2nd Design Factory
Global Network

RESEARCH
CONFERENCE
Contributions for ‘Designing for Multiplicity’
October 5th-6th 2023

Contents
Preface from DFGN
Preface from editors

5
6

Theme 1: Design thinking & pedagogy in higher education

8

The influence of expert diversity in design thinking education:İzmir Design Factory (IDF) mentor meetings
Exploring student and teacher perspectives on education
with technological advancement in Indonesia throughdesign thinking in response to the COVID-19

12

16

Theme 2: Exploring multiplicity & diversity in media & materials22
Multiplicity and diversity: the key to innovation
Fragrance as a medium creating cultural connection andenhancing learning experiences in university
Objects for impact

26

Theme 3: Organizational design for multiplicity & diversity

36

How issue framing changes through design training:a hospital case study
Mindset muscle training – fostering the design thinking
mindset in organisations
Identifying and framing potential stakeholders in complex
innovation ecosystems
Theme 4: Re-Thinking for research & innovation
Prototyping in practice – Paths and partners for testing novel
industrial product and service ideas
Creating the conditions for innovation – a case study
approach to investigate the functions of an innovation hub
Making skills: how courses on digital fabrication enhance
21st century skills
Transferable skills from multidisciplinary teamwork: insightsfrom 5 years of courses
Developing expert knowledge by international productdevelopment projectType of contribution
Research contribution
Experiential contribution

32
34

40
44
48
52
56
60
64
68
72

Theme 5: Sustainability: exploring diverse futures

76

Important discoveries for a better nation by design
Acting locally on global challenges: harnessing design
thinking and the pedagogy of place-based learning
Building trust and engaging in sustainability projects.
A strategic design perspective
Transformative experiences in innovation spaces: Exploring
secondary socialisation towards sustainability throughUN Sustainable Development Goals integration
From the stories of nature and those who inhabited itDesign & sustainability case toolkit
A model for multiplicity; sustainable footwear futures

80

92
96
98
100

Theme 6: Technology adoption & transformation

102

The use of generative AI tools in Design Thinking academic
makeathon
Tech to organization. Assessing and designing technology
adoption with design thinking

84
88

106
110

3

Acknowledgements

The DFGN.R 2023 Organising team would like to acknowledge and appreciate all the parties involved in the successof this Conference, as we believe that change starts withindividuals, and we take pride in the hardworking humans
behind the scenes.

We would like to thank the hosts, the Middle East

Technical University, and METU Design Factory; the Design
Factory Global Network members for their contributions

and their impact; the Scientific Advisory Board for theirguidance and expertise. Also, we would like to thank the

Scientific Advisory Board from DFGN.R 2022 for their kind
guidance. We would like to acknowledge Anil Koç, Arzu

Gönenç, Bariş Yazici, Felipe Gárate, George Atanassov,
Müge Kruşa, Rohan Sachdeva, Sara Figueiredo, Semkan

Uragan, and Serkan Alkan. The document that you arereading was designed by great Valtteri Bade and Anna

Kuukka.

DFGN.R 2023 would not have been possible without

your contributions.

ISBN 978-952-64-9638-2

Design Factory Global Network, 2023

Access the conference program
www.conference.dfgn.org/program4

We could not be prouder and more excited about the 2nd DFGN’s

Research Conference. DFGN is a community of doers in thefield of education. Together, we are rethinking and redesigning
how education is done in our institutions, by questioning what
we see and, most importantly, what we have learned. The Design Factory Global Network consists of 40 higher education

institutions and research centers, in 26 countries of the world.
Our collaborative mindset and shared passion cross borders,languages, and bureaucracy.

We believe the world presents us with more complex chal-lenges every day, but we see this as an opportunity to gather

our skills and mindsets to impact society. One field alone cannot
solve the issues that we see, that’s the reason why we believein the concept of “Multiplicity”. One discipline itself should not
be used as the means for giving answers to issues. Instead, we

believe that it should be used as a starting point, as an inspiration
for combining a bigger and more meaningful interaction between

Prefacefrom DFGN

multiple approaches, cultures, disciplines, ways of thinking andcountless ways of life.

During DFGN.R 2023, we have gathered contributions froma broad range of approaches led by inspiring individuals fromaround the world. Thanks to their sharings, you will reflect on
topics related to:

Education: How does the diversity of teaching and learning

methods in higher education enhance one’s potential for
fostering innovation?

Culture: In what ways is education centered around design
fostering the development of a more inclusive culture that prioritizes ethics and the consideration of diverse perspectives?

Technology: How do recent technological breakthroughs influence education, promote inclusivity, and encourage thecelebration of diversity and multiplicity?

The DFGN.R 2023 was hosted at the Middle East Technical Uni-

versity in Ankara, Türkiye, from the 5th to the 6th of October, 2023.
For the second year, we brought a community of practitioners andpeople who go beyond what is expected from their role. We are

educating the future generation of people making an impact inthe world, but as important as that, we are educating the present

generation. We are driving change, altogether, to improve theeducational experience of our students, by empowering themwith the tools for facing the always changing world. Our work
aims to inspire more people.

At the DFGN.R conference, we aim to bridge “passion for do-ing” and “passion for reasoning” to help us navigate the dynamic

world landscape, where we provide a compass towards the futureof education. By fostering a global gathering of practitioners,

scholars, and students from diverse fields, we aim to facilitate
the exchange of insights and the inception of cross-disciplinary
partnerships on a global scale in the present and future.

5

A lot can happen between Design Factory Global Network Research (DFGN-R) conferences. Design factories and their communities of practice acknowledge that a passion for doing has

increasing currency as the reality of wicked challenges stacks up.
Hacking away one learner, project, paper, artifact, and interven-tion at a time is the reality of research and practice. As a global
community of practice, the past ten years have demonstrated

that co-created collective pursuits can promote change withshifts in transdisciplinary learning, research, and practice. The
second Design Factory Global Network Research conference
highlights the complexity and inconsistency we encounter daily

on many levels represented in practice and research as agentsfor change, offering possibilities yet to be entirely understoodor quantified, which warrants further investigation.

“Designing for multiplicity” is a transformative concept. It

encapsulates the understanding that one-size-fits-all solutions
are often inadequate to address our convoluted world’s diverse

Prefacefrom editors

needs and perspectives. Multiplicity challenges the conventional
approach of ‘designing for all’ as the goal of inclusivity and eq-

uity. Instead, it recognizes the richness of human experiences,environments, and cultures and calls for a shift towards more

adaptable, flexible, and context-specific design strategies. When
we design for a specific group of people with particular needs,
we improve the world for everyone. Think of audiobooks, initiallydeveloped for people with hearing impairment and later paving

a new way for book fruition, or the design of public spaces forpeople with disabilities that become more welcoming spaces
for all.

