Adopting “design thinking” in novice multidisciplinary teams:

Scholarly and practitioner literature have both described the potential benefits of using methods associated with a “design thinking” approach to develop new innovations. Most studies of the main design thinking methods— needfinding, brainstorming, and prototyping—are based either on analyses of experienced designers or examine each method in isolation. If design thinking is to be widely adopted, less-experienced users will employ these methods together, but we know little about their effect when newly adopted. Drawing on perspectives that consider concept development as broadly consisting of a divergent concept generation phase followed by a convergent concept selection phase, we collected data on fourteen cases of novice multidisciplinary product development teams using design methods across both phases. Our hybrid qualitative and quantitative analysis indicate both benefits and limits of formal design methods: First, formal design methods were helpful not only during concept generation but also during concept selection. Second, while brainstorming was valuable when combined with other methods, increased numbers of brainstorming sessions actually corresponded to lower performance, except in the setting where new members may join a team. And third, increased team reflexivity—such as from debating ideas, processes, or changes to concepts—was associated with more successful outcomes during concept generation but less successful outcomes during concept selection. We develop propositions related to the contingent use of brainstorming and team reflexivity depending on team composition and phase of development. Implication from this study include that novice multidisciplinary teams are more likely to be successful in applying design thinking when they can be guided to combine methods, are aware of the limits of brainstorming, and can transition from moreto less-reflexive practices. Article is accepted and forthcoming in Journal of Product Innovation Management and can be cited in advance of publication in 2012/13 as: Seidel,Victor P., and Sebastian K. Fixson (Forthcoming). Adopting “design thinking” in novice multidisciplinary teams: The application and limits of design methods and reflexive practices Journal of Product Innovation Management INTRODUCTION Both scholarly and practitioner literature have exhibited widespread interest in the application of design methods for promoting innovation, often referred to as the use of “design thinking.” Management scholars have been increasingly interested in how design methods are applied to innovation challenges (Ravasi and Lojacono 2005; Beckman and Barry 2007; Veryzer 2005; Verganti 2008) and design practitioners advocate the application of design thinking across many areas of business (Brown 2009; Martin 2009; Lockwood 2010). An important aspect of a design thinking approach is that “design has become too important to be left to designers” (Brown and Katz 2011 p. 381), and so design thinking can be viewed as the application of design methods by multidisciplinary teams to a broad range of innovation challenges. While the precise terminology describing the formal methods used in design thinking can differ among authors, three main methods are typically described: Needfinding, brainstorming, and prototyping (c.f. Brown 2009; Hargadon and Sutton 1997; Shane and Ulrich 2004). Some studies have looked at a single method in great detail, such as in the long history of experimental studies of brainstorming effectiveness (Taylor, Berry, and Block 1958; Diehl and Stroebe 1987; Nijstad, Stroebe, and Lodewijkx 1999). Other studies have looked at methods when used together, using field work of experienced designers (Hargadon and Sutton 1997; Perks, Cooper, and Jones 2005). What has been underexplored is how the range of design thinking methods are actually used in multidisciplinary teams that newly adopt a design thinking approach. Understanding how novice multidisciplinary teams make use of design methods is an area of increasing importance, considering that organizations are being encouraged to adopt design thinking in areas where people may not have prior experience with such methods. If implemented poorly, challenges to adoption may lead to abandonment of a design thinking