chapter 1, version a - qut › 123006 › 1 › sonya_close-debais_thesis.pdf · thinking and its...

Investigating employees’ understanding and application of design

thinking for innovation in a large organisation

Sonya Close-DeBais

Bachelor of Commerce

(Flinders University of South Australia)

Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Design (Research)

School of Design

Creative Industries Faculty

Queensland University of Technology

2018

i

Keywords

Design Thinking

Human Centred Design

Design-led Innovation

Financial Services

Large organisations

Design Capability

Innovation

Design Thinking Programmes

ii

Abstract

Many established financial services organisations are exploring new ways of

generating innovations by moving towards a more service oriented or customer

experience model. To enable this shift, organisations are deploying internal design

thinking programs, seeking to develop their employees design capability and improve

innovation outputs. Yet, there is limited understanding on how individual employees

(without a background in design) view design and innovation, how design thinking is

being employed across a large organisation and the relationship of design thinking to

innovation. This research aims to investigate how employees in a large financial

services corporation become aware of, and recognise the possibilities of design

thinking and its potential link to drive innovative practices.

In response to this question, this study grounds its scope around the exploration

of employees within a large Australian multinational financial services organisation

MFSCo. By focusing on one organisation, the objective of the research is to gain a

deeper understanding of the many factors that contribute to an organisation and its

ability to explore and apply design thinking methods to generate innovative solutions.

Using a case study approach, the research is divided into three studies: study A applied

a content analysis of four internal design thinking programmes deployed by the case

firm: study B and C applied a qualitative approach, entailing face-to face semi-

structured interviews and mapping of the current design thinking and innovation

capacity within the organisation, using an existing design capability framework.

Study A utilised content analysis methodology with investigator triangulation

assessment, examining the design thinking programmes currently implemented within

MFSCo which are delivered to its employees by a dedicated internal design and

innovation team. The current practices where design is being used as a driver for

innovation were analysed revealing the complexities associated with how individual

employees develop design expertise, informing further considerations regarding the

application and scalability of design to enable greater innovation.

Study B and C applied an exploratory qualitative approach which applies the

study of MFSCo and aspires to provide greater comprehension of dissemination and

practical application of design thinking capability to derive innovative results, with

iii

specific reference to the nuances of a large multinational financial services

organisation.

Empirical data from individual employees were collected and analysed

regarding their experiences and ability to contextualise perceptions and applications

concerning design thinking and innovation. Lastly, employees provided a view of the

design capability of their organisation through plotting against an existing design

capacity framework.

This research contributes a sobering view of the implementation of design

thinking training programs as a stimulus for organisational innovation and aims to

build theory and bridge the gap in understanding the ability for non-designers in large

corporations to learn and deliver innovation from design thinking application.

Recommendations are provided for large organisations wishing to use design thinking

methodology to deliver human centric solutions for their customers and achieve

genuine transformative innovation. Implications of this research include key insights

for industry, large organisations and practitioners.

iv

Table of Contents

Keywords .......................................................................................................................................... i

Abstract ............................................................................................................................................ ii

Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................. iv

List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ vii

List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. viii

List of Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................ x

Statement of Original Authorship ..................................................................................................... xi

Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................... xii

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Research background ............................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Research Question and Purpose .............................................................................................. 2

1.3 Research objectives ................................................................................................................ 3

1.4 Principal research question and sub questions ......................................................................... 4

1.5 Thesis outline ......................................................................................................................... 5

LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................................... 9

2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 9

2.2 Change and embracing innovation .......................................................................................... 9

2.3 Design thinking capability and frameworks .......................................................................... 12 2.3.1 Design thinking frameworks ...................................................................................... 14

2.4 Value of design thinking ...................................................................................................... 16

2.5 Integration of design thinking into large organisations .......................................................... 16 2.5.1 Implementing design thinking training programs ........................................................ 18

2.6 Design thinking in the financial services sector in Australia .................................................. 19

2.7 Measuring and mapping design thinking in a business context .............................................. 20

2.8 Summary of the literature review .......................................................................................... 23

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY................................................. 25

3.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 25

3.2 Research aim and objectives ................................................................................................. 25

3.3 Methodology ........................................................................................................................ 27

3.4 Participating company .......................................................................................................... 29

3.5 Research ethics .................................................................................................................... 30

3.6 Data collection ..................................................................................................................... 31 3.6.1 Content analysis of design and innovation programmes .............................................. 31 3.6.2 Semi-structured interviews ........................................................................................ 33 3.6.3 Selection of participants ............................................................................................ 34

3.7 Design and innovation design capacity model ....................................................................... 35

3.8 Data analysis ........................................................................................................................ 39

v

3.9 Summary ............................................................................................................................. 42

RESULTS AND ANALYSIS – STUDY A ............................................................ 44

4.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 44

4.2 Information sharing to raise awareness ................................................................................. 44

4.3 Limited time allocation ........................................................................................................ 45

4.4 Efficiency focus over creativity ............................................................................................ 46

4.5 Comparing design and capability programmes of MFSCo with those run by design and

innovation professionals.................................................................................................................. 47

4.6 Summary ............................................................................................................................. 49

RESULTS AND ANALYSIS - STUDY B ............................................................ 52

5.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 52

5.2 Employees understanding of innovation ............................................................................... 53 5.2.1 A new way of thinking .............................................................................................. 54 5.2.2 Any change that adds value ....................................................................................... 54 5.2.3 Participants’ description of innovation ....................................................................... 55 5.2.4 Examples of innovation practices experienced by employees ..................................... 55

5.3 Employees’ understanding of design thinking ....................................................................... 58 5.3.1 Customer is key......................................................................................................... 58 5.3.2 Problem fixing as iterative process for desired outcomes ............................................ 59 5.3.3 Human centred design themes ................................................................................... 59 5.3.4 Employees examples of experiencing design thinking ................................................ 60

5.4 Barriers and impediments to design thinking ........................................................................ 63 5.4.1 Analytical vs Creativity ............................................................................................. 63 5.4.2 Conflicting priorities ................................................................................................. 64 5.4.3 Limited employee empowerment ............................................................................... 64 5.4.4 Controlled regulation ................................................................................................. 65

5.5 Summary ............................................................................................................................. 65

RESULTS AND ANALYSIS - STUDY C ............................................................ 67

6.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 67

6.2 Mapping of the diagrams ...................................................................................................... 67

6.3 The findings ......................................................................................................................... 68 6.3.1 Participants who did not attend any of the four-internal design and innovation

programmes .............................................................................................................. 68 6.3.2 Participants who attended at least one internal design and innovation programme ....... 69

6.4 Comparisons from all the completed participant diagrams ..................................................... 75 6.4.1 Responsibility vs Accountability................................................................................ 75 6.4.2 Business centricity .................................................................................................... 76 6.4.3 Lack of integration and application ............................................................................ 77

6.5 Limitations of the design capacity model (DCM) .................................................................. 78

6.6 Summary ............................................................................................................................. 79

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ........................................................................... 80

7.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 80

7.2 Appreciation of design thinking ............................................................................................ 82

7.3 Practice integration .............................................................................................................. 83

7.4 Summary ............................................................................................................................. 85

CONCLUSIONS, LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH ....................... 86

vi

8.1 Conclusions ......................................................................................................................... 86

8.2 Implications for large organisations ...................................................................................... 87 8.2.1 Implications for theory .............................................................................................. 88

8.3 Limitations of research ......................................................................................................... 88

8.4 Future research..................................................................................................................... 89

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 91

APPENDICES............................................................................................................................... 97 Appendix A Interview Schedule ........................................................................................... 97 Appendix B Study A thematic coding scheme....................................................................... 99 Appendix C Study B thematic coding scheme ..................................................................... 100 Appendix D Study C thematic coding scheme..................................................................... 101 Appendix E Results for Study C ......................................................................................... 102 Appendix F Ethics form for semi- structure interviews ........................................................ 106 Appendix G: Chapter 3 Literature Review Table ................................................................. 110

vii

List of Figures

Figure 1.1: Representation of the principal research question (PRQ)

Figure 1.2: Overview of the chapters in this thesis

Figure 2.1: Design-led Innovation Framework (Bucolo, Wrigley, & Matthews, 2012)

Figure 2.2: Design Capacity Model (DCM) (Storvang, Jensen, & Christensen, 2014)

Figure 3.1: Participating Company and case study

Figure 3.2: Design Capacity Model (DCM) (Storvang et al., 2014)

Figure 3.3: Modified Design Capacity Model

Figure 3.4: Thematic analysis process

Figure 3.5: Analysis utilising Design Led Innovation Framework

Figure 4.1: Themes of design deployment in organisation

Figure 4.2: The Barriers to achieving design capability


Figure 5.2: Themes identified within each area of focus

Figure 5.3: Employees’ definition of innovation

Figure 5.4: Innovation results placed on Design-led Innovation Framework (Bucolo,

Wrigley, & Matthews, 2012)

Figure 5.5: Employee perceptions of design thinking

Figure 5.6: Mapping Perceptions on Design-led Innovation Framework Bucolo,

Wrigley, & Matthews, 2012)

Figure 5.7: Barriers and Impediments to delivering design led innovation

Figure 7.1: Principal research question relationship to discussion

viii

List of Tables

Table 3.1: Representation of study A and B and C

Table 2.1: Design Program Summary

Table 3.1: Representation of study A, B and C


Table 3.3: Participant selection (Departmental)

Table 3.4: Participant selection (Geographic and Managerial)

Table 3.5: Participant coding scheme

Table 3.6: Example of mapping the results in the DCM

Table 4.1: Participants who completed the design and innovation programmes 2014-

2016

Table 6.1: Non-Participants in the internal design and innovation program

Table 6.2: Participants in at least one internal design and innovation program

x

List of Abbreviations

MFSCo Multinational Financial Services Company

The participating Australian financial services organisation,

the research in this thesis is based on

DT Design Thinking The management discourse framework Design thinking as design company IDEO’s way of working with design and innovation (Kelley, 2001, 2005; Brown, 2008, 2009) (Johannsson-Skoldberg et al)

DLI Design-Led Innovation The theoretical framework developed by (Bucolo et al., 2012) provides a framework to link organisational and strategic outputs

DCM Design Capacity Model The theoretical framework developed by (Storvang et al., 2014) provides a basis for measuring design capacity for the participating organisation

xi

Statement of Original Authorship

The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted to meet

requirements for an award at this or any other higher education institution. To the best

of my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously published or

written by another person except where due reference is made.

QUT Verified Signature

xii

Acknowledgements

I wish to acknowledge the following people in accordance with this research:

Firstly, I would like to thank Dr Cara Wrigley and Dr Judy Matthews on the

ongoing support and guidance they have provided me on undertaking this research

agenda. There were many unforeseen twists and turns but their passion and dedication

was encouraging and enabled me to continue.

I would also like to thank and acknowledge Associate Professor Evonne Miller

for providing compassion, understanding and encouraging the finalisation of this

thesis.

I would like to thank my family for allowing me to spend precious time and

space to commit to the research. My loving husband and beautiful daughters have

grown with me over this time and have had their own challenges.

A big thank you to the staff who participated in the study and provided such

interesting and valued insight that informed this research. Their commitment, time,

enthusiasm and honest commentary were central to this research.

Overall, this thesis has been a long time in the making and has shown me I can

really do anything I put my mind too. I’ve genuinely matured and learned so much

over this time that has taught me who I am and who I want to be.

Thank you.

Chapter 1: Introduction 1

Introduction

1.1 RESEARCH BACKGROUND

The financial services industry is key to the success of the Australian economy,

where even established financial services businesses need to continually push to

innovate. In 2016, this industry added $140 billion to GDP, surpassing the mining,

manufacturing and construction sectors (KPMG, 2015). In an industry known for its

conservative nature, the ability to remain competitive and relevant in an environment

of constant disruptive change is more important than ever.

Finding new innovative approaches to service, processes and products to delight

the end user is becoming increasingly challenging, particularly for large established

organisations. Adopting a design thinking (DT) methodology offers a new way for

business and design to collaborate to achieve innovative results (Liedtka, 2010). Large

corporations recognise the need to innovate to achieve sustainable growth in today’s

economic marketplace (KPMG, 2015). Design, design thinking, and design led

approaches to innovation have been known to assist in this process (Brown, 2008;

Brown & Martin, 2015; Johannsson-Skoldberg et all, 2013; Kolko, 2015; Liedtka and

Ogilvie, 2011; Verganti, 2008 and Verganti, 2009). Combining business management

expertise and designer capabilities creates new approaches to solving problems and

achieving a different set of outcomes to drive innovation (Martin, 2009). Whilst DT

for innovation is growing in popularity, there is little information on how to build the

skills and expertise of non-designers in the financial services sector. What is still

absent from the literature is the appreciation of non-designer employees’, within the

context of large financial services organisations, ability to build design thinking

capability, and awareness of how DT is linked to innovation.


1.2 RESEARCH QUESTION AND PURPOSE

As design thinking has grown in popularity, organisations have experimented

delivering innovation programs using design thinking principles to drive innovative

practices (Bucolo & Matthews, 2011; Bucolo & Wrigley, 2013; Carlgren, Elmquist,

& Rauth, 2011; Liedtka, King, & Bennett, 2013; Matthews, Bucolo & Wrigley, 2012).

With an increasing number of people being exposed to design thinking methods, this

thesis explores one central research question: to what extent do employees in a large

Australian financial services organisation perceive, utilise and connect design

thinking practices to deliver innovative solutions?

This research investigates how employees without a formal background in

design, viewed innovation and the utilisation of design thinking through their

experiences inside the organisation. The researcher interviewed 31 employees across

various organisational levels, roles, geographical locations and departments within one

large organisation, uncovering their thoughts, feelings, saying and doing about design

thinking in their current work contexts. The purpose of this research is to contribute

practical evidence of the complexities associated with how individual employees

interpret design and innovation, as well as to highlight the application and scalability

of design thinking to move beyond building capability and enable greater innovative

outcomes.

This research will also investigate to what extent the attempts to use design

thinking training programs to build a design thinking capability are sufficient to deliver

innovation and significant growth in the company. It will not be addressing

‘innovation’ and the ability for companies to innovate generally. The research is

limited to looking at innovation through the lens of design thinking applicability. From

an industry perspective, developing a design thinking capability within a firm has

become a growing agenda over the past decade and the drive to become ‘innovative’

pervades modern management discourse (KPMG, 2015). At present the average

lifespan of a Fortune 500 company has dropped from 75 to 15 years, and the size of a

firm is no longer a safety net (Denning, 2012). This decrease holds true for traditional

industries, such as financial services, where tried and tested methods to generate the

growth they have previously enjoyed are no longer sufficient. A recent survey

conducted by KPMG, found eight out of 10 insurance executives believed the future

success of their business was closely tied to the ability to innovate ahead of their


competitors (KPMG, 2015). Despite this need for innovation, traditional firms

struggle to implement design thinking and innovation programmes effectively to drive

significant innovative outcomes and growth (Kolko, 2015). Academic researchers are

also seeking to answer this question (Carlgren, 2013; Howard, 2015; Liedtka, King, &

Bennett, 2013; Liedtka and Ogilvie, 2011, Matthews & Wrigley, 2011) however

empirical evidence on how employees perceive design thinking and its relationship

with progressing innovative practices in the organisation appears limited.

1.3 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

This research is focused on understanding how non-designers within a traditional

financial services organisation build DT capability, apply design thinking and their

ability to link design practices to producing innovative resolutions. The following four

research objectives seek to satisfy this overarching aim:

1. To understand, define and measure the current design thinking capability

within organisations, considering all levels of hierarchy. This information will provide

a foundation and transparency of the skills and knowledge inherent within the

participating organisation.

2. To identify the challenges, impediments, strengths and barriers associated

with embedding design thinking in a large, multifaceted financial services

organisation. Highlighting these factors will enable positive transformation and assist

in driving the right outcomes when encouraging the use of design principles to

facilitate innovation. Large organisations in particular are complex in nature and

appreciating the intricacies will assist the sustainability of the innovation program.

3. Discover and understand how the financial services business is applying

design thinking methodology. Building capability is not just about knowledge, it is

also about being able to apply the learning to generate value.

4. Understanding the relationship between design thinking and innovation will

support an organisations ability to innovate and remain competitive in a dynamic and

changing environment.

This task is complex and multifaceted, therefore, the research is divided into

three components; the first step will analyse the current methods that design thinking

is being used as a driver for innovation and whether existing approaches are successful;


the second step will analyse how various employees interpret design thinking and

innovation via explanations and examples of application; finally the third step will map

participants’ evaluation of the organisation with regards to the utilisation of design

thinking to drive innovative outcomes.

1.4 PRINCIPAL RESEARCH QUESTION AND SUB QUESTIONS

This research seeks to contribute towards the endurance of the financial services

industry and large traditional organisations in Australia. The principal research

question (PRQ) focused on within this thesis is:

PRQ: To what extent do employees in a large Australian financial services

organisation perceive, utilise and connect design thinking practices to deliver

innovative solutions?

The principal research question is separated into three components and set out

as sub-reasearch questions as defined by Study A, B and C:

1. In what ways is design currently being deployed and utilised within a

multinational financial services organisation (MFSCo.)? (Study A)

2. To what extent do employees understand the link between design thinking

and innovation and in what ways are they applying design thinking in the

organisation? (Study B)

3. How do employees perceive the current design thinking and innovation

capacity of the organisation? (Study C)

Through answering these three sub-research questions, the core objectives and

the principal research question will be addressed. Firstly, by understanding how design

thinking is disseminated within an organisation and the barriers faced whilst

embedding design capability. Secondly, by defining perceptions of design and

innovation by non-designers and understanding how they utilise the approaches to

recognise design thinking knowledge and practical application. Lastly, by highlighting

the link between design thinking and innovation and revealing the current level of

design thinking capacity within the participating organisation and its ability to deliver

innovation utilising design thinking practices.


Figure 1.1: Representation of the principal research question (PRQ)

1.5 THESIS OUTLINE

This thesis consists of eight chapters in total and is structured around the

principal research question illustrated in Figure 1.1 below. The thesis addresses three

sub-research questions, detailed as Study A, B and C and show how the principal

research question has been informed and answered.

Chapter 2: Literature Review. This Chapter provides an evaluation of

literature that is pertinent to this research. It explores seven areas of theory including:

change and embracing innovation; design thinking frameworks and models;

innovation in business; integration of design thinking in large organisations; design

Sub-Question Study C

How do employees perceive the current design thinking and innovation capacity of their organisation?

Sub-Question Study B

To what extent do employees understand the link between design thinking and innovation and in what ways are they applying design in the organisation?

Sub-Question Study A

In what ways is design thinking currently being deployed and utilised within a multinational incumbant (MFSCo.)? (Study A)

Principal Research Question

The overarching aim of this research seeks to understand how employees in a large Australian financial services organisation, perceive, utilise and connect

design thinking practices to deliver innovative solutions?


thinking in financial services in Australia; design thinking capacity models; innovation

design catalysts.

Chapter 3: Research Design. This Chapter describes the research methodology

and analysis undertaken as part of this research agenda. It is set out as three

components aligning to the sub-research questions as defined as Study A, B and C.

Individually describing the methodology and analysis for each Study.

Study A utilises content analysis methodology for four existing design thinking

and innovation programmes applied within the participating organisation.

Study B utilises qualitative case study methodology, employing semi structured

interviews across 31 employees of the participating firm.

Study C applies the design capacity model (Storvang et al., 2014) to evaluate

the current design thinking capacity in the organisation to deliver innovation.

Chapter 4: Results and Analysis Study A. This Chapter details the results from

Study A ‘in what ways is design thinking currently being deployed and utilised within

a multinational incumbent (MFSCo.)?’ Analysis and findings from the content

analysis of the four-design thinking and innovation programmes used to disseminate

design thinking capability to employees across the participating organisation are

presented.

Chapter 5: Results and Analysis Study B. This Chapter details the results from

Study B ‘To what extent do employees understand the link between design thinking

and innovation and in what ways are they applying design thinking in the

organisation?’ Analysis and findings from the semi-structured interviews undertaken

across the participating organisation are presented.