The Design Factory Global Network is a cornerstone fordiversity made possible by a culture where conditions for ambi-

guity, debate, and conflict are possible. The network, rooted in

a commitment to embrace multiple perspectives, practices, andpedagogies, exemplifies the value of exploring novel approaches
to address contemporary challenges. In this context, ‘multiplicity’emerges as a critical concept breathing new life and meaning into

design and other related disciplines. It beckons us to question
habits and norms and reimagine the creative process in waysthat are more in tune with an interconnected and diverse world.

The discourse around design and innovation has faced cru-

cial issues such as inclusivity, diversity, sustainability, equity,and social justice. While different approaches and perspectives
have emerged from fields such as design, economics, educa-

tion, sociology, and anthropology, the common thread that links

these discourses is the overarching concept of ‘multiplicity’
demonstrated by interdisciplinary research and transdisciplinary

practices. Multiplicity defies confinement to a single definition,and its potency lies in its ability to challenge the dominance ofthe singular. It challenges the conventional preference for unityand logic and advocates a worldview that celebrates difference,evolution, and transformation. Multiplicity can be aptly described6

as a ‘substantive noun,’ denoting an entity belonging to the realm

Designing for multiplicity is fundamentally about recognizingof the many, free from the constraints of unity and rigidity. It isthe complexity of our world and the myriad ways individuals,

allowing for the exploration of de-territorialization, the assembly

initiate this journey, we invite you to explore the transformativea concept intricately linked to the formation of diverse entities,of unexpected connections, and the application of horizontal
logic. The Design Factory Global Network is multiplicity: a sys-tem, a web of practices, a complex of people and cultures, an
un-hierarchical set of disciplines, practices, and actions.

While design thinking may be the dominant paradigm men-tioned in contributions to the Design Factory Global Network

communities, objects, cultures, and systems interact. As we

potential of contributions from a diverse community of practiceinformed by a passion-based culture. Collectively, we explore

how this concept can shape the future of design and innovation,offering new opportunities to create a more inclusive, equitable,
and sustainable world for all.

Research conference, the contributions represent a broad

Anita Kocsis

psychology, philosophy, artificial intelligence, and art. At firstversity of Technology

cross-section encompassing phenomenology, social theory,

glance, this proceeding is a serendipitous collection of litera-

Director Design Factory Melbourne, Professor Swinburne Uni-ture. Yet, there is a consistency underpinned by the challenges

Arzu Gönenç Sorguçhigher-order challenges. The challenges presented in the con-nical University, Department of Architecture

in response to the call for multiplicity based on the purpose oftributions resonate with principles of the 21st Century learning

Director METU Design Factory, Professor at Middle East Tech-mission and United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals,

Assaf Krebs

ity, and climate change. The contributions in this volume offer

Azrieli Faculty of Design, Shenkar

the ever-expanding landscape of challenges and opportunities

Luca Iandoli

care and technology. Underpinned by the theme of multiplicity,

St. John’s University

post-COVID mop-up, in an age of unimaginable technological

Matteo Vignoli

papers and experimental contributions push design thinking

University of Bologna

given the effects of socio-technical rapidity, economic dispar-

valuable insights into how designers and innovators navigate
in multiple fields, from education and sustainability to healththey also represent the status quo at the time of writing in aacceleration, war, and extreme climate change effects. The
in directions that elevate pedagogy and enhance the art andCo-director, Design Factory Shenkar, Senior faculty member,Dean, Collins College of Professional Studies,

Associate Professor in Management Science and Engineering,science of learning, thinking, and doing, increasingly definedby novel approaches, experimental practices, and disruption.

In this Design Factory Global Network Research conference,

we delve into abstract concepts and underlying principles fromthese academic works as research and practice. We uncover
how integrating interdisciplinary approaches, innovative methodologies, and technology drives the evolution of design practices in an increasingly interconnected and dynamic world. A

selection of our contributions will contribute to a special issue

in the CERN Ideasquare Journal of Experimental Innovation. We
are proud to create and support an outlet based on multiplicity,leveraging the culture of CERN, which took the best of knowl-edge from scientists and experts worldwide to investigate thebasic structure of nature.

Through the lens of designing for multiplicity, we navigate alandscape where design is not a one-size-fits-all endeavour but

a dynamic and adaptive process that responds to individuals’

and communities’ unique needs and aspirations. We observe
how design thinking is dismantling conventional silos and forging
connections between disciplines, cultures, and generations.

7

Theme 1

Design thinking& pedagogy
in higher
education

8

The art, science and practice of teaching is exploredwith a generation who are shaping an informationdriven, interconnected world suffering unimaginablesocio-economic global change. The papers, while
different in their program, all argue for a holistic
approach that reflects the tenets of 21st century
learning underpinned by design thinking principles thatprioritise critical thinking, creativity, communication,
collaboration, and problem-solving.
Çekindir et al. case study on an interdisciplinary design
thinking course in higher education reinforces the roleof design thinking experts in advancing multidisciplinary
skills development. Ranti et al. applied design thinking
for technology-driven learning solutions during the
COVID-19 pandemic in Indonesia discovers the dual
challenges in balancing remote student engagement
and advancement of technological methods. As wesurface from the COVID-19 pandemic Arumsari et
al. investigate the challenges of Indonesian student
reconnection by prototyping an app to connect
students with peer mentors to activate experiential peer
to peer-based learning. The development of the app
informed by design thinking methods intelligently paired
students based on traits, experience and expertise.

910Creating illustrations with
Midjourney, an AI-powered image
generation platform, for the chapter
openings in this publication involved
experimentation and adaptation.
The process was started by using
sentences from the theme introductions to create prompts for pictures.
The final results are curated from acollection of hundreds of images.
The aim was for these pictures
to mirror the research themes,potentially intriguing the reader,giving fresh viewpoints on these
themes and stimulate dialogue.
As part of the process, additionaldescriptors regarding image styleand color scheme were integrated
to sharpen the prompts. The keywords microscopical imaging andmacro photography were often used
to embody the intention to magnify the smaller, often overlooked
aspects of the subject, just as a microscope or a macro lens would do.
This choice was driven by an inherent fascination for the minute andthe substantial alike, and the often
blurred boundaries where the micro
meets the macro. The final prompt
used, with all it’s quirks, illogicalaspects and inconsistencies, isused as a caption to the images.
“Design thinking and pedagogy
in higher education. White
background. Coarse,
Blocky. Yellow and cyan.
Pixelpunk. --s 750”
Image: Midjourney × Valtteri Bade, 2023

11

Hande Yıldız Çekindir,¹* Can Güvenir²

1

Izmir University of Economics, PhD Candidate in Design Studies & Research
Assistant in the Department of Interior Architecture and Environmental Design,
Fevzi Çakmak, Sakarya Caddesi No:156, 35330 Balçova, Izmir, Turkey;
Yasar University, Industrial Design Department; Kazımdirik Mahallesi, SelçukYaşar Kampüsü, Üniversite Caddesi Ağaçlı Yol No: 37-39, 35100 Bornova/İzmir
handeyildizcekindir@gmail.com

