Content uploaded by Katja Tschimmel
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Katja Tschimmel on Jul 17, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
This paper was presented at The ISPIM Innovation Conference – Innovation, The Name of The
Game, Stockholm, Sweden on 17-20 June 2018. The publication is available to ISPIM members at
www.ispim.org.
Design Thinking applied to the Redesign of Business
Education
Katja Tschimmel*
Mindshake, Rua das Motas 102, 4150-751 Porto, Portugal.
E-mail: kt@mindshake.pt
Joana Santos
ESAD, Av. Calouste Gulbenkian 1011, 4460-268 Sra da Hora, Portugal.
E-mail: joanasantos@esad.pt
* Corresponding author
Abstract: Many business and innovation managers and academics have been
calling attention to the need for urgent changes in business school curricula and
learning methods, prompted by the continual social, economic and
technological transformation of our uncertain world. This paper provides an
introductional approach to the concept of Design Thinking and its possible role
for the improvement of business education programmes through the
presentation of a new framework: The D-Think Toolkit. This toolkit is
composed of six educational scenarios, the six phase process model Evolution
62, and numerous DT tools.The objective of the paper is to help the innovation
management community to understand better the main principles of Design
Thinking applied in Education, and the potential the method has for being
applied in the innovation of business schools.
Keywords: Business Education; Business Schools; Design Thinking; Learning;
Educational Scenario; Curricula; Toolkit.
1 Introduction
For more than a decade, many business and innovation managers and academics have
been calling attention to the need for urgent changes in business school curricula and
learning methods, prompted by the continual social and economic transformation of an
increasingly technological and evermore uncertain world (Pfeffer & Fong, 2002; Martin,
2009; Dunne, 2009; Glen et al., 2014). Also recently we can find a new wave of criticism
of Business Education (Torres, 2016; Çeviker-Cinar et al., 2017; Parker, 2018). Parker
affirms that “business schools have huge influence, yet they are also widely regarded to
be intellectually fraudulent places, fostering a culture of short-termism and
greed” (2018). Already in the Noughties, Pfeffer and Fong (2002) and Ghoshal (2005, in
Dunne 2006) called for a fundamental reorientation of business school curricula and for
fewer, but more relevant, courses. The purpose of this paper is not to indicate directions
for the redesign of business education, but to justify the need of new approaches, and to
present a framework, compatible with new learning paradigms, which could support the
innovation process of business schools. Opinions and scientific study results about the
best way of educating socially responsible future innovators, entrepreneurs and leaders,
are diverse and contradictory as shown in the OECD Education working paper by Hoidn
! 1
This paper was presented at The ISPIM Innovation Conference – Innovation, The Name of The
Game, Stockholm, Sweden on 17-20 June 2018. The publication is available to ISPIM members at
www.ispim.org.
and Kärkkäinen (2014). Thus, it is really a giant challenge that business education is
confronted with.
One salient change in business education is the introduction of Design Thinking (DT)
as a discipline, as a course, or as a transversal form of learning approach, following the
model of the d.school of Stanford University (Kurokawa, 2013; Matthews & Wrigley,
2017). But here is a kind of irony: while implying that DT is a very useful method for the
innovation of products, services and complex systems, which has now reached business
schools, so far, Design Thinking has hardly ever been applied in the innovation of an
educational system itself (see, for example, Riverdale & IDEO, Design Thinking for
Educators, 2012). To date, there is no Case Study of how a business school designed its
new curricula by applying Design Thinking in the process of rethinking the educational
system itself.
In this paper, a concept building research, we introduce Design Thinking into the field
of business education, not as a single discipline or course, but as a method with which the
whole system of business education could be redesigned and adapted to the new social
and economic challenges. To exemplify the role DT could play in the redesign of
educational elements in business schools, we present the research project D-Think -
Design Thinking applied in Education and Training. This European project aims to
promote the application of Design Thinking as a framework to innovate HEI and VET
education; more concretely to rethink pedagogical approaches, curricula, learning
contents, assessment methods, learning spaces or the role of todays educators (Tschimmel
et al. 2017).