Chapter 6: Results and Analysis Study C. This Chapter details the results from

Study C’ How do employees perceive their current design thinking and innovattion


capacity of their organisation?’ Analysis of the findings from the completed diagrams

of the design capacity model inspired by Storvang et al., (2014) are presented.

Chapter 7: Discussion. This chapter discusses the findings of the three studies

presented in this thesis, in order to respond to the overarching principal research

question, ‘which seeks to understand how employees in a large Australian financial

services organisation, perceive, utilise and connect design thinking practices to

deliver innovation.’

Chapter 8: Conclusions, Limitations, Implications and Future Research.

This short final chapter details the conclusions, contributions and the limitations of

this study and implications of these findings for large organisations and design

thinking theory. Lastly, it describes potential future research opportunities to continue

the discussion.

Figure 1.2: Overview of the chapters in this thesis

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

CHAPTER 2

Literature review

CHAPTER 3

Research Design and Method

CHAPTER 4

Results and Analysis Study A

CHAPTER 5

Results and Analysis Study B

CHAPTER 6

Results and Analysis Study C

CHAPTER 7

Discussion

CHAPTER 8 Conclusions,Contributions,

Implications and Future Research

Chapter 2: Literature Review 9

Literature Review

2.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter presents an overview of the current literature covering culture and

innovation, in line with Section 1.5 the context for innovation is aligned to the

perception of design thinking and the link to innovation; current understandings of

design thinking, design thinking in a business context; potential links between design

thinking and design thinking in large organisations and financial services

organisations; and applying and measuring the value of design thinking in business.

Firstly, the literature examines change and embracing innovation in an organisational

context. Secondly, the types and various approaches to design thinking, including

models and frameworks are discussed. Thirdly, exploring design thinking in business

with purposely understanding applicability to the financial services industry within

Australia and how non- designers are driving innovation through design thinking

frameworks. Lastly, examining the application of design thinking via design thinking

and innovation catalysts and tools used to measure the value of design thinking and its

ability to generate innovative solutions.

2.2 CHANGE AND EMBRACING INNOVATION

Innovation has been defined in a range of ways (Amabile, 1988; Damanpour,

1991; Damanpour and Schneider, 2006; Frambach & Schillewaert, 2002; Rogers,

2010; Souto, 2015; Wisdom et al., 2014; Wolfe, 1994). In a general context, innovation

is defined ‘as the creation or adoption of new ideas’ (Amabile, 1988; Rogers, 2010 &

Frambach & Schillewaert, 2002). At an organisational level, innovation is defined as,

the acceptance and adoption of an idea or behaviour regarding a system, policy,

program, device, process, product or service (Damanpour, 1991), which culminates in

an improvement to the existing business model or a complete business model renewal

(Souto, 2015). As outlined by (Wisdom et al., 2014), there are many theoretical

frameworks that seek to understand the various elements of innovation and describe

the vigorous process of adoption of innovation. For the purposes of this research,


Damanpour’s (1991) broad definition of innovation will be applied, with the research

focus on the perception of design thinking and its relationship to innovation.

Nevertheless it is acknowledged there is significant literature on innovation as defined

and conceptualised by the research of (Amabile, 1988; Damanpour, 1991; Damanpour

and Schneider, 2006; Frambach & Schillewaert, 2002; Rogers, 2010; Souto, 2015;

Wisdom et al., 2014; Wolfe, 1994).

The adoption of innovation creates change in the organisation (Damanpour and

Schneider, 2006). In the context or organisational change, the adoption of practices

that deliver innovation outputs is complex, particularly when it promotes a change in

routine practices or the perception of change is not seen as necessary (Garland et al.

2010) .The challenge of directing organisational change and adopting innovation, has

been extensively studied (Ahmed, 1998; Burdon & Dovey, 2015; Büschgens, Bausch,

& Balkin, 2013; Damanpour and Schneider, 2006; Elsbach & Stigliani, 2018; Herbig,

1998; Lawson and Samson, 2001), where a key problem for many companies appears

to be attempting to use previous change management experience and problem solving

techniques to solve future, previously uncharted problems. Whilst outside the main

focus of this thesis it is important to consider the challenge of organisational change

and adapting to innovation outputs.

Burdon & Dovey (2015) describe the challenge of fostering an innovative

company as consisting of the interplay between leadership and culture. Ahmed (1998)

contends that for an organisation to develop a sustainable culture of innovation, leaders

must be linked to what is happening within the organisation and accepting that

ambiguity requires new approaches and processes to solve problems.

The type of culture and the effect it has on the type of innovation output are

important (Büschgens et al., 2013). Suggesting organisations that make radical

innovations displays or demonstrate a culture that is different for organisations that

produce incremental innovation output (Büschgens et al., 2013). Inferring, the desired

outcome of such change, is the creation of a company that can confront and solve

future problems with new methods and is not limited by past deeply ingrained, tacit

methods of problem solving often evident in established firms.

The culture and climate within an organisation is very important to delivering

innovation success. Lawson and Samson, (2001) outline four (4) fundamental aspects

of a culture for innovation as: ‘tolerance of ambiguity, empowered employees, creative


time, and communication.’ Referencing the ability to learn from mistakes as an

important practice to promote a culture of innovative rituals, along with an

organisations’ ability to focus on their people and providing space, time and open

communication across a firm.

Ahmed (1998) summarises transforming organisations into a culture that

promotes innovation requires continuous focus from leadership, meaningful employee

engagement and a framework that builds individual and collective capability. These

influences enable ideas to transform into sustainable innovative solutions. However,

there is evidence that suggests the existing cultural conditions determine the way

which innovations are adopted (Herbig, 1998). Organisational cultures that value

creativity tend to have a larger number and quality of innovations and those that value

technical capability via education will flourish in innovative activities. Herbig (1998)

states that innovation is directly proportionate to the encouragement and focus given

to ground breaking endeavours within the culture and the importance given is

comparative to the existence of the culture. Highlighting the value of developing a

culture that encourages development of skills that promote innovation and linking

those to the values, business strategy and organisational focus.

Building a culture of continuous innovation can provide noteworthy returns for

organisations that must tackle shifting external markets, new potential entrants and

fostering new capabilities that promote innovation. (Kloeckner, 2018) emphasises a

culture of innovation must be supported from the top and needs to be directly linked

to the mission and values of the organisation. Thus, recognising a culture of innovation

cannot sit separately and apply only to those with ‘innovation’ in their title.

The right culture is important to build, nurture and develop any type of

innovation within an organisation. Carlgren (2013) references design thinking as a

‘vehicle for change’, and may provide alternative ways to understand and deliver

innovation in large organisations (Brown, 2008; Brown and Martin, 2015; Dorst, 2010;

Howard, 2015; Liedtka, 2014; Martin, 2009; Sobel & Groeger, 2012). The notion of

design and designedly thinking in management discourse, has become a way for non-

designers to influence innovation and manage complex decision making (Johannsson-

Skoldberg et al, 2013). The next section discusses design thinking capability and the

frameworks which are utilised for driving innovation.


2.3 DESIGN THINKING CAPABILITY AND FRAMEWORKS

In order to determine how to build design thinking capability, understanding

what design thinking expertise actually is and how to establish it is crucial. According

to the literature there are many views, definitions and interpretations of design thinking

capability. There is no one consistent explanation of what design thinking competency

is and how design thinking competency can be acquired.

At present design thinking competency has multiple meanings (Barry &

Beckman, 2008; Beverland and Farrelly 2007; Brown, 2008; Howard, 2012;

Johansson et al. 2013; Kolko 2010; Lawson & Dorst, 2009; Liedtka & Bennett, 2013;

Martin 2009; Martin 2010; Melles, Howard, & Thompson-Whiteside 2012; Sobel and

Groeger, 2012). Melles, Howard, & Thompson-Whiteside (2012) discuss design

thinking capability as the capacity to co-design and work together with end users at an

organisational level in conjunction with developing skills and knowledge at the

individual level, while Sobel & Groeger (2012) describe design thinking as effectively

applying diversity of thought amongst users and internal stakeholders to uncover

insights, identify the real problem and be adaptable whilst developing and testing

prototypes to reveal the solution. Common to both of these definitions are

collaboration, co-designing with multiple stakeholders and the ability to execute on

the design thinking process.

According to Lawson & Dorst (2009) design thinking expertise is not defined as

one way of thinking, it is a mixture of rational, analytical thinking and creativity. They

contend that ‘if we want to understand the creation of design thinking expertise we

need to appreciate the nature of the activities and skills commonly found in successful

design thinking. ‘(Lawson & Dorst 2009: p50). This view is reiterated by Barry &

Beckman, (2008) who argue the inherent capabilities differ within each design

thinking cycle, and understanding and applying the right skill for the required element

will produce better outcomes overall.

Design thinking capabilities could also be defined as much more than only

knowledge and skills. There are intrinsic characteristics that accompany the

application of design thinking. Martin (2009) stated ‘the essential core capacity for

designers is abductive reasoning, the logic of what might be’ (Martin, 2009: p27). The

ability to make ‘a logical leap of the mind’ without proof from past events or

supporting validated data, differentiates the designer from the non-designer. The


explanation offers further insight into what capabilities make up a designer in a non-

designer environment, particularly in a business context where inductive and deductive

reasoning is the norm (Kolko 2010). Supporting this view, recent studies (Howard,

2012; Schweitzer, Groeger, & Sobel, 2016 & Sobel & Groeger, 2015 ) explored the

design thinking mindsets within an organisation and the ways they assist with a design

thinking approach. These authors suggest there is a benefit in understanding the key

types of mindsets, as well as the knowledge and skills required to support design

thinking practices. Schweitzer et al., (2016) identified (11) eleven characteristics of

mindsets conducive to aiding design thinking including: empathetic towards people’s

needs and context; collaboratively geared and embracing diversity; inquisitive and

open to new perspectives and learning; mindful of process and thinking modes;

experiential intelligence; taking action deliberately and overt; consciously creative;

accepting of uncertainty and open to risk; modelling behaviour; desire and

determination to make a difference; and critically questioning. They emphasise that

building and demonstrating design thinking capability is much more than merely

learning and applying tools and techniques. One must encompass inherently different

ways of performing and consider the philosophy associated with design thinking

practice. These may be exhibited through shifts in behaviours when approaching a

problem, adopting new perspectives which may contrast from the usual tactic and

incorporating a wider external view when developing potential solutions.

In establishing an optimal environment to enable design thinking between design

and business, Beverland & Farrelly, (2007) explore companies developing design

thinking capabilities. In this case, organisations become design-led by embedding the

principles of design thinking in daily work practices and designers and managers have

to ensure design thinking, and design-led practices are developed in business contexts.

Similarly, Martin (2010) proposed that consideration should be given to finding

balance between analytical management and intuitive thinking, between ‘exploration

and exploitation.’ Martin also believes that to aid this balance, applying the knowledge

funnel (mystery, heuristic, and algorithm) will create the right capabilities to enable

value and drive competitive advantage.

The design thinking capabilities explored in the literature, range from the tools

and techniques required to follow the methodology, to the knowledge and skills

acquired through learnings and experiences and the appropriate mindset or ability to


apply abductive reasoning. By understanding what design thinking capabilities are, the

next focus will consider how design thinking is being adopted in large organisations.

2.3.1 Design thinking frameworks

To support the theory of design thinking and promote design adoption, numerous

processes and frameworks have been developed to guide and represent the process of

design thinking (Liedtka, King and Bennett, 2013; IDEO, 2009, Liedtka & Ogilvie,

2011, Stanford d. School, 2009). Each of these frameworks provide easily understood

tools and definitions of the elements of design, particularly for non-formally trained

designers who wish to comprehend and apply design practices. The processes broadly

contain similar views on design thinking, even though differing terminology is applied

(Liedtka, 2015). The popular Stanford d. School design thinking process consists of

five (5) components: empathise; define; ideate; prototype and test (Stanford d. School,

2009).

Similarly, the Darden Design School and process designed by Liedtka & Ogilvie,

(2011) define four questions to prompt the designer: what is; what if; what wows and

what works. Both utilising various tools and techniques to understand the user, reframe

the problem to be solved, generate ideas and develop a prototype to test with the users.

Promoting design capability, Stanford d school offers online training tools and

resources providing wider access to non technically trained designers. Presenting the

Virtual Crash Course (Stanford d school), along with guides and videos to showcase

design thinking in practice. Correspondingly, IDEO and Darden Design School

provide artifacts to encourage widespread utilisation of design practices for typically

non designers (Liedtka & Ogilvie, 2011). Online courses, articles and free design

thinking frameworks promote the skills associated with design practices and make

design thinking processes more accessable to those who are seeking a new approach

to driving innovation and problem solving techniques particularly for those in a

business context.

Researchers have applied and extended notions of design thinking to broader

rigorous innovation methods. Design-led Innovation is one such method. Design-led

innovation is broadly defined as a method which allows a company to consider and


evaluate radically new propositions from multiple perspectives, typically spanning

user needs, business requirements and technology demands (Bucolo, Wrigley, &

Matthews, 2012). Key to this process is that design is core to a company’s vision,

strategy, culture, leadership and development processes. Design-led innovation

framework outlined below Figure 2.3, provides a conceptual structure to assist the

development of innovation through collaboration across the entire organisation;

integrating the operational functions with the strategic vision by combining internal

and external sources.

Figure 2.1: Design-led Innovation Framework (Bucolo, Wrigley, & Matthews, 2012)

This framework was selected as a lens for analysis to better understand the

organisation’s perception of innovation and design thinking and the relationship

between these notions. Identifying close configuration with the structure of a large

organisation as it represents both the operational and strategic landscapes and the

interaction with each other to deliver opportunities. In particular the framework links

the layered and segregated team configurations where strategic management and

operational units may function in isolation and their potential to deliver new

propositions is limited. This framework aids in pinpointing deficiencies and strengths

associated with delivering innovative results, highlighting where different foci and

how innovative outcomes can be enhanced to deliver greater economic growth.

Outlining the fundamental elements to design thinking and design-led

innovation provides a basis for understanding the competencies essential to drive the

practice within a business setting. To build upon this the next section discusses the

value of design and its purpose in organisational context.


2.4 VALUE OF DESIGN THINKING

The value of design thinking considers a much deeper understanding of design

thinking and the kinds of application across business (Dorst, 2010). Hence design can

be introduced to an organisation at four different levels, broadly described as: design

activities within a specific framing; introduction of design activities where there is

reframing of the situation; introduction of design activities via external design

consultants to review existing practices; and deeper integration of design activities to

produce a new frame or paradox (Dorst, 2010). For an organisation to truly value

design, the organisation should aim to deeply incorporate design practices within the

structure of the organisation and must integrate design not only at a project level.

The next section summaries the integration of design into large organisations as

defined in the literature.

2.5 INTEGRATION OF DESIGN THINKING INTO LARGE

ORGANISATIONS

This research is primarily focused on large, established organisations comprised

of multifaceted frameworks, traditional hierarchical structures and well-established

management practices. The ability to overcome these obstacles to drive innovation

through a design-led approach is challenging (Brown & Martin, 2015; Bucolo,

Wrigley & Matthews, 2012; Carlgren, 2013; Carlgren, Elmquist, & Rauth, 2015;

Howard, 2015; Liedtka, 2010; Liedtka, 2014; Martin, 2009; Sobel & Groeger, 2012).

Large businesses today face a whole new level of challenges compared to the past,

with rapid changes in the external environment and decreasing asymmetry between

organisations and consumers (Kloeckner, 2018).

A study conducted by (Carlgren, Elmquist, & Rauth, 2013) explores the

perception and utilisation of design thinking in 16 large organisations across four

industries (including software, product, services and healthcare) located in Germany

and US. The research examined how employees perceive design thinking and how it

is being utilised within the organisations. Findings identified many employees

perceive design as a mindset or culture rather than a practice or method and the

utilisation of design varied amongst early adoption in projects to alignment with

strategic initiatives (Carlgren et al., 2013). In comparison, a study conducted by

Darden University looked at the effect and impact design thinking was having in large


organisations. This study revealed some difficulties in the application of design

thinking; challenges of complex structures; separated business departments;

management ability and expertise and the language barrier between designers and non-

designers (Carr, Halliday, King, Liedtka, & Lockwood, 2010). This research

conducted an in-depth analysis the complexity of large organisations which

highlighted structure and department design impacts learning design thinking and

implementing innovative solutions. It highlighted that the challenges for large

organisations inferring the structure of the company plays a part in the application of

design thinking. Both Carlgren, 2013 and Carr et al, 2010 outline that shifting

individual and organisational perceptions on how to adopt new and unfamiliar

methodologies and practices, such as design thinking, requires considerable effort and

application.

Large organisations such as Apple, Google Ventures and Nike are examples of

organisations who have applied design thinking to drive innovation (Berger, 2010).

Companies such as these, incorporate designers’ skills successfully to solve problems

and innovate. Kolko (2015) contends that the ability to understand your customers,

build prototypes and iterate fast is a new core competence, essential to all designers

and organisations. This view supports Michlewski, (2008) who argues that the right

design attitude is important to a designer’s toolkit and draws attention to the types of

attitudes a typical designer attributes to successful design. Other research (Schweitzer,

Groeger & Sobel, 2016) suggests in order to build a design led approach to innovation,

focusing on developing the mindset is much more conducive to building design

capability as employees can adopt new processes quickly (Schweitzer et al., 2016).

This research also indicates that developing design thinking mindset is theoretically

easy to comprehend, but practical application is often difficult in large multifaceted

organisations. To build upon the core aspects of what designers do and what design is,

Carlgren (2013) proposes a model for building the capability to innovate through the

utilisation of design thinking. The five core principles include: human centeredness,

diversity, problem framing, experimentation and prototyping. These principles align

closely with many of the known frameworks (Darden Design School, 2009; IDEO,

2009; Stanford d. School, 2009).

Through the process of integrating design thinking into large organisations,

design is often taken out of context and is offered as a set of tools that can be selected


out of a toolbox when required (Johansson-Sköldberg, Woodilla, & Çetinkaya, 2013).

Deploying design throughout a business involves more than focusing on tools and

processes. It involves employees thinking and working differently and being open to

failure. This is often at odds with the operation of large established organisation, the

focus on training of employees, how they are incentivised and is not conducive to how

businesses are often structured (Liedtka et al., 2013). These authors illustrate the

intricacies associated with large organisations, the impediments required to be

overcome to successfully build design capabilities within the business. With the

primary focus for building capability to drive innovation, on developing the right

mind-set and the tools and techniques favourable for applying design thinking.

2.5.1 Implementing design thinking training programs

A gap exists between learning design thinking methodology and applying design

thinking to real problems in established organisations. It is suggested a disparity in

knowledge and skills, which may be linked to the inherent capabilities of a researcher

and practitioner (Norman, 2010). Building upon the notion, as first described by

Norman (2010), Bucolo & Wrigley, 2011 first proposed ‘the design innovation

catalyst’ as a practitioner who ‘translates and facilitates design observation, insight

meaning and strategy into all facets across the organisation’. They describe the catalyst

role as embedded into the organisation, whilst retaining an external view of the

business. The role demonstrates one way of building a design thinking capability

through applied design thinking research within an organisation, without the

recognised barriers of being an employee within the designated company. The role of

the design innovation catalyst is a developing role within the relevant literature and

challenges the role of a designer within an organisational construct.

A recent paper by Straker and Wrigley (2014) investigated the use of ‘design

and innovation catalysts’ and associated design and innovation tools. They found three

key considerations in harnessing the use of design thinking and building it as a

capability within an organisation. The findings were: to facilitate organisational wide

communication; the permission to think creatively; facilitating further teaching and

learning. Straker and Wrigley (2014) link the design catalyst function to the correct

teaching of design tools, building individual employee capability, and suggest those

individuals successfully taught, could run their own tutorials with further members of

the firm; thus, spreading the design capability quicker.


It is recognised organisations are exploring the implementation of design

thinking programs to improve innovation and there are a few different ways this has

been achieved; internally facilitated programs, bringing in external design consultants

(Howard, 2015) and through embedding trained design thinking specialists or catalysts

into the company (Straker & Wrigley, 2014).