2*

The influence of expert diversity
in design thinking education:İzmir design factory (IDF)
mentor meetings
Abstract

Design Thinking education, characterised by its interdis-

ciplinary approach, explores how mentors from diverse

fields impact student learning within the process. This

study delves into the implementation of Design Thinking

Course Mentor Meetings at İzmir Design Factory (IDF)

and aims to uncover how experts from various back-grounds influence students’ learning experiences andthe Design Thinking process’s outcomes. By analysing

the students’ reflections through an analysis of their defi-

nitions of design, this research evaluates the impact ofdifferent experts on the students’ learning and teachingexperiences and on the students’ perceptions of “Design”

as it developed throughout the course. Furthermore, it

Key words:

objective tools for analysing qualitative data in the form

education;

this educational process.

mentor meetings.

examines the utility of Large Language Models (LLMs) asof textual reflections, enhancing our understanding ofIntroduction

Design Thinking, often termed “design-based learning,” is ac-

Design Thinking

expert diversity;

mon issues (Rauth et al., 2010). Two key concepts in design

education are multidisciplinary learning and integrating diverse

knowledged in education for its potential to boost creativity,

fields, which allow adoption to the evolving social landscapeto tackle real-world problems using specific processes andHowever, successful outcomes require more than assigningendurance, engagement, and innovation. It encourages students

methods, promoting learning through reflection. Design Think-(Chiang et al., 2021).

projects; also essential are effective mentoring, guidance, anding rests on the “3Ps” - people, process, and place, involving

continuous critique. Considering environmental challenges, it isfor collaboration (Schwemmle et al., 2017).

and environmental preservation into the curriculum (Meyer &verse students, catalysing design-driven global transformations

education, research on pedagogical aspects is limited (Withellcross-functional teams, iterative innovation, and flexible spaces
This approach excels in fostering collaboration among di-(Rauth et al., 2010). It centres on problem-solving and addresses

everyday challenges, offering a methodology for resolving com-

12

vital to incorporate ethical considerations, equity, sustainability,
Norman, 2020). Despite Design Thinking’s integration into higher& Haigh, 2013).

The İzmir Design Factory (IDF) implemented an interdisci-

plinary Design Thinking Course, comprising the “Design Thinking Project Course” and the “Professional Design Experiences

2003). Design Thinking, with its team-based approach, offers aframework for holistic learning through experience and reflection, aligning with constructivist principles (Kröper, 2010; Reich,Course,” bringing together students from various universities

2008; Kolb, 1984).

es on three aspects: people, place, and process. ‘People’ en-to grapple with complex problems and gain insights throughfor interdisciplinary projects with industries. The course focus-

Integrating Design Thinking into education allows students

compass students, facilitators, instructors, research assistants,

experience, with teachers taking on the role of facilitators (Has-Thinking process, and ‘place’ encompasses diverse learning

nature closely aligns with the constructivist ideals of experiential

partners, and mentors; ‘process’ involves the non-linear Design

environments. Instructors, facilitators, and mentors are pivotal

in facilitating the project process, and therefore, this study aims

selhorn & Gold, 2006); and Design Thinking’s meta-disciplinary

learning and complex problem-solving (Lindberg et al., 2009). By

formalising constructivist learning principles, Design Thinking be-

to assess how expert perspectives from various disciplines im-comes a method for team-based learning that nurtures 21st-cen-mentors’ involvement affects learning outcomes in this course,

Meinel, 2012). By integrating content and constructivist learning

pact students’ learning in the Design Thinking process and howtury skills and metacognitive competences (Scheer, Noweski, &accredited by Yaşar University (2019-2021).

principles, Design Thinking projects offer opportunities for ex-

Theoretical backgroundNoweski, & Meinel, 2012). In essence, Design Thinking enriches

Design Thinking, rooted in human-centred design, has gained

significance in education, encompassing creation, reflection,
problem-solving, reasoning, and meaning creation as its corecomponents (Johansson-Sköldberg et al., 2013). In the realmof design education, it is crucial to achieve a balance between

practical skills and academic rigour, necessitating effective men-

periential learning and metacognitive skill development (Scheer,
the learning journey within a constructivist context.

Method and data

This paper discusses a case study conducted at the İzmir Design Factory, a design-education-research centre, focusing on

an interdisciplinary Design Thinking course in higher education.

torship, guidance, and critique (Meyer & Norman, 2020). Further-

This course addresses the need for a skilled workforce and isto the education of designers who are sufficiently adaptable tocompetitiveness in the global market. It brings together students

Design Thinking has found a key place in 21st-century ed-

involving key figures, including students, facilitators, instructors,

more, multidisciplinary and cross-disciplinary learning is essential
respond to evolving societal needs (Chiang et al., 2021).

conducted in collaboration with local stakeholders to enhancefrom various universities to engage in interdisciplinary projects

ucation, enhancing critical reading, logical thinking, and prob-

research assistants, partners, and mentors.

students to adopt a designer’s mindset, empowering them tostudents at Yaşar University and the mentors who guide them2012). Grounded in constructivist learning theory, Design Think-

Partner Project Course and Mentor Meetings, where mentors

through their experiences and reflection (Piaget, 1970; Fosnot

into project processes. These meetings align with the stages oflem-solving skills (Rotherham & Willingham, 2009). It encourages

address complex challenges (Rim & Razzouk, Valerie Shute,ing emphasises learners’ active role in constructing knowledge& Perry, 1996; Kolb, 1984; O’Dennel, 2012; Reich, 2008).

The constructivist approach in education shifts educators into

The study primarily focuses on 3rd-4th grade Industrial Design

through the course. The Design Thinking course comprises thefrom different fields share their knowledge and practical insights
the Design Thinking process (Fig.1).

During the 2020-2021 fall semester, 11 industrial design stu-

the role of facilitators, enabling students to construct knowledge

dents participated in Mentor Meetings conducted by 15 mentors

and Vygotsky’s work, the constructivist theory emphasises that

understand the role of experts in the Design Thinking learningfrom their experiences (Trevors et al., 2016). Drawing from Bruner
learning is an active, constructive process (Bada & Olusegun,over 11 weeks. A qualitative research study was conducted toprocess. Students’ insights were collected through reflective2015). This shift has led to various teaching and learning meth-writing in the form of a questionnaire study; the questionnaire& Martin, 2006; Scheer, Noweski, & Meinel, 2012).

would contribute to their future work, and their thoughts about

learning by fostering essential 21st-century skills (Scheer et al.,reports based on the insights gained from the mentor interviews

tial through constructivist learning, the demands of modern life

This study involved the collection of text data from the weekly

odologies that position Design Thinking at the forefront (Dunne

Design Thinking aligns seamlessly with holistic constructivist2012). As educational systems aim to nurture individual potenunderscore the significance of metacognitive competences,

attitudes, values, and action skills (Dikmans, 2011; Weinert,

included questions about what students learned, how learning

the mentors. At the end of the semester, students presented final

in response to the question: “What is design?”.

questionnaire answers and the final submission, which wereanalysed through ChatGPT-3.5, an artificial intelligence tool.

