Course syllabus

Course-PM

TEK495 TEK495 Design thinking and innovation lp1 HT20 (7.5 hp)

Course is offered by the department of Technology Management and Economics

Contact details

Examiner:                                  0720, Maria Elmquist (maria.elmquist@chalmers.se)

Course leaders:                      Maria Elmquist (maria.elmquist@chalmers.se)

                                                         Anna Rylander Eklund (annaryl@chalmers.se)

                                                         Jessica Litzel (litzel@chalmers.se)

Jessica Litzel is the main contact person for any questions about the course prior to September 2nd.

Course administration:      Birgitta Engrell (birgitta.engrell@chalmers.se)

Guest lecturers:                    

• Christer Hedberg, Design Sprint & Workshop Facilitator
• Lisa Carlgren, Senior Researcher, RISE
• Guest lecturer, Gbg Impro

Course purpose

This course aims at introducing students to design thinking. Design thinking (DT) is a relatively recent management idea that promotes a way of working with user-centered innovation to address problems where not all knowledge is available at the outset; i.e. the problem itself is an unknown (wicked problem). DT rests on principles such as user involvement, problem framing, experimentation, visualization and diversity; all critical skills for management and innovation. DT has gained in popularity both in industry, service and the public sector in the last decade and is an important contrast to the more traditional linear view of problem solving. It is argued to develop the creative potential of individuals and enable them to deal with wicked problems.

This year the course will address the challenges that arise as a consequence of the Covid-19 pandemic, both in terms of remote learning, remote collaboration and also in terms of the selected project challenges.

Most of the course will be held online, one session is planned to be held on site but with a possibility to participate remotely.

Course literature

There is very little mandatory course literature (see below), but some recommended reading to make the most of the course, and to strengthen the theoretical argumentation in the home exam. Journal articles and book chapters relating to the course, plus additional literature recommended by the discussion leaders or identified by students will be shared as optional reading throughout the course – an initial list is provided below. Also, students are encouraged to search for and use additional literature in relation to the project tasks and home exam.

Seminar reading:

• Brown (2008) Design Thinking, Harvard Business Review (here)
  [One of the most widely spread articles on DT, written by Tim Brown, CEO of design firm IDEO that has been central in the emergence of DT. A classic that shows how the concept is marketed and evangelized]
• Carlgren, L., Rauth, I., & Elmquist, M. (2016). Framing Design Thinking: The Concept in Idea and Enactment. Creativity and Innovation Management, 25(1), 38-57.
  [A paper authored by us presenting a framework for describing DT based on empirical studies in firms. It is a reaction to the static, linear representations of DT that are common but that do not represent what goes on in firms using DT]
• Liedtka, J. (2018). Why Design Thinking Works. Harvard Business Review, 96(5), 72–79. [A paper by one of the most experienced practitioner-academics of DT, sharing insights on success factors for implementing DT in organizations, focusing on people’s habits and behaviors]

Optional reading list: 

• Pitsis, T. S., Beckman, S. L., Steinert, M., Oviedo, L., & Maisch, B. (2020). Designing the Future: Strategy, Design, and the 4th Industrial Revolution—An Introduction to the Special Issue. California Management Review, 62(2), 5–11. [This is an introduction to a recent special issue on DT which includes 6 interesting empirical papers on implementing DT in organizations. The two papers below are from this issue, but feel free to explore all 6]
• Wrigley, C., Nusem, E., & Straker, K. (2020). Implementing Design Thinking: Understanding Organizational Conditions. California Management Review, 62(2), 125–143. [This paper uses 7 case studies to discuss the organizational conditions required for long-term success of DT initiatives]
• Appleyard, M. M., Enders, A. H., & Velazquez, H. (2020). Regaining R&D Leadership: The Role of Design Thinking and Creative Forbearance. California Management Review, 62(2), 12–29. [This paper presents a case study of Siemens successfully integrating DT into their traditional R&D process, leading to market leadership]
• Dell’Era, C., Magistretti, S., Cautela, C., Verganti, R., & Zurlo, F. (2020). Four kinds of design thinking: From ideating to making, engaging, and criticizing. Creativity and Innovation Management, 29(2), 324–344. [A study of 47 DT consulting firms shows how DT is currently understood and promoted in the marketplace]
• J. Kolko, ‘Design thinking comes of age’, Harvard Business Review, (2015) here
  [A quite recent easy-to-grasp and up to date description of DT] 
• Stanford University (2018) Bootcamp Bootleg (Tools and methods, originally 2008) [A Handbook of DT as a process, close to how we teach it]

