Parts Without a Whole? – The Current State of Design Thinking Practice in Organizations

D-14482 Potsdam, Germany
http://www.hpi.uni-potsdam.de
Wort-Bild-Marke | Zusatz einzeilig | Pantone uncoated | Größe 40 | Name: hpi_logo_pcu_wb_sl1
Parts Without a Whole?
The Current State of Design Thinking Practice in Organizations
Jan Schmiedgen (HPDTRP, Team “Impact by Design”) @ Design Thinking Week Warsaw 2015, 
Centrum Zarządzania Innowacjami i Transferem Technologii Politechniki Warszawskiej Nov 6th 2015

2
People
Rewards Process
Structure
Strategy

We did a study
Goal: disclose the continuum of design thinking applications in practice
WITHOUT A WHOLE?
P
A
R
T
S
The Current State of Design ThinkingPractice in Organizations
Jan Schmiedgen
Holger Rhinow
Eva Köppen
Christoph Meinel
study report
Hasso-plattner-Institute,university of potsdam, March 2015
3
- 1 -  
Survey (235 qualified responses)
Online questionnaire sent to an international mailing
list of design thinking practitioners and spread via social
media channels.
1.1 - Closed questions
Basic statistics and interrogation  
of some constructs from literature
1.2 - Open-ended questions
Patterns of interpretation and  
emerging themes
- 2 - 
Qualitative  
Interviews
Individual interviews with 
16 selected practitioners  
(from nine organizations)  
based on the first analyses
- 3 -
Final
Analysis
bit.ly/HPI-DT-study
thisisdesignthinking.net

4Heat Map: Responses per country (n = 165)0 100%

Not only for start-up’s!
Design thinking has become respectable.
5Size of organizations in the sample: n=118 (EC SME/US Department of Trade classiﬁcation)
≥ 250
50 to 249
10 to 49
1 to 9
Medium > # of Employees: 
50–249 12%.
Small > # of Employees:  
10–49 26%.
Large > # of Employees: 
250–9999 36%.
Micro > # of Employees:  
1–9 26%.

The corporates are serious
Profit-oriented organizations dominate the sample
profit-oriented
non-profit
governmental
public-private partnership
other
6n = 219; each organization included only once
65%
15,91%
8,64%
65%
8,18%
2,27%

People
Rewards Process
Structure
Strategy
1.36%,
Accommodation and
food service activities
0.68%,  
Activities of extraterritorial
organizations and bodies 2.04%, 
Administrative and support
service activities
2.04%, 
Arts,
entertainment
and recreation
1.36%, 
Construction
18%, 
Education
1.36%, 
Electricity gas, steam
and air conditioning
supply,
6.80%, 
Financial and  
insurance activities
2.04%, 
Human health
and social work
activities
4.76%, 
Manufacturing
22%,  
Information and communication
19%, 
Other service activities
8.84%, 
Professional, scientiﬁc 
and technical activities
3.40%,
Public administration
and defense;
compulsory social
security
1.36%, 
Transportation and
storage
4.76%, 
Wholesale and
retail trade;
repair of motor
vehicles and
motorcycles
Industry sectors (n = 147)
41%
1
23
4
Design thinking is everywhere

Seventy-ﬁve percent of our respondents have
four years or less of design thinking experience
Some however practice it for a long time already
8
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34
*
n = 223; * organizations that just started in the ﬁrst half of 2014

People learn design thinking via a multitude of channels
Some managers even lead teams without knowing the concept themselves
Educational institution
I taught it to myself
Own organizational (internal) coaches
Other channels
External agency, consultancy or coach
I haven’t learned it yet* 15
24
29
46
81
145
9
How did you learn design thinking? (multiple answers possible; n = 232 respondents with n = 340 answers),  
* = Managers who lead design thinking teams but do not practice the concept themselves.
15

[1]  
Iterative working
 
[2]  
»Alternative« approach to problem solving
 
[3]  
More empathy for the user
 
[4]  
Improved organization of collaboration
 
… …
10
♂♂♂♂♂♂♂
♂
n = 219, coded free-text answers
What is design thinking for you personally?
We are interested to ﬁnd out what you refer to as »design thinking«.

