knox,S.,&Ryals,L.(2008).Newtrendsininnovationandcustomerrelationshipmanagement:a
challengeformarketresearchers.InternationalJournalofMarketResearch,50(2),221–240.
Maslow,A.H.(1970).Motivationandpersonality(2nded.).NewYork:Harper&Row.
Matthing,J.,Sandén,B.,&Edvardsson,B.(2004).Newservicedevelopment:learningfromandwithcustomers.
InternationalJournalofServiceIndustryManagement,15(5),479–498.
Kragulj,F.etal.:FromNeedstoSatisfiers.HowDesignThinkingCanInformOrganizationalLearningProcesses
TAKE2017–TheoryandApplicationsintheKnowledgeEconomy 482
Melles,G.,Howard,Z.,&Thompson‐Whitesidec,S.(2012).Teachingdesignthinking:Expandinghorizonsin
designeducation.In2ndWorldConferenceonLearning,TeachingandEducationalLeadership,WCLTA‐2011(Vol.
31,pp.162–166).SwinburneUniversity,FacultyofDesign.
Öztürk,M.N.,&Türkkan,E.E.(2006).Thedesignstudioasteaching/learningmedium‐Aprocess‐based
approach.InternationalJournalofArtandDesignEducation,25(1),96–104.
Patnaik,D.,&Becker,R.(1999).Needfinding:TheWhyandHowofUncoveringPeople’sNeeds.Design
ManagementJournal,10(2),37–43.
Prahalad,C.K.,&Ramaswamy,V.(2004).Co‐creationexperiences:Thenextpracticeinvaluecreation.Journal
ofInteractiveMarketing,18(3),5–14.
Razzouk,R.,&Shute,V.(2012).WhatIsDesignThinkingandWhyIsItImportant?ReviewofEducational
Research,82(3),330–348.
Rebelo,T.M.,&DuarteGomes,A.(2008).Organizationallearningandthelearningorganization.TheLearning
Organization,15(4),294–308.
Seidel,V.P.,&Fixson,S.K.(2013).Adoptingdesignthinkinginnovicemultidisciplinaryteams:Theapplication
andlimitsofdesignmethodsandreflexivepractices.JournalofProductInnovationManagement,30(S1),19–33.
Senge,P.(2001).Thedanceofchange.Thechallengesofsustainingmomentuminlearningorganizations.
London:Brealey.
Sheldon,K.,Elliot,A.,Kim,Y.,&Kasser,T.(2001).WhatIsSatisfyingAboutSatisfyingEvents?Testing10Candidate
PsychologicalNeeds.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,80(2),325–339.
Stempfle,J.,&Badke‐Schaub,P.(2002).Thinkingindesignteams‐Ananalysisofteamcommunication.Design
Studies,23(5),473–496.
Susman,G.I.,&Evered,R.D.(1978).AnAssessmentoftheScientificMeritsofActionResearch.Administrative
ScienceQuarterly,23(4),582–603.
Terwiesch,C.,&Ulrich,K.T.(2009).InnovationTournaments:CreatingandSelectingExceptionalOpportunities.
Boston:HarvardBusinessPress.
Thomson,G.(2005).FundamentalNeeds.RoyalInstituteofPhilosophySupplement,57,175–186.
Ulwick,A.W.(2002).TurnCustomerInputintoInnovation.HarvardBusinessReview,80(1),91–97.
Ulwick,A.W.,&Bettencourt,L.A.(2008).GivingCustomersaFairHearing.MITSloanManagementReview,49(3).
Verganti,R.(2008).Design,meanings,andradicalinnovation:Ametamodelandaresearchagenda.Journalof
ProductInnovationManagement,25(5),436–456.
VonHippel,E.,&VonKrogh,G.(2016).IdentifyingViable“Need‐SolutionPairs”:ProblemSolvingWithout
ProblemFormulation.OrganizationScience,27(1),207–221.
