PAPERS Contributions of Design Thinking to

Project Management in an Innovation

Context
Sihem Ben Mahmoud-Jouini, GREGHEC-HEC Paris-CNRS, France
Christophe Midler, I3/CRG-Ecole Polytechnique-CNRS, France
Philippe Silberzahn, EMLYON Business School, France

ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION ■

T
Researchers have long recognized that stan- he literature and professional guidance on project management have
dard approaches to project management are long remained rooted in a mechanistic paradigm of control, explicitly
ill-suited to address changes in the environ- assuming that project management only begins once the requirements
ment or business needs, particularly in inno- are defined. In this paradigm, project management is a set of concepts,
vative contexts characterized by uncertainty tools, and techniques on how to execute projects on time, within budget, and
and complexity. Instead of being concerned to required customer specifications within the context of an explicit company
with the efficient implementation of a delib- strategy (Morris, 2013).
erate strategy, a project in such a context This approach to project management is ill-suited to address changes
becomes a process for strategy formulation. in the environment or in business needs (Morris, 2013 ; Shenhar & Dvir,
Three imperatives for project management 2007 ). Researchers (Brady & Davies, 2004 ; Brady, Davies, & Nightingale,
arise as a result: managing the explorative 2012 ; Lenfle, 2008 ; Loch, De Meyer, & Pich, 2006 ) point out that in innova-
phase, managing the involvement of stake- tive contexts where uncertainty is prevalent, such as in large and complex
holders in the project, and managing the projects or new markets, this approach results in poor performance. In
project in relation to the strategizing process such contexts, problems are initially ill-structured and neither technolo-
of the firm. We propose that design thinking, gies nor customer requirements are necessarily known at the start. Hence,
a recent evolution in the field of design, can the basic assumptions of standard project management do not hold. This
make some important contributions to these is particularly problematic, because in a world characterized by rapid
imperatives. Design thinking has been high- change, intensive innovation, and increasing complexity, such uncertain
lighted by practitioners as well as academia contexts are becoming the norm rather than the exception.
as a novel methodology that is potentially Therefore, in such contexts, the role, the basic assumptions, and the pur-
valuable for improving innovative outcomes, pose of project management are fundamentally redefined: From the efficient
whether they are products, services, or strat- implementation of a deliberate strategy, the project becomes a process for
egies. We examine and articulate these pos- strategy formulation. From operative, it becomes creative.
sible contributions through 10 propositions Three streams of work have emerged in the project management lit-
that could form an agenda for future experi- erature to redefine project management in such contexts: (1) A first stream
mentation and empirical research on innova- has highlighted the importance of an exploration phase in projects to allow
tion project management. requirements and specifications to emerge through learning and trial and
error (e.g., Atkinson, Crawford, & Ward, 2006; Lenfle, 2008); (2) a second
KEYWORDS: project management; design;
stream has highlighted the critical role of stakeholders and the need to
innovation; uncertainty; design thinking
mobilize them to build the political context in which the project will develop
(Eskerod, Huemann, & Savage, 2015; Eskerod & Vaagaasar, 2014; Morris,
2013); and (3) a third stream has highlighted the need to link project man-
agement to firm strategizing by, for example, replacing project management
within the broader concept of knowledge creation through multiproject
Project Management Journal, Vol. 47, No. 2, 144–156 portfolio selection approaches (Artto & Kujala, 2008; Cooper, Edgett, &
© 2016 by the Project Management Institute Kleinschmidt, 2001; Korhonen, Laine, & Martinsuo, 2014; Midler, 2013;
Published online in Wiley Online Library Midler & Silberzahn, 2008; Petit & Hobbs, 2010; Teller, Koch, & Gemuenden,
(wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/pmj.21577 2014).

144 April/May 2016 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj

 Yet, relatively little work has been the Academy of Management Journal. ment Journal® , and the International
done on the practical approaches and Design thinking has been attracting Journal of Managing Projects in Busi-
tools that should be used in this renewed the interest of management scholars ness) that address design deal with con-
perspective. We argue in this article that only since the beginning of the 2000s struction and architecture specifically
recent developments in design theories (Johansson-Sköldberg et al., 2013). In and not design thinking or design man-
and practice, especially design thinking, fact, 80% of management publications agement. On the other hand, of the
can address this gap and make a valu- that mention the term design thinking 110 articles from management peer-
able contribution. in their abstracts date from after the reviewed journals that mention design
Design thinking has been high- year 2000. thinking in their abstracts, only 10 men-
lighted in practitioners’ publications Design thinking and project man- tion project management and, gener-
(e.g., Brown, 2009; Kelley & Littman, agement are both evolving rapidly as ally, it is done only in a generic sense. In
2006; Liedtka & Ogilvie, 2011; Martin, transformation factors and processes this article, we intend to launch a con-
2009) as well as in academic ones (Glen, in firms and the economic landscape versation between design thinking and
Suciu, & Baughn, 2014; Gruber, de Leon, change. Both fields are anchored in a project management within an innova-
George, & Thompson, 2015; Johansson- practice characterized by methods and tion context.
Sköldberg, Woodilla, & Çetinkaya, 2013; tools, but they are moving beyond that The article is organized as follows:
Liedtka, 2014; Seidel & Fixson, 2013) as operational perspective toward a stra- We start by highlighting the specific
a novel methodology and a potentially tegic one. Academics and practitioners imperatives for project management
valuable practice for improving innova- view the two fields as a way to man- in the context of innovation. Then,
tion outcomes, whether those outcomes age organizations: managing by proj- we examine design thinking through
are products, services, or strategies. ects and managing by design. They are three different perspectives: cogni-
Design thinking is a structured process both highly associated with knowledge tive, social, and organizational. Based
of exploration for ill-defined problems. workers: Designers and engineers are on this examination, we propose how
According to Lockwood (2009), it is “a either integrated within a firm or act as design thinking can make valuable con-
human-centered innovation process independent consultants. In both cases, tributions to address the imperatives
that emphasizes observation, collab- professional associations play a critical of project management in innovative
oration, fast learning, visualization of role in the development and diffusion contexts and suggest future research
ideas, rapid concept prototyping, and of the practice. Both design thinking that should empirically investigate these
concurrent business analysis.” and project management are integrative propositions.
Its practice and thought process aim approaches and both claim to enhance
to bring designers’ principles, methods, and improve organizational outcomes
and tools to management and busi- as related to innovation. The Challenges of Project
ness strategy (Brown, 2008). We intend Such dynamics create opportuni- Management in an Innovation
to illustrate how design thinking can ties for fruitful cross-learning between Context
provide project management with new the two fields in terms of tools and The Limits of the Standardized
perspectives for addressing innovation methodologies. As project management Approach of Project Management in
challenges; by doing this, we highlight more and more comes to address cre- Innovative Situations
and address the following gap: both ative issues in the upstream of projects, Project management is a performance-
fields have experimented parallel tra- design approaches can be mobilized. oriented practice aiming at the con-
jectories and yet did not engage in any As the design field grows from being stitution, coordination, and control of
conversation despite the proximity of centered on individual creative tasks to activities within a project (Blomquist,
the questions addressed. Both fields engaging in collective design through Hällgren, Nilsson, & Söderholm, 2010).
emerged from practice. Project man- small teams and incorporating more Project management was gradually
agement has now developed into an strategic innovation issues as part of the developed and formalized in the 1950s
academic field of its own, and design firm’s scope, its contribution to multi- by shifting from the singularity of indi-
thinking is following the same path. project and firm levels develops as well. viduals (architects or engineers) to
Although most articles developing the- Yet despite these similarities and the standardized rationalization.
ory on design are still found mainly in potential for mutual learning between The same methods were then
design journals, articles on the topic the two fields, one finds no cross-refer- applied to many complex projects in
have started to appear in manage- ences between them. The few articles the fields of defense, space, construc-
ment journals such as the Journal of in project management peer-reviewed tion, information technology, and so
Product Innovation Management, Cre- journals (e.g., International Journal of on. Thus, project management became
ativity Innovation Management, and Project Management, Project Manage- a management model where differences

