Unit 3 Discussion

Purpose

Empathy, brainstorming, and ideation are essential elements of design thinking, allowing teams to generate creative solutions to user-centered challenges. In this discussion, you will engage in a hands-on design thinking exercise, practicing brainstorming and ideation techniques while collaborating with peers to refine and enhance innovative ideas.

Task

This discussion simulates a collaborative ideation process where you will analyze a common user challenge, generate creative solutions, and build on the ideas of your peers. Your work here will serve as a foundation for a future assignment.

Step 1: Explore the Challenge (Individual Work)

We have all waited in line and thought, I could be doing something else right now or there has to be a better way. For this brainstorming session, you will focus on the following challenge:

Improving the waiting experience: Redesign the experience of waiting in line to make it enjoyable and efficient.

In your initial post, address the following:

Identify the User Group. Articulate the specific user group you are targeting for your challenge. What is the user waiting in line for?
Empathize with User Pain Points. Using empathy, briefly describe one or two pain points this user group might experience while waiting in line.
Generate Creative Ideas
Propose three ideas to address the challenge. Use a brainstorming technique such as mind mapping, SCAMPER, or rapid ideation to generate your solutions.
Indicate which technique you used and briefly describe how it helped you generate your ideas.

Step 2: Build on Ideas (Collaborative Work)

In your responses to peers:

Enhance Ideas. Select at least one idea from your peer’s post and build upon it by suggesting enhancements or alternatives.
How can the idea be made more user-friendly, efficient, or innovative?
What additional features or perspectives might improve the solution?
Provide Feedback. Offer feedback on their understanding of the user’s pain points:
Do the proposed solutions effectively address the identified pain points?
What empathy-driven insights could strengthen their approach?

Submission

Post your initial response outlining your challenge, user group, pain points, and three ideas by 11:59 p.m. ET on Saturday.
Respond to at least two classmates by 11:59 p.m. ET on Tuesday, building on their ideas and providing constructive feedback.

Criteria for Success

Discussion participation is graded using a rubric based on the following criteria:

Quality
Quantity
Timeliness
Writing
For more information, review the Discussion Rubric.

Student
Resource

Chapter 10: Creating new products and services

Chapter 10:
Creating
new
products
and
services

• In the following PowerPoint slides you will find the
key headings from CHAPTER 10 together with the
main illustrations, tables, etc.

• There are also slides summarizing the key
messages in bullet-point fashion, and a wide range of
activities which you can use to help students explore
around these themes.

• Finally there are some reflection questions which
can be used as the basis for discussion or
assignments.

Learning
Objectives

By the end of this chapter you will develop
an understanding of:

• a formal process to support new
product development, such as stage-
gate and the development funnel

• product and organizational factors
which influence success and failure

• choosing and applying relevant tools to
support each stage of product
development

• the differences between products and
services and how these influence
development

• applying the lessons of diffusion
research to promote the adoption of
innovations.

Core themes
and material

from the
book

Implementation as a
journey

The development funnel

Figure 10.2 of the book presents the ‘development funnel’ showing that there is a structure in place
which reviews both technical and marketing data at each stage

A simplified 4 stage model

• Concept generation – identifying the opportunities for
new products and services.

• Project assessment and selection – screening and
choosing projects which satisfy certain criteria.

• Product or service development – translating the
selected concepts into a physical product or a new
service.

• Product or service commercialization – testing,
launching and marketing the new product or service.

Project selection

Two filters:

Aggregate product plan – attempts to integrate the
various potential projects to ensure that the collective
set of development projects meet the goals and
objectives of the firm, and help to build the capabilities
needed.

Developing specific product concepts. The two most
common processes at this level are the development
funnel and the stage gate system.

Product development

This stage includes all the activities necessary to take the
chosen concept and deliver a product or service for
commercialization.

Success factors in new
product development

• Product advantage

• Market knowledge

• Clear product definition

• Risk assessment

• Project organization

• Project resources

• Proficiency of execution

• Top management support

Winning at new products

Product development influential
factors

Concept generation

On the Portal there are several tools to help with concept
generation, for example:

Design methods
Creativity tools
Competitiveness profiling
Value curves
Lead user methods
Market research tools

See

https://johnbessant.org/tools-for-innovation-and-
entrepreneurship/

https://johnbessant.org/tools-for-innovation-and-entrepreneurship/

Concept generation

Follow the link below to hear a podcast on how market
research marked a shift from a producer-led to a consumer-
led approach to business

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3csv3gm

Quality function deployment

• Identify customer requirements, primary and
secondary, and any major dislikes.

• Rank requirements according to importance.

• Translate requirements into measurable characteristics.

• Establish the relationship between the customer
requirements and technical product characteristics, and
estimate the strength of the relationship.

• Choose appropriate units of measurement and
determine target values based on customer

requirements and competitor benchmarks.

QFD matrix

Figure 11.5 of the book
presents QFD matrix that

was originally developed in
Japan and claimed to have
helped Toyota reduce its
development time and

costs by 40 %

Differences between
products and services

• Tangibility.
• Perceptions of service quality:

• tangible aspects;
• responsiveness;
• competence;
• assurance;
• empathy.

• Simultaneity.
• Storage.
• Customer contact.
• Location.