• U. Johansson-Sköldberg, J. Woodilla, and M. Çetinkaya, ‘Design Thinking: Past, Present and Possible Futures’, Creativity and Innovation Management, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 121–146, 2013.
  [This paper discusses the differences between how DT is portrayed in a management discourse “design thinking” and in earlier design research “designerly thinking”. The paper has been perceived as very helpful for bringing clarity to the field]
• Beckman, SL and M Barry (2007). Innovation as a learning process: Embedding design thinking. California Management Review, 50 (1):25-56.
  [This paper discusses DT as a way of learning, leaning on Kolb’s learning cycle, similarities with PDSA]
• Liedtka, J. (2015). Perspective: Linking design thinking with innovation outcomes through cognitive bias reduction. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32(6), 925-938.
  [The first part of the paper gives a good description of DT, the second part looks at how DT can help overcome some cognitive bias that may hinder innovation]
• J. Schweitzer, L. Groeger, and L. Sobel, ‘The design thinking mindset: An assessment of what we know and what we see in practice’, Journal of Design, Business & Society, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 71–94, 2016
  [Based on an empirical study the authors have identified a set of mindsets that characterize DT]
• Carlgren, M. Elmquist, and I. Rauth, ‘Design thinking: Exploring values and effects from an innovation capability perspective’, The Design Journal, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 403–423, 2014.
  [Paper authored by our research group. Based on empirical research of 6 firms using DT, and how the effects of using DT went far beyond project output]
• Carlgren, L., Elmquist, M., Rauth, I. (2016). The Challenges of using Design Thinking in Industry – Experiences from Five Large Firms. Forthcoming in Creativity and Innovation Management, 2016
  [Paper authored by our research group. Based on empirical research of 6 firms using DT, and how difficulties perceived by those implementing DT are similar to typical innovation challenges]
• L. McCreary, ‘Kaiser Permanente’s Innovation on the Front Lines’, Harvard business review, vol. 88, no. 9, pp. 92–127, 2010
  [HBR article about the healthcare company Kaiser Permanente and their use of DT]
• J. Liedtka and T. Ogilvie, Designing for Growth: A Design Thinking Tool Kit for Managers. Columbia University Press, 2011
  [A how-to-book that has translated DT to strategy/business language. Uses different terminology than in the course, but essentially the same message]
• Kelley, T., & Kelley, D. (2013). Creative confidence: Unleashing the creative potential within us all. Crown Business.
  [Quite well-spread book written by the prophets]

• • Gray, Brown, Macanufo (2010) Gamestorming: A Playbook for Innovators, Rulebreakers, and Changemakers
    [Book with inspiring tools and methods]

• • Lawson, Brian (2006) How Designers Think: The Design Process Demystified, Elsevier/ Architectural
    [A classic book on “designerly thinking”, does not talk about DT as in the management discourse, but rather describes how designers think and work. Can be inspiring]
  • D. Dunne and R. Martin, ‘Design thinking and how it will change management education: An interview and discussion’, Academy of Management Learning & Education, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 512–523, 2006
    [An interview with Roger Martin (one of the main proponents from Rotman School of Management) in which he discusses DT and education]
  • The Total Economic Impact™ Of IBM’s Design Thinking Practice: How IBM Drives Client Value And Measurable Outcomes With Its Design Thinking Framework (2018) Report retrieved here. [For those fond of numbers]