April/May 2016 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj 145

 Contributions of Design Thinking to Project Management in an Innovation Context
PAPERS

between sectors were perceived as less management is about balancing learn- objective at the start of the project;
important than common values such as ing about the project with executing (4) the team will have to explore and
meeting tight deadlines, coordinating a decisions through in a limited time develop new knowledge; and (5) these
large number of contributors, control- process. Turner and Cochrane (1993) projects have a specific temporality
ling costs, and so forth (Söderlund & suggested that projects should be dis- that mixes objectives to be achieved on
Lenfle, 2013). The model involves meth- tinguished on the basis of how well short term as well as long term horizon.
ods and techniques that were mainly the goals and the methods of achieving There are necessarily managerial impli-
developed and mastered by engineers them are defined. In the specific case cations for such projects. Lenfle (2008)
(Pinney, 2001; Scranton, 2015). It dis- of product development projects, Clark pointed out that: (1) Experimentation
tinguishes between two main phases: and Wheelwright (1992) argued for the and concurrent exploration play a cen-
planning and implementation. Plan- necessity of adapting project manage- tral role, as opposed to scheduling and
ning consists of a specific delimita- ment methods according to the extent task breakdown, which are impossible
tion of the project scope: the tasks, of change in product and process. with constantly changing objectives; (2)
the resources required, the budget, the Boutinet (2004) characterized proj- there are two different dimensions of
scheduling, the risks, and so on. Imple- ects as a specific human way of deal- performance (the value of the prod-
mentation involves the identification ing with future and uncertain actions, ucts and the accumulated knowledge
of deviations from the planned budget and showed how the project approach explored) to take into account (Maniak,
and schedule using a set of measures could be applied to many differ- Midler, Lenfle, & Le Pellec-Dayron,
(task execution and earned value man- ent domains of human activity, from 2014); and (3) a reformulation of the
agement). In the project management construction and industrial projects objectives is allowed along the way.
view, resources should be optimized for to social and political ones. Acknowl- Broadly speaking, in this context, proj-
a stated goal, and clearly defined speci- edging this diversity, contemporary ect management moves toward an
fications are assumed not to change research on project management (Loch approach that is much more creative
during the course of a project. et al., 2006; Shenhar, 2001) criticized and open-ended than optimizing. But
This approach to project manage- the one-size-fits-all approach. Shenhar little conceptual work has been done in
ment, which is based on a predictable, and Dvir (2007) proposed a typology of the project management field to define
relatively simple, and rational model, projects based on novelty, technology, how this might be done.
is largely decoupled from changes in complexity, and pace, highlighting the
the environment or in business needs innovation dimension. Project Strategy and Project
(Morris, 2013; Shenhar & Dvir, 2007) Loch et al. (2006) and Lenfle (2008) Stakeholder Management
and has been challenged by research- went beyond the classification perspec- As the previous section has suggested,
ers, who observe that in contexts where tive and suggested specific project man- an important development in the proj-
uncertainty is prevalent, such as large agement methods for projects with high ect field is the enlargement from an
projects or new markets, it has resulted uncertainty—that is, “exploration” proj- engineering view to a broader business
in poor performance. This is because in ects, for which neither technologies nor and strategic perspective. In general,
such contexts, problems are initially ill- customer requirements are known at as a result of a recent reorientation of
structured and neither technologies nor the start. Exploration projects, referred strategy research on the everyday activi-
customer requirements are necessarily to by Atkinson et al. (2006) as “soft” ties of strategists (Jarzabkowski & Spee,
known at the start, so the basic assump- projects, are characterized by experi- 2009), there is a need for research to
tions of standard project management mentation in uncertainty, and their pri- provide intellectual ground for bringing
do not hold. In today’s world, char- mary objective is knowledge creation. strategizing and project management
acterized by rapid change, intensive Lenfle ( 2008 ) showed how this closer together. Projects may constitute
innovation, and increasing complexity, type of project challenges the standard the action needed to realize intended
uncertain contexts are becoming the “rational” view of project management strategies. The need to improve the link
norm rather than the exception. as the accomplishment of a clearly between projects and strategy is high-
defined goal in a specified period of lighted by recent research (e.g., Cattani,
Projects and Exploration time and within budget and quality Ferriani, Frederiksen, & Täube, 2011;
Klein and Meckling (1958) highlighted requirements in five distinct ways: (1) Kaplan & Orlikowski, 2013; Manning
the limits of the project management’s Exploration projects are emerging and & Von Hagen, 2010; Sicotte, Drouin, &
optimization perspective with proj- strategically ambiguous; (2) there is Delerue, 2014).
ects in uncertainty. Midler (1995) and no explicit demand and therefore no This development of strategy in
Lundin et al. (2015) pointed out that clearly identified client; (3) there are project management has two different
for projects in an uncertain situation, no specifications, nor a clearly defined implications. The first is the need to