13

Fig. 1. 2020-2021 Fall Semester Mentor Meetings and DT Project Course Weekly Program created by authors

ChatGPT is a large language model (LLM) trained by OpenAI.

Design Values: Central to the design process, these values

Large language models (LLMs) like GPT are revolutionisingencompass empathy (understanding user needs), creativity (gen-and responses from vast amounts of text data. ChatGPT, an AI

and social impacts), and collaboration (emphasising interdisci-social science research by simulating human-like behaviours

dialogue tool based on LLMs, generates human-like responses,
enabling applications such as translation, content generation,and question-answering (Tajik & Tajik, 2023). The analysis identi-

fied common keywords such as design, process, empathy, user,

and product. These keywords helped define concept headings,
providing insights into students’ perspectives on design anderating unique ideas), sustainability (considering environmental
plinary cooperation).

Design Output Objectives: The design output aims to provide

users with meaning and value, thus influencing brand perception,

anticipating future changes, and benefiting society. It also strives
to enhance usability and user satisfaction.

Design Process Objectives and Characteristics: Design pro-their learning experiences.

cess objectives include continuous improvement, evaluatingand expert guidance in an interdisciplinary Design Thinking

The process encourages learning from mistakes, embracing

In summary, the study explores the impact of mentorshipcourse, shedding light on students’ perceptions and learning
experiences in design education.

effectiveness, and effectively planning and organising progress.
diversity, and generating new ideas.

Results

This study delves into students’ reflections on Design Thinking,unveiling their comprehension of the design process and its

essential elements. The analysis uncovered key themes anddefinitions (Fig.2):

Design: Students view design as a user-centric problem-solv-

ing process, enabling communication and expression. It encom-

passes three core elements: the process itself, the user, and theresulting product.

Design Process: The design process involves problem-solv-

ing stages, including problem understanding, ideation, prototyping, and implementation. It is characterised by divergence(exploring various ideas) followed by convergence (narrowing

down to a solution).

14

Fig. 2. Most Common Keywords Scheme created by authors

The study underscores the importance of language as atacit knowledge and real-world examples. Moreover, the study

versatile tool in Design Thinking. Visual, mathematical, andunderscored Design Thinking’s interdisciplinary, collaborative

explore hypothetical scenarios, and articulate complex ideas.

expert feedback in fostering empathy, innovation, and inclusive

verbal languages are employed to represent abstract concepts,
Language plays a pivotal role in facilitating communication,idea generation, and problem-solving throughout the design

process (Owen, 2007).

nature, highlighting the importance of diverse perspectives anddesign outcomes.

Acknowledgements

Furthermore, the study highlights the significant role of men-

The authors thank Originn and Yaşar University, stakeholders ofThese meetings provided students with insights from experts

implementing the “Design Thinking Course’’ in which the mentor

tor meetings in enriching students’ grasp of Design Thinking.

who drew from their professional experiences across various
problem-solving stages. This active engagement with mentors

not only improved students’ ability to express their thoughts inwriting but also fostered a sense of belonging within the Design

Thinking community.

In summary, this research offers valuable insights into stu-

dents’ perceptions of Design Thinking and its core components.
It accentuates the pivotal role of language as a tool in the Design

Thinking process and, within this framework, emphasises theimportance of mentorship in enhancing students’ understanding

and motivation.

Discussions and conclusions

This study delved into students’ perceptions of design in thecontext of a one-semester Design Thinking course in higher
education. Employing data from mentor interviews and student

essays titled ‘What is Design?’, common themes were discerned,
which included “design concept,” “design process,” “design

values,” “design output objectives,” and “design process objectives and characteristics”.

Operating within a constructivist educational model, stu-

dents were encouraged to define design metacognitively. Theirdefinitions portrayed design as a user-centred problem-solving

process and a communication tool, aligning with Design Thinking’s core principles: People, Process, and Place. The design

process, as seen by students, followed the Double Diamondmodel defined by the Design Council: Discover, Define, Develop,

and Deliver.

Design values such as empathy, creativity, sustainability,

and collaboration were central, emphasising social benefit andaligning with students’ collective design goals. Students viewed
the design process as iterative and improvable, reflecting ametacognitive perspective influenced by constructivist teachingand expert mentorship. The study showcased the potential of AI,
specifically ChatGPT, in educational research, in the streamliningof teaching tasks and enhancement of communication.

Within the constructivist framework, aspects consideredvital were active knowledge construction through experiences

and reflection. Engagement with expert mentors and the Design

Thinking community enriched learning by providing access to

the Izmir Design Factory project, for designing, planning, andmeetings were conducted as the case of this research.

References

Chiang, I.-Y., Lin, P.-H., Kreifeldt, J. G., & Lin, R.,2021, From
Theory to Practice: An Adaptive Development of Design
Education. Education Sciences, 11, 673. https://doi.org/10.3390/
educsci11110673
Fosnot, C.T., & Perry, R.S., 1996, Constructivism: A psychologicaltheory of learning. In C.T. Fosnot (Ed.), Constructivism: Theory,
Perspectives, and Practice (2nd edn.), Teachers College,
Columbia University: New York and London, pp. 8-38.
Home. Design Council - Design for Planet. (n.d.). https://www.
designcouncil.org.uk/our-resources/the-double-diamond/Israel
Institute of Technology, Haifa, 2022, pp.343-353.
Kolb, D. A., 1984, Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source ofLearning and Development, Prentice Hall.
Meyer, M. W., & Norman, D., 2020, Changing Design Education
for the 21st Century. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics,
and Innovation, 6(1), 13–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
sheji.2019.12.002
Ne Yaparız: İDF. idf. (n.d.). https://www.izmirdesignfactory.com/neyapariz?lang=en
Owen, C., 2007, Design Thinking: Notes on Its Nature and Use.
Design Research Quarterly, 2(1), 16-27.Rauth, I., Köppen, E.,
Jobst, B., & Meinel, C., 2010, Design Thinking: An Educational
Model towards Creative Confidence. First International
Conference on Design Creativity, ICDC 2010, 29 November - 1
December 2010, Kobe, Japan.
Razzouk, R., & Shute, V., 2012, What is design thinking and why is
it important? Review of Educational Research, 82(3), 330–348.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312457429
Reich, K., 2008, Constructivist Didactic: Text and Student Book,
Beltz Verlag, Weinheim and Köln, Germany.
Scheer, A., Noweski, C., & Meinel, C., 2012, Transforming
constructivist learning into action: Design thinking in education.
Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 17(3),pp.8-19.
Schwemmle, M., Nicolai, C., Klooker, M., & Weinberg, U., 2017,
From place to space: How to conceptualize places for design
thinking. Design Thinking Research,275–298. doi:10.1007/978-3319-60967-6_14
Tajik, E., & Tajik, F., 2023, A Comprehensive Examination of
the Potential Application of CHAT GPT in Higher Education
Institutions. https://doi.org/10.36227/techrxiv.22589497.v1
Withell, A.,and Haigh, N., 2013, Developing Design Thinking
Expertise in Higher Education, in Reitan, J.B., Lloyd, P., Bohemia,E., Nielsen, L.M., Digranes, I., & Lutnæs, E. (eds.), DRS //Cumulus: Design Learning for Tomorrow, 14-17 May, Oslo,
Norway. https://doi.org/10.21606/learnxdesign.2013.160