The next section moves from general large organisations to exclusively the

financial services industry in Australia, focusing on the adoption of design thinking

and DLI within this sector.

2.6 DESIGN THINKING IN THE FINANCIAL SERVICES SECTOR IN

AUSTRALIA

The financial services industry is the leading contributor to the Australian

economy. In 2012, the industry added nearly $34 billion, surpassing the mining,

manufacturing and construction industries (IBSA, 2013). Known for its conservative

nature, the ability to remain competitive in an environment of constant disruptive

change is more important than ever (KPMG, 2015). A highly regulated industry

comprising multiple sectors including banking, insurance, investment, superannuation

and other financial services activities, the support for design thinking as a lever for

innovation is still in its early stages (Sobel & Groeger, 2012). Many Australian

businesses remain tied to traditional workplace practices and expertise that have

successfully delivered predictable short-term results (Bucolo et al., 2012).

A study conducted on an Australian division of a professional financial services

firm providing consulting services, acknowledged the complexities associated with

non-design trained employees learning design thinking (Howard, 2012). The study

revealed capability building and the practice of design was difficult due to the

complexity surrounding highly analytical and logical surroundings. Howard (2012)

recommended the support of trained design thinking professionals to improve the

quality and development of the employees.

In addition, forming part of wider research agenda, Howard (2015) discusses

the notion that design thinking capability matures over time, describing the two

perspectives as design thinking as a way of life and a way of working. Design as a way

of life incorporates holistically the full elements of design thinking, while design as a

way of working considers a limited, much narrower view of design thinking where the


individual components that make up the design thinking methodology (Howard,

2015). This research emphasised the complexity associated with transferring design

thinking theory into practice, particularly to staff who are not trained designers, in the

financial services industry.

2.7 MEASURING AND MAPPING DESIGN THINKING IN A BUSINESS

CONTEXT

The Danish Design Ladder (Kretzschmar, 2003) developed by the Danish

Design Council, illustrates four steps towards design maturity, showing the further up

the ladder the more design is integrated into the strategic landscape of a company. The

four steps to the Danish Design Ladder are: No design, Design as styling, Design as

process, and Design as strategy. The Danish Design Ladder represents the levels of

design integration can have within a business.

The Danish Design Ladder provides a basis for design integration, beginning

with the absence of design in the organisation across projects or product development.

Design as styling considers the role of design in aesthetics or the ‘look and feel’ of the

product. Design as a process incorporates high level of collaboration across

stakeholders with the focus on utilising design in projects. The final level of the ladder

is design as a strategy where senior management integrate design at the strategic level

to create value through innovative output (Kretzschmar, 2003). An extension of

Kretzschmar (2003) model is the Design Management Staircase (DMS) (Best,

Kootstra, & Murphy, 2010) which considers five factors which are: Awareness of

benefits; planning for design; resources for design, design management expertise and

design management process. DMS considers additional factors that contribute to

driving innovation in an organisation.

Further developments of the potential and actual roles that design can play in

companies include the Design Capacity Model (DCM) which is defined as ‘a

framework for companies’ design management capacity’ (Storvang et al., 2014).

Inspired by the model established for the Chinese industry (Heskett and Liu, 2012),

the DCM was designed for small to medium sized companies in a Danish context. The

visual representation consisting of five (5) levers, in a spider web formation, focuses

on design capability factors including: who is design valued by; how are customers


engaged; who the design thinkers are; what are the innovation drivers, and design

capabilities in the organisation as shown in Figure 2.2.



1. 2.

4.

3

.


Lever 1: Design Awareness. This dimension indicates who are the design thinkers in

the organisation and is mapped across five nodes from: none; design is seen as a

possibility; top management; design is present in specific departments and all

employees see design as important factor.

Lever 2: The importance of design in internal processes. This dimension shows where

design is used, across six nodes: not important; marketing; product and service

development including finish and styling; production processes; innovation projects

and strategy and management teams.

Lever 3: User’s Involvement. This dimension indicates how the users are engaged in

the design practice. There are five nodes: no engagement; user surveys and feedback;

user observations and focus groups; users are engaged in processes in the company

and user communities and lead users.

Lever 4: What drives the innovation process? This dimension shows how change is

triggered in the organisation across four types of drivers: technology driven; supplier

driven innovation; market (user/customer) driven innovation and design driven

innovation (vision, market and technology).

Lever 5: Design capabilities in the organisation. This dimension identifies where the

design capabilities originated from, across four nodes: no designers employed;

external designers engaged; internal designers/design team; both internal & external

designers.

The Design Capacity Model provides a practical tool for mapping an

organisations engagement with design and its design capacity, providing a basis for

comparison over time and across organisations.

2.8 SUMMARY OF THE LITERATURE REVIEW

The literature review contains the relevant areas pertaining to the research

presented in this thesis. Literature encompassing change and embracing innovation has

been examined, along with published design thinking frameworks and processes, the

value of design and applying and mapping design in a business context.

Literature containing design’s emerging role in large organisations is integral to

this research as it provides context to the complexities and nuances of large


organisations, adding another dimension to the discussion. However, the specific

nature and challenges of financial services organisations in Australia and how

employees (without a background in design), in a large financial services corporation

become aware of, and recognise the possibilities of design and its potential link to

drive innovative practices has not previously been examined. Financial services are a

leading contributor to the Australian economy and much of the literature and research

has been published to aid the industry to embed design thinking and drive practical

innovative output. Besides the work of (Carlgren, 2013; Howard, 2015; Liedtka 2014),

limited empirical evidence on how individual employees (without a background in

design) view design, how design is being employed and its relationship to innovation

within the context of a large multinational financial services organisation.

This research project addresses the gap in knowledge and existing literature

seeks to answer the principal research question: how do employees in a large

Australian financial services organisation perceive, utilise and connect design thinking

practices to deliver innovative solutions?

To aid and inform this, the research is separated into three questions:

1. In what ways is design currently being deployed and utilised within a

multinational incumbant (MFSCo.)? (Study A)

2. To what extent do employees understand the link between design thinking

and innovation and in what ways are they applying design in the

organisation? (Study B)

3. How do employees perceive the current design thinking and innovation

capacity of the organisation? (Study C)

The next chapter outlines the research design and methodology applied to

support the principal question and sub-questions.

Chapter 3: Research Design and Methodology 25

Research Design and

Methodology

3.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter describes the research design and methodology undertaken to

achieve the aims and objectives outlined in Chapter 1, which for clarity are reiterated

in section 3.2 below. The first part of this chapter discusses the choice of methodology,

how the research has been structured to respond to the principal research question and

the research aims and objectives. The research is separated into three distinct studies,

described as study A, study B and study C. The second section details the participating

company and the selection of participants in the study. The third section outlines how

the data was collected for each study. The fourth section discusses how the data were

analysed for each of the respective studies (A, B and C). Finally, the last section

discusses the ethical considerations of the research to ensure academic rigor of the

research and subsequent results.

3.2 RESEARCH AIM AND OBJECTIVES

The overarching aim of this research is to gain deeper understanding of how

employees in a large Australian financial services organisation perceive, utilise and

connect design thinking practices to deliver innovative solutions.

To help answer this, the research is separated into three questions:

1. In what ways is design currently being deployed and utilised within

a multinational incumbant (MFSCo.)? (Study A)

2. To what extent do employees understand the link between design

thinking and innovation and in what ways are they applying design

in the organisation? (Study B)

3. How do employees perceive the current design thinking and

innovation capacity of the organisation? (Study C)


By focusing on one large Australian Financial Services organisation, the

objective of the research is to gain a deeper understanding the many factors that

contribute to an organisation and its ability to explore and apply design thinking

methods to generate innovative solutions. The studies are summarised in Table 3.1.

Description Study A Study B Study C

Sub -Research question

To what extent is design currently being deployed and utilised within an Australian, multinational incumbant?

To what extent do employees understand the link between design thinking and innovation and in what ways are they applying design in the organisation?

How do employees perceive the current design thinking and innovation capacity of the organisation?

Method

Content analysis methodology of existing design & innovation programmes

Qualiative case study Semi structured interviews

Map against the Design Capability Model

Objective • Shows how the firm

is attempting to build

capability

• Highlights strengths

& weaknesses &

barriers to achieving

design capabilities

• Identifies other issues

around application &

scalability of design

to enable greater

innovation

• Outlines how individual

employees view design

and innovation

• How it is being employed

• Highlights the relationship

between design to

innovation

• Insight into how effective

design thinking is to drive

innovative outcomes

• Insight into how an

organisation views

itself with regards to

design & innovative

practices

Data Source 4 iInternal design & innovation programmes

31 employees semi-structured interviews Consisting of various hierarchy, departments, roles, tool and participants

31 employees completed the DCM

Table 3.1: Representation of study A, B and C

Whilst design thinking education and training programs for innovation are

growing in popularity in a business context (Matthews & Wrigley, 2017), there is little

information on how to build the skills and expertise of non-designers in the financial


services sector. The objective of the first study Study A is to analyse the current

practices where design is being used as a driver for innovation within the multinational

financial service company (MFSCo) and whether existing approaches are successful.

Through understanding the complexities associated with how individual employees

develop design expertise, further consideration can be identified around the application

and scalability of design to enable greater innovation.

Study B aims to focus on how employees without design experience, recognise

and view design and its link to drive innovative practices. It seeks to explore how

employees perceive design and innovation, the barriers and impediments they come

up against to apply design thinking and revealing examples of application.

Study C seeks to understand how the individual participants view the current

design capability across the organisation and its ability to deliver innovative solutions

utilising design thinking. By mapping the existing design thinking capacity provides a

snap shot for the organisation to identify ways for improvement.

3.3 METHODOLOGY

Two distinct methods were applied for each research question: content analysis

method and qualitative study methodology with semi-structured interviews.

Content analysis provides a way for researchers to sort through large amounts of

unstructured data in a systematic format (Stemler, 2001). This method can be useful

for exploring and describing the focus of various structures of information from

individuals, institutions and groups (Weber, 1990) and for scrutiniszing trends and

patterns in documents.

Study A applied a content analysis methodology with investigator triangulation

assessment, examining four design and innovation programmes currently deployed

within MFSCo. For the content analysis, programmes were defined as courses

containing design thinking content and were delivered to the organisation by a

dedicated design and innovation team, internal to the company. The intent of the

programmes were to teach design thinking capability to enable innovative business

solutions. Each programme ranges in timeframe, from a single one hour workshop to

a six month programme, with a variety of different goals, methodologies, participants

and facilitators. Artifacts and data were sourced from the internal team deploying the


programme and included facilitition guides, course materials, videos utilised and

marketing tools.

The rationale behind applying content analysis as a methodology for study A,

ensues objectivity and a systematic approach to the data set (Stemler 2001). A number

of researchers have applied a content analysis to various industry types including

communication, media and marketing (Kassarjian, 1977). To ensure validity of the

content analysis and manage the limitations of the method, investigator triangulation

was utilised (Begley, 1996). Three researchers collated, reviewed and analysed the

data independently, providing rigor around the coding and theming of the source data.

Study B and C involves an exploratory qualitative approach which applies a case

study method (Yin, 2009). The application of a case study method provides deep

exploration and understanding of an individual entity for the purpose of gathering

insight into a larger group of similar types (Gerring, 2004). The study of MFSCo aims

to provide greater comprehension of the dissemination and practical application of

design capabaility to derive innovative results, specific to the nuances of large

multinational financial services. The main reason for selecting a qualitative case study

method was gain empirical data from individual participants regarding their

experiences and the ability to contextualise employees’ perceptions and applications

regarding design thinking and innovation (Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, 2011).

For academic rigor, the researcher applied the six stage case study process

developed by Yin (2009) and deepened guidelines outlined by Baškarada, (2014). To

help prevent any misgivings and demonstrate scientific rigor, the researcher

incorporated the plan, design, prepare, collect, analyse, and share approach.

Along with careful consideration of the choice of case study firm, the research

question was derived from a comprehensive review of the literature and understanding

of the research construct. The exploratory qualitative method aims to build theory and

bridge the gap in understanding the ability for non-designers in large corporations to

learn and deliver innovation from design thinking application.

To aid in the case study method, semi-structured interviews were conducted

allowing for flexibility and provided the ability to refocus a question or prompt for

more information based on the responses provided (Baškarada, 2014). As


recommended by Yin (2009) , a wide variety of diverse interviewees were selected to

reduce bias and to capture differing perspectives.

3.4 PARTICIPATING COMPANY

All participants in this research are employed by the firm MFSCo, a complex

multinational financial services organisation based in Australia. With over 10,000

employees, the business is a successful publicly listed multifaceted corporation. This

case study examines one sector within the Group, comprising 2000 employees

distributed in multiple geographical locations. Refer figure 3.1 below.

MFSCo. Multinational Financial Services Company

Figure 3.1: Participating Company and case study

The sheer size, complexity and the desire to utilise design thinking to deliver

innovative outputs, is the motivating factor for selecting this firm as the case study for

this research. With an innovation framework in place for the previous 3 years,

consisting of varied design based education and training programmes, ranging from a

one-hour introductory workshop through to a tailored programme centring on

providing knowledge based experimental design thinking practices aimed to drive

innovation. An internal design and innovation team was tasked with developing and

building innovation capability of the employees. They achieved this through the

delivery of these programmes, with voluntary participation and at the discretion of the

individuals’ manager approval. The team’s performance was evaluated by

CEO

CEO CEO CEO CEO CEO CEO CEO CEO CEO CEO CEO

CFO

O


disseminating the design and innovation programmes to as many employees as

possible across the organisation. “The purpose was to introduce design thinking

knowledge, mindsets and tools to improve innovative solutions across the

organisation” (Manager of the design and innovation team).

The training programmes were developed to support the organisation’s desire

to drive innovative practices due to the changing external environment, shifting

customer behaviours and lack of growth opportunities within the current business

model. Design thinking was a new approach to deliver innovative solutions. It should

be noted that based on the size of the organisation, projects are delivered from multiple

teams across various departments at different times.

The participating organisation has elected to maintain anonymity and to not have

the name of the company detailed in this research document. This was one of the

agreed requirements by the organisation for the author to conduct the research.

It should also be noted the researcher and author of this thesis is an employee of

MFSCo and is employed within the internal design and innovation team. One of the

drivers for the research is to understand the impact of internal design and innovation

programmes and their effect on transferring new knowledge and expertise to

innovative outcomes.

3.5 RESEARCH ETHICS

To maintain research integrity, ethical considerations were undertaken with

regards to the participants of the data collection methods utilised in this research. The

ethical requirements were followed and met, as per The Queensland University of

Technology (QUT) human ethics application and permission (Ethics approval number

61270) was granted by the QUT Research Ethics Committee. The authors’ role as an

employee of the participating case study organisation was disclosed and noted to QUT,

the participating organisation and participants. The participating organisation elected

to remain anonymous due to legal reasons. All participants of the semi-structured

interviews signed consent, allowing the interview to be voice recorded, transcribed,

analysed for this research. A copy of the ethical consent form is provided in Appendix

E.


3.6 DATA COLLECTION

Within the case study research framework, the researcher employed two types

of data collection methods. Study A consists of a content analysis of four (4) existing

internal design and innovation programmes. Study B conducted 31 employee semi-

structured interviews and Study C applied the framework for design capacity, known

as the Design Capacity Model (Storvang et al., 2014).

The use of multiple approaches and data sources constructs validity in the

research through data triangulation. As defined by (Guion, Diehl, & Mcdonald, 2011)

data triangulation is a method that utilises differing sources of information in contrast

to investigative or environmental triangulation.

The sources of data collected are:

A. A content analysis of four (4) design and innovation programmes currently

deployed within MFSCo. The programs were devised to transfer design

thinking knowledge and skills to non-designer employees

B. Thirty-one (31) semi-structured interviews were conducted and recorded.

Thematic analysis was used to identify themes related to the comprehension

and practical application of design and innovation, from an individual and

organizational perspectives.

C. Within the semi-structured interviews, participants were asked to apply the

modified Design Capacity Model (DCM) and map the position of MFSCo in

relation to the five levers. The five levers are: who values design; how are

customers engaged; who are the design thinkers; drivers for innovation; and

where are the design capabilities.

3.6.1 Content analysis of design and innovation programmes

The content analysis was undertaken on four (4) design and innovation

programmes currently deployed within the organisation. These programmes are the

only internal methods of delivering design capabilty amongst the employees of

MFSCo. The analysis examined relevant factors including their purpose and

objectives, who facilitated the programme, the length of the course, the number of staff

involved the programme content, the teaching tools used and the tangible outcomes

from the course. Details of the programmes are summarised below in Table 3.2 below.

Chapter 3: Research Design Methodology 32


Program Date Purpose/ Objectives

Individual capabilities of employee

Time Program Content

Tools Outcomes

Program A 2013 An introduction to design thinking

All staff, No prerequisite required

60 mins

High level overview of design thinking using D school model

D school model design a door exercise Video of IDEO Hospital video

A broad understanding of Design Thinking and the D School Model and how you might utilise Design Thinking in your everyday work High level view of DT No detail about each component of the process

Program B 2014 Learn end to end Design Thinking through experimental application Introductory Course. Very fast, efficient course in busy business environment

All staff, no prerequisite knowledge or skill set required. Reference to a particular mindset e.g. curiosity or ability to collaborate across teams

90 mins

D School Model More emphasis on each step

Design a wallet Understanding the end to end design thinking model. Participants learn via experiential learning the high-level concepts of Design thinking by designing a wallet for their partner. Walk away with how a conceptual view of how DT can be applied to your own problems

Program C 2014 original 2015 v2.

Learners will describe the purpose, technique and skills used to generate creative ideas and demonstrate delivery of improved business results

All staff, No prerequisite required

90 mins

6 phase programs

Self-driven tools discussions

Outlines what to do when you have an idea and how to flesh out the idea using tools and techniques. Ideation phase

Program D

2014 Tailored to individual program. Experiential learning through practical application of real problems or ideas

All staff, no prerequisite knowledge or skill set required. Reference to a particular mindset e.g. curiosity or ability to collaborate across teams

Timeframe is at the discretion of the team 120 mins

Expanded D School model

IDEO Model from UTS: various tools and techniques e.g. Business Model canvas, journey mapping, interview techniques, ideation, prototyping

Taking an idea/problem through the process of design thinking ending with a prototype to integrate into the business program of work. Participants learn how to apply tools and techniques, and first prototype with stakeholders and customers (mostly internal stakeholders)


The content analysis was chosen to provide a comprehensive review and analyse

the current practices being applied across the organisation. By first assessing how the

organisation is fostering a design capability amongst staff members allows for further

assessment as to the impact of the innovation capabilities such design programmes

claim to instil.

The main objective of conducting the content analysis was to produce key

themes that could identify how the firm is attempting to build design capability; the

strengths and weakness and barriers to achieving design capabilities; and highlight

other issues around practical application of design as a method for innovation.

3.6.2 Semi-structured interviews

Upon completion of the programme analysis and investigating the way design

capability is currently being imparted to non-designers employed at MFSCo,

interviews were undertaken across the organisation.

Informed by the existing literature on design thinking and innovation, a detailed

interview schedule of nine questions were developed by the researcher. The questions

were established to ascertain the employees understanding of design thinking and

innovation, how they perceive design and innovation and their ability to provide

examples of situations where design has been utilised. The final question asked the

participant to review the modified Design Capacity Model (Storvang et al., 2014) and

plot where they believed the organisation was positioned against each of the five

dimensions. Further detail about the Model is outlined below in the next section.

The semi-structured interview format allowed for a free conversational style,

where questions were asked in an open format and contextualised based on the answers

of the employee. They were conducted face to face, in a private room at MFSCo

building locations within each of the three states (Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne),

at a time and place convenient to the interviewee. Each interview was a minimum of

60 minutes duration and recorded for later transcription and analysis. To strengthen

validity, interviewees were selected across all departments and from various levels of

hierarchy to obtain broad, diverse and unbiased explanations of individual experiences

of innovation and their use of design led principles.