2 The Problems of Business Education - the Background
Business schools and their educational approach are recently in the focus of international
criticism for two main reasons: 1. The ideological approach of their pedagogical
framework and curricula contents; and 2. Their “outdated” teaching and learning
methods. While some authors focus their criticism on the amoral view of the world in
business education and the managers’ selfish elitism (Petriglieri, 2012), the self-
centredness and inefficientness of CEOs’ with MBAs’ (Torres, 2016) or the dominance
on market mechanisms (Parker, 2018), others authors, such as Pfeffer and Fong (2002),
Dunne (2009) or Çeviker-Cinar (2017) refer to the “ineffective” teaching and learning
methods, and to the limited impact business schools have on career success.
Related to the first group of arguments, according Parker (2018), the basic problem of
business education is “that the business school only teaches one form of organising –
market managerialism”. Capitalism should not be assumed to be “the end of history”, but
the use of market mechanisms and managerial techniques, the extension of technologies
such as accounting, finance and operations should be routinely questioned. That’s why
this former business educator demands an entirely new way of thinking about
management, business and markets.
Along this line of thought goes the OECD learning framework 2030: The Future of
Education and Skills (2018). This position paper introduces a complex concept: “the
mobilisation of knowledge, skills, attitudes and values through a process of reflection,
anticipation and action, in order to develop the inter-related competencies needed to
engage with the world.” In this perspective, business education should be open to prepare
the future managers to think about the new challenges in our rapidly changing world.
! 2
Next to the environmental challenge, business education should focus on the social and
economic challenges provoked by the unprecendent innovation in science and
technology. According to the OECD orientation text, especially bio-technology and
artificial intelligence are contributing to the development of new economic, social and
institutional models with the purpose for better lives for all. Future education should
concentrate on the “sustainability of people, profit, planet and peace, through
partnership” (OECD, 2018: 3).
According to Petriglieri (2012), leading scholars, best-selling authors and business
school deans agree that business education shares responsibility “for the lapses of
judgment and unfettered self-interest that wreaked havoc on the global economy and sank
people’s trust in corporations”. He affirms that the introduction of ethics courses and
revamped curricula to incorporate concerns about personal principles and social
responsibility is not enough to educate business managers to be able to contribute to the
resolution of complex environmental, societal and economic problems.
Building on what Pfeffer and Fong pointed out in 2002, Petriglieri defends a decade
later that business schools are not giving their students the “right” tools to succeed in
their jobs in a responsible and sustainable way. As business school courses are shaping
the values, commitments and habits of aspiring leaders, in the opinion of Petriglieri,
business education should give equal weight to instrumental and humanistic aims, by
“making the case for authenticity, service, equality, concern for the planet just as
fervently as the case for shareholder value maximization” (Petriglieri, 2012). Related to
this argument, Garvey (2015) affirms, that the role and purpose of business education
should always be lead by the actual attitudes, knowledge and skills provoked by ongoing
political, economic and social changes.
Related to the second area of criticism of business schools, the “outdated” teaching
and learning methods, several authors, recognise that some change has been
implemented, but there are still many models of business education which fail to embrace
organisational innovation, rapid response and adaptability to emerging contexts and new
challenges. Çeviker-Cinar et al. (2017) point out the persistent problems of
multidisciplinary integration, experimental learning and soft-skill development. Business
schools should educate agents for change, who can have a positive impact on their
organisations in both a local, and a global approach, not mere system followers.
Regarding the kind of knowledge and skills business education should provide, in his
article Business Education, Garvey (2015) emphasises, that the necessary ‘technical’
skills and knowledge should be completed by the development of ‘personal’ skills which
enable managers to lead teams effectively. Personal skills include amongst others,
according to this author, communication skills, project management and coaching, critical
and creative thinking, and ethical awareness (Garvey, 2015: 12). Beside a ‘formal’
curriculum with specific content, Garvey highlights the ‘informal’ curriculum with a
more holistic content based on the notion of andragogic adult learning. This ‘informal’
and problem-centred curriculum, driven by collaboration and learners experience and
motivation, fosters in his opinion greater initiative and creativity in the business school
learner. To balance the necessary ‘formal’ and ‘informal’ business education, Garvey
introduces Kessel’s (1996) concept of ‘rich landscape’, in which learning occurs through
an active engagement and participation that encourage flexibility and creative thinking,
the much needed abilities of a manager in the 21st century. Consulting again the
orientation lines of the OECD learning framework (2018), education should be able to
prepare its learners to think and act in a more integrated way, which means taking into
This paper was presented at The ISPIM Innovation Conference – Innovation, The Name of The
Game, Stockholm, Sweden on 17-20 June 2018. The publication is available to ISPIM members at
www.ispim.org.
