J of Product Innov Manag - 2021 - Magistretti - Framing The Microfoundations of Design Thinking As A Dynamic Capability For PDF

|
Received: 28 January 2020 Accepted: 13 April 2021
DOI: 10.1111/jpim.12586
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Framing the microfoundations of design thinking as a dynamic

capability for innovation: Reconciling theory and practice
Stefano Magistretti1 | Lorenzo Ardito2,3 | Antonio Messeni Petruzzelli4
1
School of Management, Politecnico di
Milano, Milano, Italy Abstract
2
Department of Mechanics, Mathematics, Design thinking (DT) is gaining ground among academics and practitioners as a means
and Management, Politecnico di Bari, to improve the innovativeness of organizations. However, with few exceptions, DT
Bari, Italy
3
studies are most entrenched in practice rather than theory-driven research. This weak
Institute for Innovation and
Entrepreneurship, Mount Royal tie between theory and managerial practice calls for delving into the dynamics of DT
University, Calgary, AB, Canada for innovation to build stronger foundations for future studies. Therefore, this study
4
Department of Mechanics, Mathematics, provides a theory-based framing of DT for innovation and a critical review of the
and Management, Politecnico di Bari,
DT literature to reconcile theory and practice. To this end, we propose framing and
Bari, Italy
advancing DT as a dynamic capability for innovation rooted in lower-level aspects,
Correspondence namely microfoundations. Based on our theoretical framework, we conduct a system-
Lorenzo Ardito, Department of
Mechanics, Mathematics, and
atic literature review that unveils the dynamics of DT and the context-specific capa-
Management, Politecnico di Bari—Via E. bilities to innovate. The contributions of the paper are twofold. First, we provide a
Orabona 4, 70125 Bari, Italy. theory-based framing of DT and combining it with existing theories in innovation and
Email: [email protected]
management (i.e., dynamic capabilities and microfoundations). Second, we review
Funding information the extant literature on DT for innovation to reconcile previous studies with these the-
This work was supported by the
oretical lenses to, hence, guide future research. Based on this interpretation, we then
Italian Ministry of Education,
University and Research under the define a number of avenues for future research, thus reconciling practical evidence
Programs “Department of Excellence,” with theories that can further explain how DT relates to firm innovativeness.
Legge 232/2016 (grant no. CUP-
D94I18000260001), and the Piano KEYWORDS
Operativo Nazionale (PON) “Ricercae
design thinking, dynamic capabilities, innovation, microfoundations, systematic literature review
Innovazione” 2014–2020 AIM—
Attrazione e Mobilità Internazionale
(grant no. CUP-D94I18000140007)
Guest Editors: Roberto Verganti,

Claudio Dell’Era, and K. Scott Swan
1 | IN T RO D U C T IO N and the bring-build-buy map) can help nondesigners (e.g.,

managers, R&D staff, policymakers) address wicked and ill-
Interest in how designers work and think has progressively formulated challenges that go beyond traditional design issues
moved from the purview of industrial design to the broader (e.g., Brown & Katz, 2011; Elsbach & Stigliani, 2018; Seidel
management field (Gruber et al., 2015). Indeed, “designerly & Fixson, 2013). This logic evolved into a new problem-
thinking” and “designerly tools” (human centeredness, pro- solving approach called design thinking (DT) (Brown, 2008;
totyping and experimentation, storytelling and engagement, Martin, 2009; Vogel, 2009). More formally, founded on
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
© 2021 The Authors. Journal of Product Innovation Management published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Product Development & Management Association
J Prod Innov Manag. 2021;38:645–667. |

wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jpim 645
FRAMING THE MICROFOUNDATIONS OF DESIGN THINKING AS A DYNAMIC CAPABILITY FOR
|
15405885, 2021, 6, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jpim.12586 by CochraneChina, Wiley Online Library on [09/05/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
646 INNOVATION: RECONCILING THEORY AND PRACTICE
designers’ sensibility and methods, DT can be conceived as a

way of framing, reframing, and enacting actions to solve var- Practitioner Points
ious problems by harmonizing user desirability, economic vi-
• DT should combine the analytic and creative
ability, and technological feasibility (Brown, 2008; Liedtka,
phases to innovate, in contrast to the conventional
2015; Micheli et al., 2019). Numerous domains have ben-
narrow, technical, and product- centric way of
efited from DT applications, such as education, as in the case
thinking.
of the development of (new) learning initiatives, facilitating
• DT should not be considered as a linear methodol-
meetings and improving the efficiency of workshops, align-
ogy based on the adoption of specific activities/
ing stakeholders in strategic planning, and policymaking to
tools that can be isolated, adopted, and replicated
better manage complexity (Liedtka et al., 2020).
following a universal scheme, but as a context-
Among the many contexts benefiting from the use of DT,
specific dynamic capability for innovation that
problem solving based on designers’ sensibility and methods to
manifests and evolves differently among firms
solve wicked problems is particularly salient in the innovation
and over time.
domain (Johansson-Sköldberg et al., 2013). As such, DT has
• DT entails sensing, seizing, and reconfiguring
been implemented in many firms for innovation purposes (e.g.,
dynamic capabilities throughout the innovation
IDEO, IBM, Samsung, SAP, P&G, Intuit, Bank of America,
process.
Google) (Gruber et al., 2015; Micheli et al., 2019) leading to
• While there are several interpretations of DT, a
breakthrough innovations (e.g., Savioke Robot, Slack, Google
rigorous analysis of its microfoundations (indi-
Inbox) (Knapp et al., 2016). Enthusiasm for DT is evident
viduals, processes and interactions, and structure)
among executives as well as scholars. Notably, a wealth of
might better guide its adoption and diffusion be-
research has scrutinized the link between DT and innovation,
cause these allow understanding how DT as a dy-
including the influence of DT tools, practices, and/or more
namic capability for innovation works within an
comprehensive approaches to new product/service develop-
organization.
ment, balancing exploration and exploitation, process reconfig-
• The heterogeneity among innovation perfor-
uration, and learning (Beckman & Barry, 2007; Carlgren et al.,
mances and capabilities is (also) a reflection of
2014; Koomans & Hilders, 2016; Knight et al., 2019).
the DT microfoundations.
Notwithstanding this, two relevant shortcomings emerge.
• The individuals, processes and interactions,
The first is the paucity of theory-driven empirical DT research,
and structure underlying DT for innovation are
even in academic studies (Cousins, 2018; Kurtmollaiev et al.,
strongly intertwined and should not be seen as
2018). Apart from some exceptions (e.g., Elsbach & Stigliani,
standalone traits of the DT approach.
2018; Kurtmollaiev et al., 2018; Liedtka, 2015, 2020), most
contributions offer evidence based mainly on a few successful
cases not specifically rooted in any theoretical lens (Carlgren
et al., 2014). This has led to numerous process-and practice- equally over time and among different companies, hence limit-
based depictions of DT that lack coherence in what DT is ing the possibility of unveiling the relationship between DT and
and its key constituents. The recent review of Micheli et al. innovation outcomes (Seidel & Fixson, 2013). This also departs
(2019) acknowledges this issue and sheds light on the DT from the more recent explanatory view of DT acknowledging
conceptualizations, emphasizing the more practical “doing that differences in performance outcomes lie in how DT meth-
design thinking,” although without linking DT to innovation ods and tools are recombined and reconfigured to face a given
and management theories. Furthermore, as DT research and innovation challenge (Hobday et al., 2012b; Liedtka, 2020).
related contributions are most entrenched in a practical per- Evidence supports the view that DT is not a unitary way
spective, the theoretical and practical perspectives have yet to of adopting specific design principles to face challenges.
be reconciled (Johansson-Sköldberg et al., 2013). Indeed, different “kinds” of DT emerge depending on the
The second shortcoming is the fact that most DT repre- objectives of the organization that adopts this approach and
sentations are “normative and essentialist in nature” (Carlgren the intertwined psychological, organizational, and strate-
et al., 2016b), with DT mainly conceptualized as a set of tools gic aspects characterizing the organization's resource com-
and methods (Beverland et al., 2015; Carlgren et al., 2016b; mitment (Dell’Era et al., 2020). For instance, if the aim is
Dell’Era et al., 2020; Martin, 2009). Such conceptualization to boost digital transformation, as in the case of Google, a
scantly accounts for the dynamic nature of management and different approach to ethnographic and deep immersion in
innovation problems or the idiosyncrasies of the different or- user needs is required (Magistretti et al., 2020). Instead, if
ganizational contexts in which DT is implemented (Liedtka, the focus is more on departing from the current offering and
2015). This has led to the (adverse) consideration that pursuing business model, a more radical view of DT is required, lever-
the same DT processes and using the same DT tools may work aging speculation and future thinking, as in the case of some
|
MAGISTRETTI et al.
647
consultancies (Deloitte Digital, Tangity by NTT Data, or overview of DT. Finally, we combine these arguments and
IBMx). Nevertheless, a more dynamic view of DT is scantly propose our theoretical framework.
found in recent literature reviews either. As an example,
Micheli et al. (2019) summarize the DT tools, but without
showing which DT tools can be used at different times, what 2.1 | Dynamic capabilities and innovation
calls for the use of a given tool, and the adoption of a tool in
combination with others. The literature distinguishes between two important classes
Overall, such nuances within the DT panorama show of capabilities: ordinary and dynamic (Eisenhardt & Martin,
that DT is evolving and requires further efforts to be prop- 2000; Laaksonen & Peltoniemi, 2018; Teece, 2014; Winter,
erly understood and mastered. Specifically, conceptualizing 2003). Ordinary capabilities, also referred to as best prac-
and examining the role of DT for innovation is both an open tices, foster efficiency (doing things right) in well-delineated
theoretical and practical question. Herein lay the challenges operation, administration, and governance tasks; they are
and contributions of the current study: (i) How can DT usually imitable and do not vary much in environments open
be conceptualized based on theories to unveil its relation- to global competition. Conversely, dynamic capabilities
ship with innovation? (ii) Rooted in a theory driven rather allow achieving congruence with technological and busi-
than a practical approach, how does DT relate to a firm's ness opportunities as well as latent customer needs over
innovativeness? time (doing the right things at the right time) by creating,
To answer these questions, based on the design capabili- extending, and/or revising ordinary capabilities and resource
ties (e.g., Dong et al., 2016; Swan et al., 2005) and dynamic configurations (Drnevich & Kriauciunas, 2011; Laaksonen
capabilities literature (e.g., Teece et al., 1997), we propose & Peltoniemi, 2018). This notion extends the resource-based
a comprehensive theoretical framework that considers DT a view of the firm (Barney, 2001) and underlines that it is not
dynamic capability for innovation rooted in microfoundations (only) owning resources and best practices that explain the
(i.e., lower-level aspects characterizing dynamic capabilities) competitive advantage and performance heterogeneity, but
(Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000; Felin et al., 2012) compared (also) how these resources and competences are mobilized
with the conventional normative and static view of DT. In and recombined (Felin & Hesterly, 2007). Specifically, the
identifying and providing the theoretical underpinnings of value of dynamic capabilities lies in the “potential for help-
DT, we make recourse to the DT for innovation literature ing the organization do this repeatedly, thereby helping to
using a theory-based lens to guide the future DT academic create a durable competitive advantage” (Bingham et al.,
debate. Indeed, based on our theoretical framework, we con- 2007; Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000; Teece, 2014, p. 335; Teece
duct a systematic literature review (Tranfield et al., 2003) that et al., 1997), especially in high-velocity, competitive mar-
may better unveil the DT dynamic and context-specific capa- kets, which hinder the contribution of ordinary capabilities
bilities to innovate in organizations. We then define several (Drnevich & Kriauciunas, 2011).
avenues for future research, hence reconciling practical evi- In other words, ordinary capabilities are the “hard” part
dence with theories that can further explain how DT relates of a business, with little connection to creativity, vision, or
to firm innovativeness. imagination, whereas dynamic capabilities help “identify
In sum, the key contributions of the paper are twofold. latent customer needs and the most promising technological
First, we provide a theory-based framing of DT, combining opportunities, then orchestrate the resources needed to in-
this approach with existing innovation and management the- novate, or co-innovate” (Teece, 2014, p. 332). Accordingly,
ories. Second, we review the DT for innovation literature to innovation studies have increasingly relied on the dynamic
reconcile previous studies with these theories, thus guiding capabilities literature, because firms today struggle with in-
future research. creasingly broad and complex innovation challenges in the
rapidly changing environment (Beckman & Barry, 2007;
Mazzucchelli et al., 2019). In response, organizations must
2 | T H E O RY-B A SE D F R A MING continuously manage the essential dynamic capabilities of
O F DT A N D T HE OR E T ICA L sensing, seizing, and reconfiguring (Teece, 2007): sensing
FR A M EWO R K relates to identifying new technological/market opportu-
nities in the environment, seizing refers to configuring and
In the following, we present the theoretical underpinnings of mobilizing resources/competences to address the identified
the framework conceptualizing DT as a dynamic capability opportunities by favoring innovativeness, and reconfiguring
rooted in certain microfoundations. We start by recalling the concerns the continued recombination and reconfiguration of
dynamic capabilities literature and its link to innovation. We resources/competences to attain repeated and reliable inno-
complement this discourse by underlining the role of the mi- vation performance, distinct from entirely ad hoc problem-
crofoundations of dynamic capabilities. We then provide an solving activities.
|
While it is argued that dynamic capabilities and innova- organizational routines for the combination/reconfiguration
tiveness are linked, this relationship lies in the microactivities of resources and, eventually, the formation of capabilities to
that organizational agents perform in combining and recon- engage in organizational change (i.e., dynamic capabilities)
figuring resources and competences (Felin & Foss, 2005; (Felin & Foss, 2005; Felin & Hesterly, 2007; Grigoriou &
Felin & Hesterly, 2007; Ghezzi et al., 2020; Winter, 2003). Rothaermel, 2013). As a result, microfoundations better re-
Put differently, as dynamic capabilities are context-specific veal why certain firms excel in getting ahead, while others
and embedded within organizations (Bingham et al., 2007; fail in today's complex and dynamic economic environment
Helfat & Martin, 2015), the firm-level effects are deemed (Argote & Ren, 2012; Knott, 2003).
to be rooted in lower-level aspects. This stresses the role of A second advantage of the microfoundational lens lies in
specific (micro-)mechanisms through which dynamic capa- the fact that “scholars increasingly seek to proffer microfoun-
bilities operate and are built over time (Salvato & Vassolo, dations for macromanagement theory” (Foss & Lindenberg,
2018; Teece, 2007), whereby overstating macro-level aspects 2013, p. 85), despite that microfoundations are not per se a
relative to lower-level ones may lessen the explanatory power theory (Felin et al., 2012). Indeed, it is theory-based empiri-
of the dynamic capabilities perspective (Winter, 2003). cism across a broad array of macro theories (e.g., behavioral
In this vein, Teece et al. (1997) and Teece (2007) incor- theory, psychology, cognition) which favor the reconcilia-
porate organizational routines as key constituents of dynamic tion of theory and practice in the management field by more
capabilities. Although it is not our intention to add to the on- comprehensively studying the multiple lower-level aspects
going debate on routines, we acknowledge that even though usually spanning different theory streams. That is to say, a
the notion of routines (as repeated actions) confronts that of microfoundational lens allows avoiding the prioritization of
dynamic capabilities (which call for nonroutinized activities) one theory stream over another when they are complemen-
(Lavie, 2006), there is also evidence of routinized aspects tary to study a given phenomenon, as in the case of dynamic
(i.e., ordinary capabilities) underlying dynamic capabilities capabilities (Foss, 2011).
(Schilke et al., 2018). Therefore, dynamic capabilities can The foregoing discussion is also relevant in the context of
be thought of as working on different levels (Winter, 2003), innovation, as microfoundations are deemed to explain “the
hence requiring a micro-macro analysis. In particular, an ‘capacity of an organization to purposefully create, extend or
analysis of the routines underpinning dynamic capabilities modify’ a firm's product or service offerings, processes for
requires looking at the lower-level organizational aspects, generating and/or delivering a product or service, or customer
such as context-specific individual skills, procedures, orga- markets” (Felin et al., 2012, p. 1355). Notably, innovation is a
nizational structures, decision rules, and processes (Adner socially intensive process where organizational members (not
& Helfat, 2003; Helfat & Peteraf, 2015; Teece, 2007). organizations themselves) transform innovative ideas and
Consequently, distinguishing the microfoundations of dy- knowledge into real innovations. Therefore, it is important
namic capabilities from the capability itself allows deepen- to examine how they interact, formulate, and determine what
ing and broadening our understanding of the effectiveness problems to solve and how (Grigoriou & Rothaermel, 2013;
of dynamic capabilities for innovation (Schilke et al., 2018; Helfat & Peteraf, 2015; Mazzucchelli et al., 2019; Slater
Teece, 2007, 2012). Indeed, “[m]icrofoundations involve the et al., 2014; Teece, 2007).
adjustment and recombination of a firm's existing ordinary That is, the focus on microfoundations does not solely re-
capabilities as well as the development of new ones” (Teece, volve around individuals. Reducing everything to individuals
2018, p. 40). neglects the fact that individual interactions are not additive
but take a complex form shaped by the organizational con-
text itself. Therefore, we need to look at individuals and the
2.2 | Microfoundations of routines and related unique, interactional, and collective effects (Barney
dynamic capabilities & Felin, 2013). With this in mind, Felin et al. (2012) identify
three main microfoundation building blocks: (1) individuals,
The microfoundations literature highlights that organiza- (2) processes and interactions, and (3) structure. The first
tional activities should be understood in terms of the un- category (individuals) includes all the individual-level ele-
derlying characteristics, actions, and interactions of the ments that can affect an organization's modus operandi and
organizational members (lower-level aspects) involved in the collective behaviors, such as individual skills and knowledge,
managerial processes, procedures, systems, and structures personality traits, cognition, agency, etc. (Felin & Hesterly,
specific to the organization in which they operate (Teece, 2007; Foss, 2011). The second category (processes and inter-
2007). Thus, by examining lower-level aspects (i.e., micro- actions) comprises the combination of formal and informal
macro analysis), the microfoundational lens encompasses the processes that influence integration, cooperation, and coordi-
macro concepts (Barney & Felin, 2013). Emphasizing the nation among organizational members. Processes and inter-
lower-level aspects helps uncover and explain differences in actions are relevant in that they not only clarify how routines
|
MAGISTRETTI et al.
649
and capabilities emerge but also how they evolve (Winter, solution (Knapp et al., 2016). General Electric developed the
2012). The third category (structure) considers the broad FastWorks approach to expand the problem-solution space,
structure and design architecture that delineates who inter- where customers are considered as users engaged in inno-
acts with whom and how (Barney & Felin, 2013). Finally, vative problem-solving activities to generate alternatives by
connections exist within and between the three categories showing their needs (Magistretti et al., 2020). PepsiCo is re-
(individuals and individuals, individuals and processes, etc.), quired to include design and DT principles in its innovation
which “form a second set of effects that contribute to the col- department to spread the culture of discovery and creative
lective phenomena of routines and capabilities” that should confidence in every project (Few, 2015).
not be undervalued (Felin et al., 2012, p. 1357).
2.4 | Combining DT, dynamic