3.6.3 Selection of participants

Participating employees were selected from a range of diverse roles, primarily

those in project, marketing, strategy and business improvement, rather than the

functional or operational roles, where design capability may not be required. This is

reflected in Table 3.3 and Table 3.4. The reason for the diversity of participants was

to acquire a broad appreciation of the dissemination of design thinking expertise from

both bottom up and top down positions. An example of the interview questionnaire is

provided in Appendix A.

Department Distribution

(D)

Claims

(C)

Portfolio(P) Operations

(O)

Human

Resources

(HR)

Statutory

(S)

Participants 5 4 4 11 1 6

Table 3.3: Participant selection (Departmental)

No. of

participants

Executive General

Manager (EGM)

Manager

(M)

Team Leader

(TL)

Team member

(TM)

Sydney (SYD) 1 3 1 2

Brisbane

(BNE)

2 4 7 8

Melbourne

(MEL)

- 2 - 1

Table 3.4: Participant selection (Geographic and Managerial)

To ensure the privacy of the participants, coding was completed. Table 3.5 below.

CODE DESCRIPTION

D Distribution

C Claims

P Portfolio

O Operations

S Strategy

HR Human Resources

BNE Brisbane

SYD Sydney

MEL Melbourne

EGM Executive General Manager

M Manager

TL Team Leader

TM Team Member

Table 3.5: Participant coding scheme


3.7 DESIGN AND INNOVATION DESIGN CAPACITY MODEL

In the final part of the face to face interview, each participant was shown a model

inspired by the Design Capacity Model (DCM) developed by (Storvang, Jensen, and

Christensen, 2014). Participants asked to plot where they believe the organisation is

currently positioned with regards to design thinking and innovation capability. The

purpose was to gain an understanding of how participants viewed the design capability

of their organisation, providing a sense of how they viewed each of the levers, the

importance and considered improvements within the organisation to deliver better

results. Each participant plotted where they believed the firm is currently positioned

providing an explanation as to why they believed this to be true.

The original DCM was modified by the researcher prior to presenting to the

participants in respect to terminology and alignment to the organisational structure.

The changes were made to tailor the model more towards a large company and the

current organisational vernacular. Figure 3.2 below is the DCM (Storvang et al., 2014)

The changes and relabelling are shown in Figure 3.3 and explained below.

Lever 1. Who are the Design thinkers? ‘Design present in different departments’

is replaced with node: ‘management’. The node: ‘top management’ is replaced with

node: ‘select few areas across the business. The node: ‘design is seen as a possibility’

is replaced with node: ‘internal design teams’.

Lever 2. Design is valued by: ‘strategy and management’ is replaced with node

‘all teams in the organisation.’ The node: ‘innovation projects’ is replaced with the

node: ‘strategy and management’. The node: ‘production projects’ is replaced with the

node: ‘teams delivering projects’. The node: ‘product and service developments

including ‘finish and styling’ is replaced with ‘innovation team’. The node:

‘marketing’ is removed.

Lever 3. How are customers engaged: ‘user communities and lead user’ is

replaced with the node: ‘regularly via open forums’. The node: ‘users are engaged in

process in the company’ is replaced with the node: ‘customers co-create processes and

product’. The node: ‘user observations and focus groups’ is replaced with the node:

‘customer interviews’. The node: ‘user surveys and feedback’ incorporates ‘net

promoter score (NPS)’. A new node is added called ‘complaints data’.


Lever 4. What drives innovation process: ‘design driven innovation’ is replaced

with the node: ‘customer led driven innovation’. The node: ‘market user driven’ is

replaced with the node: ‘market opportunities driven’. The node: ‘supplier driven’ is

replaced with the node: ‘competitors driven’. The node: ‘technology driven’ is

replaced with the node: ‘internally driven’. A new node is added called ‘no drivers’.

Lever 5. Design capabilities in the organisation: A new node is added to the end

of the lever called ‘a strong network of qualified designers internal and external to the

organisation’.



1. 2.

4. 3.

5.


Figure 3.3: Modified Design Capacity Model (Storvang et al., 2014)

1.

5.

4.

3.

2.


3.8 DATA ANALYSIS

Thematic analysis was undertaken applying Braun and Clarke’s (2006) guideline

for qualitative analysis, given their recognised best practice on sound foundations in

psychology. The guideline includes six phases: data familiarisation, generating initial

codes, searching for themes, reviewing themes, defining themes and producing the

report. Figure 3.4 provides further explanation as to the approach undertaken during

the research. It is visually represented as a linear process, however as outlined by

(Braun & Clarke, 2006) the process is not always linear and can move between phases

as needed throughout the analysis.

Figure 3.4: Thematic Analysis process

Data Familiarisation

Data collection and familiarisation is a fundamental function for research

analytics and developing a firm understanding of the research content. Study A

allowed for data collection through reading and deciphering the content of the

individual design and innovation training programmes. Study B allowed for data

collection through designing, delivering and transcribing each of the interviews. Study

C allowed for data collection through the mapping of the DCM and explanations to

the rationale.

Data familiarisation

Generating Initial code

Searching for themes

Reviewing themes

Defining themes

producing report


Generating Initial Codes

Coding is the basic analytic strategy within a thematic analysis approach

(Lapadat, 2009). Developing codes based on the findings from the research allows for

recording patterns in a systematic method. Broad codes were established for all studies

allowing for high level categorisation and further analysis of the individual content.

Refer to Appendix B, C and D to view the thematic coding for each study.

Searching for Themes

Once broad data sets were set out into codes, common themes emerged. NVivo

application was utilised to group recurring foci from the data collected into themes.

Reviewing Themes

Reviewing the themes, includes making sure the data collected in the research

study is accurately represented by the themes selected. NVivo software allows for

cross referencing and linking back to the original data set.

Defining Themes

This phase entails the refinement of each theme and detailed analysis. This

involves distinct consideration of the data each theme depicts (Braun and Clarke,

2006).

Producing the Report

The phase of producing the report is where the analysis of the data is showcased

through the researcher’s findings and ability to tell a story (Braun and Clarke, 2006).

This is important, as it distinguishes between surface level assessments and deep

understanding of the data sets.

Refer to Appendix B provide an outline of the thematic coding and theming for

Study A. From the codes, outlined in Appendix B, six (6) sub themes were identified

which then were further refined to three final themes. These final themes inform the

results detailed in Chapter 4. Appendix B describes the grouping of the themes, sub-

themes and codes. The three final themes generated from the thematic analysis are:

Information sharing to raise awareness; Limited time allocation; and Efficiency focus

over creativity.


The coding and theming approach for study B is presented in Appendix C and outlines

five (5) key areas of focus with subsequent analysis described in the sub-themes and

final theme outcomes

The design led innovation framework (DLI) (Bucolo, Wrigley & Matthews,

2012) was utilised to map the results pertaining to the examples of design and

innovation experiences within the organisation. Figure 3.6 represents the analysis

taken to plot the results. Analysis of the examples of design thinking and innovation

solutions provided by the participants produced four (4) key themes including: internal

operational; external operational; internal strategic; and external strategic. The DLI

framework was utilised as connects all aspects of a business and illustrates the

relationship between strategic and operational areas and internal and external

influences to deliver opportunistic propositions (Bucolo & Wrigley, 2013).


Study C provided the final step in undertaking data analysis and featured the

model inspired by the Design Capacity Model (DCM) (Storvang et al., 2014). It was

used to explore the current design capability across the organisation and its


effectiveness to drive innovation. Appendix D outlines the thematic analysis coding

approach. The five levers represent: who values design; customer engagement; drivers

for innovation; design capabilities and design awareness. An example of the mapping

and results is provided below in table 3.7.

Who Values

Design

Customer

engagement

Drivers for

innovation

Design

Capabilities

Design

Awareness

Almost all of

the

organisation

Net

promotor

score

(survey)

Internally

focused

Mostly

internal with

help from

design

consultants

The design

team with a

few

employees

across firm

Design & innovation team

Net

promotor

score

(survey)

Internally

focused

Mainly

external

consultants

The design

team with a

few

employees

across firm

Table 3.7: Example of mapping the results in the DCM

Given the large amounts of data and following the thematic analysis approach

sub-themes were identified for Study C, and are represented as: Responsibility vs

Accountability; Business centricity and Lack of integration and application. These

themes are further discussed in Chapter 6.

3.9 SUMMARY

The overarching aim of this research is to understand how employees (non-

designers) in a large Australian financial services organisation, known as MFSCo,

perceive, utilise and connect design thinking practices to deliver innovative solutions.

To facilitate this, the research is separated into three distinct studies shown as Study

A, Study B and Study C. Study A investigates, “To what extent is design currently

being deployed and utilised within MFSCo”? A content analysis methodology has

been utilised, providing a systematic process to identify themes. To establish validity,

investigator triangulation was employed through analysis of multiple angles and

sources. Study B investigates, “To what extent do employees understand the link

between design thinking and innovation and in what ways are they applying design in

the organisation?” An exploratory qualitative case study methodology was applied and

semi-structured interviews were conducted with employees across MFSCo,


incorporating an open dialogue interview and the Design Led Innovation Framework.

Study C utilised the Framework for Design Capacity applying the modified Design

Capacity Model to map the current level of design capability to deliver innovative

solutions in the organisation. The company MFSCo was selected as the case study for

this research due to the organisation’s explicit desire to build a design capability to

drive innovation and the researcher’s ability to gain access to the views of participants

across all organisational levels. Participants were chosen based on role, hierarchy, and

department. Thematic analysis was applied to assess, codify and generate themes from

all three sources of data collected (Study A, B and C). The themes derived from the

analysis are further detailed and inform the results in the following Chapters 4, 5 and

6.

Chapter 4: Results and Analysis-Study A 44

Results and Analysis – Study A

4.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter presents the results of the thematic analysis of the design and

innovation programmes used to disseminate design thinking, undertaken for Study A.

In response to the question, ‘To what extent is design currently being deployed and

utilised within a multinational incumbant (MFSCo.)?’ The details of the data

collection and methods are described in the previous chapter. The key themes emerged

from the content analysis are themed into the following categories: Information

sharing, limited time allocation and efficiency focus over creativity.

Figure 4.1: Themes of design deployment in organisation

4.2 INFORMATION SHARING TO RAISE AWARENESS

The findings highlight a focus on foundational learning of the tools and

techniques and mindsets connected with design thinking. The programmes have a

significant focus on utilising the popular Stanford d-School design thinking process.

Whilst there is some exposure to developing the mindset associated with design

thinking and the change required to overcome traditional practices, there appears to be

limited direction on how to build the capabilities related to the mindset required for

applying design thinking. Schweitzer et al., (2016) identified the (11) eleven

characteristics associated with a design mindset. The design and innovation

programmes described some of the characteristics required to successfully apply a

Representing the skills and capability to be aquired by undertaking one or more of the programmes to raise awareness and stimulate interest

Information sharing to raise

awareness

Representing the time allocated to the programs and participation rates as a result.

Limited Time allocation

Representing and acknowledging the challenge of time and value of creative skills sets in a time-focused analytical context

Efficiency Focus over Creativity


design thinking practice including: empathy towards the user; collaboration and open

to new and diverse perspectives; applying creativity; and being open to trying

something new. “it’s important to put yourself in the shoes of the customer and

understand their situation before designing the solution for them….” Employee (D-

BNE-TM).

For (3) three of the (4) four programmes, the purpose and objective was to

provide the participant with a broad-brush awareness of and description of one

approach to the processes of design thinking. All four programmes required no

prerequisite prior knowledge of design thinking to participate. The programmes are

generally offered to all employees across the organisation, irrespective of role, title or

function. Breaking down traditional practices and exposing the value a design thinking

approach can have to support innovation is complex and the programmes appear to be

focused on the introduction of design thinking as a viable methodology to use in

conjunction with other practices.

Program D, provides an opportunity for experiential learning and application of

the design thinking process, by utilising the tools and techniques on a real business

problem or idea. A difficult situation or problem to solve was brought to the internal

design and innovation team to apply a design thinking approach. The practical

application transfers knowledge and shows the participants how the components of the

methodology related to an actual problem or idea generating a prototype at the end.

Led by an internal design and innovation facilitator, a self-nominated group of

employees applied the design thinking principles to the problem or idea and developed

a first prototype for a solution. The intention was for the prototype to progress through

the organisational project pipeline for implementation, and perhaps there was no time

for testing and consequent modification of the prototype.

4.3 LIMITED TIME ALLOCATION

A key finding is the limited time allocated to each of the design and innovation

programmes and the associated participation. The shortness of the programmes may

reflect the challenges of engaging employees in substantial training programmes if

employees have restricted time to participate in the programmes for long periods. It is

noted (3) three of the (4) four individual programmes are run from 60 – 90 minutes


and provide a focus on what design thinking is, how to generate ideas and broadly the

mindset required to undertake a design thinking approach. The shortness of the

programmes could also reflect the introductory nature of the training programmes and

limited possibilities for extensive experimentation with the tools and methods.

Table 4.1 below outlines participation of the programmes are coming from team

members and front-line staff, followed by team leaders and only a few managers

participating in the programmes. This pattern of participation may indicate a stronger

interest by operational staff than strategic staff and is representative of a bottom up

approach to building the capability of the employees within the business. Managers

may not be appreciating the importance of this capability displayed in the programmes

and how the content applies to the strategic element determined by their roles.

The low participation by managers may present an opportunity to develop some

offering which targets managers and outlines how the application of design thinking

can drive tangible outcomes and contribute to their required deliverables. Extending

the training from foundational to intermediate may shift the perception that design

thinking is not a strategic tool that can be used to link customer and tactical plans of a

large organisation.

Programmes No. people EGM EM TL TM Dist. Claims Portfolio Ops Stat

Programme A 64 0 1 11 47 10 16 12 14 5

Programme B 74 1 4 10 54 30

10

Programme C 37 2 1 8 24 2 8 3 7 6

Programme D 131

4 101 27

Total 306 3 10 130 152 42 24 15 31 11

Table 4.1: Participants in the design and innovation programmes 2014-2016

4.4 EFFICIENCY FOCUS OVER CREATIVITY

The final key finding follows the previous theme and identifies the notion that

the MFSCo design and innovation programmes value efficiency over creativity.

Acknowledging the complexity and challenges of operating a large-scale business,

employees are busy and the time required to build additional expertise is compromised

by conflicting deadlines. It is also highlighted that the case firm is a financial services


organisation with considerable management and business capability, which is not

generally conducive to fostering creativity. Where productivity is evaluated by KPI’s

which measure efficiency and completion of activities, whereas design incorporates

imagination, intuition and empathy, which may defy logic and analytical reasoning

(Dorst, 2010; Kolko, 2010 and Martin, 2009). Therefore, to apply new skills and

learnings requires a greater interest in time than many employees desire or are allowed

to make. “I learnt how to generate new ideas for my existing problem, however I found

it very difficult to do anything with them … I just don’t have the time to spend on

them.” Employee (P-SYD-M).

Requesting employees adopt a change in mindset, or apply a new lens to the way

they approach a business problem is challenging. The notion of introducing

participants to the broad concepts of design thinking may generate further interest and

lead to participating in Programme D, where they can build upon their skills through

practically applying learnings to a real problem.

4.5 COMPARING DESIGN AND CAPABILITY PROGRAMMES OF

MFSCO WITH THOSE RUN BY DESIGN AND INNOVATION

PROFESSIONALS

The current MFSCo design programmes are facilitated by a design and

innovation team internal to the company and have limited formal and practical design

and innovation experience. It should be noted that MFSCo forms part of a large parent

company with various business focuses, products, different frameworks and

capabilities. Design thinking, as one capability, is fractured across the organisation.

Meaning there are various teams and team members who may work together in

different ways and who may reside in different parts of the organisation. This

highlights the complexity in delivering a design programme to build a new capability

with the intent to deliver more innovative solutions where there are multiple internal

systems at play.

The findings reveal individuals are beginning to embrace some of the core

concepts of design thinking with a focus in understanding the customer, by learning to

profile and gather insights about the differing customers and then generating and

developing ideas, through ideation technique to meet the needs of MFSCo’s various

customer base. Shifting the mindset from designing products and services from a

business perspective to including the notion of customers into the discussion is a


considerable change from existing practices. Transitioning from concepts to applying

those customer insights into innovative solutions, is still in its infancy and may require

more participation in the learnings of the design and innovation programmes. Finally,

the current design and innovation programmes being disseminated across the

organisation are restricted to the use of only foundation design thinking concepts

(Matthews & Wrigley, 2011; Wrigley, 2013). There is no real intermediate design and

innovation module or programme other than programme D which offers experiential

learning through practical application, applying various tools for each phase of the

process. Highlighting the limitations of non-formally trained designers as facilitators

of internal design and innovation programmes.

One approach investigated the use of ‘design and innovation catalysts’ and

associated design and innovation tools (Straker and Wrigley, 2014) where a design and

innovation catalyst is an academically trained designer who is embedded into an

organisation to drive design capability amongst the staff (Wrigley, 2013). The

research found three key considerations in harnessing the use of design and building it

as a capability within an organisation. These were: to facilitate organisational wide

communication; the permission to think creatively; facilitating further teaching and

learning.

When comparing these key outcomes of professionally run and academically

proven design programmes the strengths and weaknesses of the current programmes

run by MFSCo are highlighted. These strengths and weaknesses are summarised and

includes three key areas:

i. The segmented nature of the company

ii. The lack of a formally trained design and innovation team and

iii. The use of foundational design thinking concepts.

Firstly, the segmented nature of the organisation directly inhibits the creation of

a customer centred common language amongst all business units and ability to build

and apply design thinking capability. Secondly, in line with non-formally trained

design and innovation team and using only introductory design theory, the tailoring of

design and innovation tools to specific business problems is restricted through limited

exploration of current design capability programmes. Interlinked to this problem is the

propagation of fundamental rudimentary level of design and innovation literature.


While the MFSCo design and innovation programmes have the potential to form a

good basis of rudimentary design thinking understanding within the company, the

limitations of this literature also present limitations of the firm. Most notably is the

absence of practical application of design thinking is outlined in the case studies

described in the work of Brown, (2008) and Liedtka and Ogilvie, (2011). With limited

practical guidance, it can only be assumed that the transition to practical application

of theory is and will continue to be a flaw in the programme.

Finally, the notion of the design catalyst as described by Straker & Wrigley,

(2014) and the teaching of design tools toward not only building a design capability

within an individual employee but also those successfully taught were able to run their

own tutorials with further members of the firm; thus spreading the design capability

quicker. Without a formally trained design and innovation team running these

workshops, this capability is more difficult to implement.

4.6 SUMMARY

This chapter reviewed the findings from Study A of the design thinking and

innovation programmes applied at MFSCo, and identified some common themes as

well as discussed, a range of variations. In order for this firm to achieve a level of

design capability across staff, a number of key measures need to be implemented. At

a broader level, the issues of culture and leadership as discussed by (Ahmed, 2008 and

Burdon & Dovey, 2015) need to be addressed with the company shifting to an

organisation that disrupts assumed and tacit mindsets to problem solving. Figure 4.2

below visually represents the current barriers facing the case study firm in achieving

design capability.


Figure 4.2: The Barriers of Achieving Design Capability

Source: Author (Sonya Close-DeBais), developed from results

Observed barriers to design thinking exploration and application are evident

from the content analysis process as well as evidence from available literature. For the

firm to be successful, these barriers need to change. These changes could include the

introduction of a trained design thinking specialist or catalyst as described by Straker

& Wrigley (2016) to help invoke change within the organisation, without being

restricted by current employment and KPI processes. This catalyst could work to break

down internal barriers within the firm that prevent the spread of knowledge. First

working with upper management to help influence change from the top allowing lower

staff to absorb then further teach a design capability.

In addition, to foster and encourage a new design thinking capability, the design

and innovation programme must disseminate to all staff across the organisation, with

particular focus on first line leaders and upper management, as well as front line staff.

This process will increase the value and delivery of innovation through building design

thinking capability could occur in parallel with business as usual functions. There is

an opportunity to develop an offering to the strategic leaders of the organisation to link

design practice into the strategic arena. One option would be shifting from

foundational concepts and seminal design theory to integrate further teachings and


additional models and techniques to continue the journey of learning design

approaches.