Characteristics of service innovators

Characteristics of service innovators
continued

Success factors in service
innovation: the SPOTS model

SPOTS model

There is a full description of the model on the Portal

https://johnbessant.org/tools-for-innovation-and-
entrepreneurship/

Diffusion of innovations

• Diffusion is the means by which innovations are
translated into social and economic benefits.

• We know that the impact of the use of innovations is
around four times that of their generation

• However, the benefits of innovations can take 10–15
years to be fully effected, and in practice most
innovations fail to be adopted widely, and so have
limited social or economic impact.

Rogers’ definition

Rogers’ definition of diffusion is used widely:

‘the process by which an innovation is communicated
through certain channels over time among members of
a social system. It is a special type of communication, in
that the messages are concerned with new ideas’

Rogers’ 3 types of innovation
decision

• Individual, in which the individual is the main
decision-maker, independent of peers. Decisions may
still be influenced by social norms and interpersonal
relationships, but the individual makes the ultimate
choice. For example, the purchase of a consumer
durable such as a mobile phone.
 

Rogers’ 3 types of innovation
decision

• Collective, where choices are made jointly with others
in the social system, and there is significant peer
pressure or formal requirement to conform. For
example, the sorting and recycling of domestic waste.

• Authoritative, where decisions to adopt are taken by a
few individuals within a social system, owing to their
power, status or expertise (e.g. adoption of ERP systems
by businesses, or MRI systems by hospitals).

Models of diffusion

In practice the precise pattern of adoption of an
innovation will depend on the interaction of demand-side
and supply-side factors:

• Demand-side factors – direct contact with or imitation
of prior adopters, adopters with different perceptions of
benefits and risk.

• Supply-side factors – relative advantage of an
innovation, availability of information, barriers to
adoption, feedback between developers and users.

The S-curve

Barriers to adoption

• economic – personal costs versus social benefits,
access to information, insufficient incentives

• behavioural – priorities, motivations, rationality,
inertia, propensity for change or risk

• organizational – goals, routines, power and influence,
culture and stakeholders

• structural – infrastructure, sunk costs, governance.

Factors affecting diffusion

In predicting the rate of adoption of an innovation, five
factors explain 49–87% of the variance:

• relative advantage
• compatibility
• complexity
• trialability
• observability.

Relative advantage

• Relative advantage is the degree to which an
innovation is perceived as better than the product it
supersedes, or competing products.

• Typically measured in narrow economic terms, for
example cost or financial payback

• Non-economic factors such as convenience,
satisfaction and social prestige may be equally
important.

Attributes of innovation

• Primary attributes, such as size and cost, are invariant
and inherent to a specific innovation irrespective of
the adopter.

• Secondary attributes, such as relative advantage and
compatibility, may vary from adopter to adopter,
being contingent upon the perceptions and context of
adopters.

Compatibility

• Compatibility is the degree to which an innovation is perceived
to be consistent with the existing values, experience and needs
of potential adopters.

• Two distinct aspects of compatibility:

• existing skills and practices,
• and values and norms.

• Few innovations initially fit the user environment into which
they are introduced. Significant misalignments between the
innovation and the adopting organization will require changes in
the innovation or organization, or, in the most successful cases
of implementation, mutual adaptation of both.

Complexity

• Complexity is the degree to which an innovation is
perceived as being difficult to understand or use.

• In general, innovations which are simpler for potential
users to understand will be adopted more rapidly than
those which require the adopter to develop new skills
and knowledge.

Trialability

• Trialability is the degree to which an innovation can be
experimented with on a limited basis.

• An innovation that is trialable represents less
uncertainty to potential adopters, and allows learning
by doing. Innovations which can be trialled will
generally be adopted more quickly than those which
cannot.

• Sometimes called ‘divisibility’ – how far can the risk of
adoption be broken down into small steps rather than
requiring a full commitment at the outset

Observability

• Observability is the degree to which the results of an
innovation are visible to others.

• The easier it is for others to see the benefits of an
innovation, the more likely it will be adopted.

• The simple epidemic model of diffusion assumes that
innovations spread as potential adopters come into
contact with existing users of an innovation.

Checklist: Relative advantage

• How well does my plan show how much better off
people will be when they adopt it?
• Why is this plan better than what has been done
before?
• What advantages or benefits may there be to accepting
the plan?
• Who will gain from the implementation of the plan?
• How will I (or others) be rewarded by adopting the
plan?
• How can I emphasize the plan’s benefits to all?

Checklist: Compatibility

• How well does my plan demonstrate that it is
compatible with current values, past experiences and
needs?

• Is the plan consistent with current practice?

• Does the plan meet the needs of a particular group?

• Does it offer better ways to reach our common goals?

• Who will naturally support and agree with the plan?

• Can it be favourably named, packaged or presented?

Checklist: Trialability

• How well does my plan allow for trialability?

• Can the plan be tried out or tested?

• Can uncertainty be reduced?

• Can we begin with a few parts of the plan?

• How can others be encouraged to try out the
plan?

• Can the plan be modified by you or others?

Checklist: Complexity

• How well does my plan provide for easy
communication, comprehension and use?

• Is the plan easy for others to understand?
• Can it be explained clearly to many different people?
• Will the plan be easily communicated?
• How can the plan be made more simple or easy to

understand?
• Is the plan easy to use or follow?

