Designers often face situations where the only way forward is through the exploration of possibilities. However, there is a critical disconnect between understanding of how designer’s think and act in such situations. We address this disconnect by proposing and testing (via protocol analysis) the cognitive co-evolution model. Our model comprises a new approach to co-evolutionary design theory by explaining both the progression of the process itself and the creation of design outputs via an interplay between metacognitive perceived uncertainty, cognition, and the external world. We thus connect explanations of how designers think with descriptions of how they act. We provide a foundation for connecting to other theories, models, and questions in design research via common links to cognition and metacognition.

The notion of ‘strategic design’ has arisen in the past years as an umbrella term for a set of evolving practices. Yet the literature is quite fuzzy as to what this strategic design actually is and how it would lead to strategic impact. In this paper we explore the issue afresh, bracketing the concept of strategic design, and starting from the standpoint that “There is no such thing as strategic design”. We use a longitudinal case study of a design intervention, following its strategic impact as it unfolds over 10 years to critically consider the strategic impact of design practices. The dynamics of strategic impact across this case study is captured in a fledgling ‘Game Changers’ model.

The concept of co-evolution is considered a key characteristic of designing. Several authors have described design thinking processes as the co-evolution of design problem and design solution. The theoretical grounding of co-evolution is, however, still in an early stage. In this chapter, we develop the concept by analysing real world design meetings of an architect and a client. Thirteen co-evolution episodes are identified in the two architectural meetings and we focus in detail on the utterances of two co-evolution episodes. We find that modelling co-evolution in terms of problem and solution is difficult for this data, and we develop a revised model of how co-evolution in a multi-actor setting might work. Conversation in an area in between problem and solution, for example about ‘use’, would seem to more accurately describe how designer and client reach agreement.

To really embed innovation, the impact of design should move beyond the project level and impact the strategy of the organisation, and possibly its processes and structures. In this paper we will use a case study to investigate what design can do to help create such deep changes. The case study is an early social design project, which allows us to take a longitudinal perspective: ten years on, what has actually happened with the new frames and ideas of the initial project? What has followed? Has this project influenced strategic innovation? Or did it all come to naught? We will discuss the lessons learned in this project to inform our understanding of the real impact of design, and its limitations. This leads us to posit a practice-based ‘theory of change’.

This is a commentary on Michael Lissack’s two-part article “Understanding is a Design Problem: Cognizing from a Designerly Thinking Perspective.” In the commentary, I investigate Lissack’s thesis that designerly thinking can be used as a pathway to understand the cultural and political world at large. From a design perspective, his thesis is problematic, as design thinking in itself doesn’t have the systematic checks and balances needed for achieving such a critical understanding. One could even argue that design thinking is one of the modes of reasoning that leads to conspiracy theories.

The notion of co-evolution has been widely adopted as a useful descriptor of one of the key aspects of designerly thinking: the re-interpreting of a design problem in the light of an exploration of possible solutions until a good ‘fit’ between problem and solution (‘an idea’) emerges. In this paper we pick up the discussion by considering co-evolution within design projects, in the briefing process and across projects. Aspects of the process to get from problem space to solution space can be captured with design models, but in considering the ‘jump’ from solution space to problem space we enter largely uncharted territory.

This is a commentary on Michael Lissack’s two-part article “Understanding is a Design Problem: Cognizing from a Designerly Thinking Perspective.” In the commentary, I investigate Lissack’s thesis that designerly thinking can be used as a pathway to understand the cultural and political world at large. From a design perspective, his thesis is problematic, as design thinking in itself doesn’t have the systematic checks and balances needed for achieving such a critical understanding. One could even argue that design thinking is one of the modes of reasoning that leads to conspiracy theories.

As organizations struggle to respond to a world in which problems are becoming more open, complex and increasingly networked, many have turned to design thinking as a way to obtain solutions and achieve innovation. In this article, I will focus on the question of whether the current design paradigm is capable of delivering on these expectations, or whether design is overextended when dealing with areas of great complexity, such as in the social realm. The fact that at its core, design reasoning or design abduction requires the consideration of two unknowns more or less simultaneously (the “what” and the “how”) puts a heavy strain on our human cognitive limitations in the best of times—and doubly so in highly complex problem situations. Over the years, expert designers have developed an elaborate array of coping strategies to contend with this issue. All of these help to a degree, but the fundamental issue remains. Design might be limiting itself by approaching complex problem situations through a ‘problem solving’ perspective. In this article, a radically different approach is explored, which takes the complex nature of the problem situation as its starting point, and reframes the task of design as system transformation, rather than the creation of a solution. An example from practice illustrates this new design paradigm.

•Reflections on the particular features of the DTRS series, including use of shared data sets.•Questions and suggestions on the future development of the series.

As the problems that are our organizations are facing become more complex, dynamic, and networked, they will need to become more flexible in their ability to respond. These complex networked problem situations often cannot be tackled from a single-discipline perspective, and thus transdisciplinary innovation - that is, innovation across and between disciplinary fields - is becoming more important. But how can we achieve innovation in those in-between spaces, when all of our knowledge and established approaches are held within the disciplines? In this article, we look beyond the limiting confines of traditional disciplines by seeing them as collections of smaller units of action: practices. After a foray into the anatomy of practices, we discuss how a design-based approach to transdisciplinary thinking creates a framework for the mixing of practices, articulating new insights and creating new possibilities for action in the space between the established professions.

Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings includes abstracts of all papers and symposia presented at the annual conference, plus 6-page abridged versions of the “Best Papers” accepted for inclusion in the program (approximately 10%). Papers published in the Proceedings are abridged because presenting papers at their full length could preclude subsequent journal publication. Please contact the author(s) directly for the full papers. Designing for the Greater Good: Catalyzing Conversations for Change in the Social SectorLiedtka, Jeanne, Dorst, Kees, Heimbrock, Sydney, Kaplan, Saul, Matthews, Judy and Terrey, NinaLiedtka, JeanneU. of VirginiaU. of Technology, Sydney-Business Innovation FactoryQueensland U. of TechnologyThinkPlace, Dorst, KeesU. of VirginiaU. of Technology, Sydney-Business Innovation FactoryQueensland U. of TechnologyThinkPlace, Heimbrock, SydneyU. of VirginiaU. of Technology, Sydney-Business Innovation FactoryQueensland U. of TechnologyThinkPlace, Kaplan, SaulU. of VirginiaU. of Technology, Sydney-Business Innovation FactoryQueensland U. of TechnologyThinkPlace, Matthews, JudyU. of VirginiaU. of Technology, Sydney-Business Innovation FactoryQueensland U. of TechnologyThinkPlace and Terrey, NinaU. of VirginiaU. of Technology, Sydney-Business Innovation FactoryQueensland U. of TechnologyThinkPlacePublished Online:30 Nov 2017https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2017.10263symposiumAboutSections ToolsDownload CitationsAdd to favoritesTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail AbstractThis panel assembles a cross-section of thought leaders across research, practice and consulting to examine the role of human-centered deisgn as an accelerator of innovation in the social sector." FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Vol. 2017, No. 1 Permissions Metrics in the past 12 months History Published online 30 November 2017 Published in print 1 August 2017 InformationCopyright of Academy of Management Journal is the property of Academy of Management and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.Keywordsdesign thinkinghuman-centered innovationinnovation

Many organisations realise that becoming more human-centred is key to dealing with today's innovation challenges. Human-centred design (HCD) has potential to contribute to this goal. However, its current impact on strategic innovation is limited. In this paper we describe the evolution of HCD methods to date, and the challenges and opportunities of applying HCD in strategic innovation. We show that these challenges could be addressed by augmenting HCD with methods from the field of design innovation. To do this, we propose the NADI-model that links these two worlds by considering the different layers of practices and knowledge they contain, and show how the deepest level of this model can bridge human-centred design and strategic innovation.

Early design research was driven by the ambition to create a coherent Science of Design – an ambition that was later abandoned in favour of a more pluralist approach. But despite great progress in the last 50 years, Design Research can still be criticised for being (1) too disconnected from design practice, (2) internally scattered and confused (3) not achieving the impact that was hoped for. In this paper we will discuss possible solutions to these conundrums by learning from three professional and academic fields: Marketing, Art Theory and Management, respectively. Based on these three discussions an attempt will be made to create an integrated answer by considering how design research and practice might come together in the creation of a new field, “Academic Design”.

A review of literature that examines how expert designers move from very concrete adoptions/amalgamations of obvious existing concepts towards highly abstract shifts to new paradigms of solutions. In this paper we investigated IF and HOW a mixed group of undergraduate and Post-graduate students from diverse backgrounds could demonstrate a similar capacity to collectively display such a movement between levels of abstraction. Essentially, the design team drew from their experiential knowledge, not moving far beyond the combinatorial solution propositions that would characterise a novice designer. More detailed research into the abstraction behaviour of novice and expert designers should inform the creation of methods and tools to assist multidisciplinary teams in moving through various levels of abstraction during the design process.

As the world becomes increasingly complex, from both a technological perspective and a sociocultural perspective, we need to adapt our problem solving and design capacity to match these changes. This paper will compare aspects of TRIZ and the emergent Frame Creation methodology as examples of design-based problem solving methodologies for resolving technical and sociocultural problems. We argue that while on the surface TRIZ and Frame Creation merely appear to diverge, a close analysis reveals noteworthy similarities, such as the drawing upon core attributes of the problem situation and building up a solution frame from first principles. We then introduce the latent thematic analysis methodology as a common ground that can lead to a possible blending of the two.

Design-trained people have access to a very broad range of professions. Yet there is something paradoxical about this development: ostensibly, many of these highly successful people have moved out of the field of “design.” This phenomenon deserves deeper consideration: how do design practices spread across society? What key design practices are particularly relevant to the problems of today's society? Should what these people do still be considered design? To answer these questions, first we need to understand various ways that practices can be adopted and adapted from one discipline to the other. Problem framing emerges as a key design practice that can be adopted and adapted to other fields, and one which provides a valuable alternative to conventional types of problem solving. An example will illustrate how this frame creation allows practitioners to approach today's open, complex, dynamic, networked problems in new and fruitful ways. The paper goes on to argue that the practice of frame creation is still part and parcel of the domain of design, and explores how design can develop into an expanded field of practice.

We present two approaches for addressing complex societal and business problems: frame creation and design led innovation. Both methods combine a broad systems approach to problem solving together with the reframing of problems based on uncovering deep underlying human values and needs. While the practical usefulness and viability of our methods has been established through a series of projects, design methods need evaluative criteria to enable a more formal discussion and assessment of projects. This is particularly important for enabling comparisons across studies, and/or when attempting to communicate the value of design to non-design audience. For this purpose, we suggest articulating the steps of design methods using S.M.A.R.T. criteria from the management literature. We describe the aims, means, and evaluative criteria of each step of our methods, which can be likened to the specific (S) and measurable (M) indices of S.M.A.R.T. Thus, S.M.AR.T. descriptions enable management of projects by means of their own design methods and contribute to establishing sound design innovation methodologies that can eventually be scaled up for large research programs and educational purposes.