To further build and develop the capability associated with design thinking the

experiential programme could be applied across a larger scope of projects or existing

problems across the organisation. Introducing the concepts, tools, techniques and the

approach of design thinking across a broader scope of work will increase visibility and

allow faster dissemination, providing an avenue for employees to build their skills,

mindsets and knowledge around approaching a situation in new ways.

Chapter 5: Results and Analysis-Study B 52

Results and Analysis - Study B

5.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter presents the results of the thematic analysis of data collected from

semi-structured face-to-face interviews with participants for Study B. In response to

the question, ‘To what extent do employees understand the link between design

thinking and innovation and in what ways are they applying design thinking in the

organisation?’ Analysis of this interview data provides insights into how employees

describe innovation and design thinking and more importantly what (if any) links the

two perceptions together in practice. A synopsis of the findings for each notion is

discussed further below with supporting quotes from the interviews in figure 5.1

The Design Led Innovation Framework (Bucolo et al., 2012) was utilised to map

the results pertaining to the examples of design and innovation experiences provided

by participants. Figure 5.1 below outlines the analysis framework applied.

Figure 5.1: Analysis utilising Design Led Innovation Framework (Bucolo et al., 2012)


This framework was utilised as it connects multiple aspects of a business,

illustrating the relationship between strategic and operational areas and internal and

external influences to deliver opportunistic propositions (Bucolo & Matthews, 2011).

Figure 5.2: Themes identified within each area of focus

5.2 EMPLOYEES UNDERSTANDING OF INNOVATION

The training programmes on design thinking and innovation defined innovation

as ‘any change that adds value’. When asked about how they defined innovation,

participants provided a wide range of responses. The results were analysed and

the three major themes emerged were: new way of thinking; any change that

adds value; and ways of describing innovation explored by participants.

Employees understanding of

innovation

Themes:

new way of thinking

Any change that adds value

participants' description of innovation

Examples of innovation plotted on the DLI framework

•Internal operational examples;

•External strategic examples

Employees understanding of design

thinking

Themes:

Customer is key

Problem fixing as iterative process for outcomes

Human centred design themes

Examples of design thinking plotted on the DLI framework

Internal operational examples;

External strategic

Employees experiences with barriers and

impediments associated with design thinking

Themes:

Analytical vs creativity

Conflicting priorities

Limited employee empowerment

Controlled regulation


Figure 5.3: Themes for employees’ definition of innovation – Study B

5.2.1 A new way of thinking

Interviewees often referred to innovation as ‘doing things in a different way’,

‘looking at something from another perspective’, ‘stepping into new and unexplained

territory’ and ‘thinking outside of the box’. These explanations provide positive insight

into the mindset of the individuals and their openness to explore possibilities outside

of the current status quo. As described by Sobel & Groeger (2016) one of the eleven

associated characteristics of design thinking is defined as being ‘inquisitive and open

to new perspectives and learning’. The ability to harness a way of thinking can be seen

as a key enabler to delivering innovative solutions (Schweitzer et al., 2016)). As shown

in examples below.

“innovation is…. new ways of thinking about things that perhaps we haven't

taken the time to stop and have a look at before and will potentially give us different

outcomes to what we've gotten in the past.” Employee (C-BNE-TL).

“I think it is challenging and doing things differently that may not have been

fully investigated or completed before.” Employee (C-BNE-M).

5.2.2 Any change that adds value

The findings aligned to the organisations definition of innovation ‘any change

that adds value’. Many of the interviewees characterised innovation as creating change

that provides a value add, whether it be to the customer, business or solves a particular

problem. Supporting Damanpour's (1991) theory that innovation is defined as a change

Representing the mindset attributed to delivering innovative outcomes

New way of thinking

Representing the notion that value is provided to the change undertaken

Any change that adds value

Representing the differentiation between small changes and significant changes

Participants' description of

innovation


to a process, product, service to find a solution to a particular problem. However, it is

problematic when referencing one source to draw conclusions. This also seems to align

to the notion that anyone can ‘innovate’ and contributes to building design capability

in an industry not known for their innovation expertise.

“Taking something that always pre-exist but something that is simple or

relatively simple to find and using it in a new or innovative way that it becomes

innovative. I guess it is just really using something from another perspective.”

Employee (C-BNE-M)

5.2.3 Participants’ description of innovation

The results show that employees have a well-defined interpretation of innovation

as two diverse events: one being small or simple improvements of existing processes

and products; the other being radical innovation such as changes to existing business

models to support new products or services. The participants recognised that

innovation can be either a minor change in a process or product, distinct to a significant

change resulting in business model renewal.

“Innovation can be something massive or it can be something really small.

Innovation is a new way to brush your teeth or it can be redefining how we do business

in an organisation.” Employee (O-SYD-M).

5.2.4 Examples of innovation practices experienced by employees

Participants were subsequently asked to provide examples or experiences they

would deem as ‘innovation’. Each response was plotted onto the DLI Framework,

figure 5.4 below represents the analysed responses. Positioning the responses onto the

DLI framework highlights the innovation application, illustrating operational or

strategic opportunities. For example, where the experience of innovation refers to an

internal process improvement, based on employee insights to improve the operational

environment within the company, the result is placed in the upper left-hand quadrant,

numbered as 1.

14 employees provided an experience of innovation that reflected an internal

operational example where the emphasis is on internal process or product or service


improvements that may not take into consideration external user insights and the

outcome drives inner business efficiencies as shown in Figure 5.4 below,

“There are small innovations where we do a fair bit with our partners

overseas… about if we can reduce time frames on some things and give our staff more

time to focus on what they should be doing. To me that is innovation because we have

simplified our existing processes to become more productive, so for me that is the small

stuff.” Employee (O-SYD-EGM)

Alternatively, experiences that reflected an external strategic example included

external influences, strategic vision and considered user insights, as shown in quadrant

numbered 4 in Figure 5.4.

“Personal banking has moved from transacting in the branch to transacting on

your phone so the innovative thing is how do you provide the same level of service to

your customers without fundamentally changing too much of what they would do….

and I guess they have just made accessibility to their product simpler by going rather

than having to look into a branch that is they operate at a certain given time that

utilised the device that they utilise 24 seven and see if we can do the same thing so as

an example of the innovative piece that was done there was taking transacting in a

bank in person and moving it to a mobile device.” Employee (D-SYD-TM)


Figure 5.4: Innovation Results placed on Design-led Innovation Framework (Bucolo et al., 2012)

1 2

4 3


5.3 EMPLOYEES’ UNDERSTANDING OF DESIGN THINKING

The training programmes on design thinking and innovation used definition of

design thinking as “a human centred approach to innovation that draws from the

designers’ toolkit to integrate the needs of people, the possibilities’ of technology and

the requirements for business success” (Brown, 2008: p.2). After obtaining an

appreciation of how employees view innovation, discussion turned to design thinking

and their perception of design in the context of their role. To determine what

employees understood about DT provided an opportunity to gage how effective the

internal design thinking framework is at building design capability. As the literature

outlines there is no one definition for design thinking and this was mirrored in the

results from the interviews. The results were themed and the top three themes are

categorised: emphasis on customer; problem fixing as an iterative process; and human

centred design themes.

Figure 5.5: Themes from employees’ perceptions of design thinking – Study B

5.3.1 Customer is key

The results showcased a strong relationship between design and the end

customer. Where the participants understood the customer, or end user was a very

important component of design thinking. This was represented by responses referring

to ‘putting yourself in the shoes of the customer’ through to undertaking ethnographic

research including interviews, observations and gathering valuable insights on

Representing the link between design thinking and connection to customer

Customer is key

Representing the link to solving a particular problem

Problem fixing as an iterative process for

desired outcomes

Representing the association with various design thinking terminology

human centred design themes


customer pain points. This of course is a key component of design thinking, however

in large traditional organisations who have acquired success from product

manufacturing rather than ‘customer service’ this focus on customers is a revelation.

In order for design capability to translate to application, having access and

understanding with your customer is an essential element to successful outcomes

(Price et al., 2015). For large organisations, customers are one of their principal assets

and in a business with 9 million customers this is a step in the right direction.

“It (design thinking) is about designing our products around what the customer

wants, rather than us telling them what they want and need.” Employee (P-BNE-TL).

“Co-creating with our customer, so putting the customer at the heart of everything

we do. It's going from being internally focused to being externally focused…. Finding

out what it is our customers actually want and need and building it with them.”

Employee (O-BNE-TM).

5.3.2 Problem fixing as iterative process for desired outcomes

The reference to design being an approach to solve problems or a way to find a

customer’s problem (via pain points) came through in the explanations of DT.

Although Liedtka defines design as a problem solving approach (Liedtka et al., 2013)

this could highlight the relationship to process improvement within the organisation

and why design is not seen as a way to significantly shift the direction of the business

through transformational innovation. However, given innovation is defined as an

improvement to an existing process, product or service this provides a link to

innovative outputs.

“My understanding of design thinking is an iterative process physically coming

up with some ideas building a prototype into practice and then redesigning or

reworking the particular process or particular thing…. to reach the outcome or

outcomes that you want.” Employee (O-SYD-M).

5.3.3 Human centred design themes

This theme is based on the analysis of the participants responses. Participants

indicated that employees were more familiar with the terms such as ‘Human centred


design’ or ‘customer centric design’ and ‘customer based design’ rather than Design

Thinking. This could be due to the focus on customer as the centre of the methodology.

Central to developing any capability is the use of common and understood language

or terminology. Another driving force that contributes to the attention of common

terminology is the access to online design communities, such as the hugely successful

Design firm IDEO which uses the term ‘human centred design’ and offers easy access

to free courses that are very attractive to those who are seeking to build capability in

this area (IDEO 2009).

“Well, I think of it from a human centred design so what are our customers

saying and doing and thinking and what does that mean for what insights can we draw

out of that and then what do we need to do in order to achieve it.” Employee (O-BNE-

M).

5.3.4 Employees examples of experiencing design thinking

Those employees who provided a definition of design thinking, were also asked

to provide an example of design application, and to indicate whether they were a part

of the design thinking experience or had seen it being applied.

In contrast to the examples of innovation experiences, several employees had

difficulty in providing an example of the application of design thinking either within

the organisation or external. Again, similarly to the innovation examples provided, the

focus was around existing process or product improvement, finding better ways to ‘do’

something, rather than a situation that contained a wicked or ambiguous problem.

Participants appeared to understand design thinking as a problem-solving tool rather

than a methodology to identify differing value propositions for the customer and

business, by exploring external outputs or engaging the customer to truly understand

the way they operate. “One of the things that was observed was we don't have a

relationship or a sufficiently strong relationship with the brokers and therefore they

are not buying and that is still our business problem and what has evolved is people

are saying. I follow-up every quote, someone else is saying we don't follow-up any

quotes so everyone started to look at what the quote follow-up process.... And I said,

could we just actually put ourselves in the broker's shoes, what is the best way for us

to make it easier for the broker to buy …” Employee (O-BNE-M).


Furthermore, the examples provided by participants presented only elements of

design thinking. For example, employees referred to ‘looking at what customers want’

or ‘testing solutions with customers’, not necessarily considering the broad end to end

spectrum of application possibilities how design thinking, highlighting a deficiency in

understanding the significance of a design thinking approach or its value in delivering

innovative outcomes. Mapping the results against the Design-led Innovation

framework in Figure 5.6 below highlights the lack of connection between the strategic

and operational areas within the business as reflected by the examples presented by

the participants.


Figure 5.6: Deign results placed on the Design-led Innovation Framework

1

4 3

2


5.4 BARRIERS AND IMPEDIMENTS TO DESIGN THINKING

Employees were also asked whether they experienced any barriers or

impediments to driving or delivering design thinking practices in their role. The

purpose of these gathering insights was to obtain real life examples of obstacles

incurred by those that are trying to drive change in the business. Although this has

been discussed significantly throughout the innovation management and design

community, the importance these findings play in order to drive a design thinking

approach to innovation should not be dismissed. Developing a design thinking

capability to deliver innovative results can only be successful when barriers are

removed. Analysis of participant’s obstructions to a delivering real change and

innovation via a design thinking methodology were grouped into four main categories:

analytical capability vs creativity; conflicting priorities; limited employee

empowerment; and controlled regulation.

Figure 5.7: Themes identified barriers and impediments to delivering design thinking – Study B

5.4.1 Analytical vs Creativity

This impediment encapsulated a number of factors including the limited value

placed on creativity over analytical expertise; management’s limited ability to

understand and value design outside of the traditional expertise hired for within the

business and the ability to practice the knowledge and skills learned. The Financial

Representing the difference between analytical and creative skills learned and revered

Analytical vs creativity

Representing the challenges of short term financial focus and business constraints

Confliting priorities

Representing the challenges of transferring theory to practical application

Limited Employee

Empowerment

Representing the specific challenges associated with the Australian financial services industry

Controlled regulation


services sector predominantly employs highly skilled professionals expected to

perform complex analytical roles. The expertise required to apply a design-led

approach to solving problems is quite different and often opposing to the analytical

skill set of the majority of current employees. Although design capability has been

expressed as the balance between analytical proficiency and instinctive originality

(Barry & Beckman, 2008; Dorst, 2010; Kolko, 2010; Martin, 2009), the value of

creative and intuitive skills and the potential benefits of skills such as empathy

mapping, visualisation or using various ideation and prototyping tools appear to be

currently undervalued in this environment..

5.4.2 Conflicting priorities

A large organisation requires significant infrastructure to support its people,

processes and products and maintaining the systems that drive the engine that is a

corporation is constant and requires a huge amount of resources. Throughout the

interviews innovation was seen as a ‘nice to have’, not a priority, as focus and attention

were required on fixing and improvements of existing systems and processes. This was

described by both front-line staff and upper management. In addition, taking the time

to utilise a design thinking approach was not appreciated and the requirement to slow

down to identify true new opportunities was not highly valued. This was often

described by management and or senior managers. In particular, spending time to gain

a deeper understanding of customers via insights and observations, identifying the real

problems and prototyping possible solutions with the possibility of failing, was

conflicted with the demands of short term goals and incentives. This infers a division

between those who want to learn and drive innovation by using design thinking and

the those that are responsible for driving short term outputs within a specified

timeframe.

5.4.3 Limited employee empowerment

The results from the interviews revealed a lack of employee empowerment and

ability to influence within the organisation. This was seen largely represented across

first line employees and middle management. Employees expressed considerable

desire to innovate, whether it be small or large. However, the limited opportunity to

take the ideas to the next level was overwhelmingly frustrating for many employees


with consequences of giving up and focusing only on their ‘day job’. The desire to

participate and contribute was evident, however having the expertise is not enough.

Many employees in large organisations who have the talent and ideas may not have

the opportunity to drive a design led approach forward.

Having the opportunity (and encouragement and support) for practical

application involves allowing employees the opportunity to employ their learnings,

experiment with new approaches with the prospect of delivering enhanced outputs.

5.4.4 Controlled regulation

The high level of regulation in the Australian Financial Services Industry is both

and enabler and an obstacle to be overcome. With significant legislative Acts and

standards, policies, industry bodies, commissions and financial obligations to maintain

and uphold the ability to use a design led innovation approach is often constrained. For

example, due to a number of privacy requirements, access to customers is limited or

prototyping potential propositions can be difficult for the organisation under the

constraints of their Licences. Although not impossible, what this does mean is that the

context provides extra obstacles and the proficiency to navigate through the

requirements to develop something new and exciting for the customer, the business

and the shareholder, is a skill that may not be developed thus far.

5.5 SUMMARY

Exploring the relationship between innovation and design thinking through

employees’ experiences, provides valuable insights and new understanding of how

design thinking capability can be developed and applied, increasing the ability to

innovate and derive potential opportunities.

The results revealed employees broadly understood notions of innovation and

could articulate elements of design thinking, particularly the value of customer and

solving a customer problem. Interestingly, there appeared to be little aptitude to spend

the time to comprehend the actual customer, or engage the customer in meaningful

feedback, other than the tried and tested surveys. Thus, raising the question 'can a large

financial services organisation truly consider customers’ needs and insights to develop

innovative solutions for the customer not the organisation?’ The conditions and


environments where such processes occur may form part of an additional research

agenda.

Results from this study demonstrate that solely deploying short internal

innovation and design programmes via foundational design framework may provide

mediocre outcomes in application. The desire for a design thinking approach to deliver

innovative outcomes is constrained due the inability to experiment over time and then

execute. Employees who demonstrated some design thinking capability often found

their limited ability to influence and the lack of empowerment to utilise the learnings,

considerably constricted their aptitude to innovate. This disconnect between gaining a

design capacity and producing an innovative solution that delivers profitable growth

discouraged some employees from continuing to utilise design thinking attributes.

Those employees who did manage overcome some of the barriers to apply a

design thinking approach only managed to make simple or incremental changes to

existing processes, services or products and significant change has yet to be an

outcome. Further empirical research is required to explore this more deeply.

Design thinking is presently linked to small changes or incremental innovation

rather than radical innovation or shifts in the existing business model. Improving

existing internal processes, provides limited utilisation of the full spectrum that design

can bring to an organisation. The reason design has been limited to process

improvement could also be linked to conservative organisational risk appetite. For

example, based on the responses provided by the employees during the interviews,

when given permission to generate and raise ideas, many ideas were provided and there

appears to be no shortage of good ideas.

However, if the idea is outside of the existing business model or completely

different from the existing product or process, then the less risky option is often

chosen, even if this is not necessarily the more suitable option. The less risky options

are often perceived to be easier to get ‘buy in’ from the management team for resources

to implement, continuing the focus on short-term gains rather than seeking long term

value.

Chapter 6: Results and Analysis-Study C 67

Results and Analysis - Study C

6.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter presents the results of the thematic analysis and mapping of

perceptions and beliefs for Study C, in response to the question, ‘What is the current

level of design capacity to deliver innovation across the organisation?’ A model

inspired by the Design Capacity Model (DCM) (Storvang et al., 2014) was customised

for employees in a large multi-national organisation (as previously discussed in

Section 3.6 on page 39). Each participant, used the framework containing the five

levers: customer engagement; innovation trigger; design capabilities; design thinkers

and design value. Representation of the completed diagrams is shown in Table 6.1

and 6.2 below. An explanation of the findings is provided, followed by the analysis

and themes of the findings and are described as: responsibility vs accountability;

business centricity and lack of integration and application.

6.2 MAPPING OF THE DIAGRAMS

The diagrams were collated then compared against each dimension and

populated in a table represented in Appendix D. The different colours in the maps

reflect the colour used by the participant at the time of the interviews, and have no

other significance.

Each participant plotted against each of the five dimensions, providing their

rationale for their beliefs about the organisation’s position with regards to design

thinking capability and its ability to deliver innovation. In some instances, the

participant plotted between two distinct nodes, denoting progression to the next node

or consideration of both nodes. For example, if a participant believed the trigger for

innovation was internally focused but the organisation also considered competitors,

then the marker would be between the two nodes.

Considerable information was provided by the participant as they plotted their

views against the dimensions. This information allows for potential further analysis

and research to be undertaken, with additional findings on the effectiveness of the


DCM as a tool for organisations to better understand their capacity to innovate utilising

design thinking. For the purposes of this research, analysis was undertaken on the

overall participant findings, patterns and themes produced.

6.3 THE FINDINGS

The diagrams were divided into participants who did not attend any of the

internal design and innovation training programmes (Table 6.1) and participants who

did attend at least one of the programmes (Table 6.2). This section will provide a

synopsis of the findings per table followed by the three (3) broader themes identified

across the two tables: responsibility vs accountability; business centricity and lack of

integrated application.

6.3.1 Participants who did not attend any of the four-internal design and

innovation programmes

Table 6.1 below represents the six (6) participants who did not attend any of the

four-internal design and innovation programmes under discussion. The participants in

Table 6.1 are predominately senior strategic executives and managers. Two (2) of the

6 participants believed all teams across the organisation valued design. 50% of

participants highlighted ‘employees delivering projects’ valued design thinking more

highly and one (1) participant stated ‘a few outside of the design and innovation team’

valued design thinking. With regards to customer engagement, five (5) out of the six

(6) participants focused on the long-standing net promotor survey (NPS) and feedback

mechanisms as the primary way customers were engaged. The innovation drivers for

the organisation were evenly split between external markets, internally focused or

competitor driven. When asked about design capabilities currently in the organisation

the internal design and innovation team was recognised in conjunction with engaging

external consultants to bring in design capability when required. Lastly, design

awareness was noted to be 50% ‘a select few across the businesses with two (2) of the

participants highlighting design awareness is mostly contained to the internal design

team with one (1) participant believing management are aware of design thinking.