146 April/May 2016 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj

introduce a strategy perspective into the analyze how project-based firms are Design Thinking: From a
management of a single project. Artto structured to cope with project busi- Problem-Solving Method to
and Kujala (2008) show that, depending ness specificity (Söderlund & Tell, 2009, an Innovation Capability
on its situation in the environment, a 2011). In the following sections, we examine
project cannot always be the vehicle This perspective goes beyond the the field of design with a focus on one of
for implementing its parent strategy. project to address links between proj- its recent developments, design think-
In a complex environment with an ects (which are temporary) and the ing, because of its ambition to con-
unclear governance scheme (especially permanent organization. Research tribute to the field of management in
for megaprojects), a project’s strategy addresses the connection between the general.
is self-originated and related to its own management of projects and a firm’s
governance (Floricel & Miller, 2001; Fly- strategy with developments such as Design as the Field of Innovation
vbjerg, Bruzelius, & Rothengatter, 2003; program management (Maylor, Brady, According to Simon (1969), design is the
Miller & Lessard, 2001). Cooke-Davies, & Hodgson, 2006) for process by which we devise courses of
The ongoing development of the better multiproject coordination, orga- action aimed at changing existing situ-
literature on project stakeholder man- nizational learning within and through ations into preferred ones through the
agement (Eskerod et al., 2015; Eskerod projects (Brady & Davies, 2004; Lun- creation of artifacts—objects created
& Vaagaasar, 2014; Eskerod & Jepsen, din & Midler, 1998; Schüßler, Wessel, & by humans through creative reasoning.
2013; Jepsen & Eskerod, 2009), and proj- Gersch, 2012), and project management Design is concerned with innovation:
ect governance (Müller, 2012) within the offices (Hobbs, Aubry, & Thuillier, 2008). It is the science of the artificial (Simon,
academic project community reflects The concept of project lineage manage- 1969). In this sense, it is different from
such “upstreaming” dynamics of project ment, inspired by CK design theory (Le other cognitive approaches such as
management to strategic issues. Masson, Weil, & Hatchuel, 2010) was decision making because it requires us
introduced (Midler, 2013; Midler & Sil- to define the options among which the
Project Business and Projectification to berzahn, 2008) to address the issue of choice and the optimization is realized.
Address Strategic Issues managing a sequence of projects associ- For a long time, design was con-
The second implication is the recogni- ated with a firm’s strategizing process. sidered the creative activity whose aim
tion of the importance of projects and was to determine the formal qualities
project management to the business Conclusion of manufactured objects (Maldonado
strategy of firms or modern organiza- We identified three streams of work & Cullars, 1991). Loewy renewed this
tions. In fact, projects are the core busi- that have emerged in the recent proj- perspective by emphasizing the func-
ness matrix for many sectors, such as ect management literature to improve tionality dimension through industrial
construction, consulting, and engineer- project management in innovative con- design. The Bauhaus (Droste, 2002),
ing. In mass-production sectors such texts: (1) A first stream has highlighted a landmark in the academic field of
as manufacturing, innovation-based the importance of an exploration phase design that was founded in 1919 by
competition creates a context where in projects to allow requirements and Walter Gropius, is generally consid-
the number of projects increases their specifications to emerge during the ered the birthplace of design that went
importance as a strategic capability. life of the project through learning and beyond the pure aesthetic and artistic
Since the 1990s, the development trial and error; (2) a second stream perspective. It was based on the union
of the project management field has has highlighted the importance of the of all arts and crafts. Gropius developed
expanded beyond the project manager– stakeholder dimension and the need a craft-based system of teaching that
centric and single-project approach to a to mobilize stakeholders to build the aimed at developing skills, resulting
perspective where projects are managed political context in which the project in the creation of useful and beautiful
within organizations and society (Lun- will develop; and (3) a third stream artifacts for mass-production products
din et al., 2015; Morris, 2013). Morris’s has highlighted the need to link project that achieved functional and aestheti-
(1997) book, Lundin and Söderholm’s management to strategizing at the firm cally satisfactory design. In Gropius’s
(1995) paper on temporary organiza- level. thinking, designers were to integrate
tions, and Midler ’s concept of the pro- These three streams, however, lack the materials and colors as well as the
jectification of the firm (1995), as well effective methodologies, tools, and pro- artistic, the visual dimension, and, pro-
as the literature on complex projects fessional attitudes that could enable the gressively, the technology. They were
(Hobday, 2000; Miller & Lessard, 2001) implementation of these recommen- encouraged to produce their own cre-
and project business (Artto & Wikström, dations. In the following section, we ative designs based on their subjec-
2005; Davies & Hobday, 2005), all con- examine how the field of design can tive perceptions. Though the Bauhaus
stitute landmarks in this domain. They help address this lack. school existed for only 14 years, it had

April/May 2016 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj 147

 Contributions of Design Thinking to Project Management in an Innovation Context
PAPERS

a strong influence on design and struc- of concepts (C) and the space of knowl- tion, its technical feasibility, and its via-
tured the field’s future practice. edge (K) (Hatchuel & Weil, 2002, 2009). bility—that is, its ability to be converted
Beyond form, aesthetic, and func- This design theory (CK) goes beyond into customer value and market oppor-
tionality, design is also about sense- traditional problem-solving models tunity (Brown, 2008 ). According to
making and meaning: “Something by proposing an analytical formalism Brown (2008), design thinking is a sys-
must have form to be seen but must for open-ended exploration reason- tem of spaces rather than a predefined
make sense to be understood and used” ing, where knowledge as a space for series of orderly steps. Design projects
(Krippendorff, 1989, p. 14). Hence, to exploration expands during the process. pass through three spaces: inspiration,
design is to make sense of things (Ver- This relatively recent theory has rapidly ideation, and implementation. Projects
ganti, 2009). expanded within the engineering design will loop back through these spaces—
Design moved progressively from academic community and has gener- particularly the first two—more than
the world of products to other situa- ated applied developments in various once as ideas are refined and new direc-
tions that involve humans and require sectors of industry (Chakrabarti & Lin- tions taken.
the understanding of their behaviors, demann, 2015; Le Masson et al., 2010). For Lockwood (2009), design mobi-
attitudes, and emotions. Therefore, the lizes diverse and practical approaches
outcome of a design process can be a Defining Design Thinking such as observation, collaboration, fast
graphic, a shape/form, a product (tan- Simultaneously to the development of learning, the visualization of ideas,
gible or intangible), a system, an inter- this design theory (CK), design thinking rapid concept prototyping, and concur-
action, an interface, or an experience. originally developed with the objec- rent business analysis. Finding needs
Whatever the outcome is, it is designed tive of “bringing designers’ principles, and dislikes especially relies on a variety
to solve a problem and answer any dis- approaches, methods, and tools to prob- of ethnographic research techniques,
likes experienced by users. lem solving” (Brown, 2009). However, such as participant observation, job-
Design methods can be compared design thinking has conceptual founda- to-be-done analysis, and journey map-
to and contrasted with the models of tions. It was opposed to linear and ana- ping. Following Liedtka (2014), we will
reasoning and the processes adopted lytical problem-solving approaches that focus on three phases that occur itera-
by engineers in their own design activi- are unlikely to resolve “wicked” prob- tively in cycles: (1) an initial exploratory
ties (Chakrabarti & Blessing, 2014 ), lems (Rittel, 1972) that lack both defin- phase focused on data gathering to be
such as parametric design, rooted in itive formulations and solutions and inspired, identifying user needs, and
the German engineering community are characterized by high uncertainty defining the problem as a hypothesis
for complex machines, and systematic and ambiguity. These situations require to be explored; (2) a stage of ideas and
design (Pahl & Beitz, 2006) for “sci- an uncertainty reduction strategy that concepts generation; and (3) prototyp-
ence-based products” such as electri- can be achieved through a learning- ing to experiment and implement the
cal machines (Le Masson et al., 2010). focused, hypothesis-driven approach concepts proposed as an answer to the
They suggest a sequential process: an (Beckman & Barry, 2007; Owen, 2007; hypothetical problem. Table 1, inspired
initial step to clarify the task, a sec- Schön, 1982); this learning associates by the work of Liedtka (2014), presents
ond phase of conceptual design, a third abstract reasoning with action in order the common design thinking tools and
phase of “embodiment,” and a last step to launch a “reflective conversation with the tasks they achieve.
of detailed design (Ulrich & Eppinger, the situation” (Schön, 1982). Design thinking moves design
2004). This rigorous sequencing can be According to Liedtka (2014), design upstream in the innovation process and
seen as a way to focus on the specific- thinking “is a hypothesis-driven pro- involves players other than designers,
ity of the problem to be addressed—in cess that is problem, as well as solu- such as users and other stakeholders. It
other words, complex assembly design- tion, focused. It relies on abduction aims to go beyond the design of artifacts
ing. Increasingly, however, engineers and experimentation involving multiple and to contribute to the organization’s
have to deal more and more with ill- alternative solutions that actively medi- strategy. It is, therefore, of interest to all
defined problems characterized by ate a variety of tensions between pos- managers (Lafley, Martin, Rivkin, & Sig-
high uncertainty (related to either tech- sibilities and constraints, and is best gelkow, 2012; Liedtka, King, & Bennett,
nology or the market), such as with suited to decision contexts in which 2013; Liedtka & Ogilvie, 2011; Martin,
smart cities or electrical vehicles. Le uncertainty and ambiguity are high. 2009).
Masson, Hatchuel, and Weil ( 2011 ) Iteration, based on learning through
designate these situations as “innova- experimentation, is seen as a central The Three Perspectives of Design
tive design situations” that require a task.” Thinking
specific design process that acts as an Design thinking simultaneously From the literature, design think-
interplay between two spaces: the space addresses the desirability of the solu- ing can be presented through three