2.3 | Design thinking capabilities, and microfoundations:
A theoretical framework
Designers have long addressed wicked and ill-formulated
problems by elaborating professional practices to deal with In accordance with the previous section, DT tackles multiples
them. These practices have led to DT (Brown, 2008; Dorst, aspects of the innovation process (e.g., market, technological,
2011). Despite that DT originated in the design domain, it is esthetic). This recalls the notion of design capabilities of imbu-
not limited to solving design problems (Dell’Era et al., 2020), ing new products with new functions, reliability, quality, ease
but also approaching/solving problems in different contexts, of use, and external design that attracts customers (Ho et al.,
especially innovation (Brown, 2008; Gruber et al., 2015; 2011; Swan et al., 2005; Xue & Swan, 2020). Thus, applying
Martin, 2009; Vogel, 2009). In particular, the relevance of DT can be considered as a (design) capability. In addition, DT
DT for innovation lies in the fact that it allows tackling in- goes beyond accomplishing a specific innovation task/project.
novation problems by departing from a narrow, technically It plays a pivotal role in creating/improving the ability to re-
oriented, or product- centric way of thinking. DT allows peatedly deal with wicked and ill-formulated innovation prob-
firms to simultaneously consider market and technological lems, from understanding intended/unintended market needs to
aspects in addition to conventional aesthetics (Brown, 2008; actually developing innovation. Hence, DT is a source of re-
Liedtka, 2015). In so doing, DT anticipates new perspec- source reconfiguration, differentiation between organizations,
tives, integrates different disciplines, favors knowledge shar- and competitive advantage in turbulent environments (Brown,
ing, and explores multiple options and ideas earlier in the 2008; Carlgren et al., 2014; Hobday et al., 2012a; Micheli et al.,
innovation process (Carlgren et al., 2014). This is eased if 2019). As such, it is more dynamic than an ordinary capability
the U.K. Design Council framework is taken into considera- (Dong et al., 2016). In particular, a strong link emerges between
tion, whereby assertion-based solutions (i.e., abductive logic) DT and Teece’s (2007) dynamic capabilities of sensing and
are considered in addition to inductive and deductive logics seizing opportunities as well as reconfiguring the innovation
(Dong et al., 2016; Micheli et al., 2019). Moreover, DT is approach (Liedtka, 2020). For instance, DT favors a better un-
problem and solution oriented (i.e., both the conceptualization derstanding of customers, their contexts, and latent needs (sens-
and application of innovative ideas) and relies on hypothesis- ing), adopting tools/methods such as visualization, storytelling,
driven practices that emphasize (re)formulating problems and prototyping to support rapid testing and innovation devel-
before focusing on solutions (Beckman, 2020; Liedtka, opment (seizing), and steadily stimulating novel and innovative
2015). Finally, DT spans the abstract and concrete world to ideas, different approaches to problem solving, and idea man-
generate innovative ideas, involving rational and intuitive agement to cope with changing market needs and technological
modes of thought as well as analysis (e.g., abstract concep- dynamism (reconfiguring).
tualization and reflective observation) and synthesis (active Furthermore, just like dynamic capabilities, DT is rooted
experimentation and concrete development) (Beckman & in the role and characteristics of the organizational mem-
Barry, 2007; Kurtmollaiev et al., 2018). Consequently, DT bers (e.g., experience, skills, cognitive interpretations) that
is deemed to meet/unveil changing and latent customer needs adopt them, as well as the ways and structures characterizing
over time (Micheli et al., 2012), better balance exploratory their interaction modes (Brown, 2009; Carlgren et al., 2014,
and exploitative innovation activities (Liedtka, 2020; Martin, 2016a, 2016b). Relatedly, DT involves multiple aspects (e.g.,
2009), and more quickly foster the assimilation and recon- psychological, organizational, strategic)—each pertaining to
figuration of internal know-how from innovation systems distinct literature streams (e.g., organizational behavior, be-
(Acklin, 2010). Accordingly, many leading organizations are havioral theory, cognition, agency)—which, however, need
approaching innovation following the DT principles. For in- to be considered concurrently. In other words, DT (as a dy-
stance, Google proposed Design Sprint as a methodology to namic capability) is rooted in the lower-level organizational
embrace analytic and creative thinking to innovate the Gmail aspects (i.e., microfoundations) of individuals, processes and
|
T A B L E 1 Search terms
interactions, and structure, whose analysis will likely lead to
a better comprehension of the capability to innovate through Category A Category B
DT (Micheli et al., 2019). Thus, DT can be reasonably con- Design thinking (DT) Innovat*
ceived as a dynamic capability for innovation. Designerly thinking
In this vein, to reconcile practical evidence on DT for
Creative Problem Solving
innovation with key innovation/management theories, and
Human Centered Design (HCD)
hence guide future studies, we propose a theoretical frame-
User Centered Design (UCD)
work that views DT as a dynamic capability. Specifically, we
disaggregate DT into the sensing, seizing, and reconfiguring Managing by Design
capabilities, each requiring a deeper analysis of respective Participatory Design
microfoundation building blocks. Design Driven
3 | SYSTE MAT IC L IT E R AT U R E
RE V IE W A P PROACH avoid including articles that are not relevant to the debate on
the DT–innovation relationship in terms of quality and fit.
The aim of our theoretical framework is to reconcile the the- Concerning the fit, we acknowledge that some of the selected
oretical and practical perspectives of DT for innovation by DT-related keywords (e.g., human-centered design and de-
critically reviewing the literature on this topic. As doing so sign driven) are broader concepts that may lead to conclusions
requires an integrative view of the literature on DT for inno- that are specific to one of these areas but not DT. Thus, we
vation, we rely on the well-established systematic literature also defined the inclusion and exclusion criteria to account
review approach to identify the relevant DT for innovation for this aspect when reading the articles, hence limiting the
studies (Tranfield et al., 2003). chance of including articles outside our research scope. To en-
First, we define the boundaries of the review. As Scopus sure the quality of articles included in our study, we excluded
is one of the largest and most comprehensive abstracts and all papers published in journals with no impact factor in the
citation databases of its kind (e.g., Randhawa et al., 2016), we 2018 Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Reports (Randhawa
used the Scopus search engine to generate a list of relevant et al., 2016; Shepherd & Rudd, 2014). Following Elsbach and
contributions in core management-related outlets. We consid- Stigliani (2018) and Micheli et al. (2019), we did not exclude
ered the following Scopus subject areas: business, manage- journals related to design topics (e.g., Design Journal, Design
ment and accounting, economics, econometrics and finance, Management Journal, Design Management Review). We as-
social sciences, arts and humanities, decision sciences, psy- sessed the remaining 593 articles against the defined inclusion
chology, multidisciplinary, computer science, and engineer- and exclusion criteria by reading their titles and abstracts. After
ing. We only considered academic articles, thus omitting this phase, 176 articles were marked as “check full text” for
books, book chapters, conference proceedings, and theses, final approval. Based on the full-text reading, we retained 86
because these types of publications are considered to be less papers (identified with an asterisk in the references). We cross-
relevant (e.g., Meier, 2011). Moreover, we placed no limit referenced and consulted with the panel of experts to check for
on the time period of articles published, hence searching all potential papers we might have missed (Micheli et al., 2019).
potentially relevant articles available online on 26 July, 2019. This procedure did not lead to additional articles. Overall, the
We defined ad hoc search terms to ensure the comprehen- selection process was collaborative, with discussions on ar-
siveness of the search process and a focus on the topic under ticles that were deemed to not fully meet all criteria (Combs
investigation. At least one of the search terms had to appear et al., 2010). Figure 1 summarizes the selection process.2
in the title, abstract, or author-provided keywords for an article In the final stage, we carefully read each article and mapped
to be selected. Each search term is composed of the keyword the selected studies to identify the core themes according to
“innovat*” and a keyword related to the DT topic, including our theoretical framework. Following prior reviews, the con-
some relevant acronyms. Keywords emerged from an in-depth tent analysis was guided by two combined criteria as follows:
analysis of previous review articles (Elsbach & Stigliani, 2018; (i) the conceptualization of the object of analysis and (ii) the
Johansson-Sköldberg et al., 2013; Micheli et al., 2019), the specific research topic and focus of investigation (e.g., Ravasi
authors’ experience in the field, and interviews with a panel & Stigliani, 2012). We first categorized articles based on the
composed of three industry experts and three scholars in the microfoundation building block to which the article refers as
DT domain (Tasca, 2010). Table 1 presents all the considered well as the dynamic capability (sensing, seizing, and reconfig-
keywords.1 All in all, our search returned 1127 unique hits. uring) to which the microfoundation building block pertains.
In the second phase, we defined and applied the inclusion An article might pertain to different microfoundation build-
and exclusion criteria (see Table 2). This step is important to ing blocks as well as different dynamic capabilities. Next, we
|
MAGISTRETTI et al.
651
T A B L E 2 Inclusion and exclusion criteria
No. Inclusion criteria Reason for inclusion