Participants who did not attended the design and innovation programmes

Who Values Design

Customer engagement

Drivers for innovation

Design Capabilities

Design Awareness

A few outside of the design & innovation team

Engage with customers directly

External market drives innovation

Internal mostly with external consultants

Select few across business

Employees delivering projects

Net promotor scores (survey)

External market drives innovation

Internal capabilities as well as external network

Management has awareness of design



Competitors drive innovation for firm

External consultants

Internal design team

Almost all teams across firm


Internally focused

Bring in external consultant when required


Almost all teams across the firm

Net promotor scores (survey)t

Internally focused





Competitors drive innovation for firm

Mostly internal design capability


Table 6.1: Participants who did not attend any internal design and innovation program

6.3.2 Participants who attended at least one internal design and innovation

programme

The following Table 6.2 displays the findings from the twenty-five (25)

participants who attended at least one internal design and innovation programme. The

participants are predominantly front-line employees, first line leaders and managers

from MFSCo. In many of the diagrams the participants have selected that design

thinking capability is mainly in a select few areas across the business and was certainly

not a recognised capability in the management arena. Similarly, to the group who did


not attend the internal design and innovation programmes, these participants mapped

that customer surveys were the main way customers were engaged.

Participants who did attend the design and innovation programmes (at least one

programme)

Who

Values

Design

Customer

engagement

Drivers for

innovation

Design

Capabilities

Design

Awareness

Almost all

of the

organisati

on

Net promotor

score (survey)

Internally

focused

Mostly

internal with

help from

design

consultants

The design

team with a

few other

employees

across firm


Net promotor

score (survey)

Internally

focused

Mainly

external

consultants

The design

team with a

few other

employees

across firm

Employees

delivering

projects

Net promotor

score (survey)

Focused on

competitor

’s activities

Mainly

external

consultants

The design

team with a

few other

employees

across firm

Design &

innovation

team and

a few

others

delivering

projects

Customer

interviews are

done

Internally

focused

Mostly

internal with

help from

design

consultants

The design

team with a

few other

employees

across firm

Design &

innovation

team and

a few

others

delivering

projects

Collect

complaints

and working

towards

customer

interviews

Internally

focused

Mostly

internal with

help from

design

consultants

The design

team with a

few other

employees

across firm

Design &

innovation

team

Collect

complaints

data

Internally

focused

none No one



programme)

Who

Values

Design

Customer

engagement

Drivers for

innovation

Design

Capabilities

Design

Awareness


Collect complaints data

Watching the market

External consultants

The design team with a few other employees across firm


Net promotor score (survey)

Internally focused

Internal designers

Select teams across firm


Customer interviews are done

Internally focused

Mostly internal with help from design consultants


Almost all of the organisation


Customer is main driver


Select few teams across firm



Internally focused

Internal designers




Internally focused



Design & innovation team and a few others delivering projects


Watching the market

Internal designers




programme)

Who

Values

Design

Customer

engagement

Drivers for

innovation

Design

Capabilities

Design

Awareness



Focused on competitors’ activities

Internal designers



No engagement

Internally focused

Mainly external consultants




Internally focused



Employees delivering projects with a positive shift towards a strategic focus’


Internally focused and focused on competitor’s activities





Internally focused

none A few in the design team



Internally focused





programme)

Who

Values

Design

Customer

engagement

Drivers for

innovation

Design

Capabilities

Design

Awareness



Focused on competitor’s activities




Net promotor score (survey) starting to do customer interviews


none Select few teams across firm





A few in the design team



Internally focused













Table 6.2: Participants in at least one internal design and innovation program

The findings revealed that 16% of participants believed almost all of the

organisation valued design thinking. Again, 12% of participants believed teams


delivering projects valued design thinking and 16% stated that the design and

innovation team and those delivering projects valued design thinking. Whilst 52%

participants nominated only the design and innovation team as the area that valued

design thinking the most in the organisation. One (1) participant believed ‘employees

delivering projects with a positive shift towards a strategic focus’.

The dimension for Customer engagement revealed 52% of participants selected

the net promoter survey (NPS) as the main method for engaging with their customers.

The NPS is a national survey completed by a third party (such as a broker) on behalf

of the customer, as the avenue for customer insights and engagement. In addition, eight

(8) participants selected customer interviews have been undertaken as a way to

understand more about customers. Of those 8 participants 6 had attended Program D

of the internal design and innovation programmes, which promotes talking to

customers to capture insights and identify patterns and themes based on the interview

content.

With regards to the organisations driver for innovation, 68% stated the

organisation was internally focused, primarily on internal efficiencies and

improvements. One participant did select ‘customer is the main driver’ for innovation,

outlining ‘the customer is the primary reason we are in business and should be at the

centre of everything we do’ Employee (O-BNE-TL).

For the dimensions of design capabilities recognised across the organisation, not

surprisingly the majority (13) participants stated that the design and innovation team,

with assistance from external consultants held the design capabilities in the

organisation. Five (5) participants stated external consultants were brought in when

design capabilities were required, for specific projects or needs. Interestingly, three (3)

participants stated there were no design thinking capability in the organisation.

Expressing the design and innovation team were compiled of ‘non-technically trained’

employees and they were the only ones who valued design thinking to drive

innovation. This finding infers the employee may not require design thinking in their

day to day role or has yet to see valid design thinking capability demonstrated across

the organisation.

Lastly, 36% of participants believed design awareness was contained to mostly

the internal design and innovation team with a select few across the organisation. 48%

of participants selected that a ‘few select teams’ had an awareness of design thinking,


sighting these were primarily related to those participating in projects, the design and

innovation team and select managers responsible for change. Two (2) participants

selected they believed only a ‘few in the design team’ held an awareness of design.

Finally, one (1) participant selected that ‘no-one’ was aware of design thinking in the

organisation. This was aligned to the limited understanding and awareness of the

design and innovation team internal within the organisation.

6.4 COMPARISONS FROM ALL THE COMPLETED PARTICIPANT

DIAGRAMS

The overall participant diagram was compared with regards to key differences

and similarities across the groups for each criterion. Three key findings were identified

and the themes are outlined below: responsibility vs accountability; business

centricity; and lack of integration and application.

Figure 6.1: Overview of themes – Study C

6.4.1 Responsibility vs Accountability

The results show that the participants responsible for managing strategic

decisions believed that design thinking was important to delivering innovation across

the organisation. However, they also indicated that the design and innovation team

were responsible and little investment was placed on internal capability to deliver

across the firm. These responses may indicate a lack of experience or lack of

confidence in their own application of this new knowledge. Delegating the role of

applying design thinking to the design and innovation team in the business may

Representing the disconnect between strategic leadership and operational outputs

Responsibility vs accountability

Representing the inability to supress business centricity, thinking in terms of what the business will do and what they need, ahead of customer needs

Business Centricity

Representing the distinct disconnect between applying all the components of design thinking and the ability to harness them all together

Lack of integration and application


indicate confidence in the design and innovation team. However, expressing their own

limited investment in nurturing the design thinking capability required to enable

innovative outcomes, also indicates an absence of responsibility and hence

accountability for such outcomes.

One strategic leader expressed the value design thinking has at a strategic level,

“however we are not there yet”. Nevertheless, they did state “there is an openness at

that level to exploring possibilities and to challenge….” Employee (SC-BNE-EGM).

This infers there is a dialogue at the strategic level that contains the notion of

exploration and challenging existing approaches to solving problems. The concept of

design thinking is acknowledged as a valuable tool for the organisation, further

education may be required to inform how strategic leaders can apply and drive design

led innovation outcomes.

There does appear to be an opportunity to move design thinking into

organisational change management led by strategic leaders in an immersive manner,

where empathic exploration to understand end user needs and problems could also be

used for effective adoption and execution. Rather than integrating the design

methodology into the core project and change management frameworks, current

design and innovation programmes stand outside mainstream practices and rely on

limited timeframes, restricting the ability to transition ideas through to profitable

business propositions.

6.4.2 Business centricity

The results reveal an overwhelming emphasis on business centricity thinking, in

terms of the business forming a solution irrespective of customer insights. This links

to the distinct focus in the findings on internal drivers for innovation, with limited

external inputs particularly direct involvement from the customer or other external

environmental factors. Often in a business context, organisations develop a solution

they believe a customer wants. Rather than understanding the customer and developing

a solution based on the wants and needs of the customer impacted. This impacts the

utilisation of design thinking methods to deliver innovative solutions, as it is seen as

taking longer to find the solution.

One participant stated “even going through the process (DT) the output didn’t

change….” Employee (D-BNE-TM). This comment may indicate that they had the


solution in mind before applying what they perceived as the design thinking process.

When they participated in the experiential design and innovation programme, the

original solution was the output they still walked away with, thus disregarding the

customer insights, and developing a solution they believed was what the customer

wanted, not necessarily based on what the customer was telling the organisation.

The findings indicate the limited importance of collecting and understanding

customer insights as a way to design the right innovative solution. Design thinking has

the potential to act as a bridge by bringing customers closer to the organisation and

driving strategic direction (Liedtka, 2010). Truly understanding the value of the

customer, their journey and needs is integral to dramatically shifting the perception of

design. One of the difficulties discussed by the employees was ensuring the customer

insights are not lost in translation when designing the solution. Moving beyond the

traditional approach of capturing complaint feedback or sending out a survey for

customers to complete, can lead to providing genuine innovative solutions.

6.4.3 Lack of integration and application

Responses from participants reveal a disconnection between applying all the

components of design and the ability to harness them all together to generate the

collective benefit of what design can bring. For example, design is valued highly, but

limited customer insights were collected and drivers for innovation are often limited

to internal drivers or exploring competitors’ performance. The findings also show

design thinking is often brought in by external consultants, and design thinkers are

based within distinct teams which are located in a specific section of the business.

One participant stated “how can you be innovative and add the design thinkers

to a problem without the threat of slowing it down?” Employee (D-BNE-M).

Revealing the perception of design thinking is a thing you do outside of the existing

process to innovate and that it takes longer than necessary with little added value.

In terms of business transformation and the relationship between design thinking

and innovation, design thinking comprises of one of the most potential remedies for

enabling connection between operational and strategic objectives (Liedtka, 2015).

Potential applications include deployment and ongoing refinement of products and

services and managing strategic risks via business model renewal. And yet, the holistic

end to end approach to design thinking, in a large financial services organisation is


actually quite rare and difficult to achieve. The available evidence in this research

tends to highlight the complexity of transferring theory to practical application and

ultimately delivering transformative innovative solutions.

6.5 LIMITATIONS OF THE DESIGN CAPACITY MODEL (DCM)

In order to apply the DCM, the researcher made a few modifications to the model

to reflect the language and activities undertaken by MFSCo, as previously discussed

in Section 3.6 on page 39. The (5) five dimensions in the model were left unchanged.

The nodes along the levers were adapted to imitate the case study organisation. The

modification to the DCM by Storvang et al., (2014), impacted the overall outcome by

providing a more relevant and accurate tool for the participants to measure the design

capacity of the organisation.

The DCM designed by Storvang et al., (2014), was used to determine the current

design capacity within an organisation and its ability to deliver innovation, allowing

for discussion and identifying areas for improvement. It provides a visual

representation that highlights and simplifies gaps where the organisation can focus and

drive better outcomes.

The process of mapping an organisations design capacity can provide a way to

facilitate discussions for strategic attention identifying areas for leaders to focus their

efforts in order to achieve their desired results (Storvang et al., 2014). The findings

reveal a diverse view of design capacity within MFSCo. This variation could be due

to a number of factors including, the size and nature of the organisation, the relative

new capability of design methodology across the organisation and limitations of the

model.

The development of the DCM originally concentrated on the role of design in

small to medium Danish companies across industries such as: design and consultancy;

retail and manufacturing. Ranging in size from under 5 to 250 employees. MFSCo

represents a component of a large multinational organisation in the financial services

industry, consisting of 3000 employees. Noting, the overall company consists of

approximately 10,000 employees. Recognising design is not the prominent capability

across MFSCo the DCM may not allow for a complete picture for how design is

applied to deliver innovation effectively.


6.6 SUMMARY

This chapter seeks to capture, illustrate participant’s perceptions and

understanding of the current level of design capacity to deliver innovation across

MFSCo. Participants were asked to assess and indicate where they believed the

organisation’s current design capacity was against each of the five dimensions:

customer engagement; innovation trigger; design capabilities; design thinkers and

design value. The results divulged themes of responsibility vs accountability; business

centricity and lack of integration and application.

A map designed for an organisations’ design capacity empowers a firm to assess

the current approach being applied to building design capability and their ability to

deliver innovative outputs. By integrating design knowledge and skills into the

strategic area and encouraging end to end application, of all the components of the

design process will ultimately produce greater outputs and align to the customer’s

needs.

Chapter 7: Findings and Discussion 80

Findings and Discussion

7.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter discusses the findings of the three studies presented in this thesis,

in order to respond to the overarching principal research question, which seeks to

understand how employees in a large Australian financial services organisation,

perceive, utilise and connect design thinking practices to deliver innovation. Firstly,

this chapter discusses the mixed responses to design and design thinking in the

organisation. While the data indicates that there is general agreement that design is

valued, this appreciation of design appears to be rarely translated into projects or

learning outcomes. In addition, the data suggests there is difficulty in connecting

design capabilities with analytical and business centric skill sets. Secondly, this

chapter uses the data that identifies some problems with application of design thinking,

noted in Chapter 5 and 6, such as appearing to use design thinking but beginning with

a fixed view of the solution. It discusses the ways in which design can be integrated

into the culture of the organisation, through practice integration, to transform

perceptions and provide a link between organisational and strategic divisions with a

firm.

Figure 7.1 illustrates the relationship between the principal research question of

this thesis, the sub research questions (study A, B and C), the results and the discussion.

The results of each of the studies inform the two outcomes summarised in this

discussion chapter.


Figure 7.1: Principal Research Question relationship to discussion

Principal Research Question The overarching aim of this research seeks to understand how employees in a large Australian

financial services organisation, perceive, utilise and connect design thinking practices to deliver

innovation

SRQ 1 – Study A

In what ways is

design current being

deployed and utilised

in the organisation?

SRQ 2 – Study B

To what extent do employees

understand the link between DT and

innovation and in what ways are they

applying these in the organisation?

SRQ 3 – Study C

How do employees

perceive the current

design and innovation

capacity of MFSCo?

RESULTS

Chapter 4 – Study A

• Information sharing to

raise awareness

• Limited time

allocation

• Efficiency focus over

creativity

Chapter 6 –Study C

• Responsibility vs

accountability

• Business centricity

• Lack of integration and

application

Chapter 5 – Study B

Innovation

• New way of thinking

• Any change that adds value

• Incremental vs radical innovation

Design Thinking

• Customer is key

• Problem fixing

• Human centred design themes

Barriers

• Analytical vs creativity

• Conflicting priorities

• Empowerment

• Controlled regulation

Discussion

Appreciation of design

thinking

Practice Integration


7.2 APPRECIATION OF DESIGN THINKING

A common theme identified from the results of each of the three (3) studies

indicated the notable lack of genuine appreciation for design thinking capabilities and

their ability to generate transformational innovative results. The results reveal the

difficulty encountered by the employees of MFSCo with regards to merging the

mindset, skills and tools attributable to design thinking with the structured analytical

competence and the traditional, cultural environment found in a large established

financial services organisation.

The data contained in the research discovered design thinking was valued by

mostly the innovation and design team along with a few teams undertaking projects.

The strategic leaders stated they valued design thinking as a method to deliver

innovation, however there was a distinct lack of investment in design thinking outside

of the internal programmes which focused on foundational design thinking practices.

In addition, there was limited time allocated to practicing design thinking after

attending the programmes, which results in not allowing people to properly apply or

use the newly acquired design thinking capability. Thus, limiting the opportunity for

integrating design with other practices performed across the organisation and

generating new innovations. There are many possible reasons why the true value of

design thinking and the relevant capabilities are not being valued and harnessed in its

end to end entirety.

One possible reason is linked to the capabilities associated with design thinking.

Consider Martin’s (2010) description of design thinking as the balance of analytical

excellence and intuitive ingenuity when applying design capabilities in a business

context. Where design thinking takes the best of both traditional analytical thinking,

including deductive and inductive logic, in conjunction with abductive reasoning.

Kolko (2010) describes abduction as intuitive thinking or using gut instinct and allows

for new ideas (innovation) to flourish, whereas inductive and deductive reasoning

cannot deliver any new knowledge or discoveries, limiting innovative opportunities

(Dorst, 2010; Kolko, 2010; Martin, 2009). In a highly conservative industry structured

frameworks, technical expertise and analytical skills are often highly valued. These

competences frequently utilise deductive, inductive logic and quantitative methods for

problem solving not abduction, intuition or creative pursuits. Training employees to


apply and adopt creative, messy techniques that encourage observed insights and incite

failure through iterative processes, may require significant time and expertise.

As a result, before solutions can move from idea to prototype and testing, clearly

defined evidence is required and to be substantiated by quantifiable and measurable

metrics. Therefore, to improve the connection of design thinking to innovative outputs

and establish value, MFSCo should implement design thinking in stages, as maturity

and skills grows across the organisation (Dorst, 2010). Showing the way design can

integrate into the current knowledge and skills within the organisation via time and

proven examples and applied techniques.

Through application of design thinking in small projects and building capability

through practical application, the value of design thinking could be enhanced and the

shifts in management perspectives may embrace the designer’s skill sets. As stories

and case studies that demonstrate the usefulness of design thinking in this organisation

and its context are developed and collected, the appetite for further engagement with

design thinking mindset and methods is more likely to progress. In addition, longer

and more extensive experience with design thinking in relevant, related projects,

perhaps with ongoing coaching and mentoring may be more beneficial.

7.3 PRACTICE INTEGRATION

The second key finding, based on the results from the three (3) studies, is the

importance of having the right practices and culture to drive design thinking as a new

approach to innovation. The findings emphasise that MFSCo still has a long way to go

to deliver effective and strategically transformative innovation through the utilisation

of end to end design thinking practices. The core concepts are easy to understand and

in parts the ability to transfer capability to typically non-designers in theory seems

simple. However, individuals, teams and organisations need the opportunity to explore

and experiment with design thinking frameworks. They need to customise design

thinking principles and methods for their own contexts, rather than taking a cookie-

cutter approach and assuming implementation will follow. The environment plays a

key role in allowing design thinking capabilities to flourish and applying design

thinking frameworks can be difficult and if all elements of design thinking are not

applied, the outcome generates mediocre solutions.


As highlighted by Burdon & Dovey, (2015) building an innovative company

consists of the interplay between leadership and culture. The findings reveal, in the

context of MFSCo, there is still some work to do with regards to linking the operational

processes of an organisation with its strategic agenda to build an appreciation of design

thinking and its ability to deliver effective and transformational innovative outputs. To

obtain more value from a design thinking approach to drive innovative practices,

design thinking needs to move into the strategic arena as a methodology that enables

strategic direction as well as continue to play a part in the operational space. Providing

a top down and a bottom up influence will assist in driving a more targeted approach

to innovation and propel outcomes by encouraging new solutions through utilising

design thinking capabilities (Carlgren, 2013).

Upper management can foster a culture conducive to innovation. By integrating

a design thinking capability, whether it be a design catalyst (Wrigley, 2013) or up-

skilling influential managers to add design thinking concepts into management

discussions (Liedtka, et al. 2011), can highlight the genuine value of integrating design

thinking into the wider business. Providing that sponsorship and advocacy it requires

to shift into the mainstream cultural environment. It is important to also communicate

across the organisation the value of developing a culture that encourages the

development of skills, as it allows for space and time and empowers employees,

promoting innovation and linking those to the values, to the business strategy at all

levels and organisational focus (Lawson & Samson, 2001)

Closely linked to fostering the right conditions and culture for design thinking is

the application of design thinking practice. Transferring from design thinking theory

to practice is challenging as seen by the findings presented. Common themes were

identified throughout the research surrounding the challenges of transferring learnings

to genuine solutions. These included the limited aptitude of employees to generate

transformational change through using the end to end design thinking approach. This

gap could be due to factors including; the introductory nature of the design and

innovation programmes, the level of training of internal design practitioners, difficulty

in accessing customers and short term internal business focus of the organisation.