148 April/May 2016 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj

 Visual or narrative elements: charts and graphs, storytelling, use of metaphor and analogies, and so on
Deep understanding of users: observing and interacting with them in their native habitat (ethnography, qualitative research methods,
participant observation, interviewing, journey mapping, job-to-be-done analysis, and so forth)
Structured collaborative work: mind mapping to facilitate drawing insights from ethnographic data and to create a “common mind” across
team members, using collaborative ideation such as brainstorming and concept development techniques
Identifying assumptions: assumptions around value creation, execution, scalability, and defensibility that underlie the attractiveness of a new
idea
Prototyping: techniques that facilitate making abstract ideas tangible (storyboarding, user scenarios, metaphor, experience journeys, business
concept illustrations, and so on)
Field experiments: testing the key underlying and value-generating assumptions of a hypothesis in the field with stakeholders
Table 1: Common design thinking tools and the tasks they achieve (Liedtka, 2014).

perspectives: (1) a cognitive perspective The first relates to decision mak- artifact being proposed and of stake-
referring to the creative and explorative ers’ inability to see beyond themselves holders’ understanding of this artifact.
activity of design, (2) an organizational and escape their own pasts (projection Krippendorff (2011) also emphasizes
perspective referring to the stakehold- bias), their current state (hot/cold gap), the fact that artifacts are created in net-
ers involved in the design process, and their personal preferences (egocentric works of stakeholders among which the
(3) a strategic perspective referring to empathy gap), and their tendency to be “end user” is one stakeholder among
the strategic process of the organiza- unduly influenced by specific factors others. Indeed, the stakeholders can be
tion and more generally to a managerial (focusing illusion). Collecting deep data representatives from several specialties
capability. and improving the ability to imagine the involved in the creative process. Accord-
experiences of others can help mitigate ing to Krishnan and Ulrich ( 2001 ),
Cognitive Perspective this category of biases. designing an artifact involves making
The first perspective focuses on the The second category relates to the decisions about aesthetics, technology,
learning dimension of the design pro- inability of users to articulate their and meaning, all of which require strong
cess. Intensive innovation contexts future needs and provide accurate feed- interactions between design, marketing,
characterized by high complexity and back on new ideas, making it difficult to and technology within the new product
uncertainty require going beyond an develop value-creating ideas for them development team (Perks, Cooper, &
analytical problem-solving approach (say/do gap). Through journey map- Jones, 2005). Research has highlighted
and call for creative processes that ping and participant observation, for that strong interactions between R&D,
enable the exploration of new domains instance, design thinking helps improve marketing, and designers and the desig-
and the acquisition of new knowledge. users’ ability to identify their own needs. nation of multidisciplinary team results
They are a class of social problems with Finally, the third category of biases in successful processes and innovative
a fundamental indeterminacy without relates to flaws in decision makers’ abil- products (Borja de Mozota, 2003; Craw-
a single solution (Buchanan, 1992 ). ity to test the hypotheses they have ford & Di Benedetto, 1991; Hooge &
Design thinking proposes a hypothesis- developed. By working with multiple Dalmasso, 2015; Ulrich, 2011; Veryzer &
driven process that is problem, as well options and reflecting on the results of Borja de Mozota, 2005).
as solution, focused and is based on real experiments, design thinking can A key aspect of design thinking ’s
conducting research to inspire better help mitigate such biases. explorative potential comes from the
hypotheses to test. fact that it relies on empathy (Brown,
Going beyond the learning and Organizational Perspective 2008): the ability to imagine the world
hypothesis-driven approaches in char- Design is not just a cognitive activity; from multiple perspectives—those of
acterizing the cognitive perspective, it is also a collective one that involves colleagues, clients, end users, custom-
Liedtka (2014) claims that design think- and accommodates the participation of ers (both current and prospective), and
ing improves design outcomes because different stakeholders. These stakehold- all parties involved.
its tools and attitudes address and miti- ers may be internal (within the team Stakeholder involvement is achieved
gate the cognitive biases that strongly and more broadly within the firm) or through various tools and practices: eth-
impact any creative process and rep- external. Hence, the social dimension is nographic studies, the early realization
resent flaws that can result in failures. critical for design. Krippendorff (2006) of prototypes to test design hypotheses,
More specifically, she identifies nine observes that design relies on two types the setting up of so-called “living labs”
biases sorted into three categories. of intertwined understanding: of the where real-life situations are simulated

April/May 2016 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj 149

 Contributions of Design Thinking to Project Management in an Innovation Context
PAPERS

and observed to create insight into Indeed, scholars interested in design encountered by project management in
users’ needs and expectations, and so such as Simon (1969), Schön (1982), innovative situations.
on. Space is also an important way to and Hatchuel and Weil (1995) have long
ensure stakeholder mobilization. The shown the analogy between designing Contribution of Design
seminal experience of the Bauhaus and managing. Along this same line Thinking to Project
school (Droste, 2002) highlighted the of thought, Boland and Collopy (2004) Management in Innovative
importance of diverse teams mixing argued that managers are designers Situations
artistic and technical profiles and being as well as decision makers. Manag- The first section of this article identified
located in the design studio, a key space ers need to adopt a “design attitude” three major challenges and limitations
for exchanging visions and knowledge that complements analytical perspec- that project management encounters
and challenging creative propositions. tives and methods. Indeed, managers in innovative situations: exploration,
This is why an important development and especially executives have to deal stakeholder involvement, and firm
in design is taking place around “spaces” with decisions under circumstances strategizing.
such as co-working places, fablabs, and of uncertainty and ambiguity: They The second section presented
living labs (Fabbri & Charue-Duboc, address messy and ill-structured situ- design thinking as following three per-
2013; Magadley & Birdi, 2009). ations for which analytical thinking is spectives: a cognitive one referring
not suitable and, therefore, they can to the creative and explorative activ-
Strategic and Management Capability benefit from design thinking as a way to ity of design, an organizational one
Perspective approach indeterminate organizational referring to the stakeholders involved
Product design was largely ignored by problems (Martin, 2009). This approach in the design process, and a strategic
management scholars for many years has led to the creation of a toolkit for one referring to the strategic process of
(Bloch, 2011). More recently, research managers (Liedtka & Ogilvie, 2011) that the organization and more generally to
on product design has highlighted how can be applied in several situations managerial capability.
design can provide firms with a differen- (Liedtka, King, & Bennett, 2013) such We suggest that design thinking can
tiation factor and value driver (Borja de as post-merger integration, rethinking strongly contribute to addressing the
Mozota, 2003). Empirical evidence has strategic planning, industry collabora- three challenges encountered by project
shown the positive impact of design on tion, and so forth. management and presented in the first
performance and value creation (Chiva section. In the following sections, we
& Alegre, 2009; Hertenstein, Platt, & Conclusion will examine how design thinking can
Veryzer, 2005). Krippendorff (2006) and As we have noted, design thinking provide significant contributions and
Verganti (2009) show that design has addresses complex problems in uncer- we present propositions calling for fur-
the ability to provide new meanings to tain contexts and mobilizes tools and ther research to investigate these poten-
artifacts, which is also an important attitudes to that end. tial contributions empirically.
driver in value creation. As a result, Design thinking is a problem “defin-
the integration of design as a business ing and solving” approach that deals Exploration
capability of a firm is now increasingly with ill-structured situations where Lenfle (2008) characterized projects in
being investigated. Recognizing this the problem is not articulated and is an innovation context as exploration
strategic role, researchers point out the considered a hypothesis where action projects and highlighted their ambigu-
importance of diffusing design practices stimulates thoughts to inspire better ity and the absence of an established
and orientation throughout the firm, hypotheses. problem formulation. This character-
beyond the specific scope of innovation Design thinking emphasizes the ization is very similar to situations in
(Borja de Mozota, 2003; Gorb, 1990; Ver- need to involve the various stakeholders which the design thinking process is
vaeke, 2009). Design is becoming more in the innovation process and proposes specifically well suited. It is best suited
a culture attribute than a specialized methodologies, tools, and processes for to decision contexts in which uncer-
expertise. easing their interactions. tainty and ambiguity are high (Liedtka,
Recent developments in design Design thinking is a strategic capa- 2014).
thinking claim that it needs to move bility that contributes to value cre-
Proposition 1: Exploration projects or proj-
“upstream,” where strategic decisions ation based on a generic managerial
ects characterized by high uncertainty are
are made (Brown, 2009). Brown (2009) competency. wicked problems similar to those for which
calls for design to be dispersed through- With all this in mind, we now exam- design thinking is relevant.
out the organization and beyond the ine the extent to which design thinking
sole designers: “design has become too could, through these perspectives, con- Research on project management
important to be left to designers.” tribute and help address the challenges (Atkinson et al., 2006; Loch et al.,  2006)