account the interconnections and inter-relations between contradictory or incompatible
ideas, logics and positions. Faced with the actual doubts about, and criticism of business
education, we consider that business schools are still far away from being able to prepare
their students to be critical and creative system thinkers, skills required today from each
business school graduate.
3 Design Thinking and Business Education
The Concept of Design Thinking
Design has always been a catalyst for innovation processes in product and service
development. But over the last decade and more, emerged the concept Design Thinking
(DT) by demonstrating that any kind of organisation can benefit from the designers’ way
of thinking and working, including management, business and educational institutions.
After a stretching of the DT concept (see Tschimmel, 2012; Johansson-Sköldberg,
Woodilla & Çetinkaya, 2013), Design Thinking today is understood generally as a
complex thinking process of conceiving meaningful experiences for people, offering new
process models and toolkits which help to improve, accelerate and visualize every
creative process, carried out not only by designers, but in multidisciplinary teams in any
kind of organisation.
In their analysis of the various discourses of ‘design thinking’, Johansson-Sköldberg,
Woodilla and Çetinkaya (2013) differentiate between two main discourses, the
“designerly” and the “management discourses of design thinking”. What these authors
call “designerly thinking”, refers to the academic construction of the professional
designer’s practice and theoretical reflections, linking in this way theory and practice
from a design perspective (Johansson-Sköldberg et al, 2013: 123). The second identified
discourse based on the term “design thinking” emerged in the business background,
particularly in management, describing it as an efficient way to be creative and to
innovate. While the “designerly thinking” discourse is older than 50 years and closely
connected to the design methodology movement, the “design thinking” discourse was
only born at the beginning of the 21st century, but it has grown rapidly. The origin of the
terminology DT in the business world is awarded to the design agency IDEO, after the
publication of Tim Brown’s article “Design Thinking”, where DT is introduced as a
human-centred method leading to innovation (Brown, 2008: 86). One year later, Brown
deepened the DT concept in Change by Design. How Design thinking transforms
organisations and inspires Innovation (2009), a book not directed at designers, but to
creative leaders and innovation managers.
In another approach to the concept, Kimbell differentiates in her article “Rethinking
Design Thinking” (2011) between design thinking as 1. a cognitive style of individual
designers, 2. as a general theory of design as a field of dealing with wicked problems and
3. as an organisational resource for innovation and business. Thus, it is her third category
which goes hand in hand with IDEO’s and Brown’s approach and the “management
discourses of design thinking”, identified by Johansson-Sköldberg et al. (2013). As
introduced in earlier work (Tschimmel, 2012), in this paper we use the concept “design
thinking” written in lower case for the description of the cognitive process of designers,
thus the “designerly thinking”, and “Design Thinking” written in upper case for referring
! 4
to the design-driven approach for organisational innovation as it is used in the business
and management discourse.
To acknowledge both, the academic and the organisational approach to DT, in the
development of our DT model Evolution 62 (2017), the processual base in the D-Think
project, we unified both DT approaches by concentrating on the creative process and its
phases, and by highlighting the basic principles, common to all different design thinking
and doing approaches, such as human-centredness, collaboration, experimentation,
visualisation and the holistic perspective. With the same objective of unifying the
different DT approaches, Carlgren et al. (2016) developed a framework structure based
on five characteristic items of Design Thinking: the user focus, problem framing,
visualisation, experimentation and diversity. With each item, they associate certain
mindsets, practices and techniques. Just to give an example here, both the Evolution 62
model (2017) and Carlgren et al. (2016) associate with the category ‘Experimentation’ a
curious, optimistic, creative and playful mindset applied in the practices of divergent and
convergent thinking, prototyping and testing new solutions. Making mistakes and
learning by doing/failing is in all DT approaches an important and unavoidable part of the
creative process.