The general homogenous training appears to dilute the effectiveness of design

thinking and innovation training and the internal teams that support and deliver it. In

a world flooded by design thinking ‘lightly’ trained employees and a copy and paste


approach to creativity, meaningful applications are obscured and difficult to find. Both

the boot-camp training and brainstorming format of workshops and programmes, seem

to favour just doing something, with insufficient emphases on true user orientation,

devaluing the research and discovery aspects of the design thinking process. The lack

of understanding of the need for integration of all the elements that make up the design

thinking process, may lend to a short-term delivery focus. For example, the findings

in the research, where limited time is allocated to employees to dedicate learning and

applying the practices of design thinking, ultimately may limit the opportunity to

deliver strategically innovative solutions.

7.4 SUMMARY

Bringing together the findings from each of the sub-research questions, defined

as study A, B and C of this research thesis, this chapter has integrated the findings into

a coherent whole. This discussion responds to the overarching principal research

question, to understand how employees in a large Australian financial services

organisation, perceive, utilise and connect design thinking practices to deliver

innovation.

This chapter has contributed to new knowledge to the appreciation of design

thinking and presented ways in which design thinking can be utilised to connect design

thinking capabilities with analytical skill sets though increased design appreciation.

Secondly, this research presented the ways and barriers in which design thinking can

be integrated into the practices and culture of the organisation to transform perceptions

and provide a link between organisational and strategic divisions with a firm.

Given the research focuses on one large financial services organisation, the

findings cannot be generalised to similar organisations. However, financial service

organisations may benefit from the learnings from this research in their desire to

enhance their design thinking practices.

The next chapter provides a conclusion and considerations for future research

from the findings identified in this thesis.

Chapter 8: Conclusions, Limitations and Future Research 86

Conclusions, Limitations and

Future Research

8.1 CONCLUSIONS

This thesis examined the relationship between design thinking and innovation in

a traditional large financial services organisation MFSCo. Through the use of a case

study method, the research undertook a phased approach. First; Study A, investigated

four design and innovation programmes currently being deployed inside MFSCo.

Second, Study B, investigated the extent to which employees understand the link

between design thinking and innovation and the ways in which they were applying

design thinking in the organisation. Third, Study C, mapped perceptions of current

design thinking capacity within the organisation and its ability to deliver innovation.

The practical and theoretical components of the results and discussion presented

in this thesis have a variety of implications for future efforts when seeking to build

design thinking capability to drive innovative outcomes. Practically, this research

presents one perspective for design and innovation practitioners and managers at every

level in large organisations. At the designer/practitioners’ level, the research unearths

deep insights from staff currently participating in internal design and innovation

programmes.

At the corporate level, this research provides an insight into some early successes

and struggles of developing design thinking capability within the various structures

and hierarchy of one large organisation. For large multinational financial services

organisations seeking to understand how to embed design thinking across an

organisation to aid innovation, this research may provide awareness of some obstacles

to overcome. Recognizing the levers for building design thinking capabilities leads to

an effective framework to implement across any organisation.


8.2 IMPLICATIONS FOR LARGE ORGANISATIONS

In an age of business uncertainty, even established companies must continually

push to innovate in order to survive. Large organisations are highly complex, multi

layered and multi-dimensional ecosystems, comprised of diverse hierarchical

structures, intricate cultures constructed by the multitude of employees, teams and

management tiers made up of an assortment of knowledge, skills and capability.

This research provides an insight into some of the challenges and barriers to

embedding a design thinking capability in a large traditional organisation, to deliver

effective innovation. Large organisations must seek to comprehend their employees’

design thinking skills and knowledge inherent within their organisation across multiple

organisational levels. Through the ‘Appreciation of design thinking’, large

organisations must encourage the merging of design capability with analytical

capability. This synthesis will aid in tailoring design and innovation programmes

suitable for front line staff, management and upper management levels to illustrate

effective value of design thinking in both the operational and strategic divisions of an

organisation (Bucolo et al., 2012) .

Identifying the challenges, impediments, strengths and barriers associated with

embedding design thinking in a large, multifaceted financial services organisation,

may enable positive transformation and assist in driving positive outcomes when

encouraging the use of design principles to facilitate innovation. Through ‘Practice

Integration’, the importance of fostering a culture of openness and experimentation

will allow employees to integrate their learnings of design thinking and may generate

transformational innovative solutions. Large organisations are complex in nature and

appreciating the intricacies will assist the sustainability of the design and innovation

program.

Transferring knowledge to practical application generates true value driven

innovation (Elsbach & Stigliani, 2018). Facilitating design thinking projects that

reveal value will provide evidence of success for management to invest in and allocate

more time and resources to the utilisation of design thinking practices. Ultimately

connecting the relationship between design and innovation may support an

organisation’s ability to innovate and remain competitive in a dynamic and changing

environment.


8.2.1 Implications for theory

The research engagement of this thesis was developed around three key

theoretical frameworks that were explored in detail in the literature review. To recap,

these three frameworks are Design Thinking, Design-led Innovation (DLI) (Bucolo et

al., 2012) and the Design Capacity Model (DCM) (Storvang et al., 2014). Since design

thinking has provided the underlying basis for DLI, this section focuses on the

implications generated in regards to the theory associated with DLI and the DCM.

An important component of DLI is the relationship and facilitation between

operational and strategic design, connecting operational and strategic divisions of the

organisation back to the core value proposition (Bucolo et al., 2012). As reflected in

the DLI conceptual framework, this connection is only effective and beneficial when

the value proposition is known and is considered important by all components of the

business. For large organisations with significant hierarchical structures, numerous

teams and functions across business areas, a clear link between the strategic value

proposition and project work needs to be created.

The Design Capacity Model has been utilised as a means to assess the level of

design thinking integration of MFSCo. The model was amended by the researcher to

reflect the case study organisation. The (5) levers remained unchanged, however

changes to some of the nodes were slightly modified including: language reflective of

MFSCo; removal of nodes that were not applicable; additional nodes were required.

Findings have presented only slight implications for this model, particularly for large

organisations. Tailoring the model to the organisation provides added value to those

reviewing the tools outputs. The model may also represent a simplistic view of the

organisation given the size and complex nature associated with larger organisations,

as opposed to smaller or medium sized organisations. Where there are less levels of

hierarchy requiring sign off, disparate teams undertaking various roles and functions

and often employees responsible for applying a design approach are further from the

end users.

8.3 LIMITATIONS OF RESEARCH

The outcome and contributions of this thesis have several limitations. First, the

research is based on one case study organisation and the findings reflect new


knowledge gained from this one case study. It would be interesting to undertake the

research across a number of large organisations and their respective employees to

ascertain similar or differing outcomes. The research examined relatively short

education and training programs that were delivered once to participants. Findings

would be expected to be different if longer training programs were implemented that

included the chance to develop relevant workplace projects to implement design

thinking.

Second, this research was focused on one industry specific context. As a large

organisation in the Australian financial services sector, MFSCo represents a very

specific type of business and the implications presented in this thesis are directly

relevant to this industry. However, it is possible that other industries and organisations

may benefit indirectly from this research.

Finally, a potential limitation of the research is the researcher’ employment

within MFSCo and their prior experience and knowledge of the participating company.

However, the research was designed to minimise any undue influence by the

researcher. It is of course possible that research undertaken by a non-employee,

without deep knowledge of this organisation, could have produced different outcomes

and the contributions presented.

8.4 FUTURE RESEARCH

The findings, outcomes and contributions of this research create opportunities

for future research. First and foremost, future research should look at developing a

method or metric for measuring the impact of design thinking in large organisations.

This may provide further insight into how organisations can increase uptake and

effectiveness of design thinking with respect to delivering innovative outputs.

Secondly, an opportunity exists to broaden the research to additional financial

services organisations, identifying trends across a wider sample of financial service

organisations, and other sectors, exploring the nuances, challenges and similarities

across Australia and other legislative regimes in other countries.

There is also opportunity to investigate how design thinking capability is

developed across employees of service industries such as communication, health or

agriculture. Studying the dissemination and impact of design thinking practice across

alternative businesses could generate new insights.


Furthermore, future research could explore the question ‘how can large

organisations truly place the customer at the forefront to deliver effective innovative

solutions?’ providing useful directions for organisational frameworks, strategic focus

and improving the value of design thinking in a business context.

References 91

References

Ahmed, P. K. (1998). Culture and climate for innovation. European Journal of

Innovation Management, 1(1), 30–43.

http://doi.org/10.1108/14601069810199131

Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations.

Research in organizational behaviour, 10(1), 123-167.

Beckman, S. L., & Barry, M. (2008). DEVELOPING DESIGN THINKING. Step

Inside Design, 24(4), 82. Baškarada, S. (2014). Qualitative Case Study

Guidelines, 19(40), 1–18.

Begley, C. M. (1996). Using triangulation in nursing research. Journal of Advanced

Nursing, 24(1), 122–128. http://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.1996.15217.x

Best, K., Kootstra, G. L., & Murphy, D. (2010). Design Management and Business in

Europe: A Closer Look. Design Management Review, 26–35.

Beverland, M. B., & Farrelly, J. F. (2007). What does it mean to be design-led?

Design Management Review, 18(4), 10–17. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-

8551.1990.tb00002.x

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative

Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.

Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86(6).

http://doi.org/10.5437/08956308X5503003

Brown & Martin., (2015). Design for Action. Harvard Business Review, September,

57–74.

Bucolo, S., & Matthews, J. (2011). A Conceptual Model to Link Deep Customer

Insights to both Growth Opportunities and Organisational Strategy in SME ’ s

as part of a Design Led Transformation Journey. A Conceptual Model to Link

Deep Customer Insights to Both Growth Opportunities and Organisational

Strategy in SME ’ s as Part of a Design Led Transformation Journey.

Bucolo, S., & Wrigley, C. (2011). Teaching Design Led Innovation: The Future of

Industrial Design. Design Principles and Practices, 5(2), 231–240.

Bucolo, S., & Wrigley, C. (2013). Sustaining social innovation enterprises through a

design led innovation framework. Business Design Conference 2011, 17–19.

Bucolo, S., Wrigley, C., & Matthews, J. (2012). Gaps in Organizational Leadership:

Linking Strategic and Operational Activities through Design-Led Propositions.

Design Management Journal, 7, 18–28. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1948-

7177.2012.00030.x

Burdon, S., & Dovey, K. (2015). Exploring the cultural basis of innovation. Journal

of Innovation Management, 3, 20–34.

References 92

Büschgens, T., Bausch, A., & Balkin, D. B. (2013). Organizational culture and

innovation: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Product Innovation

Management, 30(4), 763–781. http://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12021

Carlgren, L. (2013). Design thinking as an enabler of innovation: Exploring the

concept and its relation to building innovation capabilities. Retrieved from

http://publications.lib.chalmers.se/records/fulltext/185362/185362.pdf%5Cnhttp

://publications.lib.chalmers.se/publication/185362

Carlgren, L., Elmquist, M., & Rauth, I. (2011). Exploring the use of design thinking

in large organizations : Towards a research agenda.

Carlgren, L., Elmquist, M., & Rauth, I. (2015). Design Thinking : Exploring Values

and Effects from an Innovation Capability Perspective Design Thinking :

Exploring Values and Effects from an Innovation Capability Perspective, 6925.

http://doi.org/10.2752/175630614X13982745783000

Carr, S. D., Halliday, A., King, A. C., Liedtka, J., & Lockwood, T. (2010). The

Influence of Design Thinking in Business: Some Preliminary Observations.

Design Management Review, 21(3), 58–63. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1948-

7169.2010.00080.x

Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational Innovation: a Meta-Analysis of Effects of

Determinants and Moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 555–

590. http://doi.org/10.2307/256406

Damanpour, F., & Schneider, M. (2006). Phases of the adoption of innovation in

organizations: effects of environment, organization and top managers 1. British

journal of Management, 17(3), 215-236.

Darden Business School. (2014). University of Virginia’s Darden Business School

Design at Darden. Available at https://designatdarden.org/

Denning, P. J. (2012). Innovating the future: From ideas to adoption. Futurist, 46(1),

40–45.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds. . (2011). The SAGE handbook of qualitative

research. Sage.

Dorst, K. (2010). The nature of Design thinking. Design Thinking Research

Symposium. DAB Documents, 131-. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1948-

7169.2005.tb00008.x

Elsbach, K. D., & Stigliani, I. (2018). Design Thinking and Organizational Culture:

A Review and Framework for Future Research. Journal of Management, 44(6),

2274–2306. http://doi.org/10.1177/0149206317744252

Frambach, R. T., & Schillewaert, N. (2002). Organizational innovation adoption: A

multi-level framework of determinants and opportunities for future research.

Journal of business research, 55(2), 163-176.

Garland, A. F., Bickman, L., & Chorpita, B. F. (2010). Change what? Identifying

quality improvement targets by investigating usual mental health care.

Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services

Research, 37(1-2), 15-26.

References 93

Gerring, J. (2004). What Is a Case Study and What Is It Good for? What Is a Case

Study and What Is It Good fo. Source: The American Political Science Review

American Political Science Review, 98(2), 341–354.

http://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055404001182

Guion, L. A., Diehl, D. C., & Mcdonald, D. (2011). Conducting an In-depth

Interview 1 Conducting an In-depth Interview, 2–4.

Herbig, P. and S. D. (1998). Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal.

Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal Cross Cultural

Management An International Journal Iss An International Journal, 2(1), 13.

Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1108/eb00838644

Heskett, John and Liu, X. (2012). Models of developing design capacity: Perspective

from China. Leading Through Design, 225.

Howard, Z. (2012). From concept to capability: Developing design thinking within a

professional services firm. In DRS 2012 design research society biennial

international conference: Research: Uncertainty contradiction value (Vol. 2,

pp. 729-739). Department of Industrial Design, Chulalongkorn University.

Howard, Z. (2015). Understanding design thinking in practice: A qualitative study of

deign led professionals working with large organisations, 1–309.

IBSA. (2013). Environment Scan - 2013: Business Services Industry. Retrieved from

https://www.ibsa.org.au/sites/default/files/media/Escan 2013 Business Services

Industry.pdf

IDEO. (2014). Available at http://designthinkingforeducators.com/.

Johansson-Sköldberg, U., Woodilla, J., & Çetinkaya, M. (2013a). Design thinking:

Past, present and possible futures. Creativity and Innovation Management,

22(2), 121–146. http://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12023

Johansson-Sköldberg, U., Woodilla, J., & Çetinkaya, M. (2013b). Design Thinking:

Past, Present and Possible Futures. Creativity and Innovation Management,

22(2), 121–146. http://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12023

Kassarjian, H. H. (1977). Content Analysis in Consumer Research. Journal of

Consumer Research, 4(1), 8–18. http://doi.org/10.1086/208674

Kloeckner, K. (2018). Building an enterprise culture of continuous innovation.

Forbes. Retrieved from

https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2018/04/09/building-an-

enterprise-culture-of-continuous-innovation/#621566426824

Kolko, J. (2010). Abductive Thinking and Sense Making: The Drivers of Design

Synthesis. Design Issues, 26(1).

Kolko, J. (2015). Design Thinking Comes of Age Design Thinking Comes of Age.

KPMG. (2015). The New World of Opportunity, The insurance innovation

imperative. Retrieved from

https://home.kpmg.com/xx/en/home/insights/2015/09/the-insurance-innovation-

imperative.html

Kretzschmar, A. (2003). The economic effects of design. Danish National Agency

References 94

for Enterprise and Housing.

Lawson, B., & Dorst, K. (2009). Design expertise. 2009.

Lawson, B., & Samson, D. (2001). Developing Innovation Capability in

Organisations: a Dynamic Capabilities Approach. International Journal of

Innovation Management, 05(03), 377–400.

http://doi.org/10.1142/S1363919601000427

Liedtka, J., King, A., & Bennett, K. (2013). Solving problems with design: ten stories

of what works. Columbia University Press.

Liedtka and Ogilvie. (2011). Designing for Growth- a design thinking toolkit for

manager. Columbia University Press, New York.

Liedtka, J. (2010). Business Strategy and Design: Can this Marriage Be Saved?

Design Management Review, 21, 6–11. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1948-

7169.2010.00059.x

Liedtka, J. (2014). Innovative ways companies are using design thinking. Strategy &

Leadership, 42(2), 40-45.

Liedtka, J. (2015). Perspective : Linking Design Thinking with Innovation Outcomes

through Cognitive Bias Reduction, 32(6), 925–938.

http://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12163

Martin, R. (2009). The Design of Business. Rotman Management, Business D, 7–11.

Retrieved from http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/93/design.html

Martin, R. (2010). Design thinking: achieving insights via the “knowledge funnel”.

Strategy & Leadership, 38(2), 37-41.

Matthews, J. H., Bucolo, S., & Wrigley, C. (2012). Challenges and opportunities in

the journey of the design-led innovation champions. In Leading Innovation

Through Design:Proceedings of the DMI 2012 International Research

Conference, 768–775.

Matthews, J., & Wrigley, C. (2011). Design and design thinking in business and

management education and development. In 25th Annual Australian and New

Zealand Academy of Management Conference.

Matthews, Judy H. & Wrigley, Cara (2017) Design and design thinking in business

and management higher education. Journal of Learning Design, 10(1), pp. 41-

54.

Melles, G., Howard, Z., & Thompson-Whiteside, S. (2012). Teaching design

thinking: Expanding horizons in design education. Procedia-Social and

Behavioural Sciences, 31, 162-166.

Michlewski, K. (2008). Uncovering design attitude: Inside the culture of designers.

Organization studies, 29(3), 373-392.

Norman. (2010). Design thinking: A useful myth., Retrieved January, 25, 2015.

Price, R. A., Wrigley, C., Straker, K., (2015). Not just what they want , but why they

want it Traditional market research to deep customer insights.

http://doi.org/10.1108/QMR-03-2014-0024

References 95

Rogers, E. M. (2010). Diffusion of innovations. Simon and Schuster.

Schweitzer, J., Groeger, L., & Sobel, L. (2016). The design thinking mindset: An

assessment of what we know and what we see in practice. Journal of Design,

Business & Society, 2(3), 1–23. http://doi.org/10.1386/dbs.2.1.71_1

Sobel, L., & Groeger, L. (2012). Design Thinking: Exploring Opportunities for the

Design Industry and Business in Australia. SSRN Electronic Journal, 33(0), 0–

53. http://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2194672

Sobel, L., & Groeger, L. (2013). The future of design thinking in Australia: barriers

and opportunities. Design Management Review, 24(2), 26-31.

Souto, J. E. (2015). Business model innovation and business concept innovation as

the context of incremental innovation and radical innovation. Tourism

Management, 51, 142–155. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2015.05.017

Stemler. (2001). An Overview of Content Analysis, (December).

Storvang, P., Jensen, S., & Christensen, P. R. (2014). Innovation through Design:

A Framework for Design Capacity in a Danish Context. Design Management

Journal, 9(1), 9–22. http://doi.org/10.1111/dmj.12006

Straker, K., & Wrigley, C. (2014). Design innovation catalyst tools to facilitate

organisational change. Proceedings of 19th DMI : Academic Design

Management Conference, 2600–2617. Retrieved from

http://eprints.qut.edu.au/74812/1/Design_Innovation_Catalyst_Tools_to_Facilit

ate_Organisational_Change_.pdf

Stanford Design School. (2014). Available at http://dschool.stanford.edu/use-our-

methods/.

Verganti, R. (2008). Design, Meanings, and Radical Innovation: A Metamodel and a

Research Agenda, 436–456.

Verganti, R. (2009). Design Driven Innovation, Changing the Rules of Competition

by changing the Rules of Competition by Radically Innovating What Things

Mean, 145.