Wahba,M.A.,&Bridwell,L.G.(1976).MaslowReconsidered:AReviewofResearchontheNeedHierarchy
Theory.OrganizationalBehaviorandHumanPerformance,15,212–240.
Whetten,D.A.,Felin,T.,&King,B.G.(2009).ThePracticeofTheoryBorrowinginOrganizationalStudies:Current
IssuesandFutureDirections.JournalofManagement,35(3),537–563.
... Originally conceived as a means of inferring implicit need knowledge in organizations, the Bewextra method has been applied successfully by public administrations, for instance to define the urban development strategy in the German city of Andernach 3 . Here, we outline a results of another recent study in an urban context, specifically a study of the residents' needs of a Viennese quarter Stuwerviertel, belonging to a city's second district Leopoldstadt [27]. The context of the study was to explore the means of incentivising online participation of a currently mostly offline local community. ...
Ontology for Representing Human Needs
Conference Paper
  • Oct 2017
Need satisfaction plays a fundamental role in human well-being. Hence understanding citizens’ needs is crucial for developing a successful social and economic policy. This notwithstanding, the concept of need has not yet found its place in information systems and online tools. Furthermore, assessing needs itself remains a labor-intensive, mostly offline activity, where only a limited support by computational tools is available. In this paper, we make the first step towards employing need management in the design of information systems supporting participation and participatory innovation by proposing OpeNeeD, a family of ontologies for representing human needs data. As a proof of concept, OpeNeeD has been used to represent, enrich and query the results of a needs assessment study in a local citizen community in one of the Vienna districts. The proposed ontology will facilitate such studies and enable the representation of citizens’ needs as Linked Data, fostering its co-creation and incentivizing the use of Open Data and services based on it.
View
Bewextra: Creating and inferring explicit knowledge of needs in organizations
Article
Full-text available
  • Jan 2016
We introduce a new methodological framework, called Bewextra, for the creation of the knowledge of needs in organizations. The development of our framework builds on theoretical engagement with literature from several disciplines including visioning and philosophy of needs as well as empirical data from vision development processes we have accompanied. To the best of our knowledge it is the first theoretical work that describes learning from an envisioned future and the generation of need knowledge as an abductive process in a methodologically replicable way. The advantages and practical implications of our method introduced are discussed in detail.
View
Conceptualising Needs to Enhance Organisational Learning and Enable Knowledge-based Innovation
Article
Full-text available
  • Dec 2016
Organisational learning causes organisational change; it utilises and results in (new) knowledge. Needs are crucial in these processes, since they govern behaviour and cause us to act. Consequently, it seems to be worthwhile to consider what needs are and how they can be exploited in organisational learning processes enabling innovation. In this conceptual paper, I theorise on the concept of need and argue why considering needs is beneficial in learning and innovation processes, such as vision or strategy development, in which various expectations which presumably emerge from shared needs have to be combined. Based on a trans-disciplinary literature review, I emphasise the principle of equifinality and propose a one-to-many relation between needs and their means of satisfaction. In order to take advantage of this relation, we have to understand what needs are and how they are linked to other phenomena. Therefore, I introduce an ontology, which aims at clarifying the concept of need for organisational practice and points at a specific type of knowledge crucial in the transition from needs to need satisfaction. I argue that this knowledge has to be generated and utilised in organisational learning processes.
View
A Knowledge Perspective on Needs as a Foundation for Organisational Learning Processes
Conference Paper
Full-text available
  • Jun 2016
Needs are crucial in organisational learning processes, but yet not formally conceptualised as a distinct type of knowledge. In this conceptual paper, I establish a knowledge perspective on needs and the transformation process from needs towards need satisfaction. Based on an ontology clarifying the concept of need and its means of satisfaction, I introduce need-based solution knowledge consisting of three distinct capacities to act. I argue why these capacities should be made explicit in group settings and point at possible leverage points for organisational practice.