1 Theoretical papers These articles are included because they provide the basis for summarizing and integrating the
empirical evidence.
2 Quantitative and qualitative These articles are included because they provide empirical evidence which is the main interest
empirical studies of this review.
3 Innovation management outcomes Examining how firms develop innovation.
4 Perspective Examining the interplay between innovation management and design thinking from a
microfoundational perspective.
No. Exclusion criteria Reason for exclusion

1 Publication type Excluding books, book chapters, conference proceedings, theses, review articles, articles not
written in English.
Excluding articles published in journals with no impact factor, except for journals specifically
related to design topics.
2 Unit of analysis Excluding articles whose focus is not on a firm's innovation process (e.g., research centers,
public administrations, urban contexts).
3 Perspective Excluding articles concerning learning and education, design as an aesthetic dimension,
design as style, design as outcome, engineering methods and procedures, regional/national
policies, and development of software solutions.
Excluding articles with specific conclusions related to topics, such as human-centered design,
creative problem solving, and design-driven innovation, but not to DT.
Excluding articles that report examples of specific cases of design thinking implementation
but do not provide sufficient information in relation to either what has been done or what
design thinking refers to.
delved into the focus of investigation and the questions driving DT process when the scope is sensing innovation oppor-
the research. We then produced a narrative synthesis of the out- tunities (Basadur, 2004). First, Carlgren et al. (2016b)
comes of the sample articles that show multiple aspects of the define user-focus as the first, and among the most impor-
same phenomenon, highlighting avenues for further research. tant, design thinker traits, that is, design thinkers should
always have the user in mind when evaluating innova-
tive opportunities. This is strictly related to the notion
4 | M ATCHING T H E of empathy (Paton & Dorst, 2011). Indeed, people seeing
THE O R E T ICA L F R A ME WO R K and understanding the world from the eyes and shoes of
W IT H TH E DT FOR IN NOVAT ION end users (i.e., empathizing with the user) are in a better
LI TE R AT U R E position to envision what they really desire and, hence,
suggest solutions that solve their needs (Brown, 2008).
In the following, we untangle the constituents of DT as a Worth noting is that the individual trait of empathizing
dynamic capability. Thus, we group and discuss the litera- with users emerges at the individual level but underpins
ture findings on DT for innovation (see the previous section) and improves the overall DT process outcomes at a higher
by unveiling which/how the DT microfoundation build- level (Magalhães, 2018).
ing blocks (i.e., individuals, processes and interactions, and The second aspect refers to the fact that design think-
structure) shape the sensing, seizing, and reconfiguring capa- ers might have different degrees of knowledge and ex-
bilities in relation to firm innovativeness. pertise when approaching a problem with creativity (Li
et al., 2018). This may influence, as Li et al. (2018) re-
port, the way individuals collaborate and cocreate op-
4.1 | The microfoundations of DT as a portunities in human- c entered design processes. For
sensing dynamic capability for innovation instance, depending on the goal of involvement, the
knowledge of expert individuals might vary, since it
4.1.1 | Individuals may be rooted in pragmatism, the ability to see what
does not work, or based on repertoires, so that past ex-
The literature analyzed shows that the role of individu- pertise can lead to the discovery of new opportunities
als and some key characteristics/skills are pivotal in the (Dalsgaard, 2014). Regardless of their expertise and
|
F I G U R E 1 The data gathering process
previous knowledge, individuals in the DT process are is on sensing capabilities, the inductive thinking perspective,
usually asked to be part of the DT initiative by adopting defined as “what is,” appears particularly relevant compared
a naïve mind (Kleinsmann et al., 2017; Seidel & Fixson, with the others (Kimbell, 2012). Indeed, design thinkers em-
2013), so that scouting market/technological opportuni- brace an inductive perspective by using cues spotted in ana-
ties can occur without preconceptions of the innovation lyzing market needs to generalize them as an opportunity for
problem (Knight et al., 2019; Vetterli et al., 2016; Yoo & the whole segment under study (Basadur & Hausdorf, 1996).
Kim, 2015). In fact, this is corroborated by the broader Thus, the opportunity and knowledge gained by looking at
discourse on the tradeoff between fresh versus knowl- the market are foundations for the future development of the
edgeable minds (Davis et al., 2016). solution (Dorst, 2019).
Individuals with a fresh mind usually sense problems
that are rather unexpected ex ante, whereas knowledgeable
minds tend to sense opportunities that are deeper in the es- 4.1.2 | Processes and interactions
sence of humans (Peschl & Fundneider, 2014). Moreover,
when it comes to mind aspects, academic attention is grow- Researchers reveal the primary role of users in DT as a
ing on the mediation role of consultants, a proxy for fa- source of knowledge for screening and evaluating the
cilitators in the DT process, and the influence they might market and technological environment. From this perspec-
have in managing and supporting the naïve mind approach tive, DT processes should be built around the central role
(Brown & Katz, 2011). Indeed, by favoring a methodical of users (Hunter et al., 2008; Taffe, 2018). That is, users
approach in the identification of options in the market, should be studied and observed at the beginning of the DT
consultants can support individuals in sensing latent needs process to spot their needs, and in turn, the market/techno-
(Verganti, 2011). logical opportunities that may be pursued (Bas & Guillo,
Finally, a debate has emerged on the different thinking 2015; Kimbell, 2012). Specifically, the DT literature shows
logics that an individual might adopt, as these affect the capa- that relevant insights on wicked innovation problem are
bility to sense innovation opportunities (Basadur, 2004). The usually highlighted by observing users and making design
DT cycle of thinking includes inductive, deductive, and ab- thinkers empathize with them (regardless of the fact that
ductive reasoning (Dunne & Martin, 2006). When the focus design thinkers are empathetic by nature) in the DT process
|
MAGISTRETTI et al.
653
(Kleinsmann et al., 2017; Paton & Dorst, 2011; Shapira and perspective that hinder sensing opportunities (Carr
et al., 2017). et al., 2010; Liedtka, 2015), resulting, for example, in the
Delving more in-depth into the involvement of users in exclusion of valuable, although more radically oriented
the process of empathizing, a dichotomy in how users can innovation opportunities. Accordingly, being able to in-
be viewed in the DT processes unfolds. On one side, users still processes that defer judgment in evaluating market/
are considered as either passive members (i.e., a “subject” to technological opportunities is recognized as a good means
be observed only to gather information) or active members to improve project performance in terms of the radicalness
(i.e., people actually involved in the DT process to help sense and newness of the solutions further developed (Carlgren
innovation opportunities) (Carlgren et al., 2016a, 2016b; et al., 2014; Liedtka, 2015).
Kurtmollaiev et al., 2018).
As a matter of fact, the observation of users acting in the
outside world enables design thinkers to spot external prob- 4.1.3 | Structure
lems and needs waiting to be solved (Hunter et al., 2008;
Peschl & Fundneider, 2014). In this way, the outside-in per- Managers can make the most of DT only by understanding
spective allows sensing opportunities linked to needs about that a structure that supports collective actions and inter-
humans (Clark & Smith, 2008; Kesseler & Knapen, 2006; actions builds an organization, and ultimately, a team able
Koomans & Hilders, 2016). In turn, more ethnographic to address innovation problems by sensing relevant op-
research is required with users at the beginning of the DT portunities (Chen & Venkatesh, 2013; De Mozota, 2008;
process (Brown, 2008). An alternative view is the inside- McFadzean, 1998). For instance, establishing creative con-
out perspective, which highlights the designers’ capability fidence (i.e., defined as a sense of belonging and willing-
to sense and look for sociocultural trends that are emerg- ness to contribute to the organization's innovativeness by
ing in society, speculating on them to craft future scenarios creatively proposing opportunities) within the boundaries
(Verganti, 2011). This alternative view sees the centrality of of the firm can support sensing (Camacho, 2016; Li et al.,
designers in inward-looking knowledge that is hidden in so- 2018; Porcini, 2009). In this vein, a structure calling for a
ciety to propose their personal view in the process of craft- more top-down way of interacting might impede employees
ing new meanings (Verganti, 2017). This approach seems from sensing opportunities by hindering creative discovery
to lead to a more radical innovation due to its reflective and (Geissdoerfer et al., 2016), whereas a more bottom-up per-
critical approach toward innovation that changes in a thor- spective can support sparking more creative ideas (Collins,
ough way performances and values (Verganti, 2011). 2013; Verganti, 2008).
The literature also shows that the DT process relies on Furthermore, while supporting the sensing of opportuni-
brainstorming and cocreative sessions that enable people to ties, the organizational structure should also support diver-
sense new opportunities (Micheli et al., 2012). They allow gence (Carlgren et al., 2014). Indeed, companies encourage
exchanging and refining ideas, including different perspec- wild ideas as a capability within the organization to foster the
tives, and identifying new problems to be solved (Micheli exploration of opportunities. In this case, they will be able to
et al., 2012; Snyder et al., 2018). Specifically, the DT process diverge better and explore new opportunities hidden in the mar-
for the creation of novel options (i.e., designing new features, ket that DT can help uncover (Clark & Smith, 2008). Hence,
solving user needs) is at the core of the debate (Giacomin, by proposing ideas that are far from imagined in a linear pro-
2014; Li et al., 2018). Novel options are usually linked to the cess, DT will help organizations sense opportunities that are
backward-looking concept (Eppler & Kernbach, 2016; Noble outside their traditional comfort zone (Bason & Austin, 2019).
& Kumar, 2010), grounding the entire decision-making pro- Hence, structuring the units within the firm in such a way as to
cess in researching past knowledge and performance that is empower people to think outside the box allows sensing valu-
measurable (Bas & Guillo, 2015). Relatedly, several studies able opportunities and improving the innovation potential of
find that some firms look at DT as a method to generate cre- DT adoption (Wylant, 2008). Table 3 summarizes the findings
atively innovations (Li et al., 2018; Smith et al., 2012), also pertaining to the sensing dynamic capability.
with a focus on resolving longstanding user needs that have
never been observed by organizations and that DT can help
unveil (Paton & Dorst, 2011). 4.2 | The microfoundations of DT as a
In any event, DT processes should be always character- seizing dynamic capability for innovation
ized by the defer judgment perspective (Buchanan, 2015).
In every process, all the activities to ensure sensing new 4.2.1 | Individuals
opportunities in the DT process must be nonjudgmen-
tal. That is, scholars stress that bias and preconceptions Design thinkers make choices about innovation opportuni-
might hinder the DT process by introducing a judgment ties that are more or less informed and rational (Kleinsmann
|
T A B L E 3 Summary of research findings for the sensing dynamic capability
Sensing
Microfoundations Core findings Key references