150 April/May 2016 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj

has highlighted the critical role of by project management scholars, as one spaces, interaction between stakehold-
learning and knowledge acquisition of the key challenges to avoid drifts ers is eased.
through experimentation in order to of projects. Design thinking is a user-
reduce the uncertainty of situations. centered approach that includes a wide Proposition 6: By emphasizing the diversity
Lenfle (2008) pointed out the need for perspective of stakeholders, be they of the team involved in the design process
well beyond the designers, the artifacts, and
iteration and rearticulation of project internal (within the team and more
the space they share, design thinking repre-
objectives along the way. McGrath and broadly within the firm) or external.
sents an effective and practical approach
MacMillan (1995) suggested that man- for managing stakeholder interactions in
aging an exploratory project is a dis- Proposition 4: Based on its strong and wide exploration projects.
covery-driven approach that consists of user-centered orientation, design thinking
identifying and articulating hypotheses can help address stakeholder management
that will be transformed into validated within the exploration project phase. Strategizing
knowledge through experimentation At this level, we are concerned with the
(Conforto et al., 2014). Design thinking emphasizes the challenge of project strategy formula-
Because of its emphasis on learning iterative identification of stakeholders tion. Artto and Kujala (2008) introduce
and knowledge acquisition to identify and promotes frequent and rich inter- four types of strategies for a project (obe-
and articulate several hypotheses that actions with them, involving several dient servant, independent innovator,
will further be tested, design thinking artifacts such as stimulators to develop flexible mediator, and strong leader)
is well suited for managing exploration empathy (Ben Mahmoud-Jouini, Midler, depending on two dimensions: the proj-
projects. Cruz, & Gaudron, 2014). Design think- ect’s independence and the number of
ing tools involve qualitative method- strong project stakeholder organizations.
Proposition 2: Through its focus on learn- ologies, visualization, ethnographic The challenge of project strategy formu-
ing, hypothesis identification, and articula- approaches, journey mapping, and lation is to analyze the project context,
tion regarding the problem before searching personae characterization that help the formulate the type that fits the environ-
for solutions, as well as its emphasis on players involved in the design process ment, and structure project governance
experimentation, design thinking can con- better imagine and apprehend the expe-
tribute to the exploratory dimension of
and management in line with the cho-
riences of the stakeholders, which can sen type. Artto and Kujala (2008) show
projects.
help mitigate the effects of the say/do that in a complex environment with an
Proposition 3: Through its tools supporting gap (Liedtka, 2014). unclear governance scheme (especially
deep data collection and idea generation for megaprojects), project strategy is
that encourage managers to work with Proposition 5: Through the use of tools often self-originated. Design thinking is
multiple options such as generating and that enable rich and multiple interactions
a hypothesis-driven process that is prob-
evaluating multiple hypotheses and mov- with users (personae) and favor empathy,
lem, as well as solution, focused, which
ing multiple solutions into active testing, design thinking represents an effective and
practical approach for achieving stake-
means that it does not define the prob-
design thinking represents an effective and
holder identification and involvement in lem to be solved at the outset. Defining
practical approach to manage the explor-
atory dimension of projects. exploration projects. the problem to solve—and thereby artic-
ulating the project’s strategy—is indeed a
Design thinking tools are an effec- Design thinking also emphasizes critical task for design thinking.
tive way to frontload problem and risk the mobilization of a multidisciplinary
detection (Thomke, 1998). team in order to develop a wide under- Proposition 7: By starting with a problem
standing of the problem and to favor definition phase, design thinking can con-
Stakeholder Involvement tribute to the articulation of the project
interaction and knowledge combi-
strategy.
Managing projects in an innova- nation, resulting in innovative ideas.
tion context requires the adoption of Through the use of rapid prototyping In addition, through the collec-
a specific stakeholder management that results in demonstrators, design tion of deep data and the articulation
approach to identify stakeholders thinking enables effective dialogue and of multiple assumptions to be tested
dynamically. Innovations developed understanding to reveal the unstated simultaneously, design thinking ensures
within ecosystems and platforms (e.g., needs and expectations of stakehold- that multiple options are considered
Gawer & Cusumano, 2002) put a strong ers. It also highlights the critical role before the problem to be addressed is
emphasis on this issue. Identifying and of colocation and sharing a common articulated.
involving the relevant stakeholders in physical space, which favors interac-
the upstream phase of a complex and tions and quick communication, as in Proposition 8: Through its tools and the
uncertain project has been recognized, design studios (Schön, 1982). In such attitudes it promotes, design thinking