15

Claresta Defa Ranti,¹ Galih Mekar Arumsari,² Hyunkyung Lee³*
1
2
3*

Yonsei University, South Korea;
Yonsei University, South Korea;
Yonsei University, South Korea
hyunkyunglee@yonsei.ac.kr

Exploring student and teacher
perspectives on education withtechnological advancementin Indonesia through design
thinking in response to the
COVID-19
Abstract

This research delves into the impact of COVID-19 andtechnological advancements on interactions between

teachers and students in Indonesian education. By adopting a design thinking approach, the study investigates

how social media, gamification, and advanced technology

Key words:

Through design thinking workshops involving teachers

Design Thinking;can enrich collaboration and adapt learning methods.

and surveys gathering input from students, valuable in-sights are unearthed regarding the challenges they face,
notably addressing empathy and learning difficulties. The

outcomes illuminate students’ preference for collaboration, inclusion, and rewards, demonstrated through ac-

Education;

Technology;
Empathy;

Inclusivity;

Collaboration: COVID-19

tive engagement with online quizzes, educational TikTokvideos, and virtual reality collaborations. These solutions

have garnered positive feedback, demonstrating potential

Introduction

derscores the transformative capacity of design thinking

cation globally, and Indonesia is no exception. The importancefor significant transformation. The research effectively un-

in reshaping Indonesian education by adeptly addressingthese pronounced challenges.

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound impact on edu-

and relevance of this research topic can be highlighted throughthe following points:

 Education gaps: COVID-19 widened education gaps in Indo-nesia, with limited access to digital resources and skills deep-

ening the divide between students and teachers (UNICEF,
2020).

 Need for digital learning development: To tackle these chal-lenges, it is vital to enhance digital learning content, promote
digital skills, and improve connectivity in schools (UNICEF,
2020).

16

Research gaps exist regarding how students collaborate,empathise, and engage with technology-driven learning despite
its widespread adoption (Widodo, 2022). Further, teachers facechallenges adapting to technological changes and skills (Maddukelleng et al., 2023). To bridge these gaps in knowledge, thisresearch aims to address the following research question:

1. What are the primary challenges faced by students andMethod and data

The research methodology employed in this study focuses oninvestigating the impact of COVID-19 and technological ad-vancements on teacher-student interactions within Indonesian
education. The study emphasises the pivotal role of participants’technological familiarity, stemming from the pandemic-driven
shift to remote learning.

Within the context of the pandemic in Indonesia, technology

teachers in adapting to technology-driven learning during

emerged as a fundamental aspect of education. Both students

identify the potential solutions for these challenges?

to more collaborative platforms such as Google Meet and Class-

the COVID-19 pandemic, and how can design thinking help

This study examines the effects of COVID-19 and technology

and teachers swiftly adapted, transitioning from tools like Zoom
room.

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, the integration of

on education in Indonesia, exploring student and teacher per-e-learning into Indonesian education, particularly in biology

be proposed to improve student collaboration, empathy, andGoogle Classroom, and Zoom (Tauhidah et al., 2021). A com-

spectives. Through design thinking, innovative solutions willlearning experiences.

Theoretical backgroundPrevious research emphasises the importance of teachers’ readiness to adapt to technological changes in education and acquire

media and technology skills (Maddukelleng et al., 2023). Incor-

programs, centred around accessible platforms like WhatsApp,

prehensive approach combined synchronous tools like Google
Meet with asynchronous platforms like YouTube and discussion
boards (Pratiwi & Ayu, 2020). Indonesian EFL teachers embraced

online learning, while students efficiently utilised smartphones
for assignments and leisure activities (Rahayu & Wirza, 2020).

Concurrently, this research employs a combination of qual-

porating digital media in education can enhance instructional

itative data collection and surveys with 19 Indonesian students

Government policies on technology education impact teacher

thinking workshop is conducted with four Indonesian teachers.

quality and students’ competencies (Rusydiyah et al., 2020).
competence in utilising e-learning and social media (Salehudin etal., 2020; Khan et al., 2021), while well-designed online teachingpracticums support prospective teachers in developing technological skills and effective instructional strategies (Sunggingwati
et al., 2020; Patahuddin et al., 2022).

Design thinking, known for its problem-solving abilities andversatility (Brown & Katz, 2011), drives innovation and fosters

creativity by embracing diverse perspectives (Stackowiak &to gain insights into student perspectives. Furthermore, a design
The workshop adheres to the design thinking framework—em-

pathy, problem identification, design solutions—endorsed by
Gasparini (2015) and aligns with contemporary research advocating the use of MIRO for collaboration (Skubik-Peplaski et al.,2022). Notably, both students and teachers possess pre-existing
technological skills, including proficiency in interactive platforms
such as Zoom and Google Classroom.

Furthermore, empirical data from both students and teachers

Kelly, 2020). This research demonstrates the impact of design

contribute to the formulation of design concepts using DALL-E,

ing the development of digital skills (Rumahlatu et al., 2021).

E’s potential in architectural design and solution generation

thinking on education, particularly on students’ learning, includ-

Additionally, the Stanford D School design thinking approach
has shown effectiveness in enhancing students’ creativity andentrepreneurial alertness (Pratomo et al., 2021).

The COVID-19 pandemic has posed challenges for online

a text-to-image AI model. Previous research highlights DALL-(Paananen, Oppenlaender, & Visuri, 2023). The resulting images
are assessed by students to gather feedback (Gasparini, 2015;
Panke, 2019).

In conclusion, this research combines qualitative data, student

teaching and learning, requiring improved coordination, resourc-

surveys, and a teacher workshop within the framework of design

strategies and collaborative efforts are needed to prevent learning

enriched by participants’ technological insights, hold the potential

es, and support (Putri et al., 2020). Changes in instructional
gaps (Rasmitadila et al., 2020). This research examines the impact
of online learning on students, considering social, economic,

and cultural factors, as well as infrastructure, internet access,and financial support (Febrianto et al., 2020). It also explores
student perspectives on challenges during the pandemic, in-thinking and mixed-methods research. The proposed solutions,
to reshape the immersive learning landscape in Indonesia. The

inclusion of DALL-E-generated images enhances understanding,providing comprehensive insights into the evolving educational
scenario.

cluding anxiety, data security, technological proficiency, andeffective learning methods (Simamora, 2020; Lie et al., 2020).