Checklist: Observability

• How well does my plan provide results that are
easily observed and visible to others?

• Is the plan easy for others to find or obtain?

• Can the plan be made more visible to others?

• How can I make the plan easier for others to
see?

• Will others be able to see the effects of the plan?

• Are there good reasons for not making the entire
plan visible?

Checklist: Other factors

• What other resources will I need; how can I
get them?

• What obstacles exist; how can we prevent or
overcome them?

• What new challenges will be created; and
dealt with?

• How can I encourage commitment to the
plan?

• What feedback about the plan is needed?

• The process of innovation is much more
complex than technology responding to
market signals. Effective business planning
under conditions of uncertainty demands a
thorough understanding and management of
the dynamics of innovation, including
conception, development, adoption and
diffusion.

Summary

• The adoption and diffusion of an innovation
depend on the characteristics of the
innovation, the nature of potential adopters
and the process of communication. The
relative advantage, compatibility, complexity,
trialability and observability of an innovation
all affect the rate of diffusion.

Summary

• Forecasting the development and adoption of
innovations is difficult, but participative
methods such as Delphi and scenario planning
are highly relevant to innovation and
sustainability. In such cases the process of
forecasting, including consultation and
debate, is probably more important than the
precise outcomes of the exercise.

Summary

There is a vast amount of management research on the

subject of new product and service development, and we

are now pretty certain what works and what does not.

There are no guarantees that following the suggestions in

this chapter will produce a blockbuster product, service

or business, but if these elements are not managed well,

your chances of success will be much lower. This is not

supposed to discourage experimentation and calculated

risk-taking but rather to provide a foundation for

evidence-based practice.

Summary

Research suggests that a range of factors affect the
success of a potential new product or service:

• Some factors are product-specific (e.g. product
advantage, clear target market and attention to pre-
development activities).

• Other factors are more about the organizational context
and process (e.g. senior management support, formal
process and use of external knowledge).

Summary

• A formal process for new product and service
development should consist of distinct stages, such as
concept development, business case, product
development, pilot and commercialization, separated
by distinct decision points, or gates, which have clear
criteria, such as product fit and product advantages.

Summary

• Different stages of the process demand different
criteria and different tools and methods. Useful tools
and methods at the concept stage include
segmentation, experimentation, focus groups and
customer partnering; and at the development stage
useful tools include prototyping, design for
production and QFD.

Summary

• Services and products are different in a number of
ways, especially intangibility and perceived benefits,
and so will demand the adaptation of the standard
models and prescriptions for new product
development.

• The relative advantage, compatibility, complexity,
trialability and observability of an innovation all affect
the rate of diffusion.

Videos

There are several videos which can help
explore and present the key themes of
the chapter:

• Project implementation

• Stage gates in implementation

• Success and failure in
implementation

• Agile implementation

• Interview with Catherina van
Delden, Innosabi about agile
innovation

Media: NPD challenges

On the Portal there is a video showing Joe Tidd talking
about the challenges of organizing new product
development:

Media: NPD challenges

On the Portal there is a video interview with Armin Rau,
Strategy Partner of Sicap, talking about some of the
innovation management challenges in working in the
fast-moving world of software for mobile devices.
Transcript of the interview is also available.

http://www.innovation-portal.info/?s=armin+Rau+

http://www.innovation-portal.info/resources/armin-rau-
interview-transcript/

http://www.innovation-portal.info/?s=armin+Rau

http://www.innovation-portal.info/resources/armin-rau-interview-transcript/

Media: Why products fail

On the Portal there is a video showing Joe Tidd talking
about some of the reasons for product failure

Media: New product development

Follow the link below to listen to an interview with James
Dyson

https://www.acast.com/howibuiltthis/dyson-james-
dyson

https://www.acast.com/howibuiltthis/dyson-james-dyson

Tools to help project selection –
financial methods

• Discounted cash flows, such as net present
value/internal rate of return.

• Cost-benefit analysis.

• Simple calculations of the payback period.

Tools to help project selection –
non-financial methods

• Ranking.

• Profiles.

• Simulated outcomes.

• Strategic clusters.

• Interactive.

Tools to help product development

• Design for Manufacture (DFM).

• Rapid Prototyping.

• Computer-aided Techniques (CAD/CAM).

• Quality Function Deployment (QFD). For more on QFD
see the toolbox:

•http://www.innovation-portal.info/resources/quality-
function-deployment-qfd/

http://www.innovation-portal.info/resources/quality-function-deployment-qfd/

Tool: Risk assessment matrix

On the Portal there is a description of this tool to help
assess complexity issues

http://www.innovation-portal.info/resources/risk-
assessment-matrix/

http://www.innovation-portal.info/resources/risk-assessment-matrix/

Accelerating diffusion

On the Portal there is a tool describing the use of
models to help think about accelerating diffusion.