Individuals Design thinkers sense opportunities by discovering user Basadur (2004); Brown (2008); Carlgren et al. (2016b);
needs. Thus, empathy with users is recognized in the Magalhães (2018); Paton and Dorst (2011)
DT literature as an individual skill crucial to sensing
opportunities for problem to be solved by adopting
creativity.
Design thinkers are characterized by the naïve mind Brown and Katz (2011); Dalsgaard (2014); Davis et al.
approach toward problem solving. They do not (2016); Kleinsmann et al. (2017); Knight et al. (2019);
look with preconceptions at problems but genuinely Li et al. (2018); Peschl and Fundneider (2014); Seidel
unpack the problem and surrounding reality to search and Fixson (2013); Verganti (2011); Vetterli et al.
for opportunities. (2016); Yoo and Kim (2015)
Design thinkers embrace inductive thinking as the Basadur (2004); Basadur and Hausdorf (1996); Dorst
reasoning of what users experience in everyday life. (2019); Kimbell (2012)
With this mindset, designers sense the opportunity
and start to generate new proposals.
Processes and The DT process is characterized by many principles. Bas and Guillo (2015); Hunter et al. (2008); Kimbell
interactions Among these, empathizing with users clearly aims (2012); Kleinsmann et al. (2017); Paton and Dorst
at sensing opportunities. Dynamically, the DT (2011); Shapira et al. (2017); Taffe (2018)
process that starts with observing user needs enables
discovering and sensing such opportunities.
The DT process can also be rooted in looking at Verganti (2008, 2011)
sociocultural trends to envision new future directions
and come up with innovations. By dynamically
sensing the emergence of new trends, the DT process
can support the creation of new meanings.
The DT process in sensing opportunities deeply relies Giacomin (2014); Li et al. (2018); Micheli et al. (2012);
on researching past knowledge. The literature shows Noble and Kumar (2010)
that the process of looking at past knowledge enables
DT to propose novel solutions by reconfiguring past
understandings in new products and services.
The DT process is organized to defer judgment. The Buchanan (2015); Carlgren et al. (2014); Carr et al. (2010);
ability to structure the divergent and convergent Liedtka (2015)
phases to support creativity can aid sensing
opportunities if deferring judgment in the intuitions
and insights proposed during the process.
Structure Organizations adopt a DT structure to establish the Camacho (2016); Chen and Venkatesh (2013); De Mozota
creative confidence of employees. Having a structure (2008); Li et al. (2018); McFadzean (1998); Porcini
that allows people to be confident in searching and (2009)
highlighting opportunities is crucial for the success of
every DT initiative.
Organizations adopt a DT structure to encourage wild Bason and Austin (2019); Carlgren et al. (2014); Clark and
ideas. Although creativity in its broad term is crucial, Smith (2008); Wylant (2008)
the DT structure should embrace this openness of
mind by supporting creative people with a clear
mindset as the real ability to listen to provocative
ideas.
et al., 2017). In particular, expert individuals usually support influences the capturing of opportunities and the attitudes
DT with a more informed and rational perspective (Seidel of those involved in DT by adopting a playful goal-oriented
& Fixson, 2013), whereas nonexperts usually leverage more process in the front-end design phases (Roth et al., 2015).
irrational perspectives (Ray & Romano, 2013). This greatly Specifically, the logical and rational reasoning adopted by
|
MAGISTRETTI et al.
655
individuals when the aim is to seize opportunities fosters that the brokering of knowledge outside firm boundaries (i.e.,
convergence toward the solution (Liedtka, 2015). Even in the capability that enables crosspollination across sectors
creative processes, a more conscious way of thinking can and different knowledge domains) influences the DT pro-
prevail over intuitive and visionary reasoning (Kimbell, cess (Dorst, 2011; Jung et al., 2014; van der Bijl-Brouwer &
2012). Thus, every design thinker is required to be able to Dorst, 2017). With the advent of digital tools, more and more
visualize thoughts (Carr et al., 2010). This has been studied DT processes are influenced by digital technologies, which
and recognized as one of the key elements of successfully ad- are found to influence the seizing of opportunities (Eppler &
dressing and solving problems (Kesseler & Knapen, 2006). Kernbach, 2016).
In other words, making the solution visible through sketch- A debate is emerging on prototyping processes.
ing and physical mock-ups enables individuals to converge Prototyping is defined as the moment when the first type
(Taffe, 2018). of solution is created (Davis et al., 2016; Kanstrup, 2017).
Concerning seizing, the deductive reasoning perspective Teams set up DT processes where prototyping is central to
is increasingly adopted and embraced by design thinkers allowing the organization to converge by aligning people to-
(Dunne & Martin, 2006), highlighting its relevance. Defined ward the solutions (Peschl & Fundneider, 2014). The debate
as “what should be,” deductive reasoning allows better en- on the role of prototyping for team alignment goes under the
visioning future scenarios and enacting proper innovation concepts of boundary objects as solutions that enable conver-
processes based on a previously sensed opportunity (Dorst, gence through being the means to an end of the discussion
2011; Martin, 2011). Confirmation lies in the fact that indi- (Carr et al., 2010). Recently, new roles of the prototyping
viduals are able to converge toward the solution by crafting process have emerged when dealing with convergence. The
how the solution should work through adopting a prototyping growing relevance of prototyping is an example of how visu-
and testing mindset (Johansson-Sköldberg et al., 2013; Park, alizing and sharing a solution enable the debate and increase
2011; Roy & Warren, 2019). the DT capability to fulfill customer needs.
4.2.2 | Processes and interactions 4.2.3 | Structure
Broadly speaking, experimentation processes are relevant for A commonly held belief is that undertaking a DT innovation
DT projects. Indeed, organizations should create hypotheses project requires a structure composed of people who facilitate
and test them by adopting processes that instill curiosity, crea- the adoption of tools and templates (Brown, 2008). Relevant
tivity, and enable converging toward innovations (Buchanan, in this regard are facilitators who mediate the activities and
2015). As a matter of fact, that being able to craft strong control the time and objectives of each session (Kesseler &
hypotheses, that are coming from concrete and observable Knapen, 2006). These facilitators may be internal or external to
information from the outside, and test them with the market the organizational boundaries (Strike & Rerup, 2016). Internal
and users is crucial for the convergence of any DT processes facilitators are experts in the field and might help out in some cir-
(Bas & Guillo, 2015). In this context, exploring knowledge cumstances, yet in others (e.g., more radically oriented innova-
exchange processes when adopting the DT approach to inno- tion activities), they might limit the creativity and radicalness of
vate is pivotal. To note is that the DT approach can involve a the outputs (Carlgren et al., 2014; Knight et al., 2019; Mitsui &
single function or multiple functions, hence influencing the Nagai, 2014). Accordingly, internal facilitators are recognized
ways of interaction, and in turn, impacting know-how ex- as helpful when an additional workforce is needed, as they may
change (Buhl et al., 2019; Martin, 2011). In this regard, com- be knowledgeable of the subject under study (Martin, 2009).
municating and transferring knowledge across boundaries is Conversely, the emerging focus on execution supports the pres-
endangered when involving different functions, despite that ence of external facilitators (Kimbell, 2012; Knapp et al., 2016;
they bring different knowledge and mental models that can Zeratsky, 2016). The reason is that formally structuring the role
boost the innovativeness of ideas (Dougherty, 1992; Park, of external facilitators might have an impact on the process and
2011), revealing that even the DT approach may suffer from task management and push the team to perform the activities
this issue (Davis et al., 2016). Thus, given the DT aim of faster (Chen et al., 2015; Li et al., 2018) compared with internal
converging and diverging knowledge management, the pro- facilitators who might be misled by the flow of thoughts.
cesses require very detailed consideration (Buhl et al., 2019), The DT literature also contemplates how to develop coex-
thus formal (i.e., visualizations, templates, and reports) and isting alternatives and propel the processes toward convergence
informal techniques (i.e., talks, notes, and insights) to ex- (Zeratsky, 2016). With this in mind, structuring a DT process to
change knowledge among people (Clark & Smith, 2008; enable the proper management of alternatives would boost cre-
Manzini & Rizzo, 2011). In addition, research recognizes ativity but also convergence to the solution (De Mozota, 2008).
|
Thus, having clear roles within the team, and structuring alter- resolving longstanding problems (Bicen & Johnson, 2015;
nating moments of open discussion and debate, allows teams to Carlgren et al., 2014; Giacomin, 2014). The DT process
evaluate alternatives by leveraging their different backgrounds tends to focus on reframing problems by adopting a forward-
(Paton & Dorst, 2011). Structuring the organization to enable looking approach, where the projection of future scenarios
different actors to participate in an egalitarian way enables the guides the more irrational ideation and creative phase. In this
convergence of the DT process by employing multiple and dif- sense, managers are less led by myopia, able to envision and
ferent perspectives (De Couvreur & Goossens, 2011). Table speculate about future scenarios (Collins, 2013; Drews, 2009;
4 summarizes the findings on the seizing dynamic capability. Martin, 2011; Sanders & Stappers, 2008). Thus, the purpose
of this DT process aimed at speculating about future scenar-
ios can drive radical innovation, adopting a forward-looking
4.3 | The microfoundations of DT approach to even reconfiguring existing solution (Carlgren
as a reconfiguring dynamic capability et al., 2014; Clark & Smith, 2008; Jung et al., 2014). Overall,
for innovation the DT processes are not only aimed at solving user needs,
but when reconfiguring capabilities are part of the process,
4.3.1 | Individuals the envisioning of future scenarios is unleashed (Collins,
2013; Sohaib et al., 2019). Envisioning future scenarios is
At the individual level, problem framing (i.e., the capability a typical scenario-building process used in DT to iteratively
to deconstruct the problem) is critical for every design thinker visualize and see the problem and related opportunity from a
(Johansson-Sköldberg et al., 2013) and is usually associated different perspective (Moon & Han, 2016). This will enable
with the capability of embracing ambiguity (Beverland et al., reconfiguration and more in-depth reflection.
2016). Design thinkers should be able to accept the fact that Finally, the DT processes are grounded in the assumption
solutions are not forever but are a proposal made to the market of letting people discuss and debate the ideas and intuitions
and continuously updated and modified (Drews, 2009; Li et al., sensed and seized (Verganti, 2016). These enable reconfigur-
2018). Linked to the problem of (re)framing by embracing am- ing knowledge, integrating and transferring know-how from
biguity is the individual framing and reframing capability that different experts in the project (Sleeswijk Visser et al., 2007).
design thinkers should have to reconfigure an opportunity or The continuous iteration between designing and debating en-
problem (Paton & Dorst, 2011). Indeed, the designerly way ables the DT process to delve deeper into the essence of the
of thinking is rooted in not taking anything for granted and in problem and propose impactful solutions.
deconstructing and reconstructing, that is, iteratively diverg-
ing and converging problems and opportunities to discover the
inner elements (Hatchuel et al., 2005; Micheli et al., 2012). 4.3.3 | Structure
The capability of reconfiguring a problem to innovate is
supported by abductive thinking (Chang et al., 2013; Dunne & The management of the structure in terms of team flexibil-
Martin, 2006), namely combining different hints, opportuni- ity and agility in the execution of collective actions boosts
ties, and problems by inferring the explanation. Hence, abduc- innovation through the DT problem- framing approaches
tion is a crucial element at the individual level to the point that (Blanco et al., 2016; Paton & Dorst, 2011). The literature as-
academics reflect on the role of this approach in sensemaking serts that DT can be adopted when the problem is ill-defined
and improving innovation performance (Liedtka, 2015). and user needs are imperceptible. However, it can only be
Diversity is an additional aspect of characterizing design effective if the structure and process are clearly defined; oth-
thinkers. With diversity, scholars refer to the willingness of erwise, the problem-solving approach is difficult to sustain
design thinkers to have different stakeholders with different (Carlgren et al., 2016b; Dalsgaard, 2014). The structure may
backgrounds onboard so that they can help DT frame and differ depending on the DT project's aim (Beverland et al.,
reframe the problem by leveraging distinct angles and per- 2015; Micheli et al., 2012; Verganti, 2008). More radical
spectives (Verganti, 2017). This will spark the critical think- projects usually require a looser organizational structure, a
ing capability that will help design thinkers reflect deeper and more agile configuration to spark the reconfiguration of so-
reconfigure the solutions, without taking the initial assump- lutions (Arrighi et al., 2015; Caughron & Mumford, 2008).
tions for granted (Carlgren et al., 2016b; Verganti, 2016). Indeed, being agile means embracing a capability that aims
at fostering iteration and the reconfiguration of opportunities
(Björgvinsson et al., 2012; Hobday et al., 2012b).
4.3.2 | Processes and interactions Concerning the structure enabling reconfiguration, a sec-
ond relevant aspect refers to learning-by-doing (Beckman &
Innovative firms might seek more radical innovations, and Barry, 2007; Carlgren et al., 2014), the capability of contin-
therefore, the purpose of the process differs completely from uous learning through leveraging knowledge generated from
|
MAGISTRETTI et al.
657
T A B L E 4 Summary of research findings for the seizing dynamic capability
Seizing