April/May 2016 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj 151

 Contributions of Design Thinking to Project Management in an Innovation Context
PAPERS

ensures that multiple options will be con- idea is that design is more a cultural management, the link between the two
sidered and tested. Because of this, it rep- attribute of a firm than a specialized is still under-researched. In addition,
resents an effective and practical approach expertise: It needs to move upstream, the contribution of design thinking does
for defining and articulating the project where strategic decisions are made have limits. Proponents of design think-
strategy.
(Brown, 2009). Yet, for the firm-level ing claim that it is suited to address
stakeholder dimension, design thinking organizational and strategic issues,
Modern strategy emphasizes learn-
has not developed tools and concepts but this claim remains to be substanti-
ing processes as a key dynamic capa-
to go beyond a generic imperative, and ated and supported by conceptual and
bility of a firm. How this capability
little research exists that explores the empirical research. To date, empirical
can be developed, however, is not well
strategic contribution of design thinking evidence shows that design thinking
addressed. Project management is clearly
at the firm level in relation to innovative has mainly been applied at the proj-
an interesting candidate for bridging this
project management. ect level. As we have argued, design
gap. But to do so, it needs to develop a
Hence, design contributes most thinking is well suited to address-
larger perspective on strategic issues.
to two particular project management ing the exploration and stakeholder
Design thinking can provide inputs in
challenges: the exploration challenge involvement efforts required in projects
this perspective. It provides a method for
and the stakeholder challenge. Poten- confronted with complexity and uncer-
creating knowledge on strategic orienta-
tial contributions also exist for address- tainty. It helps frame ill-defined issues
tion through, for example, needs find-
ing the strategy formulation challenge, and develops them into clearly defined
ings and inspiration. This knowledge is
although such contributions need to problems around which key stakehold-
documented and capitalized within the
be more specified and call for further ers can be mobilized. As far as strategy
design studio where the process usually
research. formulation is defined, however, design
takes place—in other words, beyond the
thinking has yet to develop its ability
projects themselves.
Conclusion to contribute. In this regard, project
Proposition 9: Design thinking tools pro- The aim of this article was to examine management is still the main dominant
vide a firm-level capitalization vehicle that how design thinking can contribute to paradigm for addressing large, complex
enables the reuse of knowledge from one the limitations of project management projects.
project to another. in innovative situations. We analyzed
design thinking along three dimen- References
Finally, by addressing the key issue sions: a cognitive dimension referring Artto, K., & Kujala, J. (2008). Project
of meaning (Verganti, 2009) in the inno- to the creative and explorative activity business as a research field. International
vative effort, and thus enlarging value of design thinking, a social dimension Journal of Managing Projects in Business,
from a functional to a symbolic dimen- referring to the stakeholders involved 1(4), 469–497.
sion, design thinking contributes both in the design thinking process, and a Artto, K. A., & Wikström, K. (2005).
to strategy orientation and strategy strategic dimension referring to the What is project business? International
formulation. strategic process of the organization Journal of Project Management, 23(5),
and more generally to managerial capa- 343–353.
Proposition 10: Design thinking comple-
bility. We showed how design thinking
ments the traditional project management Atkinson, R., Crawford, L., & Ward,
can provide significant contributions
analytical and functional perspective by S. (2006). Fundamental uncertainties
emphasizing the meaning of the innovative
to the challenges encountered by proj-
in projects and the scope of project
project. By doing so, it makes an important ect management in terms of explora-
management. International Journal of
contribution to strategy orientation and tion, stakeholder involvement, and firm
Project Management, 24(8), 687–698.
formulation. strategizing. We formulated 10 prop-
ositions that can form the basis for Beckman, S., & Barry, M. (2007).
The recognition that design is an an agenda for further experimentation Innovation as a learning process:
important driver for value creation has and empirical research crossing proj- Embedding design thinking. California
led to its integration as a business capa- ect management and design thinking Management Review, 50(1), 25–56.
bility of firms. Recognizing this strategic approaches in innovative situation con- Ben Mahmoud-Jouini, S., Midler, C.,
role, researchers have pointed out the texts. Cruz, V., & Gaudron, N. (2014). How
importance of diffusing design practices Such results make sense given physical artefacts contribute to design
and orientation throughout the firm, that, as we have noted, design thinking processes? Academy of Management
beyond the specific scope of innovation and project management share many Proceedings, 2014(1), 14113.
(Borja de Mozota, 2003; Gorb, 1990; similarities. Yet for all of design think- Bloch, P. (2011). Product design and
Gruber et al., 2015; Vervaeke, 2009). The ing ’s potential contribution to project marketing: Reflections after fifteen

152 April/May 2016 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj

years. Journal of Product Innovation mediating role of design management. (pp. 117–134). New York, NY: Palgrave
Management, 28, 378–380. Journal of Product Innovation Macmillan.
Blomquist, T., Hällgren, M., Nilsson, Management, 26, 424–440. Floricel, S., & Miller, R. (2001).
M., & Söderholm, A. (2010). Project- Clark, K. B., & Wheelwright, S. C. Strategizing for anticipated risks and
as-practice: In search of project (1992). Revolutionizing product turbulence in large-scale engineering
management research that matters. development: quantum leaps in speed, projects. International Journal of Project
Project Management Journal, 41(1), 5–16. efficiency, and quality. New York, NY: The Management, 19, 445–455.
Boland, R., & Collopy, F. (Eds.). (2004). Free Press. Flyvbjerg, B., Bruzelius, N., &
Managing as designing. Palo Alto, CA: Conforto, E. C., Salum, F., Amaral, Rothengatter, W. (2003). Megaprojects
Stanford University Press. D. C., da Silva, S. L., & de Almeida, and risk: An anatomy of ambition.
Borja de Mozota, B. (2003). Design L. F. M. (2014). Can agile project Cambridge, England: Cambridge
management: Using design to build management be adopted by industries University Press.
brand value and corporate innovation. other than software development? Gawer, A., & Cusumano, M. (2002).
New York, NY: Skyhorse. Project Management Journal, 45(3), Platform leadership. New York, NY: The
Boutinet, F. (2004). Anthropologie du 21–34. Free Press.
projet [Project anthropology]. Paris, Cooper, R. G., Edgett, S. J., & Glen, R., Suciu, C., & Baughn, C.
France: PUF. Kleinschmidt, E. J. (2001). Portfolio (2014). The need for design thinking
Brady, T., & Davies, A. (2004). Building management for new product in business schools. Academy of
project capabilities: From exploratory development: Results of an industry Management Learning & Education,
to exploitative learning. Organization practices study. R&D Management, 31(4), 13(4), 653–667.
Studies, 25(9), 1601–1621. 361–380. Gorb, P. (Ed.). (1990). Design
Brady, T., Davies, A ., & Nightingale, Crawford, C. M., & Di Benedetto, C. A. management: Papers from the London
P. (2012). Dealing with uncertainty (1991). New products management. Business School. New York, NY: Van
in complex projects: Revisiting Klein Noida, India : Tata McGraw-Hill Nostrand Reinhold Company.
and Meckling. International Journal Education. Gruber, M., de Leon, N., George, G.,
of Managing Projects in Business, 5(4), Davies, A., & Hobday, M. (2005). & Thompson, P. (2015). Managing by
718–736. The business of projects: Managing design. Academy of Management Journal,
Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. innovation in complex products and 58(1), 1–7.
Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 84. systems. Cambridge, England: Cambridge Hatchuel, A., & Weil, B. (1995). Experts
Brown, T. (2009). Change by design: How University Press. in organizations: A knowledge-based
design thinking transforms organizations Droste, M. (2002). Bauhaus 1919–1933. perspective on organizational change
and inspires innovation. New York, NY: Koln, Germany: Taschen. (Vol. 63). Berlin, Germany: Walter de
HarperCollins. Eskerod, P., Huemann, M., & Savage, Gruyter.
Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked problems G. (2015). Project stakeholder Hatchuel, A., & Weil, B. (2002, March
in design thinking. Design Issues, 8(2), management—Past and present. Project 15–16). CK theory. Proceedings of
5–21. Management Journal, 46(6), 6–14. the Herbert Simon International
Cattani, G., Ferriani, S., Frederiksen, L., Eskerod, P., & Jepsen, A. L. (2013). Conference on Design Sciences, Lyon,
& Täube, F. (Eds.). (2011). Project-based Project stakeholder management. France.
organizing and strategic management. Aldershot, England: Gower. Hatchuel, A., & Weil, B. (2009). C-K
Bingley, England: Emerald. Eskerod, P., & Vaagaasar, A. L. (2014). design theory: An advanced formulation.
Chakrabarti, A., & Blessing, L. (2014). Stakeholder management strategies Research in Engineering Design, 19(4),
An anthology of theories and models and practices during a project course. 181–192.
of design: Philosophy, approaches and Project Management Journal, 45(5), Hertenstein, J. H., Platt, M. B., &
empirical explorations. New York, NY: 71–85. Veryzer, R. W. (2005). The impact
Springer. Fabbri, J., & Charue-Duboc, F. of industrial design effectiveness on
Chakrabarti, A., & Lindemann, U. (2013). The role of physical space corporate financial performance. Journal
(2015). Impact of design research on in collaborative workplaces hosting of Product Innovation Management,
industrial practice: Tools, technology and entrepreneurs: The case of the 22(1), 3–21.
training. New York, NY: Springer. “beehive” in Paris. In F.-X. Vaujany & Hobbs, B., Aubry, M., & Thuillier,
Chiva, R., & Alegre, J. (2009). Investment N. Mitey (Eds.), Materiality and space: D. (2008). The project management
in design and firm performance: The Organizations, artefacts and practices office as an organisational innovation.