17

Results

The workshop conducted with teachers using Miro and Mi-

This research focused on the challenges encountered by students

crosoft Teams allowed for active collaboration and idea gener-

to technology-driven learning. It employed design thinking toengagement, decreased interest in learning, limited resources,

and teachers during the COVID-19 pandemic when adapting
identify potential solutions. The study emphasised three key

aspects: empathy, problem identification, and design solutions,with a focus on inclusivity, collaboration, and interactivity between
students and teachers (Figure 1).

ation (Figure 2). Teachers expressed concerns about student

technical challenges, and reduced interactivity (Table 1). They
also reported feelings of annoyance, frustration, and being disregarded or undervalued by students (Figure 2).

Teachers proposed design solutions to address the chal-lenges, such as group demonstrations, social media integration,

collaborative content creation, and game-based learning withrewards. These solutions aimed to enhance student collaboration,
engagement, and motivation (Table 1).
Inclusive

Interactive

Collaborative

Figure 1 Design thinking approach

The student survey revealed findings related to study rou-tines, reliance on technology, and motivation for learning. Stu-

dents faced difficulties in returning to pre-pandemic routines andFigure 2 Design thinking workshop for teacher

teaching methods for collaboration and social interaction, but

Through the design thinking process, three design concepts wereseek additional learning sources like YouTube or TikTok. Students

Collaborative VR demonstration was the most preferred option,

showed fluctuating motivation levels. They preferred interactive
some teachers presented material too quickly, leading them toproposed design solutions involving collaborative problem-solv-

ing, practical application of theory, virtual reality (VR) technology for debates and presentations, and the development of an

application with detailed explanations and discussion forums.

generated with DALL-E and tested with students (Figure 3). The

chosen by 79% of the students, indicating their receptivenessto interactive and collaborative learning experiences facilitatedby VR technology (Figure 4).

(Table 1).

Table 1 Analysis of Student and Teacher
Student

Teacher

Empathy

1. Shift in learning habits
2. Impact of a technology and social media
3. Fluctuation motivation

1. Lack of engagement and decreased learning Interest
2. Technical challenges
3. Reduced interactivity

Problem Identification

1. Fast-paced teaching
2. Reliance on technology
3. Teacher-student dynamics

1. A lot of distraction which causing lack of focus
2. Addictive social media content
3. Comfort zone and exhaustion

Design Solution

1. Learning Application with Comprehensive Features:· Educational apps, platforms, interactive software.
2. Practical Application of Concepts:· VR technology for immersive and practical learning.
3. Interactive Teaching Aids and Q&A Sessions:· Interactive tools, quizzes platform and gamified
learning.

1. Group Demonstrations and Social Media Integration
2. Collaborative content creation and feedback
3. Game-based learning and rewards

18

Discussions and conclusions

This study highlights that students lean toward adopting more

technology while teachers focus on the significance of engage-

ment and collaboration. In discussing the research, there’s
room to further explore the diverse perspectives of students

and teachers. This contrast in viewpoints offers an opportunity
for deeper insights.

Examining challenges faced by Indonesian students andteachers during the COVID-19 pandemic’s technology-driven

shift, the study employed design thinking to uncover potential
solutions through empathy, identifying problems, and innovative
Figure 3 Design concept – Picture generated by Dall-E

Student surveys and teacher workshops employed different datacollection approaches. The survey gathered individual responses,

design strategies. Findings emphasised that students faceddifficulties in adjusting study routines, with technology’s impact
on motivation and teacher attitudes adding complexities.

Students notably preferred interactive teaching methods

whereas workshops fostered collaborative idea generation. A

that fostered collaboration, aligning with a desire for engaging

was enabled by teachers’ inventive and relevant solutions during

varied among participants, with students proposing solutions

comprehensive exploration of challenges and effective solutions
meaningful discussions.

It’s important to clarify that while this research did not fa-

cilitate direct interaction between students and teachers, data

educational experiences. The role of technology in teaching
like comprehensive learning apps, practical VR use, and interactive teaching aids.

This exploration not only unveiled technology’s role but also

were independently collected from both groups. Subsequently,

emphasised diverse educational priorities. Implications high-tested with students. This innovative approach enabled a com-balance technology integration and active engagement.

these insights were visually represented using DALL-E and thenprehensive exploration of challenges and potential solutions.

lighted the importance of tailored educational approaches that
Acknowledging limitations, the research focused on a specific

Despite the absence of direct student-teacher interaction incontext, recognizing potential cultural influences on participants’solutions and gathering relevant insights.

ise, their effectiveness may differ across various educational

the workshop, it provided a platform for generating inventive

viewpoints. Additionally, while the proposed solutions hold prom-settings. Future research should involve workshops with stakeholders to explore effective technology-driven learning solutions.

Figure 4 Design concept result

In conclusion, the research findings highlight the challenges faced
by students and teachers in technology-driven learning during
the pandemic. Design thinking methodologies proved valuable inidentifying these challenges and proposing potential solutions. By

incorporating inclusive, collaborative, and interactive strategies,
educators can enhance student engagement, motivation, andoverall learning experiences.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to express their gratitude to all the students
and teachers who participated in this research.