W. Berger. (2010). The four phases of design thinking. Retrieved from

https://hbr.org/2010/07/the-four-phases-of-design-thin

Weber, R. P. (1990). basic content analysis. Sage.

Wolfe, R. A. (1994). Organisational Innovation: Review, Critique and suggested

research directions. Journal of Management Studies, 31, 405–431.

Wrigley, C. (2013). Educating the ‘Design Innovation Catalyst’ for Change. In 5th

International Association of Societies of Design Research Conference,

Consilience and Innovation in Design (Vol. 1, pp. 3547–3557).

Yin, R. K. (2009). Validity and generalization in future case study evaluations.

Evaluation, 19(3), 321–332. http://doi.org/10.1177/1356389013497081

Appendix A: Interview Schedule 97

Appendices

Appendix A

Interview Schedule

Interviewee Name: Role: Gender:

M or F

Division: SPUM/ FOA/ CPUM/ CLAIMS/

DIST / HR / STAT CLAIMS

Location:

Bris / Syd / Mel

Recording available:

Y or N

Consent given:

Y or N

Years at Organisation:

Interviewer Name:

Sonya Close-DeBais

Date:

What are we doing and why?

Innovation is more than just what you need to push through an organisation in order to survive. To continue to be successful requires a different set of skills than what got you to where you are

today. More and more companies are turning their attentions to design as a method for innovation. Through understanding how design led capabilities will support an organisations ability to

innovate and remain competitive in a dynamic and changing environment has never been more important.

What are we proposing?

Within Commercial Insurance we have been tuning our capabilities and methods to innovate. To keep the momentum, we would like to take the time to reflect on our progress and key areas

for focus. We are looking to interview a number of people across Commercial Insurance to understand and define the current design thinking and Innovation capability within business.

You have been selected to participate in a 60 min semi-structured interview that will assist the sustainability of the innovation framework.

It should also be noted that the information collected will form part of a wider Research agenda being undertaken by Sonya Close-DeBais* as part of Masters by Research thesis conducted at

QUT, focusing on the question “How do you build Design Thinking Capability in Large Organisations to drive Innovation?” Attached is an information sheet outlining the details of the

research, how it will be managed and requesting your signed consent to participate in the interview? If you would like further information or have any questions do not hesitate to contact

Sonya. Please note participation is voluntary.

*Sonya is a Post Graduate student at QUT undertaking Research and is also an employee in the Suncorp Commercial Insurance business as an Innovation Partner in the Design and Business

Capability team.

Format

The Questionnaire comprises of 9 questions conducted by two members of the Design & Business Capability team an interviewer and an observer. The interview will be recorded in written

and digital format as agreed by the interviewee and maintained on file.

The semi-structured interview promotes open discussion based on your understanding, experiences and level of knowledge.

There is no right or wrong answer.

All information collected will be confidential and maintained in a secure location as per the QUT Code of Ethics.

98

Question Set:

1. Explain the importance of innovation and what it looks like to you? How would I experience it if I were in your team?

2. Briefly outline any barriers preventing you applying innovative practices in your role?

3. Which methodology have you heard about with regards to driving innovation practices? Explain your understanding design thinking/Human Centred

Design/User centric design/DLI

4. Based on your understanding of the above methodologies, what value, if any, does building this capability have for your role?

5. What Design or innovation programmes have you participated in (external or internal)?

6. From the program/course/workshop completed, what did you think of them/ did they provide value / would you recommend them? Why?

7. What innovative skill or practice do you believe you need to drive better innovative practices in your role today?

8. Refer to the attached diagram. This diagram outlines 5 levers for Design & Innovation capability in an organisation.

a) Plot where you believe Suncorp currently sits

b) Explain why? Provide an example as evidence of your reasoning

c) From your perspective, how would the organisation improve their rating? Refer to each lever

9. What will be some of the biggest impacts to this business in the future? Based on the future impacts, what do you believe will need to be done to equip the

business to mitigate and remain competitive

Appendix B: Study A thematic coding scheme 99

Appendix B Study A thematic coding scheme

Code Description

A Content Outlines the type of subject matter used, foundational,

intermediate, advanced, date established

B Purpose Objective of programme including: introductory, practical

application, components of design

C Facilitator Internal or external facilitator, experience level

D Course length Timeframe of programme

E Tools Materials, guides, frameworks delivered

F outcomes Purposeful outcomes, applicability, theory or practical

application

G Participants Pre-requisite qualifications, role, number of participants,

individual capabilities

Theme Sub-Theme Code

Information

sharing to

raise

awareness

Level of Capability

Codes which relate to the skills level of the course

A Content

G Participant

C Facilitator

Outcome of design

Codes which relate to the objective and outcome for the

course

F outcomes

A content

B purpose

E tools

Limited time

allocation

Participant types

Codes which relate to the role and types of participants

G Participants

Importance of Design

Codes which relate to the purpose and outcomes of the course

B purpose

F outcomes

Efficiency Focus over

Creativity

Design Experience

Codes which relate to existing design expertise

G Participants

A Content

D course length

Design Advocacy

Codes which relate to the support for building design

capability

B Purpose

C Facilitators

D course length

F outcomes

100

Appendix C Study B thematic coding scheme

Code Description Sub -themes

Final themes

DT Design thinking perceptions from individual employees

A. Empathy B. Observation C. Pain points D. Problem solving approach E. Human Centred Design (term used) F. Customer based design (term used) G. Can’t define it H. creative I. methodology J. Iterative process K. Prototyping & testing L. Generates ideas

1. Customer is key 2. Problem fixing as iterative

process for outcomes 3. Human centred design

themes

I Perceptions of what innovation means from individual employees

A. Another perspective B. Breaking new ground C. Enhancing the status quo D. Improvements of existing

process/product or service E. Stepping into new and unexplained

territory F. Thinking outside the box G. Any Change that adds Value H. Incremental innovation I. Significant Change (large scale business

model changes) J. Development of New & creative ideas K. Solving a problem L. Empowering people M. The models and mindsets of people N. A process O. Considering customers

1. New way of thinking 2. any change that adds value 3. ways of describing innovation

explored by participants

B&I Descriptions of barriers or impediments to delivering design led solutions

A. Development of New & creative ideas B. Solving a problem C. Empowering people D. The models and mindsets of people E. A process F. Considering customers

1. Analytical vs Creativity 2. Conflicting priorities 3. Limited employee

empowerment 4. Controlled regulation

Date Examples of practical applications of design thinking

Design Thnking Examples were categorised: IO – internal operational IS – internal strategic EO- external operational ES – external strategic

The Design Led Innovation (DLI) Framework was used to plot the themes. Refer to Figure 4 below

Ie Examples of practical application of innovation solutions

101

Appendix D Study C thematic coding scheme

CODE Description Sub-Themes Final Themes

A Who values design

Nodes along the scale are: All teams in organisation Strategy & management Teams delivering projects Design & innovation teams Not important

Value driver focus on customer investment in design capability Quantitative vs Qualitative insights Internal attention Link customer and driver for innovation Externality Role of design Internal Role vs Capability Link awareness and customer focus Awareness vs value

1 Responsibility vs accountability 2 Business centricity 3 Lack of integration and application

B Customer engagement

Nodes along the scale are: Regularly via open forums Customers co-create processes & products Customer interviews Surveys & feedback Complaints data No engagement

C Drivers for innovation

Customer led Market opportunities Competitors Internally focused No drivers

D

Design capabilities

Strong network of qualified designers internally & externally Internal & external network of designers Internal design team External capability only None

E Design awareness

all employees see design as important management select few areas across business internal design teams no one

102

Appendix E

Results for Study C

ALL participants

Who Values Design

Customer engagement

Drivers for innovation

Design Capabilities

Design Awareness



Internally focused


The design team with a few employees across firm

Design &

innovation

team


Internally focused





Focused on competitors’ activities





Internally focused




Net promotor score (survey) and some complaints data

Internally focused

Internal & external design capabilities




Internally focused

none No one

Design &

innovation

team

Collect

complaints

data

Watching

the market

External

consultants

The design

team with a

few

employees

across firm

Design &

innovation

team

Net promotor

score (survey)

Internally

focused

Internal

designers

Select teams

across firm

103

Employees

delivering

projects

Customer

interviews are

done

Internally

focused

Internal &

external

design

capabilities

Internal

design team

Almost all of

the

organisation

Customer

interviews are

done

Customer is

main driver

Internal &

external

design

capabilities

Select few

teams across

firm

Almost all of

the

organisation

Net promotor

score (survey)

Internally

focused

Internal

designers

Select few

teams across

firm

Design &

innovation

team

Net promotor

score (survey)

Internally

focused

Internal &

external

design

capabilities

Select few

teams across

firm

Design &

innovation

team and a

few others

delivering

projects

Customer

interviews are

done

Watching

the market

Internal

designers

Internal

design team

Design &

innovation

team

Net promotor

score (survey)

Focused on

competitors’

activities

Internal

designers

Select few

teams across

firm

Design &

innovation

team

No

engagement

Internally

focused

Mainly

external

consultants

Select few

teams across

firm

Not

important

Net promotor

score (survey)

Internally

focused

Internal &

external

design

capabilities

Internal

design team

Employees

delivering

projects and

its moving

towards a

strategic

focus

Customer

interviews are

done

Internally

focused and

focused on

competitors’

activities

Mostly

internal

with help

from design

consultants

Select few

teams across

firm

104

Design &

innovation

team and a

few others

delivering

projects

Customer

interviews are

done

Internally

focused

none A few in the

design team

Design &

innovation

team

Collect

complaints

data

Internally

focused

Internal &

external

design

capabilities

Select few

teams across

firm

Employees

delivering

projects

Net promotor

score (survey)

Focused on

competitors’

activities

Mostly

internal

with help

from design

consultants

The design

team with a

few

employees

across firm

Design &

innovation

team

Net promotor

score (survey)

starting to do

customer

interviews

Focused on

competitors’

activities

none Select few

teams across

firm

Design &

innovation

team

Net promotor

score (survey)

Internally

focused and

focused on

competitors’

activities

Mainly

external

consultants

A few in the

design team

Design &

innovation

team

Customer

interviews are

done

Internally

focused

Internal &

external

design

capabilities

Select few

teams across

firm

Almost all of

the

organisation

Customer

interviews are

done

Internally

focused and

focused on

competitors’

activities

Mostly

internal

with help

from design

consultants

Select few

teams across

firm

Design &

innovation

team

Net promotor

score (survey)

Focused on

competitors’

activities

Internal &

external

design

capabilities

Internal

design team

105

A few

outside of

the design

&

innovation

team

Engage with

customers

directly

External

market

drives

innovation

Internal

mostly with

external

consultants

Select few

across

business

Employees

delivering

projects

Net promotor

scores

(survey)

External

market

drives

innovation

Internal

capabilities

as well as

external

network

Management

has

awareness of

design

Employees

delivering

projects

Net promotor

scores

(survey)

Competitors

drive

innovation

for firm

External

consultants

Internal

design team

Almost all

teams

across firm

Net promotor

scores

(survey)

Internally

focused

Bring in

external

consultant

when

required

Select few

across

business

Employees

delivering

projects

Engage with

customers

directly

Competitors

drive

innovation

for firm

External

consultants

Select few

across

business

Employees

delivering

projects

Net promotor

scores

(survey)

Competitors

drive

innovation

for firm

Mostly

internal

design

capability

Select few

across

business

Appendix F: Ethics form 106

Appendix F

Ethics form for semi- structure interviews

PARTICIPANT INFORMATION FOR QUT RESEARCH PROJECT – Interview –

Embedding Design Thinking: Building capabilities in a large organisation to drive innovation

QUT Ethics Approval Number 1600000053

RESEARCH TEAM

Principal Researcher: Sonya Close-DeBais Master of Research (Design) Student Associate Researchers: Dr Cara Wrigley Principal Supervisor & Senior Lecturer, Design-led Innovation School of Design | Creative Industries Faculty Information Systems School | Science & Engineering Faculty Dr Judy Matthews Associate Supervisor & Senior Lecturer School of Management | QUT Business School Queensland University of Technology (QUT)

DESCRIPTION This project is being undertaken as part of Sonya Close-DeBais, Master of Design

(Research) student, and it aims to better understand how to build design thinking expertise in a large financial services organisation to support and drive innovation.

The purpose of this project is to document employees understanding of design and innovation, how (if any) it has been applied in their role and what capabilities may be required to improve innovative practices across the organisation. Examples of design

led capabilities include; the ability to understand the customer, define the true problem the customer is facing, the ability to generate different ideas and the capacity to build a prototype of the idea to test with customers.

You have been invited to participate in this project because you currently an employee in the Suncorp Commercial Insurance business.

Please note this project has been given approval by the management team in Commercial Insurance.

PARTICIPATION You have been invited to participate in a 30–60-minute interview.

Your participation will involve an audio recorded interview at your place of business (or as negotiated) for a timeframe of 30-60 minutes. There will be a set of 9 questions

that will seek to understand how you apply design and innovation in your day to day role, what expertise is currently held and what further knowledge and skills you believe is required to improve innovation across the business.

Your participation in this project is entirely voluntary. If you do agree to participate you can withdraw from the project without penalty. Your decision to participate or not participate will in no way impact upon your current or future relationship with

Suncorp or QUT. If you decide to withdraw from the study within two weeks from

http://www.qut.edu.au/

107

receiving the transcripts of your interview, any identifiable data collected will be

destroyed and not included in the research dataset. EXPECTED BENEFITS

It is expected that this project will not benefit you directly. The information collected from these interviews will be compiled into report and will contribute to a better understanding of how individual employees in a financial services organisation

develop design led innovation expertise, further consideration can be given regarding the design and innovation training programs and frameworks to support innovative practices across the organisation.

It is anticipated that this contribution to knowledge will benefit both the design and business communities.

RISKS It has been identified there are low risks associated with undertaking this review and all measures have been taken to manage these risks.

It is recognised the participant may incur inconvenience and/or discomfort as a result of the interview process. To minimise this risk, the location and time of the interview

will be discussed with the participant prior and held at a venue and time of choice. It is also highlighted that participation is voluntary and at any time they may withdraw from the interview with no penalty.

With regards to professional risk, each participant has been randomly selected by the researcher, no Managers will be or has been notified about the potential selection of any participants.

On completion of the interview a written transcript will be provided to the participant for their review (please allow a few weeks post the interview). This allows any

concerns or questions to be raised with the researcher. In addition, to maintain the confidentiality of answers, no managers across the organisation will view the individual answers. All names will be removed and be replaced with coding to uphold

the confidentiality of each participant. It should be noted that in some instances quotes may be used and although names will be removed the identity of the participant who provided the quote may be recognisable. Please advise the researcher

if this is a concern to you. PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY

All comments and responses will be treated confidentially. Only the research team listed above will have access to the audio recording. It is not possible to participate in this research without being audio recorded. The recordings will not be used for any

other purpose than for the research study. All data will be made non-identifiable at the point of transcription and/or coding. You have to be aware that direct quotes might be used in reporting the data; people who are familiar with you and your work

might still be able to recognise you from your answers. You have the option for your name to be removed or included in the report (select as

appropriate below). The data collected will be stored in a secure QUT-based location and accessible only

by two members of the research team who are QUT employees. Suncorp

108

management team will not have access to this raw data. Suncorp management team

will be provided an aggregated report of the data. Please note that non-identifiable data collected in this project may be used as

comparative data in future projects. CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE

We would like to ask you to sign a written consent form (enclosed) to confirm your agreement to participate.

QUESTIONS / FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROJECT If you have any questions or require further information please contact one of the researchers listed below:

Sonya Close-DeBais [email protected] Cara Wrigley [email protected] 07 313 89471

Judy Matthews [email protected] 07 3138 1734 CONCERNS / COMPLAINTS REGARDING THE CONDUCT OF THE PROJECT

QUT is committed to research integrity and the ethical conduct of research projects. However, if you do have any concerns or complaints about the ethical conduct of the project you may contact the QUT Research Ethics Advisory Team on 07 3138 5123 or

email [email protected]. The QUT Research Ethics Advisory Team is not connected with the research project and can facilitate a resolution to your concern in an impartial manner.

Thank you for helping with this research project. Please keep this sheet for your information.

mailto:[email protected]




109

CONSENT FORM FOR QUT RESEARCH PROJECT – Interview –

Embedding Design Thinking: Building capabilities in a large organisation to drive innovation

QUT Ethics Approval Number 1600000053

RESEARCH TEAM CONTACTS Sonya Close-DeBais [email protected]

Cara Wrigley [email protected] 07 313 89471 Judy Matthews [email protected] 07 3138 1734

STATEMENT OF CONSENT

By signing below, you are indicating that you:

• Have read and understood the information document regarding this project.

• Have had any questions answered to your satisfaction.

• Understand that if you have any additional questions you can contact the research team.

• Understand that you are free to withdraw up to 2 weeks post the interview without comment or penalty.

• Understand that if you have concerns about the ethical conduct of the project you can contact the Research Ethics Advisory Team on 07 3138 5123 or email [email protected].

• Understand that the interview will be audio recorded.

• Understand that non-identifiable data collected in this project may be used as comparative data in future projects.

• Agree to participate in the project.

Please tick the relevant box below:

I agree for my name to be used in the report.

I do not agree for my name to be used in the report.

Name

Signature

Date

Please return this sheet to Sonya Close-DeBais.




http://www.qut.edu.au/

110

Appendix G: Chapter 3 Literature Review Table

Ch

an

ge a

nd

Em

bracin

g I

nn

ovati

on

Desi

gn

Th

ink

ing C

ap

ab

ilit

y a

nd

Fram

ew

ork

s

Valu

e o

f D

esi

gn

Inte

grati

on

of

Desi

gn

in

Large

Organ

isati

on

s

Desi

gn

Th

ink

ing i

n t

he F

inan

cia

l S

ervic

es

Secto

r i

n A

ust

rali

a

Ap

ply

ing a

nd

Measu

rin

g D

esi

gn

in

a

Bu

sin

ess

Con

text

Ahmed (1998)

Amabile (1988)

Barry & Beckman (2008)

Bucolo, Wrigley & Matthews (2012)

Berger (2010)

Best, Kootstra, & Murphy (2010)

Beverland and Farrelly (2007)

Brown (2008)

Brown & Martin (2015)

Bucolo & Matthews, (2011)

Bucolo & Wrigley (2011)

Bucolo, Wrigley, & Matthews (2012)

Bucolo, Wrigley (2015)

Bucolo & Matthews (2011).

Burdon & Dovey (2015)

Buschgens, Bausch & Balkin (2013)

Carlgren (2013)

Carlgren, Elmquist & Rauth (2011)

Carlgren, Elmquist & Rauth (2015)

111

Carr, Halliday, King, Liedtka, & Lockwood, (2010)

Damanpour (1991)

Damanpour & Schneider (2006)

Darden Design School (2009)

Dorst (2010)

Elsbach & Stigliani (2018)

Frambach & Schillewaert (2002)

Garland, Bickman, Chorpita (2010)

Herbig (1998)

Heskett and Liu (2012)

Howard (2012)

Howard (2015)

IDEO (2009)

IBSA (2013)

Johansson-Skoldberg, Woodilla & Cetinkaya (2013)

Kloeckneer (2018)

Kretzschmar (2003)

Kolko (2010)

Kolko (2015)

KPMG (2015)

Lawson and Dorst

Lawson and Samson (2001)

Liedtka & Ogilvie (2011)

Liedtka (2010)

Liedtka (2014)

Liedtka (2015)

Liedtka, J., King, A., & Bennett, K. (2013)

Martin (2009)

112

Martin (2010)

Matthews (2013)

Matthews, Bucolo & Wrigley (2012)

Melles, Howard, & Thompson-Whiteside (2012)

Michlewski (2008)

Norman (2010)

Rogers (2010)

Schweitzer, Groeger & Sobel (2016)

Sobel & Groeger (2013)

Souto (2015)

Stanford Design School (2009)

Straker and Wrigley (2014)

Storvang, Jensen and Christensen (2014)

Wisdom, Chor, Hoagwood., & Horwitz. (2014).

Wolfe (1994)