• • V. Seidel and S. Fixson, ‘Adopting Design Thinking in Novice Multidisciplinary Teams: The Application and Limits of Design Methods and Reflexive Practices’, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 2012
    [Empirical study of students using different DT techniques, what worked and what didn’t]
  • J. P. Stephens and B. J. Boland, ‘The aesthetic knowledge problem of problem-solving with design thinking’, Journal of Management Inquiry, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 219–232 (2015)
    [DT as an arts-based inquiry, puts emphasis of the bodily senses and processes]
  • M. Mintrom and J. Luetjens, ‘Design thinking in policymaking processes: Opportunities and challenges’, Australian Journal of Public Administration, vol. 75, no. 3, pp. 391–402 (2016)
    [A DT case]
  • Dyer, Gregersen, Christensen (2011) The Innovator's DNA: Mastering the Five Skills of Disruptive Innovators

Course design

The course is organized around two projects of different types and scope that the students work with during several sessions. Since the course is built around the projects, students are required to participate in all sessions as they serve to support the development of critical skills necessary for the teams to be able to perform.

In-between sessions students are expected to continue working on their projects! The work done in-between sessions serves as an input to the next session and is therefore mandatory for a successful participation and project outcome. Please note that this work may be extensive during the longer industry project (project 2), therefore, make sure to plan and coordinate with your team members, especially should there be conflicting schedules in the project groups. The course is half-time with only 1,5 days in lectures, so count on one extra full day per week on project work. On the other hand, there are very few mandatory texts to read. 

DT as an approach is particularly well-suited for working with complex, wicked problems. Even though it provides a structure and tools for targeting these problems, students will find themselves in situations where they feel frustrated and out of control. Experiencing and learning to cope with uncertainty and ambiguity is part of the course design and something the students should be prepared for. 

The course puts emphasis on reflection. In order to support this, several activities are put in place that are mandatory: an individual daily reflection diary (throughout the course), systematic team reflection during project II, the creation of a team experience journey map (end of project II, part of the examination), and an individual home exam (end of course) that to a large extent will build on the diary and team reflections.  

The course also puts emphasis on visualization. In order to support the use of DT in the projects and in the future, the students will get training in visualization techniques throughout the course. Students are required to prepare an individual illustration to represent the first project, which together with the final presentations and team experience journey map should be visually compelling. We want to stress that individual artistic skills as such will not be judged, and students without artistic training or experience will not have a disadvantage. 

Learning objectives

This course has a special focus on skill development through active engagement in real world problems. Students work collaboratively to find solutions to two challenges (projects) in teams of 5-6 students and in collaboration with industrial partners. Given this, the course has the following learning objectives:

• Design Thinking and Innovation: Students will be able to explain the role of DT in innovation and understand its limitations and benefits when applied in organizations. Students will have developed skills to use DT within a project. 
• Ethnographic research: Students will be able to describe the role of ethnography in innovation and use ethnographic methods (observations and interviewing) in their projects. 
• Framing and synthesis: Students will be able to explain data synthesis and be able to apply their knowledge to frame problems as a base for further problem solving. 
• Creativity: Creativity is essential in coming up with new ideas and potential innovations. Students will be able to describe, explain and use idea creation techniques for idea development. 
• Experimentation and learning through failure: When it comes to design and innovation, it is essential to develop and learn fast. Experimentation is one way to achieve this, and it is also essential to learn from failure. Students will have experienced several iteration cycles and failures in doing so, and reflected upon its contribution to their learning. 
• Handling uncertainty: A design thinking challenge is wicked by nature and typically characterized with high levels of uncertainty and ambiguity. Throughout the projects, students will have experienced uncertainty and ambiguity, and reflected upon their own experience in coping with these situations.  
• Visualization: Using visual tools such as sketching, building rough mock-ups and role-play is essential in team communication and joint creation within a design thinking project. Students will be able to explain and use sketching as well as various prototyping techniques in order to conduct experiments.  
• Teamwork: Through working in interdisciplinary teams and the teaching of appropriate methods, students will gain the ability to recognize and improve their teamwork as well as their role within a team. Collaborating remotely will be specifically addressed.
• Reflection: The course will enable students to explain the importance of reflection in innovation, and practice its use through field diaries, reflection sessions and home exam.
• Presentation: The course will enable students to use basic presentation techniques and reflect on their presentations. 