Design Thinking applied in Business Education
In the EU Forum University Business Dialogue (COM, 2009) it was agreed that curricula
and learning methods in HEI (Higher Education Institution) and VET (Vocational
Education Training) institutions need a fundamental change, so that students can be
prepared to be the “agents of change”. According Redecker et al. (2011), educational
institutions must experiment with new formats and strategies for learning and teaching to
be able to offer relevant, effective and high-quality learning experiences in the future.
One of the first innovation and business managers, who introduced DT to Business
Education was Roger Martin, Dean of the Rotman's School of Management between
1998 and 2013. In an interview with David Dunne (Dunne, 2006) and in his book The
Design of Business (2009), Martin questioned the practices and premises of management
education, arguing that MBA students should learn to think in terms of projects, by
developing collaborative skills, empathy, visual and integrative thinking skills, and social
responsibility, all these forming part of Design Thinking. In the following decade around
20 business schools followed the example, by integrating in various ways Design
Thinking into their curriculum design (Kurokawa, 2013; Matthews & Wrigley, 2017).
Although DT is recognised as a successful innovation method, and although business
education is in a pedagogic crisis, according to Çeviker-Cinar et al. (2017) the
implementation of Design Thinking in business schools is still slow and partial. And until
now DT has never been applied in the innovation process of the business educational
system itself, even though some researchers and innovation specialists agree about the
suitability of design for this process (Dunne, 2009). In this context, Matthews and
Wrigley underline the importance of collaborations between business schools and design
school, such as already happens in Toronto or Paris (2017: 51). A close relationship with
design schools would be very useful in the redesign of the educational business culture.
In our opinion, the advantage of applying the principles of Design Thinking in the
innovation process of business schools is its iterative nature by prioritising empathy
activities, problem framing, experimentation, rapid prototyping and pilot testing in the
development of a responsive business education.
This paper was presented at The ISPIM Innovation Conference – Innovation, The Name of The
Game, Stockholm, Sweden on 17-20 June 2018. The publication is available to ISPIM members at
www.ispim.org.
The Innovation of Education
Most curricula makers and educators agree on the urgent need to innovate the educational
system. The structural paradigm shift in education began with the transfer of the
traditional teacher-centred approach to a student-centred approach. In this learning
model, the central question became the definition of the learning outcomes of the training
itself, that is, to define precisely what the student should be able to accomplish at the end
of his or her training. In this context, according Schreurs and Dumbraveanu (2014:
36-37), the responsibility of educators is to create a learning environment that supports
the learning activities appropriate to achieving the intended learning outcomes, and the
learners are the active makers of knowledge, even co-responsible for knowledge creation.
This growing structural change, as mentioned above, has increased the awareness that it
is necessary, alongside traditional subjects, to acquire a set of other personal skills for the
success of 21st century students.
However, as the PPRC study (2010) points out, what seems relevant now is how to
prepare 21st century teachers for the needs of 21st century students. So, according to
Hoidn and Kärkkäinen (2014) the question for educators is not whether there is a ‘best’
teaching method, but what kind of combination of methods is the more adequate for a
desired goal. The authors highlight that approaches aiming to equip higher education
students with diverse skills for innovation cannot neglect the need to equip their teachers
with a variety of effective teaching skills. However, for the above to occur, teachers will
need professional development opportunities and strong support systems (PPRC, 2010:
13).
In this sense, DT as a holistic, integrative, and human-centred methodology may be
able to ensure that change does not just happen in every 'classroom', but everywhere in
the educational system, in line with conviction that "education is an ecosystem with many
stakeholders“ (OECD, 2018: 6).
4 Design Thinking applied to Redesign Business Education
The D-Think Research Project
Aiming to respond to the pedagogic crisis and the postmodern challenges of education, in
2014 the European research project D-Think emerged, resulting in 2017 in the online
publication of the Research Report (Tschimmel et al., 2015), the D-Think Toolkit
(Tschimmel et al., 2017) and a m-learning Course (https://dthink. worldclass.io). Seven
institutional partners from six different European countries developed the Research
Project D-Think, supported by the Erasmus+ Programme of the European Commission.