Design thinking know-how is predominantly localized with  
specialized corporate functions somewhere in organizations
11How is design thinking embedded into your corporate culture? (n = 206)
27,2%
17,5%
72,3%
21,4%
on the
periphery
somewhere in
the organization
at the core of
the organization
intrinsic to
organization
e.g. booked as
external resource
e.g. Ux or R&D  
department
overall
culture
e.g. for strategic
decision making

Design thinking activities
Where are they localized in organizations?
12
Research and Development
Marketing
Consulting (Internal & External)
IT
Sales
Human Resources
Operations and Manufacturing
Finance and Accounting
Other 6
11
24
37
43
49
66
85
125
To your knowledge: In which areas of your organization is/was design thinking applied? (n = 208; multiple answers possible)
85
125

A Spectrum of Design Thinking Adoption
“How was design thinking applied in

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5
T6 T7 T8 T9 T10
T11 T12 T13 T14 T15
T16 T17 T18 T19 T20
To your knowledge: How was design thinking applied in #department?
Areas of application for design thinking in organizations
> 20 occurrences
< 5 occurrences
< 8 occurrences
< 20 occurrences
Emerging patterns, isolated from 208 free-text answers (not all are mutually exclusive, ordered according to their frequency of mention). 14

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5
T6 T7 T8 T9 T10
T11 T12 T13 T14 T15
T16 T17 T18 T19 T20
> 20 occurrences
< 5 occurrences
< 8 occurrences
< 20 occurrences
Service provision for internal
clients – or – Internal change
program.

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5
T6 T7 T8 T9 T10
T11 T12 T13 T14 T15
T16 T17 T18 T19 T20
> 20 occurrences
< 5 occurrences
< 8 occurrences
< 20 occurrences
New product and 
service development

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5
T6 T7 T8 T9 T10
T11 T12 T13 T14 T15
T16 T17 T18 T19 T20
> 20 occurrences
< 5 occurrences
< 8 occurrences
< 20 occurrences
Better alignment,
collaboration and
knowledge transfer

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5
T6 T7 T8 T9 T10
T11 T12 T13 T14 T15
T16 T17 T18 T19 T20
> 20 occurrences
< 5 occurrences
< 8 occurrences
< 20 occurrences
Gaining empathy and devlop
a better understanding of
customers and users

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5
T6 T7 T8 T9 T10
T11 T12 T13 T14 T15
T16 T17 T18 T19 T20
> 20 occurrences
< 5 occurrences
< 8 occurrences
< 20 occurrences
Improve internal business
processes and organizational
structures

20
Finance & Accounting HR R&D Operations & Manufacturing IT Marketing Other Sales Consulting
3%2%2%3%
54%
46%42%
37%
26%26%23%
8%10%
38%
37%
26%
21%
26%26%
23%
19%
10%
8%
17%
29%
39%
47%47%
52%
72%
80%
internal only internal & external external only otherHow was design thinking applied in ‘corporate function’?, n = 221
Operations & 
Manufacturing
Finance &  
Accounting
n = 10 n = 36 n = 120 n = 19 n = 47 n = 84 n = 38 n = 41 n = 64
T5: Improve internal business processes and organizational structures
Design thinking is not only used to innovate market offerings

20
3%2%2%3%
54%
46%42%
37%
26%26%23%
8%10%
38%
37%
26%
21%
26%26%
23%
19%
10%
8%
17%
29%
39%
47%47%
52%
72%
80%
Operations & 
Manufacturing
Finance &  
Accounting
n = 10 n = 36 n = 120 n = 19 n = 47 n = 84 n = 38 n = 41 n = 64
“compliance
management:
find creative
ways how to
get staff to
comply to
procedure”

20
3%2%2%3%
54%
46%42%
37%
26%26%23%
8%10%
38%
37%
26%
21%
26%26%
23%
19%
10%
8%
17%
29%
39%
47%47%
52%
72%
80%
Operations & 
Manufacturing
Finance &  
Accounting
n = 10 n = 36 n = 120 n = 19 n = 47 n = 84 n = 38 n = 41 n = 64
“compliance
management:
find creative
ways how to
get staff to
comply to
procedure”
“create a
dashboard for
the CFO”

20
3%2%2%3%
54%
46%42%
37%
26%26%23%
8%10%
38%
37%
26%
21%
26%26%
23%
19%
10%
8%
17%
29%
39%
47%47%
52%
72%
80%
Operations & 
Manufacturing
Finance &  
Accounting
n = 10 n = 36 n = 120 n = 19 n = 47 n = 84 n = 38 n = 41 n = 64
“compliance
management:
find creative
ways how to
get staff to
comply to
procedure”
“design the process of
relocating people”
“create a
dashboard for
the CFO”