19

References

Al Yakin, A., Muthmainnah, Ganguli, S., Cardoso, L., & Asrifan,
A. (2023). Cybersocialization through Smart Digital Classroom
Management (SDCM) as a pedagogical innovation of “merdeka
belajar kampus merdeka (MBKM)” curriculum. Advanced
Technologies and Societal Change, 39–61. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-981-19-8967-4_3
Brown, T., & Katz, B. (2011). Change by design. Journal of ProductInnovation Management, 28(3), 381–383. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1540-5885.2011.00806.x
Creswell, J. W. (1999). Mixed-method research. Handbook of
Educational Policy, 455–472. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978012174698-8/50045-x
Deckers, N., Fröbe, M., Kiesel, J., Pandolfo, G., Schröder, C.,
Stein, B., & Potthast, M. (2023). The infinite index: Information
retrieval on generative text-to-image models. Proceedings of the2023 Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3576840.3578327
Febrianto, P. T., Mas’udahdah, S., & Megasari, L. A. (2020).
Implementation of online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic
on Madura Island, Indonesia. International Journal of Learning,
Teaching and Educational Research, 19(8), 233–254. https://doi.
org/10.26803/ijlter.19.8.13
HABIBI, A., MUKMININ, A., RIYANTO, Y., PRASOJO, L. D.,
SULISTIYO, U., SOFWAN, M., & SAUDAGAR, F. (2018). Building
an online community: Student teachers’ perceptions on theadvantages of using social networking services in a teacher
education program. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education,19(1), 46–61. https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.382663
Hasanah, R. L., Wati, F. F., & Riana, D. (2019). Tam analysis on
the factors affecting admission of students for Ruangguru
Application. Jurnal Sistem Informasi, 15(2), 1–14. https://doi.
org/10.21609/jsi.v15i2.778
Hesse-Biber, S. (2015). Mixed methods research.
Qualitative Health Research, 25(6), 775–788. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1049732315580558
Ivanov, D. (2022). Digital Supply Chain Management and technology
to enhance resilience by building and using end-to-end visibility
during the COVID-19 pandemic. IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Management, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1109/tem.2021.3095193
Jaya, V. M. (2023). Implementation of the inclusion program in theperforming arts class at XYZ School in Jakarta. Edunesia: Jurnal
Ilmiah Pendidikan, 4(1), 158–171. https://doi.org/10.51276/edu.
v4i1.285
Khan, M. N., Ashraf, M. A., Seinen, D., Khan, K. U., & Laar, R. A.
(2021). Social Media for knowledge acquisition and dissemination:
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Collaborative Learning
Driven Social Media Adoption. Frontiers in Psychology, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.648253
Kim, H. J., Yi, P., & Ko, B. W. (2022). Deepening students’experiences with problem identification and definition in an
empathetic approach: Lessons from a University Design-Thinking
Program. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 15(3),852–865. https://doi.org/10.1108/jarhe-03-2022-0083
Ko, H.-K., Park, G., Jeon, H., Jo, J., Kim, J., & Seo, J. (2023).
Large-scale text-to-image generation models for visual
artists’ creative works. Proceedings of the 28th International
Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. https://doi.
org/10.1145/3581641.3584078
Lake, D., Flannery, K., & Kearns, M. (2021). A cross-disciplines
and cross-sector mixed-methods examination of design thinking
practices and outcome. Innovative Higher Education, 46(3),337–356. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-020-09539-1

20

Levy, M., & Huli, C. (2019). Design thinking in a nutshell for eliciting
requirements of a business process: A case study of a design
thinking workshop. 2019 IEEE 27th International Requirements
Engineering Conference (RE). https://doi.org/10.1109/
re.2019.00044
Li, Q., Zhang, J., Xie, X., & Luximon, Y. (2021). How shared online
whiteboard supports online collaborative design activities: A
Social Interaction Perspective. Advances in Creativity, Innovation,
Entrepreneurship and Communication of Design, 285–293. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80094-9_34
Liang, M., Lim, C. P., Park, J., & Mendoza, N. B. (2022). A review
of ICT-enabled learning for schoolgirls in Asia and its impacts
on education equity. Educational Technology Research andDevelopment, 71(2), 267–293. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423022-10178-w
Lie, A., Mina Tamah, S., Gozali, I., Retno Triwidayati, K., Sari Diah
Utami, T., & Jemadi, F. (2020). Secondary School Language
Teachers’ online learning engagement during the COVID-19
pandemic in Indonesia. Journal of Information Technology
Education: Research, 19, 803–832. https://doi.org/10.28945/4626
Lindner, K.-T., Schwab, S., Emara, M., & Avramidis, E. (2023). Do
teachers favor the inclusion of all students? A systematic review
of primary schoolteachers’ attitudes towards Inclusive Education.
European Journal of Special Needs Education, 1–22. https://doi.or
g/10.1080/08856257.2023.2172894
Luo, J., Sarica, S., & Wood, K. L. (2021). Guiding data-driven design
ideation by knowledge distance. Knowledge-Based Systems, 218,
106873. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2021.106873
Maddukelleng, M., Jihan, J., Gunawan, H., Murcahyanto, H., &Pasaribu, W. (2023). Hybrid learning innovation: Challenges
for developing teachers skills in Indonesia. Al Qalam: Jurnal
Ilmiah Keagamaan Dan Kemasyarakatan, 17(2), 100. https://doi.
org/10.35931/aq.v17i2.1959
Mailizar, M., Almanthari, A., Maulina, S., & Bruce, S. (2020).
Secondary School Mathematics Teachers’ views on e-learning
implementation barriers during the COVID-19 pandemic: Thecase of indonesia. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Scienceand Technology Education, 16(7). https://doi.org/10.29333/
ejmste/8240
Makawawa, J. C., Mustadi, A., Septriwanto, J. V., Sampouw, F., &Najoan, R. A. O. (2021). Primary school teachers perception oftechnological pedagogical content knowledge in online learning
due to covid 19. Jurnal Prima Edukasia, 9(1), 86–96. https://doi.
org/10.21831/jpe.v9i1.35245
McCurdy, R. (2019). Problem-based design thinking tasks: A third
space pathway to engage empathy in STEM. Proceedings of the2019 AERA Annual Meeting. https://doi.org/10.3102/1431229
Panis, I. C., Setyosari, P., Kuswandi, D., & Yuliati, L. (2020). Design
gamification models in higher education: A study in Indonesia.
International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET),
15(12), 244. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v15i12.13965
Panke, S. (2019). Design thinking in education: Perspectives,opportunities and challenges. Open Education Studies, 1(1),281–306. https://doi.org/10.1515/edu-2019-0022
Patahuddin, S. M., Rokhmah, S., Caffery, J., & Gunawardena,
M. (2022). Professional Development Through Social Media: A
comparative study on male and female teachers’ use of Facebook
groups. Teaching and Teacher Education, 114, 103700. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2022.103700
Pham, Y. D., Fucci, D., & Maalej, W. (2018). A first implementationof a design thinking workshop during a Mobile App Development
Course Project. Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop
on Software Engineering Education for Millennials. https://doi.
org/10.1145/3194779.3194785