The seven partners are the Portuguese Design College ESAD/CIFAD (project leader and
th e general c oordi nator), Ad vanci s Busin es s Servi ces (Po rtugal) , Vaasan
Ammattikorkeakoulu VAMK (Finland), ISTUD Business School (Italy), Akademia
Humanistyczno-Ekonomiczna Łodzi (Poland), Venture Hub (Spain) and the European
Foundation for Management Development (Belgium).
By offering a practical toolkit and digital support, the D-Think framework is a
response to the European Commissions search for personalised, collaborative and
informal learning, fundamental for holistic changes in higher educational institutions. The
main objective of the D-Think project is the promotion of the application of Design
! 6
Thinking as an innovation method to rethink not only learning/teaching methods but also
pedagogical approaches, assessment methods, learning spaces or the role of educators.
Another main goal is the orientation of educators and curricula makers, through the use
of Design Thinking, to find out what kind of knowledge, skills, attitudes and values are
needed for today's students, as well as how educational systems can effectively develop
them. Both objectives are relevant and easily applicable to the business educational field.
Focusing on the redesign of education and on the change of educators’ mindset, the
objective of the project was not merely to explain how to introduce Design Thinking to
HEI students, but to apply it to change the educational system. Through the creation of
six different educational scenarios, the D-Think framework presents how Design
Thinking tools can be applied to find and develop new perspectives, approaches and
solutions.
The Methodological Approach
The methodological approach of the research project D-Think was Design Thinking itself.
By applying the DT model Evolution 62 (2017, developed between 2012-2015 by
Tschimmel), the research team was led through the different DT phases, applying several
tools of Design Thinking, such as Trend Analysis, Collaborative Mind Maps, Field
Observation, Interviews or Rapid Prototyping. Emerging educational trends in HEI and
VET teaching/learning, such as problem and design-based learning, game-based learning,
flipped-classroom, blended learning, etc. were also analysed. Interviews done with HEI
educators and innovation trainers showed that most of them are neither familiar with
these emerging educational trends, nor with Design Thinking, but that they feel the urgent
need for a change in education.
The D-Think Toolkit
The D-Think toolkit is a framework and a practical guide for the application of the DT
tools by educators and other stakeholders in different and relevant educational contexts
(Tschimmel et al., 2017). It is based on three contexts, with two educational scenarios
from each context. In the first context, “Setting the Learning”, one scenario is related to
the “Pedagogical Framework”, and the other to the “Revision of a Curriculum”. In the
process of (re)setting the pedagogical framework for an educational institution, the
development of the core systemic principals are the focus of the Design Thinking work.
Understanding of where and how a certain course fits within the educational system and
its broader programmes, is the DT task of the scenario “Revision of a Curriculum”. The
second context of the D-Think toolkit refers to “Learning Contents” and “Assessment”.
Learning contents may be varied, including printed and digital materials, and live
performances, such as classes, games or events. In the development of new learning
contents, the focus should be on the construction of meaningful learning experiences that
engage and challenge not only the students, but also their teachers.
This paper was presented at The ISPIM Innovation Conference – Innovation, The Name of The
Game, Stockholm, Sweden on 17-20 June 2018. The publication is available to ISPIM members at
www.ispim.org.
Figure 1 The different contexts and scenarios of the D-Think Toolkit (Tschimmel et
al., 2017: 24).
One of the main challenges in designing learning experiences is to define what has to
be accomplished, and to ensure not only a combination of the content and the didactical
methods, but also the assessment. Setting the assessments is a central element in
education, which can affect decisions about results, assignments, improvements,
instructional needs, curriculum, and, in some cases, even funding and certifications. But
the way the assessment system works in general today, and especially in business
schools, is not inspiring students to improve their learning activities.