20
3%2%2%3%
54%
46%42%
37%
26%26%23%
8%10%
38%
37%
26%
21%
26%26%
23%
19%
10%
8%
17%
29%
39%
47%47%
52%
72%
80%
Operations & 
Manufacturing
Finance &  
Accounting
n = 10 n = 36 n = 120 n = 19 n = 47 n = 84 n = 38 n = 41 n = 64
“compliance
management:
find creative
ways how to
get staff to
comply to
procedure”
“create a
dashboard for
the CFO”
“introduce the T-
profile to better
choose applicants”

20
3%2%2%3%
54%
46%42%
37%
26%26%23%
8%10%
38%
37%
26%
21%
26%26%
23%
19%
10%
8%
17%
29%
39%
47%47%
52%
72%
80%
Operations & 
Manufacturing
Finance &  
Accounting
n = 10 n = 36 n = 120 n = 19 n = 47 n = 84 n = 38 n = 41 n = 64
“compliance
management:
find creative
ways how to
get staff to
comply to
procedure”
“structuring logistics
processes”“create a
dashboard for
the CFO”
“introduce the T-
profile to better

20
3%2%2%3%
54%
46%42%
37%
26%26%23%
8%10%
38%
37%
26%
21%
26%26%
23%
19%
10%
8%
17%
29%
39%
47%47%
52%
72%
80%
Operations & 
Manufacturing
Finance &  
Accounting
n = 10 n = 36 n = 120 n = 19 n = 47 n = 84 n = 38 n = 41 n = 64
“compliance
management:
find creative
ways how to
get staff to
comply to
procedure”
“rethink sales and
bidding processes”
dashboard for
the CFO”
“introduce the T-
profile to better

20
3%2%2%3%
54%
46%42%
37%
26%26%23%
8%10%
38%
37%
26%
21%
26%26%
23%
19%
10%
8%
17%
29%
39%
47%47%
52%
72%
80%
Operations & 
Manufacturing
Finance &  
Accounting
n = 10 n = 36 n = 120 n = 19 n = 47 n = 84 n = 38 n = 41 n = 64
“compliance
management:
find creative
ways how to
get staff to
comply to
procedure”
“redesign the
effectiveness
of the bonus
model”“rethink sales and
bidding processes”
dashboard for
the CFO”
“introduce the T-
profile to better

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5
T6 T7 T8 T9 T10
T11 T12 T13 T14 T15
T16 T17 T18 T19 T20
> 20 occurrences
< 5 occurrences
< 8 occurrences
< 20 occurrences
Improve internal business
processes and organizational
structures
It seems easier to  
start internally and get
acquainted to DT: There 
is so much in need of
improvement …

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5
T6 T7 T8 T9 T10
T11 T12 T13 T14 T15
T16 T17 T18 T19 T20
> 20 occurrences
< 5 occurrences
< 8 occurrences
< 20 occurrences
Commercial innovation &
more efficient, insights-
driven marketing campaigns

23
“added value communication to sell …  
in a more effective way”
“better marketing and sales material”
“better positioning”
“brand redesign”
T6: »Commercial innovation« and more efficient, insights-driven marketing campaigns
A natural evolution towards design thinking proﬁciency?

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5
T6 T7 T8 T9 T10
T11 T12 T13 T14 T15
T16 T17 T18 T19 T20
> 20 occurrences
< 5 occurrences
< 8 occurrences
< 20 occurrences
Commercial innovation &
more efficient, insights-
driven marketing campaigns
Organizations tend to begin in areas,
which are perceived as ‘natural
neighbours’, ‘easy’ or ‘quick wins’.

T6: »Commercial innovation« and more efficient, insights-driven marketing campaigns
A natural evolution towards design thinking proﬁciency?
Image source: Intuit’s SmallBusinessBigGame initiative (www.smallbusinessbiggame.com)
 
“[Commercial innovation] is not 
the best space to innovate in.”
 