http://www.innovation-
portal.info/toolkits/accelerating-diffusion/

There is also an activity linked to this

http://www.innovation-
portal.info/resources/accelerating-diffusion-activity/

http://www.innovation-portal.info/toolkits/accelerating-diffusion/

http://www.innovation-portal.info/resources/accelerating-diffusion-activity/

Slide 1: Student Resource
Slide 2: Chapter 10: Creating new products and services
Slide 3: Learning Objectives
Slide 4: Core themes and material from the book
Slide 5
Slide 6
Slide 7
Slide 8
Slide 9
Slide 10
Slide 11
Slide 12
Slide 13
Slide 14
Slide 15
Slide 16
Slide 17
Slide 18
Slide 19
Slide 20
Slide 21
Slide 22
Slide 23
Slide 24
Slide 25
Slide 26
Slide 27
Slide 28
Slide 29
Slide 30
Slide 31
Slide 32
Slide 33
Slide 34
Slide 35
Slide 36
Slide 37
Slide 38
Slide 39
Slide 40
Slide 41
Slide 42: Summary
Slide 43: Summary
Slide 44: Summary
Slide 45
Slide 46
Slide 47
Slide 48
Slide 49
Slide 50: Videos
Slide 51
Slide 52
Slide 53
Slide 54
Slide 55
Slide 56
Slide 57
Slide 58
Slide 59

JOHN BESSANT

Managing Innovation

Design
thinking

Design thinking

(This is a chapter from I. Goller and J. Bessant, ‘Creativity for innovation management’, Routledge,

London, 2017).

Design thinking (DT) is a popular and widely-used framework approach to creativity . It uses many of

the competences we have been discussing in an explicit way and deploys various tools and techniques

to help with this. Importantly it has emerged as a methodology which can be taught and practised –

there are many training programmes and several universities now have a ‘D-School’ on their campuses.

Many organizations have begun to embed this as an innovation approach, both in the public and private

sector. And it lies at the heart of many consulting offerings, providing client companies with a

systematic approach to finding novel solutions to product, service and process innovation.

You can find a link here to the ‘d.school’ at Stanford (its correct name is the Hasso Plattner Institute of

Design) which offers a free a 90-minute video-led cruise through their methodology for anyone

interested

DT is an approach to innovation which involves building and testing ideas in a sequential developmental

fashion. Its origins lie in the work of the US Nobel Prize winner Herbert Simon who worked on various

aspects of decision-making. He defined it in his 1969 book The Sciences of the Artificial as the

‘transformation of existing conditions into preferred ones’ [1]. He originally suggested a seven step

process for this: Define, Research, Ideate, Prototype, Choose, Implement, Learn.

But the number of stages is less important than the idea of building towards a solution by a formal

method. In essence it takes human creativity and focuses it via a process to solve a problem – in other

https://dschool.stanford.edu/resources-collections/a-virtual-crash-course-in-design-thinking

words it is a methodology for innovation. Many writers have contributed to the approach from a

number of different disciplines including Nigel Cross (architecture, one of the founders of the journal

Design Studies), Sydney Gregory (engineering, author of The design method (1967)), Rachel Cooper

(industrial design) and Robert McKim (Experiences in Visual Thinking (1973) [2-3]. The approach drew

on many of the tools and techniques for industrial design but applied them to more generic forms of

problem-solving, extending the range of application from making products look and feel more

interesting and attractive to applying creativity in structured fashion to solve a wide range of business

and social problems.

One of the pioneering firms in this field was IDEO , founded by an engineering professor at Stanford

University, Dave Kelley [4].

But there are others models out there as well. One which we think equally noteworthy is the double

diamond model by the British Design Council, developed in 2005 on the basis of case studies of

global firms. It describes in four phases the design process from problem to solution. The way the

phases are visualized clarifies the way of working in these phases. Starting from a defined problem or

challenge, we open up and ‘discover’ (phase 1) the problem in more detail; just after that a convergent

process is going on (define). The problem is clearly described and boiled down to a key challenge. This

is again the starting point for another divergent phase: develop. Here it is about collecting ideas,

opening up to see all kinds of possible solutions. And then another convergent phase is starting to

emerge: deliver. It’s about testing and evaluating, about making the concept ready for implementation.

At the end stands a solution to the initial problem.

Design thinking follows certain ‘ground rules’ regardless the modelling of the phases. For example, all

innovation is based on the need of the user, innovation is develop best in teams, and iterations are

necessary in order for a successful innovation. Group processes like sharing insights and knowledge,

supporting ideas of others, pushing the frontiers of an idea to make it ‘wow’, getting and receiving

feedback from the group and from potential users, felt psychological safety within the ‘design team’

are all vital elements to the idea of design thinking. So, competencies are the back bone of design

thinking.

Overview of the phases

Typically DT involves working through a series of stages, but it is also about recognizing the cyclic nature

of creativity – learning from testing and implementation helps refine and elaborate. We describe the

key phases of the IDEO model in the following section. The phases are:

• Empathise

• Define

• Ideate

• Prototype

• Test

• Implement

• (and repeat)

Empathy – drawing on fields like anthropology emphasis is placed on understanding how people

actually behave in a situation, what their experiences of a problem are, creating solutions which work

for them in their context. One of the problems in innovation is that we often make assumptions about

what users want rather than developing a clear understanding of their context. This is complicated by

the fact that what people say – for example in response to a market survey or in a focus group – is not

necessarily what they actually do!

Tom Kelley of IDEO explains the DT approach they take in this area; ‘We’re not big fans of focus groups.