The third educational context of the toolkit, “Facilitating the Learning”, is divided
into the following two scenarios: “Design the Learning Spaces“ and “The Role of the
Facilitator”. If a HEI institution, such as a business school, wants to deliver innovative
learning experiences, the way learning spaces are organised has to be thought up. In order
to fit the 21st century learning framework, spaces should be sufficiently diverse and
flexible to accommodate different learning styles. The last scenario and the proposed DT
tools would help educators to define better their role as a facilitator of learning
experiences, providing the intellectual, physical and emotional growth of students.
Each of the scenarios presented above, contain the E-phases of the Evolution 62 DT
model (2017): Emergence, Empathy, Experimentation, Elaboration, Exposition and
Extension. In the first phase, Emergence, an opportunity or a challenge is defined. The
main aim is to discover and frame the chosen educational challenge. The second phase,
Empathy, is important to understand better the context of the project. Here are applied
those tools which permit stepping into the student’s/colleagues shoes and understanding
in detail their needs and feelings. In the Experimentation phase ideas are generated and
developed. In the fourth phase, Elaboration, first solutions are materialised, prototyped
and validated through pilot tests. In the Exposition phase the new concepts/solutions are
communicated to the educational or institutional community. The last phase of the
Evolution 62 model is dedicated to the Extension of the project which means its
promotion and implementation.
! 8
The Application of the Toolkit
Although the D-Think framework was not originally destined to be applied in the design
of a new educational approach in business schools, but in general HEI institutions, we are
convinced that its toolkit and the educational scenarios are open and flexible enough to be
a significant support for an innovation process in business education. The application of
the toolkit would not only be useful to rethink the chosen educational scenario, but also
contribute to explore the new challenges future business leaders are confronted with, by
focusing on the student-centred approach. Also the use of the toolkit would foster a
sharing culture between business school educators by introducing them to a collaborative
innovation process of their pedagogical frameworks and their teaching habits.
The first step of the application of the toolkit and its learning course would be to get
familiarised with the DT concept and with the proposed educational scenarios. Then the
scenario for a first project should be chosen. As Design Thinking is always a
collaborative and interdisciplinary process, a team, in which members complement each
others skills, should be built. Variety of knowledge and the adequate role for each team
member should be considered. As the application of most of the DT tools requires certain
conditions, a spacious room with flexible furniture and free walls should be chosen and
the necessary material, such as big sheets of paper, sticky notes, markers, etc. should be
provided.
To meet the above elaborated criticism of business education and the new challenges
to the learning landscape, we would recommend starting the DT experience with the
application of the first scenario of the toolkit, the “Setting of the Pedagogical
Framework”. But we also consider all the other five educational scenarios pertinent to be
redesigned in the context of business schools.
5 Contribution and Future Research
Looking at the landscape of business education today, we consider the application of
Design Thinking in the redesign of business education as a valid innovation methodology.
Curriculum change is based on the assumption that education is an eco-system with many
stakeholders. The orientation given in the D-Think toolkit permits a collaborative work
for business school leaders, lecturers, students, policy makers, academic experts, social
and business partners. Concretely, the toolkit and the proposed scenarios can help
business school stakeholders to rethink the knowledge, skills, attitudes and values they
want to teach their students. Coming back to the OECD challenges, Design Thinking
applied in the redesign of business education would enable it “to form clear and
purposeful goals, work with others with different perspectives, find untapped
opportunities and identify multiple solutions to big problems” (2018), and thus contribute
to change the mindset of business school educators.
In a future research project we want to test the D-Think toolkit in a case study - the
redesign of a pedagogical framework of a business school.
References
Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86 (6), pp. 85-92.
This paper was presented at The ISPIM Innovation Conference – Innovation, The Name of The
Game, Stockholm, Sweden on 17-20 June 2018. The publication is available to ISPIM members at
www.ispim.org.
Brown, T. (2009). Change by Design. How Design thinking transforms organisations
and inspires Innovation. New York: Harper Collins Publisher.
Çeviker-Cinar, G., Mura, G. and Demirbag-Kaplan, M. (2017). Design Thinking: A
New Roadmap in Business Education. The Design Journal 20, sup 1, pp. 977-987.
Carlgren, L., Rauth, I. and Elmquist, M. (2016). Framing Design Thinking: The
Concept in Idea and Enactment. Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 25, Nr. 1,
pp. 38-57.