This will be assessed based on participation, project work and a home exam. Skill development will be supported in interactive exercises and through systematic reflection sessions.

Examination

The examination of the course is based on participation in all mandatory seminars (participation and timely delivery of hand-ins), active participation in team work, team documentation and presentation carried out in Project II, as well as a home-exam that is written individually. To pass the course, students have to participate in both projects as well as deliver the mandatory hand-ins. 

Task	Points
Reflection Diary, Creative confidence tests (pre/post), Learning goals	0 p: Keeping a reflection diary is mandatory but not graded. Necessary for reflections during sessions and for home exam. Results of the online tests are also useful for the home exam.
Project 1	0 p: Participation as well as project documentation is mandatory but not graded; it is intended for learning and reflection to prepare for project II.
Project 2	60 p: Based on final presentation (30p), Team Experience Journey Map (20p) and individual contribution in the team (10p). For the presentation and TEJM you are graded as a team. For individual contribution to the team, see below.
Home exam	40 p: Based on reflections of own learning journey throughout the course as well as insights around the applicability of DT in organizational settings, linked to theory. You are graded individually. 20 p are required to pass the course.
Participation / Timely submissions of hand-ins	0 p: Students are expected to participate in all mandatory seminars, the literature seminar, and to deliver mandatory hand-ins on time.

 

Overall:  40 % of the points are based on the home exam (individual reflections), 60 % are based on teamwork and presentations. 

Important: Points will be withdrawn for failing to deliver hand-ins on time (-2p) and missing mandatory sessions without prior notice to the course leader (-4p). When missing a mandatory session, a complementary task must be handed in.

Project 2 grade

Altogether, the project work constitutes 60 % of the grade and both the process and the outcome are graded; all on a team level. Team presentations (outcome) are assessed by an Expert panel consisting of experts from industry and academia, and the assessment happens when the students are presenting their work to the panel in the final Zoom session. The presentation files are uploaded to Canvas but will not be graded separately. The presentation assessment criteria will be presented during the course; students may choose which presentation format they like (it does not have to include a PowerPoint/Keynote presentation). 

With regards to teamwork (process), the Team Experience Journey Maps are assessed by the course leaders and examiner. Format and assessment criteria will be presented during the course. 

The individual contribution to the team is assessed as follows: Each student gets 10 potential team points. If the team has six members, they will altogether have 60 points to share. The team jointly decides how to share them – if everyone should get equal (10) points, or if some should have more or less. The distribution of the points is agreed in the team and motivated to the course leaders, to be reported at the latest by November 6th 2020. 

Home exam

The home exam is based on reflections on the individual learning journey as well as on insights around the applicability of DT in organizational settings, both connected to theory. It constitutes 40 % of the grade and is graded on an individual level. Note that 20 points on the home exam are required to pass the course.

You are expected to follow the Chalmers’ guidelines for academic honesty and integrity: https://student.portal.chalmers.se/en/chalmersstudies/policy-documents/Documents/20090920_Academic_Honesty.pdf

All documents handed in will be run through Urkund, our system for plagiarism control: http://www.urkund.com/int/en).

Participation

An attendance list will be kept in the mandatory sessions; those who are not able to attend a seminar are required to do a hand-in to compensate for missing the class’ content (reading of key references and writing a reflection, due before the next session). In the case of absence, students are expected to excuse themselves via e-mail to the course leader before the session and submit the compensation hand-ins on time. Failing to do so results in 4 points deduction from the total score each time it happens.

Course evaluation

Students are encouraged to respond to the on-line Course Evaluation Questionnaire. Responses are anonymous. A course evaluation committee will be organized, consisting of the course leaders and two students, during the introductory lecture. The committee will meet twice, once during the course and once after the course ends to discuss the evaluations.