We don’t much care for traditional market research either. We go to the source. Not the ‘experts’ inside

a (client) company, but the actual people who use the product or something similar to what we’re

hoping to create…we believe you have to go beyond putting yourself in your customers’ shoes. Indeed

we believe it’s not even enough to ask people what they think about a product or idea…customers may

lack the vocabulary or the palate to explain what’s wrong, and especially what’s missing.’

Creativity in action: Users know best

One of the dangers in humanitarian innovation is that well-intentioned providers make assumptions

about what end users actually need, and what will actually work in their context. Inappropriate

solutions provided with the best intentions litter the sites of disasters – complex equipment which

cannot be maintained, supplies used for different purposes. (For example researchers from the Oxford

University’s Humanitarian Innovation Project found that in Ugandan refugee camps people were using

emergency mosquito nets not as an anti-malarial aid but as a source of rope with which to build the

shelters which they felt were a more urgent need).

Underpinning this is an assumption that solutions can be designed far from the context in which they

are to be implemented. What is needed is a recognition of the importance of user perspectives – for

example how people actually behave under crisis conditions, how they prioritize their emergency needs,

how best they can support themselves, etc.

And empowered users are a rich source of ideas – many important humanitarian innovations arose in

this bottom up fashion. For example the crisis-mapping app Ushahidi emerged from users mashing up

Twitter and other social media feeds to help provide a reliable information platform in the post-election

violence in Kenya. The app has subsequently been used all around the world including in the Brisbane

floods and the Fukushima disaster.

Developing a deep understanding can generate new insights – for example Tim Brown of IDEO writes

about the company’s work with the Japanese cycle manufacturer Shimano. Working to try and

understand why so few (less than 10%) of US adults rode bicycles they uncovered a variety of concerns

including intimidating retail experiences, the complexity and cost of sophisticated bikes, and the danger

of cycling on heavily trafficked roads. This led to a new concept ‘ coasting’ – which drew on people’s

happy memories of childhood biking and which influenced various aspects of the subsequent offering

including new in-store retailing strategies, a public relations campaign to identify safe places to cycle,

and a reference design for cycle companies to use in producing ‘coasting’ bikes [5].

Creativity in action: Understanding user needs in Hyundai Motor

One of the problems facing global manufacturers is how to tailor their products to suit the needs of

local markets. For Hyundai this has meant paying considerable attention to getting deep insights into

customer needs and aspirations – an approach which they used to good effect in developing the Santa

Fe, reintroduced to the US market in 2007. The headline for their development programme was ‘touch

the market’ and they deployed a number of tools and techniques to enable it. For example, they visited

an ice rink and watched an Olympic medallist skate around to help them gain an insight into the ideas

of grace and speed which they wanted to embed in the car. This provided a metaphor – ‘assertive grace’

– which the development teams in Korea and the US were able to use.

Analysis of existing vehicles suggested some aspects of design were not being covered – for example,

many sport/utility vehicles (SUVs) were rather ‘boxy so there was scope to enhance the image of the

car. Market research suggested a target segment of ‘glamour mums’ who would find this attractive and

the teams then began an intensive study of how this group lived their lives. Ethnographic methods

looked at their homes, their activities and their lifestyles – for example, team members spent a day

shopping with some target women to gain an understanding of their purchases and what motivated

them. The list of key motivators which emerged from this shopping study included durability, versatility,

uniqueness, child-friendly and good customer service from knowledgeable staff.

Another approach was to make all members of the team experience driving routes around Southern

California, making journeys similar to those popular with the target segment and in the process getting

first-hand experience of comfort, features and fixtures inside the car, etc.

A good example of the DT approach comes from work in the UK’s Luton and Dunstable hospital (L&R)

which involves using design methods to create a user-led solution to the challenge of improving patient

care amongst neck and head cancer sufferers. Part of this project involves patients and carers telling

stories about their experience of the service; these stories provide insights which enable the team of

co-designers to think about designing experiences rather than designing services. Importantly the role

of designer includes all of those involved in the collaborative process: patients, staff, researchers,

improvement leaders as well as design professionals [6].

Experience-based design (EBD) of this kind involves identifying the main areas or ‘touch points’ where

people come into contact with the service, and tries to identify areas of exceptional practice, and areas

where systems and processes need to be redesigned to create a better patient experience of health

services [7]. These touch points effectively help to prioritise actions. Working together patients, carers,

doctors, nurses, and hospital administrative staff can begin to design experiences rather than just

systems or processes. The process is enriched by taking into consideration the different skills, views

and life experiences of the patients, carers and others involved.

In the L&D such co-design has led to changes – for example patients and carers have changed project

documentation so that it better reflects their needs, and clinic staff and patients have worked together

to redesign the flow of outpatients in the consulting room. Various methodologies were used to

encourage patient involvement in the process, including patient interviews, log books and film-making.

This enabled patients to show their experience of the service through their own lens, and bring their

story to life for others. In total 38 improvement projects were identified.

Definition – recognising that what appears to be the problem may in fact be a symptom of a wider

problem and that exploring and playing with different definitions can help set up the conditions for

successful solution. As we saw in chapter 2 problem exploration and discovery is a key part of the

creativity journey and DT provides a systematic way of managing this. There is a particular link with the

competency around building shared vision, gaining agreement about and commitment to the problem

we are trying to solve.