“[But you have] to be 
opportunistic. It’s easier to 
swim downstream first.”
Karen Hanson, Intuit Vice President of Design Innovation

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5
T6 T7 T8 T9 T10
T11 T12 T13 T14 T15
T16 T17 T18 T19 T20
> 20 occurrences
< 5 occurrences
< 8 occurrences
< 20 occurrences
Internal staff training
for a human/customer-
centered mindset

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5
T6 T7 T8 T9 T10
T11 T12 T13 T14 T15
T16 T17 T18 T19 T20
> 20 occurrences
< 5 occurrences
< 8 occurrences
< 20 occurrences
Toolbox

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5
T6 T7 T8 T9 T10
T11 T12 T13 T14 T15
T16 T17 T18 T19 T20
> 20 occurrences
< 5 occurrences
< 8 occurrences
< 20 occurrences
Improve
teaching and
training formats

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5
T6 T7 T8 T9 T10
T11 T12 T13 T14 T15
T16 T17 T18 T19 T20
> 20 occurrences
< 5 occurrences
< 8 occurrences
< 20 occurrences
Increase
team
creativity

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5
T6 T7 T8 T9 T10
T11 T12 T13 T14 T15
T16 T17 T18 T19 T20
> 20 occurrences
< 5 occurrences
< 8 occurrences
< 20 occurrences
Customer
engagement
and co-creation

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5
T6 T7 T8 T9 T10
T11 T12 T13 T14 T15
T16 T17 T18 T19 T20
> 20 occurrences
< 5 occurrences
< 8 occurrences
< 20 occurrences
PR and reputation
management
vehicle

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5
T6 T7 T8 T9 T10
T11 T12 T13 T14 T15
T16 T17 T18 T19 T20
> 20 occurrences
< 5 occurrences
< 8 occurrences
< 20 occurrences
Service & experience
design improvement

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5
T6 T7 T8 T9 T10
T11 T12 T13 T14 T15
T16 T17 T18 T19 T20
> 20 occurrences
< 5 occurrences
< 8 occurrences
< 20 occurrences
Test assumptions;
iterate solutions

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5
T6 T7 T8 T9 T10
T11 T12 T13 T14 T15
T16 T17 T18 T19 T20
> 20 occurrences
< 5 occurrences
< 8 occurrences
< 20 occurrences
BMD and go-to-
market strategy
development

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5
T6 T7 T8 T9 T10
T11 T12 T13 T14 T15
T16 T17 T18 T19 T20
> 20 occurrences
< 5 occurrences
< 8 occurrences
< 20 occurrences
Attractive
recruiting tool

T16: Attractive recruiting tool
Design thinking as a public relations 
and reputation management vehicle
“part of our recruiting and  
candidate experience”
“demonstrate action leadership”
“look good at trade fairs”
“employer branding”
“publicity”
36

“part of our recruiting and  
candidate experience”
“demonstrate action leadership”
“look good at trade fairs”
“employer branding”
“publicity”
37
T16: Attractive recruiting tool
Design thinking as a public relations 
and reputation management vehicle

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5
T6 T7 T8 T9 T10
T11 T12 T13 T14 T15
T16 T17 T18 T19 T20
> 20 occurrences
< 5 occurrences
< 8 occurrences
< 20 occurrences
Attractive
recruiting tool
Organizations believe that
design thinking is how  
people want (them) to work.

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5
T6 T7 T8 T9 T10
T11 T12 T13 T14 T15
T16 T17 T18 T19 T20
> 20 occurrences
< 5 occurrences
< 8 occurrences
< 20 occurrences
More efficient
meetings and
arrangements

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5
T6 T7 T8 T9 T10
T11 T12 T13 T14 T15
T16 T17 T18 T19 T20
> 20 occurrences
< 5 occurrences
< 8 occurrences
< 20 occurrences
Demand generation
and customer
acquisition

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5
T6 T7 T8 T9 T10
T11 T12 T13 T14 T15
T16 T17 T18 T19 T20
> 20 occurrences
< 5 occurrences
< 8 occurrences
< 20 occurrences
Improvement of
existing innovation
process

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5
T6 T7 T8 T9 T10
T11 T12 T13 T14 T15
T16 T17 T18 T19 T20
> 20 occurrences
< 5 occurrences
< 8 occurrences
< 20 occurrences
Improve style of
design outcomes

The ‘utilitarian and spiritual poles’ of a lively debate
43
Tool(box) Mindset
mechanistic, technocratic
spiritual, philosophical
Method / Process Methodology
prescriptive discourses descriptive discourses
Respondents and interviewees answers could be grouped along a spectrum between two extreme poles
“toolbox”
“technique of  
interviewing users”
“the five steps of …”
“a combination of …”
“A set of …”
“it’s how I live ...”
“how you work ...”