Individuals Design thinkers seize opportunities by relying on logical Kimbell (2012); Kleinsmann et al. (2017); Ray and
and rational reasoning. Indeed, the literature shows Romano (2013); Seidel and Fixson (2013)
that DT helps in converging and making sense of
things through subsequent decision-making and
prototyping.
Design thinkers seize opportunities by developing a Dorst (2011); Johansson-Sköldberg et al. (2013);
deductive thinking approach toward problem solving. Martin (2011); Park (2011); Roy and Warren
By managing the capability of envisioning future (2019)
scenarios and focusing on convergence in deducing
insights, they are able to seize the opportunity spotted
dynamically.
Processes and interactions The DT process is based on experimentation routines and Bas and Guillo (2015); Buchanan (2015)
capabilities. In seizing opportunities, the DT process
relies on the creation of hypotheses, assumptions, and
subsequent testing with the market. This also allows
testing whether the creative intuitions are correct or
not.
The DT process is based on brokering knowledge when Buhl et al. (2019); Dougherty (1992); Jung et al.
the aim is to seize opportunities. The literature (2014); Manzini and Rizzo (2011); Martin
unveils the ability to bring varied know-how in (2011); van der Bijl-Brouwer and Dorst (2017)
the convergence phase to allow the DT process to
conclude with a solution that has an impact.
The DT process deeply leverages prototyping techniques Davis et al. (2016); Kanstrup (2017); Peschl and
to seize opportunities. The capability to craft and Fundneider (2014)
mold solutions in prototypes of a different nature (i.e.,
prototype, boundary objects, MVP) underpins every
DT process as a phase for converging on solutions.
Structure Organizations adopt a DT structure to support a focus on Chen et al. (2015); Kesseler and Knapen (2006);
execution when seizing opportunities for innovation. Knight et al. (2019); Mitsui and Nagai (2014);
The DT ability to reach the end through prototyping Strike and Rerup (2016)
and testing must be enabled by a structure that
supports the fail fast and learning dimension that
otherwise will hinder focusing on execution.
Organizations adopt a DT structure to better develop De Couvreur and Goossens (2011); De Mozota
coexisting alternatives. Innovation and especially (2008); Paton and Dorst (2011)
creativity are grounded in the idea of quantity but
being able to manage and seize the quantity to
advance is crucial to avoid hindering the quality of the
output.
crafting prototypes, and analyzing feedback from the market. a bottom-up approach (Gobbo & Olsson, 2010). Specifically,
This capability can support the organization in keeping the depending on the reason for involvement, the overall organi-
focus on gaining knowledge, continuously enabling the re- zation should be shaped accordingly (Beverland et al., 2015).
configuration of skills in a DT project (Hobday et al., 2012a; Thus, a flatter organization favors a more flexible creative
Koomans & Hilders, 2016). Indeed, from its design origin, process determining the mindset, culture, and central themes
DT is grounded in the “doing” dimension. Increasingly em- rather than the sequence of phases of a fair DT process
phasized in the literature is the role of DT at the structural (Dorst, 2019; Stephens & Boland, 2015). Therefore, a culture
level in terms of learning and creating knowledge (Davis of shared responsibility and decentralization among employ-
et al., 2016; Liedtka, 2015). ees supports the sharing of personal reflections and the rein-
A structure that supports openness and a naïve mind is im- terpretation of the issue (Knight et al., 2019). Hence, flatter
plemented by organizations that are more horizontal and adopt organizations are usually more able to share knowledge and
|
foster creativity through less codified processes due to the 2015). Conversely, the DT literature needs more studies on
capability of decentralizing responsibilities (Moon & Han, the different characteristics (e.g., psychological traits, cogni-
2016; Zheng, 2018). Table 5 summarizes the findings about tion, gender, ethnicity, previous experiences) of individuals
the reconfiguration of dynamic capability. that can better support the diffusion and adoption of DT. Also
important is understanding when and how different individ-
uals should be involved in DT projects, also with respect to
5 | D IS C U SS ION A N D the different objectives they pursue (i.e., short vs. long-term
CONC LU S IO N outcomes, radical vs. incremental innovation). With specific
regard to facilitators, more studies on the similarities and
The present study proposes a theory-based framing of the differences among DT facilitators and other servant leaders
DT for innovation literature based on our efforts to formally of innovation methods (e.g., agile-stage-gate, scrum, open
construe DT as a dynamic capability for innovation, further innovation) can inform academics and practitioners on the
explained by looking at its microfoundations. Consequently, individual microfoundation configurations required for the
we propose a theoretical framework used to frame the more practical use of DT.
practitioner-oriented outcomes of the DT for innovation lit- Concerning the microfoundations of DT that pertain to
erature, hence reconciling theory and practice. processes and interactions, some differences in DT processes
In this way, we provide new insights and a more com- are well renowned, for example, strategic level versus op-
prehensive theoretical view into the emerging nature of DT erational level (Collins, 2013; Sohaib et al., 2019) and in-
grounded in innovation and management theories. Figure 2 novation of direction versus innovation of solution (Brown,
depicts our framework, showing that DT can be viewed as 2008; Verganti, 2017). Instead, differences in radical versus
a dynamic capability for innovation, and the related micro- incremental innovation processes have yet to be deeply stud-
foundations derived from the DT for innovation literature. ied despite the renowned differences between the two types
Specifically, we theoretically strengthen the case for DT as of innovation outcomes.
a dynamic capability that involves: sensing new opportuni- The debate on the role of knowledge exchange in DT
ties based on understanding user needs through continuously projects is still ongoing (Davis et al., 2016). While solving
empathizing with them, seizing the identified opportunities problems by adopting creativity (Dorst, 2011) and brokering
based on managing alternative prototypes and a constant knowledge in different phases of the process according to the
focus on experimentation, and reconfiguring the problem by scope have been empirically studied (e.g., Ray & Romano,
continually reframing and debating potential future visions 2013), the “how” dimension is still unclear. In other words,
and speculations. Each of these is rooted in specific individ- how knowledge is codified and transferred among the phases
uals, processes and interaction modes, and organizational of the DT processes. The exploration of this aspect might
structures. lead scholars to discover, for instance, the presence of open
Based on this theory-based review, we next identify poten- versus closed or inbound versus outbound DT processes,
tial future developments for the DT for innovation literature. which ultimately affect the knowledge search and recombina-
tion activities for innovation (Savino et al., 2017). The gen-
eral gaps found in managing knowledge in the process might
5.1 | Emerging lines of inquiry when impact the three dynamic capabilities differently. In sensing,
considering DT as a dynamic capability the search for knowledge is pivotal. Still, there is a lack of
understanding of the role it might have in influencing over-
By unpacking the individual, processes and interactions, and all project performance. In seizing, the brokering function is
structure microfoundation building blocks characterizing DT recognized as critical, but remaining unclear is how to master
as a dynamic capability for innovation, this study advances this in practice. In reconfiguring, how to reframe knowledge
the future development of the DT literature and explains the to envision and speculate about the future is still unclear.
DT–innovation relationship in a more structured way. Concerning the microfoundations of DT that pertain to
From our review, we have differentiated various aspects of structure, the reviewed literature examined different struc-
DT pertaining to individuals. At the individual level, the lit- tures. While a hierarchical structure might inform individuals
erature shows the centrality of empathy for sensing (Basadur, on the organization's direction (Wylant, 2008), it does not
2004; Carlgren et al., 2016b), logical reasoning for seizing, sustainably involve and engage those participating in the DT
and embracing ambiguity for reconfiguring (Beverland et al., process (Geissdoerfer et al., 2016). Moreover, structures that
2015; Drews, 2009). In addition, it shows the different think- enable creative confidence (De Mozota, 2008; McFadzean,
ing styles that individuals should adapt according to the DT 1998; Porcini, 2009), focusing on execution (Kimbell, 2012;
objective: inductive for sensing, deductive for seizing, and Knapp et al., 2016; Zeratsky, 2016) or unleashing agil-
abductive for reconfiguring (Chang et al., 2013; Liedtka, ity (Arrighi et al., 2015; Caughron & Mumford, 2008), are
|
MAGISTRETTI et al.
659
T A B L E 5 Summary of research findings for the reconfiguring dynamic capability
Reconfiguring