Taking time out to redefine the presented problem in different ways and from different perspectives

is an essential part of Design Thinking. Tools like ‘how to’ statements, problem redefinition, root cause

analysis (fishbone technique), process mapping and levels of abstraction are used. But again trying to

express different viewpoints reflecting the concerns of the defined stakeholders is core to the process.

In the double diamond model a key challenge from the standpoint of the user is defined at the end of

the second phase. So, at the end we do not only have defined the user we are looking to ‘help’ to satisfy

his/her needs but also defined the challenge we have to overcome to have a successful ‘product’ at the

end. This will be the starting point for our ideation process in the next phase.

Ideation – in this stage various approaches are used to come up with suggested solutions and pathways

to be explored. These include the use of ‘wild ideas’ as a stimulus for others, ‘brainstorming’ as a careful

process of suspending/postponing judgment and the use of visual aids to capture and make people’s

ideas available to others. Again this stage draws extensively on creativity research including the

powerful role played by unconscious processes in forming novel associations. But it also builds on group

competences like striving for excellent ideas and the constructive controversy within that.

DT is not about a single technique but about skilled teams able to open the ideation toolbox and find

different resources to help – they recognise the difficulties around setting effects, functional fixedness

and other barriers to creativity and can deploy techniques to help counter them. Similarly although

brainstorming is a central approach it is carried out in a way which allows for extensive challenge and

debate but in a supportive context. And diversity is seen as an important element in team composition

to try and maximise the range of experiences and domain expertise on which the team can draw.

An important element in DT is the explicit recognition of users as central to the process – both in terms

of understanding their needs (empathy) but also as sources of relevant ideas which will also be

compatible. The previous chapter on user innovation highlights this key role.

Prototyping – rather than seeking to plan and develop a perfect solution, design thinking involves a

series of interactive experiments which allow for learning around prototypes.

We saw the importance of this approach in earlier chapters; it provides a way of moving from vague

notions, hunches, half-formed ideas towards something more workable. Prototypes offer a series of

stepping-stones, bridges, scaffolding – essentially playing with ideas about the problem. As James

Dyson, reflecting on his company’s approach, points out, ‘…… prototypes allow you to quickly get a feel

for things and uncover subtle design flaws.’

The clue is in the name – proto-type. It’s not about the finished object but a stepping-stone, a test-bed

for learning, some way of exploring in laboratory/experimental mode. Kids do this naturally – from the

moment they can start to hold and examine an object they begin to explore it, trying out all its

possibilities. And when they play together they multiply the possible options in inspiring fashion – a

humble cardboard box can become a spaceship, a shop, a stage, an article of clothing, and it can change

its identity with impressive speed!

Prototyping offers some important features to help in the creative process:

• It creates a ‘boundary object’, something around which other people and perspectives can
gather, a device for sharing insights into problem dimensions as well as solutions

• It offers us a stepping stone in our thought processes, making ideas real enough to see and play
with them but without the lock-in effect of being tied into trying to make the solutions work –
we can still change our minds

• It allows plurality – we don’t have to play with a single idea, we can bet on multiple horses early
on in the race rather than trying to pick winners

• It allows for learning – even when a prototype fails we accumulate knowledge which might
come in helpful elsewhere

• It suggests further possibilities – as we play with a prototype it gives us a key to open up the
problem, break open the shell and explore more deeply.

• It allows us to work with half-formed ideas and hunches – enables a ‘conversation with a
shadowy idea’…

• It allows for emergence – sometimes we can’t predict what will happen when different
elements interact. Trying something out helps explore surprising combinations

Prototypes can take many forms, from simple sketches and models through to complex simulations.

German researcher Bernhard Doll offers a helpful map on which different kinds of prototype can be

mapped – the important point in DT is not the form but the way in which the prototype is used to help

build shared ideas. This approach also helps draw in user experience since the prototype becomes a

‘boundary object’ around which various people can provide their ideas and input [8].

Test – the next stage from prototyping is trying those ideas out on end users. ‘Fail often to succeed

sooner’ is a motto not only used at IDEO which characterises this approach of learning through testing;

it builds on the idea of rapid cycles of experimentation rather than planned launch of an exhaustively

developed idea. The core idea is around hypothesis testing and gradually learning through a series of

build-test-refine loops which allow for fast learning.

Examples can be found in beta testing in software and the ‘lean start-up’ approach where a core tool

is the ‘minimum viable product’ – an early test of the idea designed to get feedback and information.

We’ll discuss these ‘agile’ approaches in more detail in chapter 15.

Implement – put the idea into practice. Although this might appear to be the end of the journey the

reality is that moving an idea into implementation restarts the process, allowing refinements and

improvements, identifying other dimensions of the problem which could be addressed. One of the key

lessons around diffusion of innovations is that as ideas spread out and scale so they are changed by the

interactions with the adopting population [9].

It’s easy to see DT as a simple and logical progression through a series of stages. But innovation in real

life is not like that – it is a meandering journey involving backtracking, blind alleys and sudden sprints.

So DT as a framework methodology should be seen as something involving multiple cycles and

extensive feedback between these stages.

Tools for design thinking

DT is a framework methodology with some core underlying principles like empathy, constructive

controversy and prototyping. The underlying competences are very much those which we have

explored in the book and the good news is that there is plenty of equipment in the gym to help train

and develop skills. Table 13.1 gives some examples and you can find details of all the tools and

techniques on our website.