The impact of design thinking?
44
71%of respondents say that
design thinking improved
their working culture.
What is your impression of the impact of design thinking in your organization? 
(Multiple answers possible, n = 181 for all organizations; *only n = 111 for-proﬁt organizations received these questions)

44
69%of respondents say that design
thinking makes their innovation
processes more efficient.

44
69%of respondents say that design
thinking makes their innovation
processes more efficient.
29%of respondents say that design thinking
helps them increasing their sales. *

10%of our respondents stopped
their officially supported
design thinking initiatives.
Sounds good, doesn’t it? Well, the path can be a rocky one …
45
Design thinking 
as one-off affair 1
Lacking understanding and 
support from management 2
Failed diffusion and 
implementation 3
Does your organization still use design thinking until today? (n = 235); Why did your organization stop using design thinking? (n = 23)

“We just tried it one time - we were never  
able to bring it back to our companies.”
 
“Brainstorming was much faster and  
needed less management resources.”
 
“We had a lot of problems, convincing 
people that we are doing useful work. 
Just the name ‘design thinking’. People 
[…] laughed at it.”
46Why did your organization stop using design thinking? (n = 23) Clustered themes from 23 free-text answers plus one selected example answer per category
Sounds good, doesn’t it? Well, the path can be a rocky one …
Design thinking 
as one-off affair 1
Lacking understanding and 
support from management 2
Failed diffusion and 
implementation 3

Design thinking never comes alone
The ‘hen-egg challenge’ of innovation capability building
47
Building  
Innovation 
Capabilities
Using  
Design 
Thinking
Changing 
Mindset
An illustration of the interplay between innovation capabilities (IC) and the use of DT, in relation to building innovation capabilities in an organization.
Carlgren, L. (2013). Design thinking as an enabler of innovation: Exploring the concept and its relation to building innovation capabilities (Doctoral thesis). Chalmers University of Technology, p. 62
Start
everywhere
simultaneously - but
in most contexts:
start small!

Case Study #1: Intuit
Deconstructing the »Design for Delight« (D4D) program

Intuit’s core principles
49Source: © Intuit 2015

50
People
Rewards Process
Structure
StrategyStrategy

51
People
Rewards Process
Structure
StrategyStrategy

52
People
Rewards Process
Structure
StrategyStrategy

53
People
Rewards Process
Structure
StrategyStrategy

‘Democratized innovation’
Intuit’s most pronounced building blocks
 
Unstructured Time 
10% time to pursue own ideas
 
200 People Innovation Catalysts Network 
Drive D4D in the DNA to drive innovation
 
Rapid Experiments, Lean Start-ins 
Testing hypotheses with customers ’in the wild’
 
Idea Jams 
Dedicated day to move ideas forward
 
Innovation Awards 
3 months time for top innovators

 
 
 
 
Idea Jams 
 

 
 
 
 