Individuals Design thinkers leverage the capability of embracing Beverland et al. (2016); Drews (2009);
ambiguity to reconfigure knowledge. Indeed, by Johansson-Sköldberg et al. (2013)
accepting not having everything set, they are capable
of iterative change and modifying the assumptions on
which they build.
Design thinkers base their individual capabilities on the Hatchuel et al. (2005); Micheli et al. (2012)
reconfiguring dimension of their reframing ability.
The capability to continually change the perspective
adopted and thus reframe the problem and solution over
time enable diverging and converging and ultimately
creating value.
Design thinkers when facing reconfiguring no longer adopt Chang et al. (2013); Liedtka (2015)
linear thinking but abductive thinking. The literature
shows that the integration of the analytical and intuitive
way of reasoning can spark the creativity needed for
reconfiguring.
Design thinkers also develop a critical thinking Carlgren et al. (2016b); Verganti (2016, 2017)
approach when designing solutions. The developmental
criticism mindset allows them to unleash
reconfiguration.
Processes and interactions The DT process is based on speculating when the aim Bicen and Johnson (2015); Carlgren et al.
is to reconfigure the solution. Indeed, the ability to (2014); Giacomin (2014)
establish a process that by leveraging divergence and
convergence allows envisioning future distant scenarios
and speculating on these is a crucial element of this
approach.
The DT process is based on envisioning when the focus is Collins (2013); Moon and Han (2016); Sohaib
on reconfiguring the problem and better framing it; the et al. (2019)
process must be structured to support designing future
solutions that will respond to needs.
The DT process is rooted in debating, embracing criticism, Sleeswijk Visser et al. (2007); Verganti (2016)
and building on the ideas of others. In this way, ideas
will be reconfigured by adopting techniques for
questioning and valuing different perspectives.
Structure Organizations adopt a DT structure in an agile way when Beverland et al. (2015); Björgvinsson et al.
they want to enable reconfiguring. Indeed, the ability to (2012); Blanco et al. (2016); Hobday et al.
iteratively change and experiment must be supported by (2012b); Paton and Dorst (2011)
an appropriate and flexible structure.
Organizations adopt a DT structure in a way that enables Beckman and Barry (2007); Carlgren et al.
the learning-by-doing approach. Learning is crucial (2014); Hobday et al., (2012a); Koomans
in every business and is becoming more and more and Hilders (2016)
valuable in the creative process, where value is not in
the output but in the way the output is reached. Thus,
the organization should be ready to gather knowledge in
every phase.
Organizations adopt a DT structure to decentralize Gobbo and Olsson (2010); Moon and Han
responsibility. This enables everyone in the firm (2016); Zheng 2018
to propose ideas and support the creative flow of
knowledge.
|
F I G U R E 2 Summary of the existing DT literature for innovation according to the theoretical framing
deemed relevant. Therefore, future research should unpack First, large-scale quantitative studies are scarce. We ac-
how these dimensions can be implemented in a DT-centric knowledge that constructing a large enough sample to con-
organization. Moreover, there is a lack of understanding of duct, for instance, econometric studies at the firm level is
the role of DT in R&D–centric organizations and how these difficult and time-consuming. However, defining the micro-
organizations can leverage different structures to pursue foundations of DT for innovation based on actual data is a
their goals. Hence, a better understanding of how different necessary starting point. An initial solution to data collection
structures should be adapted to effectively support R&D, and issues may be found in focusing on the project level. Instead
when they might be enacted in a dynamic perspective, might of using the firm as the unit of analysis, data might be col-
be of value to fully appreciate the role of DT in new product lected in relation to different projects even if conducted in
development and innovation management. Finally, the DT the same company. This would at least reduce the number
literature lacks an understanding of how firms can nurture of organizations to interact with and is consistent with the
creativity. How creative confidence can be diffused within an microfoundational lens, which favors micro-macro analysis.
organization through a proper structure, and the levers a firm However, to control for the multilevel nature of the resulting
can employ to structure an organization that enables creative models (i.e., multiple projects nested within a few firms), hi-
confidence or adopt the learning-by-doing approach are still erarchical linear modeling techniques should be considered
unclear. (Aguinis et al., 2013). Thus, we propose the following re-
In addition to the gaps regarding the specific microfoun- search questions: Which microfoundations influence project
dation building blocks, some wide-ranging limitations in past performance? How do different microfoundations of DT as a
studies may hinder the study of DT as a dynamic capability dynamic capability interrelate and generate value? and What
for innovation. That is, despite covering a broad range of dif- are the (distinct) benefits to DT project performance when
ferent industries and national settings, most studies are quali- leveraging sensing, seizing, or reconfiguring?
tative, with only a few adopting a longitudinal design to study Second, future studies should adopt a longitudinal lens.
the phenomenon. Hence, three main (general) gaps should be Organizations and innovation problems, as well as their con-
addressed. stituents, evolve, thus calling for studies on how such changes
|
MAGISTRETTI et al.
661
affect the DT innovation approach. This is also in line with advance a more active view of DT as a dynamic capability to
the view of DT as a dynamic capability. Finally, the DT for (steadily) innovate, further framed by looking at the micro-
innovation literature emphasizes the “how” (i.e., how to im- foundations of dynamic capabilities.
plement DT) and “who” (who is involved in DT) questions. Second, contrary to the majority of academic concepts,
Instead, the “when” question is largely neglected. Hence, to DT suffers from having high practical relevance yet lacking
increase our understanding of DT as a dynamic capability robust theoretical development (Micheli et al., 2019). With
in innovation, some of the following questions are proposed: this in mind, we rely on the dynamic capabilities literature
When (i.e., at what stage) should DT be implemented in the and the microfoundational lens to reconcile theory and prac-
innovation process? Does DT mainly pertain to the fuzzy tice and make the theory more relevant to managers by an-
front-end of the innovation process or it is also relevant to choring and framing the more practitioner-oriented outcomes
introduce it dynamically at later stages (i.e., implementation, of the DT for innovation literature. In light of our view of DT
production, commercialization)? Which factors drive the as a dynamic capability for innovation, this choice particu-
decision to implement DT earlier or later in the innovation larly recalls that “in factors like dynamic capabilities, … rou-
process, and Which are the more relevant microfoundations tines that are linked to firm-level performance are seen to
according to the specific stage? be lacking in explanatory power” (Storbacka et al., 2016,
Third, people within organizations change over time in p. 3009), which is where microfoundations come into play
terms of their experience, know-how, relational aspects, (Teece, 2007).
position, and so forth, thus also changing the sensing, seiz- Third, we believe that the proposed framework and the
ing, and reconfiguring capabilities to innovate. Therefore, gaps identified are a relevant starting point for DT schol-
assessing changes in characteristics, beyond the direct ef- ars, especially considering that these gaps are rooted in
fect of a characteristic per se that remains unchanged, may well-defined innovation and management theories, hence
be a significant improvement. Despite empirical evidence reducing the likelihood of developing the DT concept as
of the different types of individuals involved in a DT proj- a collection of “ad hoc, atheoretical and noncumulative
ect, increasingly relevant is understanding the traits of in- studies” (e.g., Goodman et al., 1983, p. 164; Micheli et al.,
dividuals who should and must take part in such projects. 2019).
This might be interesting for organizational and human Furthermore, while there are some “traits” considered
resource-based research as well as measuring performance representative of DT in general (e.g., the adoption of induc-
to assess how different individuals involved in the process tive, deductive, abductive thinking), our framework allows
might generate different innovation outcomes. For this a better understanding of when these traits are actually rep-
third dimension, and to enhance DT research, we propose resentative of DT. As an example, while the three thinking
the following questions: How does a change in people or modes mentioned are well recognized by previous studies,
their know-how affect dynamic capabilities? Which dy- these did not clearly highlight when they are used. Instead,
namic capability benefits/suffers the most? Are there char- we can clarify to which specific dynamic capability (sens-
acteristics that influence dynamic capabilities differently? ing, seizing, or reconfiguring) they pertain. Following this
How do the different individual microfoundations of DT rationale, we also highlight that there are some traits not
as a dynamic capability for innovation influence project conventionally related to DT that are still necessary in spe-
performance? and What are the structures and processes cific cases. For instance, arguing that design thinkers seize
that better support individuals in proposing solutions to opportunities by relying on logical and rational reasoning
ill-defined problems? may seem to contradict the existing literature because DT
does not usually rely on logical and rational reasoning.
However, we identify the need for logical and rational think-
5.2 | Implications for innovation theories ing for the seizing capability when specifically discussing
the individual microfoundation building block. Overall, the
The contributions of this paper are fourfold. First, over time, framework allows, on one side, an understanding of the use-
DT has been viewed as a linear methodology composed ful DT traits and their purpose; on the other side, clarifying
of a set of activities/tools whose elements can be isolated, the presence and persistence of conventional approaches to
adopted, and replicated, but with potential only for incre- innovation that could be useful to DT.
mental change and innovation (Nussbaum, 2011). This has The last contribution more broadly relates to the innova-
its roots in some management theorists and practitioners tion management literature. Although with a specific focus
calling for the adoption of systematic processes and a rep- on DT, we believe that this paper adds to the relatively lim-
lication logic to pursue DT for innovation (Beverland et al., ited efforts to analyze “the potential determinants of inno-
2016; Martin, 2009). Instead, in line with some previous vation capabilities, taking into account lower-level entities”
studies (e.g., Liedtka, 2020; Yoo & Kim, 2015), we formally (Mazzucchelli et al., 2019, p. 243).
|
5.3 | Managerial implications course, this shows a more complex view of DT, hence requir-
ing managers to adopt an integrated view of what DT is and
From a practical perspective, we advise managers that DT how to implement it.
should be considered neither as a sporadic approach to solve a
given innovation task/objective nor a static set of tools/methods ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
that if applied according to defined rules will (certainly) lead to Open Access Funding provided by Politecnico di Bari within
the desired innovation outcome. That is, DT should be consid- the CRUI-CARE Agreement. [Correction added on 18 May
ered as a means to develop/improve overall innovation capa- 2022, after first online publication: CRUI funding statement
bilities, implemented as an overarching approach that combines has been added.]
the analytic and synthetic phases to innovate, in contrast to the
conventional narrow, technically oriented way of thinking. CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Furthermore, the heterogeneity among firms adopting DT All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
for innovation can be identified in the lower-level aspects of
firms, that is, the microfoundations underlying the sensing, ORCID
seizing, and reconfiguring capabilities enabled by DT. These Stefano Magistretti https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9968-7030
microfoundations relate to the individuals, processes and in- Lorenzo Ardito https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2732-6265
teractions, and structure of an organization. Specifically, man- Antonio Messeni Petruzzelli https://orcid.
agers should be aware that there are key “types” of individuals org/0000-0002-6852-5167
that make the DT approach work, namely users, team mem-
bers, consultants, and facilitators. They can mainly be charac- ENDNOTES
terized in terms of their active versus passive role, their fresh 1 Specifically, we initially considered “Design Thinking”, “Creative
versus more mature knowledge/attitude, and the internal ver- Problem Solving”, “Human Centered Design”, and “User Centered
sus external nature of their membership. Still, some necessary Design” as the main DT-related keywords. An initial search of rel-
evant articles, alongside the experts’ guidance, revealed two addi-
traits of individuals involved in the DT processes are empathy,
tional keywords worthy of inclusion, “Managing by Design” and
problem framing, visualization, and experimentation.
“Participatory Design”. Finally, one of the reviewers, whom we
Concerning the processes and interactions, managers kindly thank, underlined that “Design Driven” innovation (last DT-
are advised that different DT processes must be developed related keyword) is also related to DT.
depending on the objectives of the innovation project, in 2 Descriptive statistics of the sample articles are presented in the
accordance with the notion that there is no well-defined Appendix in Supplementary information, which is only available in
modus operandi underlying DT. For instance, different pro- the online version of the article.
cesses must be developed when aiming to create novel op-
tions (i.e., incremental innovation objectives) or envision
new scenarios (i.e., more radical innovation objectives; new R E F E R E NC E S
design features). Backward- looking processes are more Acklin, Claudia. 2010. “Design- Driven Innovation Process Model.”
suitable in the former case and forward-looking in the lat- Design Management Journal 5 (1): 50–60.
ter. Also related to the innovation objectives are interaction Adner, Ron, and Constance E. Helfat. 2003. “Corporate Effects and
Dynamic Managerial Capabilities.” Strategic Management
issues among individuals in the DT processes, with partic-
Journal 24 (10): 1011–25.
ular regard to knowledge exchange. Knowledge exchange
Aguinis, Herman, Ryan K. Gottfredson, and Steven Andrew Culpepper.
is of course pivotal, even if the DT approach suffers from 2013. “Best- Practice Recommendations for Estimating Cross-
the problem of managing communication and transferring Level Interaction Effects Using Multilevel Modeling.” Journal of
knowledge across individuals with different backgrounds, Management 39 (6): 1490–528.
roles, and functions, thus stressing the role of mediators and Argote, Linda, and Yuqing Ren. 2012. “Transactive Memory Systems:
facilitators. In this context, digitalization is deemed to relax A Microfoundation of Dynamic Capabilities.” Journal of
these tensions, but conclusive results are still lacking. Management Studies 49 (8): 1375–82.
*Arrighi, Pierre-Antoine, Pascal Le Masson, and Benoit Weil. 2015.
Executives should also focus on the structure when imple-
“Managing Radical Innovation as an Innovative Design Process:
menting DT. Key insights reveal the need to design a flexi-
Generative Constraints and Cumulative Sets of Rules. Creativity
ble, agile structure, even if the degree of flexibility ultimately and Innovation Management 24 (3): 373–90.
depends on the radicalness of the innovation project. In ad- Barney, Jay B. 2001. “Resource- Based Theories of Competitive
dition, our findings show that a bottom-up way of interact- Advantage: A Ten- Year Retrospective on the Resource- Based
ing, pulling together heterogeneous individuals, constitutes a View.” Journal of Management 27 (6): 643–50.
more effective structure. Barney, Jay, and Teppo Felin. 2013. “What are Microfoundations?”
Finally, worth stressing is that the individuals, processes Academy of Management Perspectives 27 (2): 138–55.
*Bas, Enric, and Mario Guillo. 2015. “Participatory Foresight for
and interactions, and structure are strongly intertwined and
Social Innovation. FLUX- 3D Method (Forward Looking User
cannot be seen as standalone features of the DT approach. Of
|
MAGISTRETTI et al.
663
Experience), a Tool for Evaluating Innovations.” Technological *Carlgren, Lisa, Maria Elmquist, and Ingo Rauth. 2016a. “The
Forecasting and Social Change 101: 275–90. Challenges of Using Design Thinking in Industry—Experiences
*Basadur, Min.2004. “Leading Others to Think Innovatively Together: from Five Large Firms.” Creativity and Innovation Management
Creative Leadership.” The Leadership Quarterly 15 (1): 103–21. 25 (3): 344–62.
*Basadur, Min, and Peter A. Hausdorf. 1996. “Measuring Divergent *Carlgren, Lisa, Ingo Rauth, and Maria Elmquist. 2016b. “Framing
Thinking Attitudes Related to Creative Problem Solving and Design Thinking: The Concept in Idea and Enactment.” Creativity
Innovation Management.” Creativity Research Journal 9 (1): and Innovation Management 25 (1): 38–57.
21–32. *Carr, Sean D., Amy Halliday, Andrew C. King, Jeanne Liedtka, and
*Bason, Christian, and Robert D. Austin. 2019. “The Right Way to Lead Thomas Lockwood. 2010. “The Influence of Design Thinking in
Design Thinking.” Harvard Business Review 97 (2): 82–91. Business: Some Preliminary Observations.” Design Management
Beckman, Sara L. 2020. “To Frame or Reframe: Where Might Design Review 21 (3): 58–63.
Thinking Research Go Next?” California Management Review 62 *Caughron, Jay J., and Michael D. Mumford. 2008. “Project Planning:
(2): 144–62. The Effects of Using Formal Planning Techniques on Creative
*Beckman, Sara L., and Michael Barry. 2007. “Innovation as a Learning Problem-Solving.” Creativity and Innovation Management 17 (3):
Process: Embedding Design Thinking.” California Management 204–15.
Review 50 (1): 25–56. *Chang, Young Joong, Jaibeom Kim, and Jaewoo Joo. 2013. “An
*Beverland, Michael B., Pietro Micheli, and Francis J. Farrelly. 2016. Exploratory Study on the Evolution of Design Thinking:
“Resourceful Sensemaking: Overcoming Barriers Between Comparison of Apple and Samsung.” Design Management Journal
Marketing and Design in NPD.” Journal of Product Innovation 8 (1): 22–34.
Management 33 (5): 628–48. *Chen, Jiyao, Donald O. Neubaum, Richard R. Reilly, and Gary S.
*Beverland, Michael B., Sarah J. S. Wilner, and Pietro Micheli. 2015. Lynn. 2015. “The Relationship Between Team Autonomy and
“Reconciling the Tension Between Consistency and Relevance: New Product Development Performance Under Different Levels
Design Thinking as a Mechanism for Brand Ambidexterity.” of Technological Turbulence.” Journal of Operations Management
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 43 (5): 589–609. 33: 83–96.
*Bicen, Pelin, and William H. Johnson. 2015. “Radical Innovation with *Chen, Steven, and Alladi Venkatesh. 2013. “An Investigation of How
Limited Resources in High-Turbulent Markets: The Role of Lean Design-Oriented Organisations Implement Design Thinking.”
Innovation Capability.” Creativity and Innovation Management 24 Journal of Marketing Management 29 (15–16): 1680–700.
(2): 278–99. *Clark, Kevin, and Ron Smith. 2008. “Unleashing the Power of Design
Bingham, Christopher B., Kathleen M. Eisenhardt, and Nathan R. Thinking.” Design Management Review 19 (3): 8–15.
Furr. 2007. “What Makes a Process a Capability? Heuristics, *Collins, Hilary.2013. “Can Design Thinking Still Add Value?” Design
Strategy, and Effective Capture of Opportunities.” Strategic Management Review 24 (2): 35–9.
Entrepreneurship Journal 1 (1–2): 27–47. Combs, Julie P., Rebecca M. Bustamante, and Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie.
*Björgvinsson, Erling, Pelle Ehn, and Per- Anders Hillgren. 2012. 2010. “An Interactive Model for Facilitating Development of
“Agonistic Participatory Design: Working with Marginalised Literature Reviews.” International Journal of Multiple Research
Social Movements.” CoDesign 8 (2–3): 127–44. Approaches 4 (2): 159–82.
*Blanco, Teresa, Alfredo Berbegal, Rubén Blasco, and Roberto Casas. Cousins, Brad. 2018. “Validating a Design Thinking Strategy: Merging
2016. “Xassess: Crossdisciplinary Framework in User- Centred Design Thinking and Absorptive Capacity to Build a Dynamic
Design of Assistive Products.” Journal of Engineering Design 27 Capability and Competitive Advantage.” Journal of Innovation
(9): 636–64. Management 6 (2): 102–20.
*Brown, Tim.2008. “Design Thinking.” Harvard Business Review 86 *De Couvreur, Lieven, and Richard Goossens. 2011. “Design for
(6): 84–94. (every) One: Co-Creation as a Bridge Between Universal Design
Brown, Tim. 2009. Change by Design: How Design Thinking Transforms and Rehabilitation Engineering.” CoDesign 7 (2): 107–21.
Organizations and Inspires Innovation. HarperCollins e-books. *Dalsgaard, Peter.2014. “Pragmatism and Design Thinking.”
*Brown, Tim, and Barry Katz. 2011. “Change by Design.” Journal of International Journal of Design 8 (1): 143–55.
Product Innovation Management 28 (3): 381–3. *Davis, John, Catherine Ann Docherty, and Kate Dowling. 2016.
*Buchanan, Richard.2015. “Worlds in the Making: Design, Management, “Design Thinking and Innovation: Synthesising Concepts of
and the Reform of Organizational Culture.” She Ji: The Journal of Knowledge Co-Creation in Spaces of Professional Development.”
Design, Economics, and Innovation 1 (1): 5–21. The Design Journal 19 (1): 117–39.
*Buhl, Anke, Marc Schmidt-Keilich, Viola Muster, Susanne Blazejewski, *De Mozota, Brigitte Borja.2008. “A Theoretical Model for Design in
Ulf Schrader, Christoph Harrach, Martina Schäfer, and Elisabeth Management Science: The Paradigm Shift in the Design Profession,
Süßbauer. 2019. “Design Thinking for Sustainability: Why from Management as a Constraint to Management Science as an
and How Design Thinking Can Foster Sustainability- Oriented Opportunity.” Design Management Journal 3 (1): 30–7.
Innovation Development.” Journal of Cleaner Production 231: Dell'Era, Claudio, Stefano Magistretti, Cabirio Cautela, Roberto
1248–57. Verganti, and Francesco Zurlo. 2020. “Four Kinds of Design
*Camacho, Mario.2016. “David Kelly: From Design to Design Thinking Thinking: From Ideating to Making, Engaging, and Criticizing.”
at Stanford and IDEO.” She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, Creativity and Innovation Management 29 (2): 324–344. https://
and Innovation 2 (1): 88–101. doi.org/10.1111/caim.12353.
*Carlgren, Lisa, Maria Elmquist, and Ingo Rauth. 2014. “Design Dong, Andy, Massimo Garbuio, and Dan Lovallo. 2016. “Generative
Thinking: Exploring Values and Effects from an Innovation Sensing: A Design Perspective on the Microfoundations of Sensing
Capability Perspective.” The Design Journal 17 (3): 403–23. Capabilities.” California Management Review 58 (4): 97–117.
|
*Dorst, Kees.2011. “The Core of ‘Design Thinking’ and its Application.” An International Business Journal. https://doi.org/10.1108/
Design Studies 32 (6): 521–32. CR-04-2020-0057.
*Dorst, Kees.2019. “Design Beyond Design.” She Ji: The Journal of *Giacomin, Joseph.2014. “What is Human Centred Design?” The
Design, Economics, and Innovation 5 (2): 117–27. Design Journal 17 (4): 606–23.
*Dougherty, Deborah.1992. “Interpretive Barriers to Successful Product *Gobbo, José Alcides, Jr., and Annika Olsson. 2010. “The
Innovation in Large Firms.” Organization Science 3 (2): 179–202. Transformation Between Exploration and Exploitation Applied
*Drews, Christiane. 2009. “Unleashing the Full Potential of Design to Inventors of Packaging Innovations.” Technovation 30 (5–6):
Thinking as a Business Method.” Design Management Review 20 322–31.
(3): 38–44. Goodman, Paul S., Robert S. Atkin, and F. David Schoorman. 1983.
Drnevich, Paul L., and Aldas P. Kriauciunas. 2011. “Clarifying the “On the Demise of Organizational Effectiveness Studies.” In
Conditions and Limits of the Contributions of Ordinary and Organizational Effectiveness: A Comparison of Multiple Models,
Dynamic Capabilities to Relative Firm Performance.” Strategic edited by Kim S. Cameron and David A. Whetten, 163– 83.
Management Journal 32: 254–79. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Dunne, David, and Roger Martin. 2006. “Design Thinking and How Grigoriou, Konstantinos, and Frank T. Rothaermel. 2013. “Structural
It Will Change Management Education: An Interview and Microfoundations of Innovation: The Role of Relational Stars.”
Discussion.” Academy of Management Learning & Education 5 Journal of Management 40 (2): 586–615.
(4): 512–23. Gruber, Marc, Nick de Leon, Gerard George, and Paul Thompson. 2015.
Eduardo Tasca, Jorge, Leonardo Ensslin, Sandra Rolim Ensslin, “Managing by Design.” Academy of Management Journal 58 (1):
and Maria Bernardete Martins Alves. 2010. “An Approach for 1–7.
Selecting a Theoretical Framework for the Evaluation of Training *Hatchuel, Armand, Pascal Le Masson, and Benoit Weil. 2005.
Programs.” Journal of European Industrial Training 34 (7): “The Development of Science-Based Products: Managing by
631–55. Design Spaces.” Creativity and Innovation Management 14 (4):
Eisenhardt, Kathleen M., and Jeffrey A. Martin. 2000. “Dynamic 345–54.
Capabilities: What are They?” Strategic Management Journal 21 Helfat, Constance E., and Jeffrey A. Martin. 2015. “Dynamic
(10–11): 1105–21. Managerial Capabilities: Review and Assessment of Managerial
Elsbach, Kimberly D., and Ileana Stigliani. 2018. “Design Thinking Impact on Strategic Change.” Journal of Management 41 (5):
and Organizational Culture: A Review and Framework for Future 1281–312.
Research.” Journal of Management 44 (6): 2274–306. Helfat, Constance E., and Margaret A. Peteraf. 2015. “Managerial
*Eppler, Martin J., and Sebastian Kernbach. 2016. “Dynagrams: Cognitive Capabilities and the Microfoundations of Dynamic
Enhancing Design Thinking through Dynamic Diagrams.” Design Capabilities.” Strategic Management Journal 36 (6): 831–50.
Studies 47: 91–117. Ho, Yung-Ching, Hui-Chen Fang, and Jing-Fu Lin. 2011.
Felin, Teppo, and Nicolai J. Foss. 2005. “Strategic Organization: A “Technological and Design Capabilities: Is Ambidexterity
Field in Search of Micro-Foundations.” Strategic Organization 3 Possible?” Management Decision 19 (2): 208–25.
(4): 441–55. Hobday, Mike, Anne Boddington, and Andrew Grantham. 2012a. “An
Felin, Teppo, Nicolai J. Foss, Koen H. Heimeriks, and Tammy L. Innovation Perspective on Design: Part 2.” Design Issues 28 (1):
Madsen. 2012. “Microfoundations of Routines and Capabilities: 18–29.
Individuals, Processes, and Structure. Journal of Management *Hobday, Mike, Anne Boddington, and Andrew Grantham. 2012b.
Studies 49 (8): 1351–74. “Policies for Design and Policies for Innovation: Contrasting
Felin, Teppo, and William S. Hesterly. 2007. “The Knowledge- Perspectives and Remaining Challenges.” Technovation 32 (5):
Based View, Nested Heterogeneity, and New Value Creation: 272–81.
Philosophical Considerations on the Locus of Knowledge.” The *Hunter, Samuel T., Katrina E. Bedell-Avers, Chase M. Hunsicker,
Academy of Management Review 32 (1): 195–218. Michael D. Mumford, and Gina S. Ligon. 2008. “Applying
Few, J. A. 2015. “How Indra Nooyi Turned Design Thinking into Multiple Knowledge Structures in Creative Thought: Effects
Strategy.” Harvard Business Review (2015): 80– 85. https:// on Idea Generation and Problem-Solving.” Creativity Research
hbr.org/2015/09/how-i ndra-n ooyi-t ur ned-d esign-t hink Journal 20 (2): 137–54.
ing-into-strategy. *Johansson- Sköldberg, Ulla, Jill Woodilla, and Mehves Çetinkaya.
Foss, Nicolai J. 2011. “Why Micro-Foundations for Resource-Based 2013. “Design Thinking: Past, Present and Possible Futures.”
Theory are Needed and What They May Look Like.” Journal of Creativity and Innovation Management 22 (2): 121–46.
Management 37 (5): 1413–28. *Jung, Hong Seob, Kyung Hoon Kim, and Chang Han Lee. 2014.
Foss, Nicolai J., and Siegwart Lindenberg. 2013. “Microfoundations “Influences of Perceived Product Innovation upon Usage Behavior
for Strategy: A Goal-Framing Perspective on the Drivers of Value for MMORPG: Product Capability, Technology Capability, and
Creation.” Academy of Management Perspectives 27 (2): 85–102. User Centered Design.” Journal of Business Research 67 (10):
*Geissdoerfer, Martin, Nancy M. P. Bocken, and Erik Jan Hultink. 2016. 2171–8.
“Design Thinking to Enhance the Sustainable Business Modelling *Kanstrup, Anne Marie.2017. “Living in the Lab: An Analysis of the
Process: A Workshop Based on a Value Mapping Process.” Journal WORK in Eight Living Laboratories Set Up in Care Homes for
of Cleaner Production 135: 1218–32. Technology Innovation.” CoDesign 13 (1): 49–64.
Ghezzi, Antonio, Angelo Cavallo, Silvia Sanasi, and Andrea Rangone. *Kesseler, Ernst, and Ed G. Knapen. 2006. “Towards Human-Centred
2020. “Opening Up to Startup Collaborations: Open Business Design: Two Case Studies.” Journal of Systems and Software 79
Models and Value Co-Creation in SMEs.” Competitiveness Review: (3): 301–13.
|
MAGISTRETTI et al.
665
*Kimbell, Lucy.2012. “Rethinking Design Thinking: Part II.” Design *McFadzean, Elspeth.1998. “The Creativity Continuum: Towards a
and Culture 4 (2): 129–48. Classification of Creative Problem Solving Techniques.” Creativity
*Kleinsmann, Maaike, Rianne Valkenburg, and Janneke Sluijs. 2017. and Innovation Management 7 (3): 131–9.
“Capturing the Value of Design Thinking in Different Innovation Meier, Matthias. 2011. “Knowledge Management in Strategic Alliances:
Practices.” International Journal of Design 11 (2): 25–40. A Review of Empirical Evidence.” International Journal of
Knapp, Jake, John Zeratsky, and Braden Kowitz. 2016. Sprint: How to Management Reviews 13 (1): 1–23.
Solve Big Problems and Test New Ideas in Just Five Days. New *Micheli, Pietro, Joe Jaina, Keith Goffin, Fred Lemke, and Roberto
York, NY: Simon and Schuster. Verganti. 2012. “Perceptions of Industrial Design: The “Means”
*Knight, John, Dan Fitton, Charlie Phillips, and Dylan Price. and the “Ends”.” Journal of Product Innovation Management 29
2019. “Design Thinking for Innovation. Stress Testing Human (5): 687–704.
Factors in Ideation Sessions.” The Design Journal 22 (sup1): Micheli, Pietro, Sarah J. S. Wilner, Sabeen Hussain Bhatti, Matteo
1929–39. Mura, and Michael B. Beverland. 2019. “Doing Design Thinking:
Knott, Anne Marie. 2003. “Persistent Heterogeneity and Sustainable Conceptual Review, Synthesis, and Research Agenda.” Journal of
Innovation.” Strategic Management Journal 24 (8): 687–705. Product Innovation Management 36 (2): 124–48.
*Koomans, Maarten, and Carina Hilders. 2016. “Design- Driven *Mitsui, Yasuhiro, and Yukari Nagai. 2014. “Human- Centred
Leadership for Value Innovation in Healthcare.” Design Architectural Design: A Novel Design Method Focusing on
Management Journal 11 (1): 43–57. Prospective Episodic Memories.” Journal of Design Research 12
*Kurtmollaiev, Seidali, Per egil Pedersen, Annita Fjuk, and Knut Kvale. (3): 221–38.
2018. “Developing Managerial Dynamic Capabilities: A Quasi- *Moon, Heekyung, and Sung H. Han. 2016. “A Creative Idea Generation
Experimental Field Study of the Effects of Design Thinking Methodology by Future Envisioning from the User Experience
Training.” Academy of Management Learning & Education 17 (2): Perspective.” International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 56:
184–202. 84–96.
Laaksonen, Ola, and Mirva Peltoniemi. 2018. “The Essence of Dynamic *Noble, Charles H., and Minu Kumar. 2010. “Exploring the Appeal of
Capabilities and their Measurement.” International Journal of Product Design: A Grounded, Value-Based Model of Key Design
Management Reviews 20 (2): 184–205. Elements and Relationships.” Journal of Product Innovation
Lavie, Dovev. 2006. “Capability Reconfiguration: An Analysis of Management 27 (5): 640–57.
Incumbent Responses to Technological Change.” Academy of Nussbaum, B. 2011. “Design Thinking is a Failed Experiment. So
Management Review 31 (1): 153–74. What’s Next?,” Fast Company, April 5, accessed December 29,
*Li, Nancy, Julia Kramer, Pierce Gordon, and Alice Agogino. 2018. 2019, https://www.fastcodesign.com/1663558/design-thinking-is-
“Co-Author Network Analysis of Human- Centered Design for a-failed-experiment-so-whats-next.
Development.” Design Science 4: e10. *Park, Jisoo.2011. “Developing a Knowledge Management System for
*Liedtka, Jeanne.2015. “Perspective: Linking Design Thinking with Storing and Using the Design Knowledge Acquired in the Process
Innovation Outcomes Through Cognitive Bias Reduction.” of a User-Centered Design of the Next Generation Information
Journal of Product Innovation Management 32 (6): 925–38. Appliances.” Design Studies 32 (5): 482–513.
Liedtka, Jeanne. 2020. “Putting Technology in its Place: Design *Paton, Bec, and Kees Dorst. 2011. “Briefing and Reframing: A
Thinking’s Social Technology at Work.” California Management Situated Practice.” Design Studies 32 (6): 573–87.
Review 62 (2): 53–83. *Peschl, Markus F., and Thomas Fundneider. 2014. “Designing and
Liedtka, Jeanne, Awais Sheikh, Cynthia Gilmer, Marilyn Kupetz, Enabling Spaces for Collaborative Knowledge Creation and
and Lynette Wilcox. 2020. “The Use of Design Thinking in the Innovation: From Managing to Enabling Innovation as Socio-
U.S. Federal Government.” Public Performance & Management Epistemological Technology.” Computers in Human Behavior 37:
Review 43 (1): 157–79. 346–59.
*Magalhães, Rodrigo.2018. “Human- Centred Organization Design.” *Porcini, Mauro.2009. “Your New Design Process is Not Enough—
The Design Journal 21 (2): 227–46. Hire Design Thinkers!” Design Management Review 20 (3): 6–18.
Magistretti, Stefano, Claudio Dell'Era, and Nicola Doppio. 2020. Randhawa, Krithika, Ralf Wilden, and Jan Hohberger. 2016. “A Bibliometric
“Design Sprint for SMEs: An Organizational Taxonomy based Review of Open Innovation: Setting a Research Agenda.” Journal of
on Configuration Theory.” Management Decision 58 (9): Product Innovation Management 33 (6): 750–72.
1803–1817. Ravasi, Davide, and Ileana Stigliani. 2012. “Product Design: A Review
*Manzini, Ezio, and Francesca Rizzo. 2011. “Small Projects/Large and Research Agenda for Management Studies.” International
Changes: Participatory Design as an Open Participated Process.” Journal of Management Reviews 14 (4): 464–88.
CoDesign 7 (3–4): 199–215. *Ray, Deepa K., and Nicholas C. Romano. 2013. “Creative Problem
Martin, Roger L. 2009. The Design of Business: Why Design Thinking Solving in GSS Groups: Do Creative Styles Matter?” Group
is the Next Competitive Advantage. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Decision and Negotiation 22 (6): 1129–57.
Business Press. *Roth, Steffen, Dirk Schneckenberg, and Chia-Wen Tsai. 2015. “The
*Martin, Roger L.2011. “The Innovation Catalysts.” Harvard Business Ludic Drive as Innovation Driver: Introduction to the Gamification
Review 89 (6): 82–7. of Innovation.” Creativity and Innovation Management 24 (2):
Mazzucchelli, Alice, Roberto Chierici, Tindara Abbate, and Stefano 300–6.
Fontana. 2019. “Exploring the Microfoundations of Innovation *Roy, Robin, and James P. Warren. 2019. “Card-Based Design Tools:
Capabilities. Evidence from a Cross-Border R&D Partnership.” A Review and Analysis of 155 Card Decks for Designers and
Technological Forecasting and Social Change 146: 242–52. Designing.” Design Studies 63: 125–54.
|
Salvato, Carlo, and Roberto Vassolo. 2018. “The Sources of Dynamism Teece, David J. 2007. “Explicating Dynamic Capabilities: The Nature
in Dynamic Capabilities.” Strategic Management Journal 39 (6): and Microfoundations of (Sustainable) Enterprise Performance.”
1728–52. Strategic Management Journal 28 (13): 1319–50.
*Sanders, Elizabeth B.-N., and Pieter Jan Stappers. 2008. “Co- Teece, David J. 2012. “Dynamic Capabilities: Routines Versus
Creation and the New Landscapes of Design.” Co-Design 4 Entrepreneurial Action.” Journal of Management Studies 49 (8):
(1): 5–18. 1395–401.
Savino, Tommaso, Antonio Messeni Petruzzelli, and Vito Albino. 2017. Teece, David J. 2014. “The Foundations of Enterprise Performance:
“Search and Recombination Process to Innovate: A Review of Dynamic and Ordinary Capabilities in an (Economic) Theory
the Empirical Evidence and a Research Agenda.” International of Firms.” Academy of Management Perspectives 28 (4):
Journal of Management Reviews 19 (1): 54–75. 328–52.
Schilke, Oliver, Songcui Hu, and Constance E. Helfat. 2018. “Quo Teece, David J. 2018. “Business Models and Dynamic Capabilities.”
Vadis, Dynamic Capabilities? A Content-Analytic Review of Long Range Planning 51 (1): 40–9.
the Current State of Knowledge and Recommendations for Teece, David J., Gary Pisano, and Amy Shuen. 1997. “Dynamic
Future Research.” Academy of Management Annals 12 (1): Capabilities and Strategic Management.” Strategic Management
390–439. Journal 18 (7): 509–33.
*Seidel, Victor P., and Sebastian K. Fixson. 2013. “Adopting Design Tranfield, David, David Denyer, and Palminder Smart. 2003. “Towards
Thinking in Novice Multidisciplinary Teams: The Application and a Methodology for Developing Evidence-Informed Management
Limits of Design Methods and Reflexive Practices.” Journal of Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review.” British Journal of
Product Innovation Management 30: 19–33. Management 14 (3): 207–22.
*Shapira, Hila, Adela Ketchie, and Meret Nehe. 2017. “The Integration *van der Bijl-Brouwer, Mieke, and Kees Dorst. 2017. “Advancing the
of Design Thinking and Strategic Sustainable Development.” Strategic Impact of Human-Centred Design.” Design Studies 53:
Journal of Cleaner Production 140: 277–87. 1–23.
Shepherd, Neil Gareth, and John Maynard Rudd. 2014. “The Influence *Verganti, Roberto.2008. “Design, Meanings, and Radical Innovation:
of Context on the Strategic Decision-Making Process: A Review A Metamodel and a Research Agenda.” Journal of Product
of the Literature.” International Journal of Management Reviews Innovation Management 25 (5): 436–56.
16 (3): 340–64. *Verganti, Roberto.2011. “Radical Design and Technology Epiphanies:
Slater, Stanley F., Jakki J. Mohr, and Sanjit Sengupta. 2014. “Radical A New Focus for Research on Design Management.” Journal of
Product Innovation Capability.” Journal of Product Innovation Product Innovation Management 28 (3): 384–8.
Management 31: 552–66. Verganti, Roberto. 2016. “The Innovative Power of Criticism.” Harvard
*Sleeswijk Visser, Froukje, Remko van der Lugt, and Pieter Jan Business Review 94 (1): 18.
Stappers. 2007. “Sharing User Experiences in the Product Verganti, Roberto. 2017. “Design Thinkers Think Like Managers.”
Innovation Process: Participatory Design Needs Participatory She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation 3 (2):
Communication.” Creativity and Innovation Management 16 (1): 100–2.
35–45. *Vetterli, Christophe, Falk Uebernickel, Walter Brenner, Charles Petrie,
*Smith, Shana, Gregory Smith, and Ying-Ting Shen. 2012. “Redesign and Dirk Stermann. 2016. “How Deutsche Bank’s IT Division used
for Product Innovation.” Design Studies 33 (2): 160–84. Design Thinking to Achieve Customer Proximity.” MIS Quarterly
*Snyder, Kristen, Pernilla Ingelsson, and Ingela Bäckström. 2018. Executive 15 (1): 37–53.
“Using Design Thinking to Support Value-Based Leadership for Vogel, Craig M. 2009. “Notes on the Evolution of Design Thinking:
Sustainable Quality Development.” Business Process Management A WORK in Progress.” Design Management Review 20 (2):
Journal 24 (6): 1289–301. 16–27.
*Sohaib, Osama, Hiralkumari Solanki, Navkiran Dhaliwa, Walayat Winter, Sidney G. 2003. “Understanding Dynamic Capabilities.”
Hussain, and Muhammad Asif. 2019. “Integrating Design Thinking Strategic Management Journal 24 (10): 991–5.
into Extreme Programming.” Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Winter, Sidney G. 2012. “Capabilities: Their Origins and Ancestry.”
Humanized Computing 10 (6): 2485–92. Journal of Management Studies 49 (8): 1402–6.
*Stephens, John Paul, and Brodie J. Boland. 2015. “The Aesthetic *Wylant, Barry.2008. “Design Thinking and the Experience of
Knowledge Problem of Problem-Solving with Design Thinking.” Innovation.” Design Issues 24 (2): 3–14.
Journal of Management Inquiry 24 (3): 219–32. Xue, Jie, and K. Scott Swan. 2020. “An Investigation of the
Storbacka, Kaj, Roderick J. Brodie, Tilo Böhmann, Paul P. Maglio, and Complementary Effects of Technology, Market, and Design
Suvi Nenonen. 2016. “Actor Engagement as a Microfoundation Capabilities on Exploratory and Exploitative Innovations:
for Value Co-Creation.” Journal of Business Research 69 (8): Evidence from Micro and Small-Sized Tech Enterprises in China.”
3008–17. Creativity and Innovation Management 29 (S1): 27–50.
*Strike, Vanessa M., and Claus Rerup. 2016. “Mediated Sensemaking.” *Yoo, Youngjin, and Kyungmook Kim. 2015. “How Samsung
Academy of Management Journal 59 (3): 880–905. Became a Design Powerhouse.” Harvard Business Review 93
Swan, K. Scott, Masaaki Kotabe, and Brent B. Allred. 2005. “Exploring (9): 73–8.
Robust Design Capabilities, Their Role in Creating Global Zeratsky, John. 2016. “Sprints are the Secret to Getting More Done.”,
Products, and Their Relationship to Firm Performance.” Journal Harvard Business Review, HBR Guide to Being More Productive.
of Product Innovation Management 22 (2): 144–64. Harvard. https://hbr.org/2016/03/sprints-are-the-secret-to-getti
*Taffe, Simone. 2018. “Generate Don’t Evaluate: How Can ng-more- done.
Codesign Benefit Communication Designers?” CoDesign 14 *Zheng, Dan- Ling. 2018. “Design Thinking is Ambidextrous.”
(4): 345–65. Management Decision 56 (4): 736–56.
|
MAGISTRETTI et al.
667
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES Antonio Messeni Petruzzelli is Full Professor