Table 13.1: Useful tools and techniques for design thinking

Stage in DT Cycle

Useful tools and techniques

Empathize

Ethnography
User led innovation
Lead user methods
Customer journeys
Storytelling
Outcome driven innovation
Empathic design
Netnography
Kano methods
Repertory grid
Personas

Define

5 whys
Fishbones
How to statements
Process mapping
Value curves
Competitiveness profiling
Abstract driven search
Value curves
Value stream analysis

Ideate

5Rs
Brainstorming
Lateral thinking
Analogy and metaphor
Recombinant innovation
Attribute listing
Morphological analysis
TRIZ

Prototype Prototyping methods
Serious play, simulation, storytelling
Lean start-up
Living Labs

Test Lean start-up and hypothesis design
5x5x5
Lead user methods
Getting Feedback

Implement Beta to scale
Building communities
Learning logs

BMGT 620 Discussion Rubric
Course: BMGT 620 9085 Innovation & Entrepreneurship (2252)

Initia

Post

Excellent Proficient
Approachi

Proficiency

Needs

Improvement

Not Evident
(0)

Criteri

Scor

Initia

Post

(10

pts)

/ 10

Timel

iness

pts)

/ 5

points

Applie

knowledge

appropriate

topical content

in a

comprehensive

and

insightful

way. In-depth

analysis is

present.

(10 pts)

9 points

Demonstrates

good

understanding

of the topic

material

and

applies it in a

satisfactory

way. Good

analysis is

present.

(9 pts)

8 points

Demonstrates

a more basic

understanding

of the topical

material and

applies it in a

basic way.

Rudimentary

analysis is

present.

(8 pts)

7 points

Demonstrates

a limited

understanding

of the topical

material or

applied it in a

limited way.

Little or no

analysis is

present.

(7 pts)

0 points

No evidence,

or the post

was dated

after the end

of the

discu

ssion

activity.

points)

5 points

Submits initial

post on time

(4.5 – 5

points)

4 points

Submits initial

post within 24

hours of the

deadline.

(4.25 – 4

points)

3.5 points

Submits initial

post within

48 hours of

the deadline.

(3.75 -3.5

points)

3 points

Submits initial

post within

72 hours of

the deadline.

(3.25 – 3

points)

0 points

No evidence,

or the post

was dated

after the end

of the

discussion

activity.

points)

3/27/25, 9:59 AM Rubric Assessment – BMGT 620 9085 Innovation & Entrepreneurship (2252) – UMGC Learning Management System

https://learn.umgc.edu/d2l/lms/competencies/rubric/rubrics_assessment_results.d2l?ou=1367088&evalObjectId=4914114&evalObjectType=5&userId=… 1/6

Initial
Post

Excellent Proficient

Approaching

Proficiency

Needs
Improvement

Not Evident
(0)

Criterion
Score

Resp

onse

1 (5

pts)

/ 55 points

Provided a

sufficiently

detailed and

insightful

response,

demonstrating

a deep

understanding

of the

course

material.

(4.5 – 5

points)

4 points

Provided a

sufficiently

detailed

response,

demonstrating

a basic

understanding

of the course

material.

(4.25 – 4

points)

3.5 points

Provided a

response that

was not

sufficiently

detailed or

insightful and

did not

demonstrate

a clear

understanding

of the course

material.

(3.75 -3.5

points)

3 points

Provided a

response that

was poorly

written and

organized and

demonstrated

little or no

understanding

of the course

material.

(3.25 – 3

points)

0 points

No evidence,

or the post

was dated

after the end

of the

discussion

activity.

(0 points)

3/27/25, 9:59 AM Rubric Assessment – BMGT 620 9085 Innovation & Entrepreneurship (2252) – UMGC Learning Management System

https://learn.umgc.edu/d2l/lms/competencies/rubric/rubrics_assessment_results.d2l?ou=1367088&evalObjectId=4914114&evalObjectType=5&userId=… 2/6

Initial
Post

Excellent Proficient
Approaching
Proficiency

Needs
Improvement

Not Evident
(0)

Criterion
Score

Resp

onse

2 (5

pts)

/ 5

Cum

ulativ

Posts

Evide

nce

and

resea

rch.

(7.5

pts)

/ 7.5

5 points

Provided a

sufficiently

detailed and

insightful

response,

demonstrating

a deep

understanding

of the course

material.

(4.5 – 5

points)

4 points

Provided a

sufficiently

detailed

response,

demonstrating

a basic

understanding

of the course

material.

(4.25 – 4

points)

3.5 points

Provided a

response that

was not

sufficiently

detailed or

insightful and

did not

demonstrate

a clear

understanding

of the course

material.

(3.75 -3.5

points)

3 points

Provided a

response that

was poorly

written and

organized and

demonstrated

little or no

understanding

of the course

material.

(3.25 – 3

points)

0 points

No evidence,

or the post

was dated

after the end

of the

discussion

activity.

(0 points)

7.5 points

Included

multiple

specific and

relevant

examples

support claims

from course

resources and

additional

research.

(7.5-6.75

points)

6 points

Included

some

good

examples

from course

resources and

research, but

they were not

always

specific or

relevant to

claims.