Idea Jams 
 
O
d
t
RAPID EXPERIMENTATION TOOLS - the NEXT tool
Hypotheses -
OUR VISION - A bold statement about the opportunitybased on our customer-backed insight(s) OUR IDEA - A concept that delivers on our vision and customer needs
2
Hypothesis = “If we do X, Y% of people willbehave in way Z”
Our Experiments -Brainstorm potential experiments we can run quickly (starting today/tomorrow for example) to test our
hypothesis. Select 2 experiments, build them and go out in the real world to test them.
?
Most important
Not as important
What did we learn? -What did our experiments reveal about our hypothesis. What did we learn? What surprised us? Did
we uncover any insights? How would we run the experiment differently?
Our decision -
Based on our learnings, what would we do next?
Experiments we will run (narrow to 2)
Description:
Metrics:
Description:
Metrics:
Experiment 1
Experiment 2
We invalidated our leap of faith assumption.We need to pivot our idea and go back tothe drawing board.
We did NOT invalidate our leap of faith assumption.
We need to run more experiments or start testing ournext leap of faith assumption.
Intuit | D4D Rapid Experimentation
?
Experiments we could run (go broad)
Change the idea (Pivot)?
Keep going (Persevere)?
3
5
4
The next decision tool
NEXT
OUR INSIGHT(S) - An a-ha that changes your perspective and makes
you think beyond your customer’s expectations.
1 Leap of faith assumptions -Riskiest assumptions about our idea that’s keeping us up at night
(if people don’t behave this way, we need to change our idea).
Sequence your leap of faithassumptions and tackle themone at a time (start with riskiest)
-
-
-
-
-
Brainstorm a list of solutions/features that could prompt the behavior
change underlined in the selected leap of faith assumption
Selected leap
of faith
Selected
hypothesis
Description:
Metrics:
Description:
Metrics:
known
unknown
Customers
expect to pay 1st
employee in less
than 20 minutes
Pay you first
employee in less
than 5 minutes
Employers choose to
Pay Now instead of
Finish Set Up
Employers that
choose Pay Now will
write checks
at a higher rate
Employers thatchoose Pay Now
will become billingcustomers
1
2
3
Employers
choose to Pay
Now instead
of Finish
Set Up
If we enable Pay Now,
80% will complete
tax set up in time
for 1st tax payment
If we present Pay
Now, 55% will
choose it
Pay Now
test:
pay now vs.
finish
set up
Pay now
A/B test
Pay now vs.
finish
set up
# of
employers
who choose
Pay Now
Pay Now
option
An option within Intuit OnlinePayroll where employers can deferfull set up until after payingemployees
If we present Pay
Now, 55% will
choose it
learning: Majority of
employers prefer to pay
first and then finish
full set up
58% chose
Pay Now
only 18%
approved
checks the
same day
If we enable Pay
Now, 40% will run a
second payroll
after 2
weeks, 32%
paid
employees
Next steps:
run
experiment
#2
Use
Paycheck
City to
calculate
check
Default tax
set up and
have care
agents set
up later
Pay now with
no prior
payroll and
safe state
defaults
Enable Pay
Now (no prior
payroll +
safe state
defaults)
# of
employers
complete
2nd payroll

57
People
Rewards Process
Structure
StrategyStrategy

58
People
Rewards Process
Structure
Strategy
Process
Structure

59
People
Rewards Process
Structure
Strategy
Structure
Process

60
People
Rewards Process
Structure
Strategy
Structure
Process

61
People
Rewards Process
Structure
Strategy
Structure
Process

62
People
Rewards Process
Structure
Strategy
Structure
Process

63
People
Rewards Process
Structure
Strategy
Structure
Process

64
People
Rewards Process
Structure
Strategy
Structure
Process

65
People
Rewards Process
Structure
Strategy
Structure
Process
Source: © Intuit 2014, Michele Marut, http://de.slideshare.net/IntuitInc/marut-convey-ux-31225838