of Innovation Management and founder of the
Stefano Magistretti is assistant professor in in- Innovation-Management Group at the Politecnico
novation and design management at the School of di Bari. He currently serves also as visiting profes-
Management, Politecnico di Milano, and a senior sor and member of the advisory board of the Digital
researcher in the LEADIN’Lab, the Laboratory of Leadership Research Centre of Cass Business
LEAdership, Design, and INnovation. Within the School. Prof. Messeni Petruzzelli is the author of
School of Management, he also serve as Research more than 110 international publications and three
Platform Development for the Observatory Design international books on the topic of innovation man-
Thinking for Business. He has published confer- agement and technology strategy. His studies have
ence articles and a chapter in an edited book, as been published in leading journals such as Research
well as more than 10 articles in journals such as Policy, Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice,
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, R&D Academy of Management Perspectives, Journal of
Management, Industry & Innovation, Business Management, International Journal of Management
Horizons, Creativity and Innovation Management, Reviews, Journal of World Business, and Long
Journal of Knowledge Management, Management Range Planning. He belongs to the editorial team of
Decision, Research Technology Management, Technovation, Journal of Knowledge Management,
Innovation Organization & Management, and and Technological Forecasting and Social Change.
Technology Analysis and Strategic Management Finally, his studies have been awarded the Nokia
Journal. Siemens Network Award in Technology Management
for Innovation into the Future.
Lorenzo Ardito is an Assistant Professor at the
Polytechnic University of Bari (qualified to the
position of Associate Professor) and an Institute SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Fellow at the Mount Royal University (Canada). Additional Supporting Information may be found online in
He has been an Assistant Professor at the Campus the Supporting Information section.
‘Bio-Medico’ University of Rome and a visiting Supplementary Material
PhD candidate at the WHU-Otto Beisheim School
of Management. His main research interests lie at
the intersection of innovation management, sus- How to cite this article: Magistretti, Stefano, Ardito,
tainable development, and digital transformation. Lorenzo, and Messeni Petruzzelli, Antonio. 2021.
His studies are made in collaboration with schol- “Framing the Microfoundations of Design Thinking as a
ars worldwide and have been published in lead- Dynamic Capability for Innovation: Reconciling Theory
ing international journals, e.g., Journal of Product and Practice.” Journal of Product Innovation
Innovation Management, Technovation, Journal Management 38: 645–667. https://doi.org/10.1111/
of Business Research, Technological Forecasting jpim.12586
and Social Change, R&D Management, Business
Strategy and the Environment, Corporate Social
Responsibility and Environmental Management.
He serves as Editorial Board Member and/or Guest
Editor for many journals, e.g., Journal of Knowledge
Management, Corporate Social Responsibility and
Environmental Management, International Journal of
Technology Management, Current Issues in Tourism,
Sustainability, Cogent Business & Management. He
is the Dean for Research and Scientific Collaboration
of the Innovation Management Group at the
Polytechnic University of Bari and has been involved
in many projects as co-coordinator or participant.