(6.5 – 6

points)

5.25 points

Included only

a few

examples

from course

resources and

research, or

the examples

provided were

not specific or

relevant

enough.

(5.75 – 5.25

points

4.5 points

Did not

include

evidence from

course

resources or

research or

provided

inaccurate

evidence to

support

claims.

(5 – 4.5

points)

0 points

No evidence,

or the post

was dated

after the end

of the

discussion

activity.

(0 points)

3/27/25, 9:59 AM Rubric Assessment – BMGT 620 9085 Innovation & Entrepreneurship (2252) – UMGC Learning Management System

https://learn.umgc.edu/d2l/lms/competencies/rubric/rubrics_assessment_results.d2l?ou=1367088&evalObjectId=4914114&evalObjectType=5&userId=… 3/6

Initial
Post

Excellent Proficient
Approaching
Proficiency

Needs
Improvement

Not Evident
(0)

Criterion
Score

Cum

ulativ

Posts

Profe

ssion

writi

and

orga

nizati

skills

pts)

/ 55 points

Demonstrated

professional

writing and

organization

skills, with

very few or no

errors.

(4.5 – 5

points)

4 points

Demonstrated

professional

writing and

organization

skills with

some minor

errors.

(4.25 – 4

points)

3.5 points

Demonstrated

professional

writing and

organization

skills but with

several

errors.

(3.75 -3.5

points)

3 points

Demonstrated

poor writing

and

organization

skills with

multiple

errors.

(3.25 – 3

points)

0 points

No evidence,

or the post

was dated

after the end

of the

discussion

activity.

(0 points)

3/27/25, 9:59 AM Rubric Assessment – BMGT 620 9085 Innovation & Entrepreneurship (2252) – UMGC Learning Management System

https://learn.umgc.edu/d2l/lms/competencies/rubric/rubrics_assessment_results.d2l?ou=1367088&evalObjectId=4914114&evalObjectType=5&userId=… 4/6

Initial
Post

Excellent Proficient
Approaching
Proficiency

Needs
Improvement

Not Evident
(0)

Criterion
Score

Cum

ulativ

Posts

Appli

catio

n of

cours

mate

rial

real-

worl

situa

tions

pts)

/ 55 points

Post(s)

incorporated

examples of

real-world

situations to

support and

substantiate

the position.

Demonstrated

a deep

understanding

of how the

course

material can

be used to

solve

business

problems.

(4.5 – 5

points)

4 points

Post(s)

incorporated

some

examples of

real-world

situations to

support and

substantiate

the position.

Demonstrated

a good

understanding

of how the

course

material can

be used to

solve business

problems.

(4.25 – 4

points)

3.5 points

Post(s)

incorporated

few examples

of real-world

situations.

Examples may

not have been

specific or

relevant, or

the post(s)

demonstrated

a limited or

inaccurate

understanding

of how the

course

material can

be used to

solve business

problems.

(3.75 -3.5

points)

3 points

Post(s) did not

incorporate

any examples

of real-world

situations or

demonstrated

inaccurate

understanding

of how the

course

material can

be used to

solve business

problems.

(3.25 – 3

points)

0 points

No evidence,

or the post

was dated

after the end

of the

discussion

activity.

(0 points)

3/27/25, 9:59 AM Rubric Assessment – BMGT 620 9085 Innovation & Entrepreneurship (2252) – UMGC Learning Management System

https://learn.umgc.edu/d2l/lms/competencies/rubric/rubrics_assessment_results.d2l?ou=1367088&evalObjectId=4914114&evalObjectType=5&userId=… 5/6

Total / 50

Overall Score

Initial
Post

Excellent Proficient
Approaching
Proficiency

Needs
Improvement

Not Evident
(0)

Criterion
Score

Evide

nce

Skills

(7.5

pts

/ 7.57.5 points

Submission

provided an

exceptional

application of

business

strategies

skills in the

discussion

response

(7.5-6.75

points)

6 points

Submission

provided a

sufficient

application of

business

strategies

skills in the

discussion

response

(6.5 – 6

points)

5.25 points

Submission

provided a

somewhat

sufficient

application of

business

strategies

skills in the

discussion

response

which did not

show

proficiency

(5.75 – 5.25

points)

4.5 points

Submission

provided an

insufficient

application of

business

strategies

skills in the

discussion

response

(5 – 4.5

points)

0 points

No evidence,

or the post

was dated

after the end

of the

discussion

activity.

(0 points)

Excellent
45 points

minimum

Proficient
40 points

minimum

Approaching

Proficiency
35 points minimum

Needs

Improvement
30 points minimum

Submission
0 points

minimum

3/27/25, 9:59 AM Rubric Assessment – BMGT 620 9085 Innovation & Entrepreneurship (2252) – UMGC Learning Management System

https://learn.umgc.edu/d2l/lms/competencies/rubric/rubrics_assessment_results.d2l?ou=1367088&evalObjectId=4914114&evalObjectType=5&userId=… 6/6

Turn in your highest-quality paper
Get a qualified writer to help you with

“ Unit 3 Discussion ”

Get high-quality paper

Guarantee! All work is written by expert writers!

Still stressed from student homework?

Get quality assistance from academic writers!

Order now