66
included in the vision.
Our Idea
while highlighting the customer. Fthe outcome the user is trying to a
Leap of Faith Assumptionthe customer behaviors that mustplace, and the most “unknown” asstions. ‘If you build it, they will comeat the right altitude.
Our Hypotheseswith your Leap of Faith. Choose numtargets that inspire your team, andbehaviors that are measurable.
Our Experimentsbehaviors that align with yourhypothesis. Collect “currency” fromcustomers as a way to measure realinterest, and encourage teams to beopen to surprises as well as collectmetrics. Make sure the experimentwill test your Leap of Faith.
What did we learncritical insights because they don’tperceive them to be important.Encourage teams to build on theiroriginal insights and vision.
Our decision
decision is often to persevere, so pushteams to make a strong case if that’s
RAPID EXPERIMENTATION TOOLS - the NEXT tool
Hypotheses -
OUR VISION - A bold statement about the opportunitybased on our customer-backed insight(s) OUR IDEA - A concept that delivers on our vision and customer needs
2
Hypothesis = “If we do X, Y% of people willbehave in way Z”
Our Experiments -Brainstorm potential experiments we can run quickly (starting today/tomorrow for example) to test our
hypothesis. Select 2 experiments, build them and go out in the real world to test them.
?
Most important
Not as important
What did we learn? -What did our experiments reveal about our hypothesis. What did we learn? What surprised us? Did
we uncover any insights? How would we run the experiment differently?
Our decision -
Based on our learnings, what would we do next?
Experiments we will run (narrow to 2)
Description:
Metrics:
Description:
Metrics:
Experiment 1
Experiment 2
We invalidated our leap of faith assumption.We need to pivot our idea and go back tothe drawing board.
We did NOT invalidate our leap of faith assumption.
We need to run more experiments or start testing ournext leap of faith assumption.
Intuit | D4D Rapid Experimentation
?
Experiments we could run (go broad)
Change the idea (Pivot)?
Keep going (Persevere)?
3
5
4
The next decision tool
NEXT
OUR INSIGHT(S) - An a-ha that changes your perspective and makes
you think beyond your customer’s expectations.
1 Leap of faith assumptions -Riskiest assumptions about our idea that’s keeping us up at night
(if people don’t behave this way, we need to change our idea).
Sequence your leap of faithassumptions and tackle themone at a time (start with riskiest)
-
-
-
-
-
Brainstorm a list of solutions/features that could prompt the behavior
change underlined in the selected leap of faith assumption
Selected leap
of faith
Selected
hypothesis
Description:
Metrics:
Description:
Metrics:
known
unknown
Customers
expect to pay 1st
employee in less
than 20 minutes
Pay you first
employee in less
than 5 minutes
Employers choose to
Pay Now instead of
Finish Set Up
Employers that
choose Pay Now will
write checks
at a higher rate
Employers thatchoose Pay Nowwill become billingcustomers
1
2
3
Employers
choose to Pay
Now instead
of Finish
Set Up
If we enable Pay Now,80% will completetax set up in time
for 1st tax payment
If we present Pay
Now, 55% will
choose it
Pay Now
test:
pay now vs.
finish
set up
Pay now
A/B test
Pay now vs.
finish
set up
# of
employers
who choose
Pay Now
Pay Now
option
An option within Intuit OnlinePayroll where employers can deferfull set up until after payingemployees
If we present Pay
Now, 55% will
choose it
learning: Majority of
employers prefer to pay
first and then finish
full set up
58% chose
Pay Now
only 18%
approved
checks the
same day
If we enable Pay
Now, 40% will run a
second payroll
after 2
weeks, 32%
paid
employees
Next steps:
run
experiment
#2
Use
Paycheck
City to
calculate
check
Default tax
set up and
have care
agents set
up later
Pay now with
no prior
payroll and
safe state
defaults
Enable Pay
Now (no prior
payroll +
safe state
defaults)
# of
employers
complete
2nd payroll
People
Rewards Process
Structure
Strategy
Structure
Process
An Intuit Innovation Experience
January 29th, 2013

 
 
 
 
Idea Jams 
 

68
People
Rewards Process
Structure
Strategy
Structure
Process

 
 
 
 
Idea Jams 
 

70
People
Rewards Process
Structure
Strategy
Source: © Intuit 2015, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtgseZmJH4I
People
Rewards

71
People
Rewards Process
Structure
Strategy
People
Rewards

72
People
Rewards Process
Structure
Strategy
Rewards
People

73
People
Rewards Process
Structure
Strategy
Rewards
People

Conclusion
The whole can be more than the sum of its parts. 
Is management ready?
74
WITHOUT A WHOLE?
P
A
R
T
S
The Current State of Design Thinking
Practice in Organizations
Jan SchmiedgenHolger RhinowEva Köppen
Christoph Meinel
study report
Hasso-plattner-Institute,
university of potsdam, March 2015
Background image: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/making-sense-why-design-thinking-fail-gk-vanpatter

One more thing …
75
www.thisisdesignthinking.net

References
 
Beckman, S. L., & Barry, M. (2007). Innovation as a Learning Process:
Embedding Design Thinking. California Management Review, 50(1), 25–56.
 
Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. (2003). Exploitation, Exploration, And Process
Management: The Productivity Dilemma Revisited. Academy of Management
Review, 28(2), 238–256. http://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2003.9416096
 
Boland Jr., R., & Collopy, F. (2004). Managing as Designing (1st ed.). Stanford:
Stanford Business Books.
 
Carlgren, L. (2013). Design Thinking as an Enabler of Innovation: Exploring the
Concept and its Relation to Building Innovation Capabilities (Doctoral thesis).
Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg. Retrieved from http://
publications.lib.chalmers.se/publication/185362-design-thinking-as-an-
enabler-of-innovation-exploring-the-concept-and-its-relation-to-building-innov
 
Carlgren, L., Elmquist, M., & Rauth, I. (in press). Demystifying Design Thinking:
Exploring Design Thinking in Practice. Journal for Creativity and Innovation
Management.
 
Flynn, F. J., & Chatman, J. A. (2004). Strong Cultures and Innovation - Oxymoron
or Opportunity? In M. Tushman & P. Anderson (Eds.), Managing Strategic
Innovation and Change: A Collection of Readings (2nd ed., pp. 234–266). Oxford
University Press.
 