April/May 2016 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj 153

 Contributions of Design Thinking to Project Management in an Innovation Context
PAPERS

International Journal of Project Krippendorff, K. (1989). On the of temporary organizations. Cambridge,

Management, 26(5), 547–555. essential contexts of artifacts or on the England: Cambridge University Press.
Hobday, M. (2000). The project-based proposition that “design is making sense Lundin, R. A., & Midler, C. (Eds.).
organisation: An ideal form for managing (of things).” Design Issues, 5(2), 9–39. (1998). Projects as arenas for renewal and
complex products and systems? Research Krishnan, V., & Ulrich, K. T. (2001). learning processes. Alphen aan den Rijn,
Policy, 29(7), 871–893. Product development decisions: A review Netherlands: Kluwer.
Hooge, S., & Dalmasso, C. (2015). of the literature. Management Science, Lundin, R. A., & Söderholm, A. (1995).
Breakthrough R&D stakeholders: The 47(1), 1–21. A theory of the temporary organization.
challenges of legitimacy in highly Lafley, A. G., Martin, R. L., Rivkin, J. W., Scandinavian Journal of Management,
uncertain projects. Project Management & Siggelkow, N. (2012). Bringing science 11(4), 437–455.
Journal, 46(6), 54–73. to the art of strategy. Harvard Business Magadley, W., & Birdi, K. (2009).
Jarzabkowski, P., & Paul Spee, A. (2009). Review, 90(9), 3–12. Innovation labs: An examination into
Strategy-as-practice: A review and future Le Masson, P., Hatchuel, A., & Weil, B. the use of physical spaces to enhance
directions for the field. International (2011). The interplay between creativity organizational creativity. Creativity
Journal of Management Reviews, 11, issues and design theories: A new and Innovation Management, 18(4),
69–95. perspective for design management 315–325.
Jepsen, A. L., & Eskerod, P. (2009). studies? Creativity and Innovation Maldonado, T., & Cullars, J. (1991).
Stakeholder analysis in projects: Management, 20(4), 217–223. The idea of comfort. Design Issues, 8(2),
Challenges in using current guidelines Le Masson, P., Weil, B., & Hatchuel, 35–43.
in the real world. International A. (2010). Strategic management of Maniak, R., Midler, C., Lenfle, S., &
Journal of Project Management, 27(4), innovation and design. Cambridge, Le Pellec-Dayron, M. (2014). Value
335–343. England: Cambridge University Press. management for exploration projects.
Johansson-Sköldberg, U., Woodilla, J., & Lenfle, S. (2008). Exploration and project Project Management Journal, 45(4),
Çetinkaya, M. (2013). Design thinking: management. International Journal of 55–66.
Past, present and possible futures. Project Management, 26(5), 469–478. Manning, S., & Von Hagen, O. (2010).
Creativity and Innovation Management, Liedtka, J. (2014). Perspective: Linking Linking local experiments to global
22(2), 121–146. design thinking with innovation standards: How project networks
Kaplan, S., & Orlikowski, W. (2013). outcomes through cognitive bias promote global institution-building.
Temporal work in strategy making. reduction. Journal of Product Innovation Scandinavian Journal of Management,
Organization Science, 24(4), 965–995. Management, 32(6), 925–938. 26(4), 398–416.
Kelley, T., & Littman, J. (2006). The ten Liedtka, J., King, A., & Bennett, K. Martin, R. (2009). The design of
faces of innovation: IDEO’s strategies (2013). Solving problems with design business: Why design thinking is the next
for defeating the devil’s advocate and thinking: Ten stories of what works. New competitive advantage. Boston, MA:
driving creativity throughout your York, NY: Columbia University Press. Harvard Business Press.
organization. New York, NY: Crown Liedtka, J., & Ogilvie, T. (2011). Maylor, H., Brady, T., Cooke-Davies,
Business. Designing for growth: A design thinking T., & Hodgson, D. (2006). From
Klein, B., & Meckling, W. (1958). tool kit for managers. New York, NY: projectification to programmification.
Application of operations research to Columbia University Press. International Journal of Project
development decisions. Operations Loch, C. H., De Meyer, A., & Pich, M. T. Management, 24(8), 663–674.
Research, 6(3), 352–363. (2006). Managing the unknown: A new McGrath, R. G., & MacMillan, I. C.
Korhonen, T., Laine, T., & Martinsuo, M. approach to managing novel projects. (1995, July–August). Discovery driven
(2014). Management control of project New York, NY: Wiley. planning. Harvard Business Review, 73,
portfolio uncertainty: A managerial role Lockwood, T. (Ed.). (2009). Design 44–54
perspective. Project Management Journal, thinking: Integrating innovation, Midler, C. (1995). “Projectification” of
45(1), 21–37. customer experience, and brand value the firm: The Renault case. Scandinavian
Krippendorff, C. (2006). The semantic (3rd edition). New York, NY: Allworth Journal of Management, 11(4), 363–375.
turn. Boca Raton, FL : CRC Press. Press. Midler, C. (2013). Implementing a
Krippendorff, C. (2011). Principles of Lundin, R. A., Arvidsson, N., Brady, low-end disruption strategy through
design and a trajectory of artificiality. T., Ekstedt, E., Midler, C., & Sydow, J. multiproject lineage management: The
Journal of Product Innovation (2015). Managing and working in Logan case. Project Management Journal,
Management, 28, 411–418. project society—Institutional challenges 44(5), 24–35.