Dunne, D. (2006). Design Thinking and how it will change Management Education:
an Interview and Discussion with Roger Martin. Academy of Management Learning &
Education, Vol. 5, No 4, pp. 512-523.
Dunne, D. (2009). Designing New Business Schools. Design Education. Elisava TdD,
pp. 29-36.
Garvey, B. (2015). Business Education. In Wright, J. D. (Eds). International
Encyclopaedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed. Vol. 3. Oxford: Elsevier.
Glen, R., Suciu, C. and Baughn, C. (2014). The Need for Design Thinking in
Business schools. Academy of Management Learning & Education, Vol. 13, Nr. 4, pp.
653- 667.
Hoidn, S. and Kärkkäinen, K. (2014). Promoting Skills for innovation in Higher
education. OECD Education Working Paper, No.100. [Online]. Available at: http://
dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k3tsj67l226-en [Accessed April 2018].
Johansson-Sköldber, U., Woodilla, J. and Çetinkaya, M. (2013). Design Thinking:
Past, Present and Possible Future. Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 22, Nr. 2,
pp. 121-146.
Kurokawa, T. (2013). Design Thinking Education at Universities and Graduate
Schools. Science & Technology Trends Quarterly Review, 46, pp. 50-63.
Martin, R. (2009). The Design of Business. Why Design Thinking is the next
Competitive Advantage. Boston: Harvard Business Press.
Matthews, J. and Wrigley, C. (2017). Design and Design Thinking in Business and
Management Higher Education. Journal of Learning Design. Vol. 10 No. 1 Special Issue,
pp. 41-54.
Evolution 62 Innovation and Design Thinking Model. Booklet. (2017). Porto:
Mindshake.
OECD (2018). The Future of Education and Skills. Education 2030. Position paper.
[Online]. Available at: http://www.oecd.org/education/2030/ [Accessed April 2018].
Parker, M. (2018). Why we should bulldoze the business school. The Guardian,
[Online]. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/apr/27/bulldoze-the-
business-school [Accessed April 2018].
Petriglieri, G. (2012). Are Business Schools Clueless or Evil? Harvard Business
Review, November 14. [Online]. Available at: https://hbr.org/2012/11/are-business-
schools-clueless [Accessed April 2018].
PPRC - Pacific Policy Research Center (2010). 21st Century Skills for Students and
Teachers. [Online]. Honolulu: Kamehameha Schools, Research & Evaluation Division.
Available at: http://www.ksbe.edu/_assets/spi/pdfs/21_century_skills_full.pdf [Accessed
May 2018].
Riverdale and IDEO (2012). Design Thinking for Educators. [Online]. 2nd Edition.
Available at: http://www.designthinkingforeducators.com/toolkit/ [Accessed January
2017].
! 10
Schreurs, J. and Dumbraveanu, R. (2014). A Shift from Teacher Centered to Learner
Centered Approach. International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp.
36-41.
Torres, N. (2016). MBAs Are More Self-Serving Than Other CEOs. Harvard
Business Review [Online]. Available at: https://hbr.org/2016/12/mbas-are-more-self-
serving-than-other-ceos [Accessed April 2018].
Tschimmel, K. (2012). Design Thinking as an effective toolkit for innovation.
Proceedings of the XXIII ISPIM Conference: Action for Innovation: Innovating from
Experience, Barcelona, June 17-20.
Tschimmel, K., Santos, J., Loyens, D., Jacinto, A., Monteiro, R. and Valença, M.
(2015). Research Report D-Think. Design Thinking Applied to Education and Training.
Matosinhos: Erasmus+/ESAD.
Tschimmel, K., Loyens, D., Soares, J., Oraviita, T., Jacinto, A., Barroca, A.,
Marinova, B., Santos, J., Carenzo, M. and Manzini, S. (2017). D-Think Toolkit.
Matosinhos: Erasmus+/ESAD.
To quote: Tschimmel, K., Santos, J. (2018). Design Thinking applied to the
Redesign of Business Education. In Proceedings of the XXIX ISPIM Innovation
Conference, The Name of the Game, 17 - 20 June 2018, Stockholm.