J of Product Innov Manag - 2021 - Magistretti - Framing The Microfoundations of Design Thinking As A Dynamic Capability For PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

J of Product Innov Manag - 2021 - Magistretti - Framing The Microfoundations of Design Thinking As A Dynamic Capability For PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

J of Product Innov Manag - 2021 - Magistretti - Framing The Microfoundations of Design Thinking As A Dynamic Capability For PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

|

Received: 28 January 2020 Accepted: 13 April 2021

Framing the microfoundations of design thinking as a dynamic

Stefano Magistretti1 | Lorenzo Ardito2,3 | Antonio Messeni Petruzzelli4

Guest Editors: Roberto Verganti,

1 | IN T RO D U C T IO N and the bring-­build-­buy map) can help nondesigners (e.g.,

J Prod Innov Manag. 2021;38:645–667. ﻿ |

designers’ sensibility and methods, DT can be conceived as a

2.4 | Combining DT, dynamic

T A B L E 2 Inclusion and exclusion criteria

No. Inclusion criteria Reason for inclusion

No. Exclusion criteria Reason for exclusion

F I G U R E 1 The data gathering process

T A B L E 3 Summary of research findings for the sensing dynamic capability

Microfoundations Core findings Key references

4.2.2 | Processes and interactions 4.2.3 | Structure

T A B L E 4 Summary of research findings for the seizing dynamic capability

Microfoundations Core findings Key references

T A B L E 5 Summary of research findings for the reconfiguring dynamic capability

Microfoundations Core findings Key references

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES Antonio Messeni Petruzzelli is Full Professor

You might also like

1 | IN T RO D U C T IO N and the bring-build-buy map) can help nondesigners (e.g.,

J Prod Innov Manag. 2021;38:645–667. |