Martin, R. L. (2009a). The Opposable Mind: How Successful Leaders Win
Through Integrative Thinking. Mcgraw-Hill Professional.
 
Martin, R. L. (2009b). The Reliability Bias - Why Advancing Knowledge is so
hard. In Design of Business: Why Design Thinking Is the Next Competitive
Advantage (pp. 33–56). Mcgraw-Hill Professional.
 
Martin, R. L. (2011). The Innovation Catalysts. Harvard Business Review, 89(6),
82–87.
 
Pisano, G. P., & Verganti, R. (2008). Which Kind of Collaboration Is Right for
You? Harvard Business Review, 86(12), 78–86. http://doi.org/Article
 
Schmiedgen, J., Rhinow, H., Köppen, E., & Meinel, C. (2015). Parts Without a
Whole? - The Current State of Design Thinking Practice in Organizations (Study
Report No. 97) (p. 144). Potsdam: Hasso-Plattner-Institut für
Softwaresystemtechnik an der Universität Potsdam. Retrieved from http://
thisisdesignthinking.net/why-this-site/the-study/
 
Tushman, M., & O’Reilly, C. (2004). The ambidextrous Organization: Managing
evolutionary and revolutionary Change. In M. Tushman & P. Anderson (Eds.),
Managing Strategic Innovation and Change: A Collection of Readings (2nd ed.,
pp. 276–291). Oxford University Press.
76

T5: Improve internal business processes and organizational
structures
 
show some examples
 
show distribution
 
tell Intuit/Citrix stories!
77
Prof.-Dr.-Helmert-Str. 2-3 
14482 Potsdam 
Germany
Tel: +49 (0)331 5509-0 
Fax: +49 (0)331 5509-129 
http://thisisdesignthinking.net  
 
Hasso-Plattner-Institut für Softwaresystemtechnik GmbH:  
Impact by Design Thinking - Research Team
ThankYou
Holger Rhinow Jan Schmiedgen
Eva Köppen

Einige “Design Thinking Ergebnisse” von Unternehmen aus unserem Sample (mit freundlicher Genehmigung der jeweiligen Organisationen)
Backup

Case Study #2: Autodesk
Hiring trumps retraining, and fosters ‘self-breeding

Case Study #3: AirBnB
Design thinking

AirBnB: Experience in context is king
87Photo: Snow White Project Frames (Huiyi C.,

AirBnB: Touchpoints and frames
88Photo: “One storyboard panel representing when a host receives a request from a potential guest.” (http://designairs.com/airbnb-insights/)

AirBnB: Empathy and space
Photos: “AirBnB Office Space” (Jan Schmiedgen)

AirBnB: Insights team
Photos: “AirBnB Office Space” (Jan Schmiedgen,) “Sasha from our Insights team interviews a host in Tokyo.” (http://designairs.com/airbnb-insights/)

AirBnB: Host rejection taxonomy
91Photos: “Host Personas Detail” (Jan Schmiedgen), “Host Personas Zoom-out” (Huiyi C., https://wordsofasuperheroine.wordpress.com/tag/startups-2/)

AirBnB: Institutionalized empathy and insights measures
92Photo: “Airbnb employees and hosts share an evening of conversation in Costa del Sol, Spain.” (http://designairs.com/airbnb-design-practices-empathy/)

Case Study #4: Kaiser Permanente
A fake hospital as a staff training facility

94
People
Rewards Process
Structure
Strategy
Structure
Kaiser Permanente Garﬁeld Innovation Center (https://xnet.kp.org/innovationcenter/index.html); Photo: Jan Schmiedgen

95
People
Rewards Process
Structure
Strategy
Structure
Kaiser Permanente Garﬁeld Innovation Center (https://xnet.kp.org/innovationcenter/index.html); Photo: Jan Schmiedgen

Case Study #5: Siemens China
Approaching intercultural leadership challenges

Parts Without a Whole? – The Current State of Design Thinking Practice in Organizations

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (6)

Similar to Parts Without a Whole? – The Current State of Design Thinking Practice in Organizations

Similar to Parts Without a Whole? – The Current State of Design Thinking Practice in Organizations (20)

More from Jan Schmiedgen

More from Jan Schmiedgen (15)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Parts Without a Whole? – The Current State of Design Thinking Practice in Organizations