View
Rethinking Design Thinking: Part II
Article
Full-text available
  • Jul 2012
This paper uses resources from anthropology and science and technology studies to propose understanding design expertise and activity as constituted materially and discursively in practice. Introducing a pair of concepts - design-as-practice and designs-in-practice - as an analytical device for discussing design solves a number of problems facing researchers working in design studies. First, it helps researchers see design as a situated, local accomplishment involving diverse and multiple actors. Second, it acknowledges the roles of objects in constituting practices. Third, it de-centers the designer as the main agent in designing. This approach moves away from a disembodied, ahistorical design thinking to a situated, contingent set of practices carried by professional designers and those who engage with designs, which recognizes the materiality of designed things and the material and discursive practices through which they come to matter.
View
Pragmatism and Design Thinking
Article
Full-text available
  • Apr 2014
This article examines the philosophical position of pragmatism as a conceptual scaffold for design thinking. A number of existing contributions to design have drawn upon concepts from pragmatism. The article continues this line of thought by a wider examination of how central concepts in design thinking resonate with the pragmatist philosophy of John Dewey. The argument put forward here is that there is a large degree of convergence between the pragmatist perspective and design thinking. Pragmatism offers well-developed and coherent articulations of concerns that are central to design thinking and the pragmatist perspective can be of value on both a theoretical and practical level. On a theoretical level, it can inform and inspire the development of the discourse on design. On a practical level, pragmatist concepts can be operationalized to inform and guide concrete design projects and help us understand and orchestrate the design process.
View
Motivation Related to Work: A Century of Progress
Article
  • Feb 2017
Work motivation is a topic of crucial importance to the success of organizations and societies and the well-being of individuals. We organize the work motivation literature over the last century using a meta-framework that clusters theories, findings, and advances in the field according to their primary focus on (a) motives, traits, and motivation orientations (content); (b) features of the job, work role, and broader environment (context); or (c) the mechanisms and processes involved in choice and striving (process). Our integrative review reveals major achievements in the field, including more precise mapping of the psychological inputs and operations involved in motivation and broadened conceptions of the work environment. Cross-cutting trends over the last century include the primacy of goals, the importance of goal striving processes, and a more nuanced conceptualization of work motivation as a dynamic, goal-directed, resource allocation process that unfolds over the related variables of time, experience, and place. Across the field, advances in methodology and measurement have improved the match between theory and research. Ten promising directions for future research are described and field experiments are suggested as a useful means of bridging the research–practice gap.
View
Identifying Viable "Need-Solution Pairs": Problem Solving Without Problem Formulation
Article
  • Jan 2016
Problem-solving research and formal problem-solving practice begin with the assumption that a problem has been identified or formulated for solving. The problem-solving process then involves a search for a satisfactory or optimal solution to that problem. In contrast, we propose that, in informal problem solving, a need and a solution are often discovered together and tested for viability as a "need-solution pair.'' For example, one may serendipitously discover a new solution and assess it to be worth adopting although the "problem" it would address had not previously been in mind as an object of search or even awareness. In such a case, problem identification and formulation, if done at all, come only after the discovery of the need-solution pair. We propose the identification of need-solution pairs as an approach to problem solving in which problem formulation is not required. We argue that discovery of viable need-solution pairs without problem formulation may have advantages over problem-initiated problem-solving methods under some conditions. First, it removes the often considerable costs associated with problem formulation. Second, it eliminates the constraints on possible solutions that any problem formulation will inevitably apply.
View
View
View
Needs Assessment: An Overview
Book
  • Jan 2010
“The strength of the book is its thoroughness and how it actually takes the reader inside the experience, step-by-step, of conducting a Needs Assessment…” —Jody Bortone, Sacred Heart University This book focuses on how results have to be utilized in an organization for an assessment to be considered a success. The authors describe the three phases of needs assessment in depth along with subtleties in implementing them. Although this book can be used in a stand-alone fashion, it is part of the Needs Assessment KIT—five interrelated and sequenced books that take the reader through the needs assessment process (ISBN: 978-0-7619-2595-8).
View