154 April/May 2016 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj

Midler, C., & Silberzahn, P. (2008). Scranton, P. (2015). Projects as a focus products. Management Science, 44(6),
Managing robust development process for for historical analysis: Surveying the 743–762.
high-tech startups through multi-project landscape. History and Technology, 30(4), Turner, J. R., & Cochrane, R. A. (1993).
learning: The case of two European 1–20. Goals-and-methods matrix: Coping with
start-ups. International Journal of Project Seidel, V. P., & Fixson, S. K. (2013). projects with ill defined goals and/or
Management, 26(5), 479–486. Adopting design thinking in novice methods of achieving them. International
Miller, R., & Lessard, D. (2001). multidisciplinary teams: The application Journal of Project Management, 11(2),
The strategic management of large and limits of design methods and 93–102.
engineering projects: Shaping risks, reflexive practices. Journal of Product Ulrich, K. T. (2011). Design is
institutions, and governance. Cambridge, Innovation Management, 30(S1), 19–33. everything? Journal of Product
MA: MIT Press. Shenhar, A. J. (2001). One size does Innovation Management, 28(3), 394–398.
Morris, P. W. (Ed.). (1997). The not fit all projects: Exploring classical Ulrich, K. T., & Eppinger, S. D. (2004).
management of projects. London, contingency domains. Management Product design and development. New
England: Thomas Telford. Science, 47(3), 394–414. York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Morris, P. W. (2013). Reconstructing Shenhar, A. J., & Dvir, D. (2007). Verganti, R. (2009). Design-driven
project management. New York, NY: Wiley. Reinventing project management: The innovation: Changing the rules of
Müller, R. (2012). Project governance. diamond approach to successful growth competition by radically innovating
Aldershot, England: Gower. and innovation. Cambridge, MA: what things mean. Boston, MA: Harvard
Owen, C. (2007). Design thinking: Notes Harvard Business Review Press. Business Press.
on its nature and use. Research Quarterly, Sicotte, H., Drouin, N., & Delerue, Vervaeke, M. (2009). From watching
2(1), 16–27. H. (2014). Innovation portfolio the markets to making trends: The role
Pahl, G., & Beitz, W. (2006). Engineering management as a subset of dynamic of industrial designers in competitive
design, a systematic approach. Berlin, capabilities: Measurement and impact strategies. In C. Midler, G. Minguet,
Germany: Springer. on innovative performance. Project & M. Vervaeke (Eds.), Working on
Management Journal, 45(6), 58–72. innovation (pp. 42–71). London,
Perks, H., Cooper, R., & Jones, C. (2005).
Characterizing the role of design in new Simon, H. A. (1969). The sciences of the England: Routledge.
product development: An empirically artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Veryzer, R., & Borja de Mozota,
derived taxonomy. Journal of Product Söderlund, J., & Lenfle, S. (2013). B. (2005). The impact of user-
Innovation Management, 22(2), 111–127. Making project history: Revisiting the oriented design on new product
Petit, Y., & Hobbs, B. (2010). Project past, creating the future. International development: An examination of
portfolios in dynamic environments: Journal of Project Management, 31(5), fundamental relationships. The Journal
Sources of uncertainty and sensing 653–662. of Product Innovation Management, 22,
mechanisms. Project Management Söderlund, J., & Tell, F. (2009). The 128–143.
Journal, 41(4), 46–58. P-form organization and the dynamics
Pinney, B. (2001). Projects, management, of project competence: Project epochs
Sihem Ben Mahmoud-Jouini, PhD, is
and protean times: Engineering enterprise in Asea/ABB, 1950–2000. International
Associate Professor at HEC (France) and researcher at
in the United States, 1870–1960 (PhD Journal of Project Management, 27(2),
GREGHEC. She is a research fellow at I3/CRG–École
dissertation). Massachusetts Institute of 101–112.
Polytechnique. She holds a PhD from the Université
Technology, Boston, MA . Söderlund, J., & Tell, F. (2011).
Paris 9 Dauphine and was Visiting Professor at Stern
Rittel, H. (1972). On the planning crisis: Strategy and capabilities in the P-form
Business School (New York University) and Babson
Systems analysis of the first and second corporation: Linking strategic direction
College. She is interested in the organizational design
generations. Institute of Urban and with organizational capabilities. Advances
of exploration units within established firms and the
Regional Development, 8, 390–396. in Strategic Management, 28, 235.
management of innovation projects. She also studies
Schön, D. A. (1982). The reflective Teller, J., Koch, A., & Gemuenden, H. G. the management of innovation in a context where
practitioner: How professionals think (2014). Risk management in project resources and markets are global. Her work has been
in action. New York, NY: Basic Books. portfolio is more than managing project published in Creativity and Innovation Management,
Schüßler, E., Wessel, L., & Gersch, risks: A contingency perspective on International Journal of Project Management, Journal
M. (2012). Taking stock: Capability risk management. Project Management of Product Innovation Management, and Management
development in interorganizational Journal, 45(4), 67–80. International. In 2012, she edited a book on
projects. Schmalenbach Business Review, Thomke, S. H. (1998). Managing managing breakthrough innovation with R. Maniak
64, 171–186. experimentation in the design of new and C. Midler and in 2015 a book on innovation

April/May 2016 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj 155

 Contributions of Design Thinking to Project Management in an Innovation Context
PAPERS

management and globalization with F. Charue-Duboc industry. He has published many articles in journals fellow at École Polytechnique, Paris, France, where
and C. Midler. She can be contacted at [email protected] such as Project Management Journal®, International he obtained his PhD. His research interests lie at
Journal of Project Management, Journal of Project the intersection of strategy and entrepreneurship
Christophe Midler, PhD, is Research Director Innovation Management, and Research Policy. Some and he studies how businesses deal with radical
at the Management Research Center and Innovation of his books include Managing and Working in Project uncertainty. Philippe is the author of several articles
Management Chair Professor at École Polytechnique. Society—Institutional Challenges of Temporary in International Journal of Innovation Management,
He is doctor honoris causa at Umea University, Organizations (co-authored with R. A. Lundin, N. International Journal of Project Management, and
Sweden, and a 2012 PMI Research Achievement Arvidsson, T. Brady, E. Ekstedt, and J. Sydow; Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management.
Award recipient. He is cofounder of the IRNOP Cambridge University Press, 2015), Management de He is also the author of five books on innovation,
research network and chair of the Project Organizing l’Innovation et Globalisation (co-authored with S. entrepreneurship, and strategic surprises, including
Strategic Interest Group at the European Academy of Ben-Mahmoud-Jouini and F. Charue-Duboc, Dunod, Objectif Innovation: Stratégies Pour Construire
Management. He is a member on the editorial board 2015), The Logan Epic (co-authored with B. Jullien l’entreprise Innovante (co-authored with Jean-
of Project Management Journal® and has collaborated and Y. Lung; Dunod, 2013), Working on Innovation Yves Prax and Bernard Buisson, Dunod, 2005),
on the International Journal of Project Management. (co-authored with G. Minguet and M. Vervaeke; The Balancing Act of Innovation (co-authored
Routledge, 2009), and Projects as Arenas for Renewal with Walter Van Dyck, LannooCampus, 2010),
His research topics include innovation strategy and Learning Processes (co-edited with R. A. Lundin; Constructing Cassandra: Reframing Intelligence
and project and R&D management in relation to Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1998). He can be Failure at the CIA, 1947–2001 (co-authored with
organizational learning theory and he has explored contacted at [email protected] Milo Jones, Stanford University Press, 2013), and
these topics in various industrial contexts. His favorite Effectuation: Les Principes de l’entrepreneuriat
methodology is long-term interactive research, which Philippe Silberzahn, PhD, is Associate Pour Tous (Pearson, 2014). He can be contacted at
he has extensively experienced within the automotive Professor at EMLYON Business School and research [email protected]

156 April/May 2016 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj

Copyright of Project Management Journal is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.
Copyright of Project Management Journal is the property of Project Management Institute and
its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.