Pitoyo, M. D., Sumardi, S., & Asib, A. (2020). Gamification-based
assessment: The washback effect of Quizizz on student’s learningin Higher Education. International Journal of Language Education,
1–10. https://doi.org/10.26858/ijole.v4i2.8188
Prasetya, D. D., Wibawa, A. P., Hirashima, T., & Hayashi, Y. (2020).
Designing rich interactive content for blended learning: A casestudy from Indonesia. Electronic Journal of E-Learning, 18(4).
https://doi.org/10.34190/ejel.20.18.4.001
Prasetyo, A. R., Nurtjahjanti, H., & Ardhiani, L. N. (2021). Impact
of changes in teaching methods during the COVID-19 pandemic:
The effect of integrative e-learning on readiness for change
and interest in learning among Indonesian University students.
The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed
Learning, 22(2), 87–101. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v22i2.5143
Pratiwi, Z. F., & Ayu, M. (2020). The use of describing picture strategy
to improve secondary students’ speaking skill. Journal of English
Language Teaching and Learning, 1(2), 38–43. https://doi.
org/10.33365/jeltl.v1i2.603
Pratomo, L. C., Siswandari, S., & Wardani, D. K. (2021a). The
effectiveness of design thinking in improving student creativity
skills and entrepreneurial alertness. International Journalof Instruction, 14(4), 695–712. https://doi.org/10.29333/
iji.2021.14440a
Pratomo, L. C., Siswandari, S., & Wardani, D. K. (2021b). The
effectiveness of design thinking in improving student creativity
skills and entrepreneurial alertness. International Journalof Instruction, 14(4), 695–712. https://doi.org/10.29333/
iji.2021.14440a
Putra, P., Liriwati, F. Y., Tahrim, T., Syafrudin, S., & Aslan, A. (2020).
The students learning from home experiences during covid-19
school closures policy in Indonesia. Jurnal Iqra’ : Kajian Ilmu
Pendidikan, 5(2), 30–42. https://doi.org/10.25217/ji.v5i2.1019
Rahayu, R. P., & Wirza, Y. (2020). Teachers’ perception of
online learning during pandemic covid-19. Jurnal Penelitian
Pendidikan, 20(3), 392–406. https://doi.org/10.17509/jpp.
v20i3.29226
Rasmitadila, R., Aliyyah, R. R., Rachmadtullah, R., Samsudin,A., Syaodih, E., Nurtanto, M., & Tambunan, A. R. (2020). The
perceptions of primary school teachers of online learning during
the COVID-19 pandemic period: A case study in Indonesia.
Journal of Ethnic and Cultural Studies, 90–109. https://doi.
org/10.29333/ejecs/388
Rojanarata, T. (2020). How online whiteboard promotes students’collaborative skills in laboratory learning. Proceedings of the2020 8th International Conference on Information and Education
Technology. https://doi.org/10.1145/3395245.3396433
Rumahlatu, D., Sangur, K., Berhitu, M. M., Kainama, S. Y.,
Kakisina, V. V., & Latupeirissa, C. (2021). Resource Based
Learning Design Thinking (RBLDT): A model to improve students’creative thinking skills, concept gaining, and digital literacy.
Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences, 16(1), 288–302. https://doi.org/10.18844/cjes.v16i1.5528
Rusydiyah, E. F., Purwati, E., & Prabowo, A. (2020). How to use
Digital Literacy as a learning resource for teacher candidates inIndonesia. Jurnal Cakrawala Pendidikan, 39(2), 305–318. https://doi.org/10.21831/cp.v39i2.30551
Santoso, P. H., Istiyono, E., & Haryanto. (2022). Physics teachers’
perceptions about their judgments within differentiated learning
environments: A case for the implementation of Technology.
Education Sciences, 12(9), 582. https://doi.org/10.3390/
educsci12090582
Simamora, R. M. (2020). The challenges of online learning during
the COVID-19 pandemic: An essay analysis of performing arts

education students. Studies in Learning and Teaching, 1(2),86–103. https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v1i2.38
Stackowiak, R., & Kelly, T. (2020). Design thinking overview andhistory. Design Thinking in Software and AI Projects, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4842-6153-8_1
Tan, K. H., Rajendran, A., Muslim, N., Alias, J., & Yusof, N. A.
(2022). The potential of TikTok’s key features as a pedagogicalstrategy for ESL classrooms. Sustainability, 14(24), 16876. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142416876
Tarigan, K. E., & Stevani, M. (2021). The impact of covid-19 on online
learning in K12 Indonesian schools: MACRO, Meso, and microlevels. International Journal of Arts and Humanities Studies, 1(1),23–32. https://doi.org/10.32996/ijahs.2021.1.1.4
Tauhidah, D., Jayanti, U. N., Rahmasiwi, A., Pamungkas, R.,& Saifulloh, A. (2021). Utilization of e-learning platforms bylecturers during the COVID-19 pandemic in Indonesia. JPBI
(Jurnal Pendidikan Biologi Indonesia), 7(3), 198–207. https://doi.
org/10.22219/jpbi.v7i3.16816
UNICEF. (2020). Strengthening Digital Learning across Indonesia UNICEF. UNICEF. https://www.unicef.org/indonesia/media/10531/
file
Wirani, Y., Nabarian, T., & Romadhon, M. S. (2022). Evaluationof continued use on Kahoot! as a gamification-based learning
platform from the perspective of Indonesia students. Procedia
Computer Science, 197, 545–556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
procs.2021.12.172
Zainuddin, Z., Chu, S. K., Shujahat, M., & Perera, C. J. (2020). The
impact of gamification on learning and instruction: A systematic
review of empirical evidence. Educational Research Review, 30,
100326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.1003

21

Theme 2

Exploring
multiplicity &diversity inmedia &
materials

22

The constellation of experiential contributions
highlights embodied, tacit, and experimental
diverse learning and designing. Thinking withthings, learning by doing, experiential and authentic
learning, co design, inclusivity and accessibility
are terms increasingly found in curriculum that
acknowledge diverse modalities for learning andmeaning making.
Learning experiences, cultural connection, andsense of belonging for a student cohort in Yonsai
University is explored by Choi et al. througholfactory sensation. Experimentation with scentis mapped from a user’s perspective. Similarly,
crafted objects that carry cultural significance,
both traditional and contemporary are explored asa powerful catalyst by Passi. The artefacts posea dual purpose as both object and symbol for
discussion on the sexual and reproductive healthof women in low resource environments. Sierra
et al. apply the analogy of tapestry in weaving
the moderating task of integration in teams toachieve disciplinary diversity for innovation learning
profiled by the case of the ATTRACT initiative in
the EU. Sierra et al. in creating the methods toweave in integration for teams recognise there
is a correlation between diversity and innovationsuggesting that increasing diversity of knowledge inteams may lead to higher innovation outputs.

23

24

“The constellation ofexperiential contributions
highlights embodied, tacit,
and experimental diverse
learning and designing:
White background, Pink
and cyan, Hyperrealistic,
Minimalism --c 40 --s 750.
Image: Midjourney × Valtteri Bade, 2023

25

Mireia Sierra,¹* Matteo Di Stasi²

1
2*

FusionLab, Esade Business School, Avinguda de la Torre Blanca, 59, 08172 Sant Cugat del Vallès, Barcelona
FusionLab, Esade Business School, Avinguda de la Torre Blanca, 59, 08172 Sant Cugat del Vallès, Barcelona
mireia.sierra@esade.edu

Multiplicity and diversity:
the key to innovation
Abstract

This study explores the role of diversity in promoting

learning innovation within educational course-teams.

The focus is on the courses conducted under the Attract

Academy Umbrella; a co-innovation program funded by
the European Commission’s Horizon 2020 Program. The

sample consists of three educational courses involving
students from Esade Business School, Instituto Europeo

Di Design (IED), and Telecom and Computer Science
Engineers students from UPC. The study adopts a casestudy approach, collecting qualitative and quantitative

data from 88 students. Preliminary findings suggest thatthe integration of diversity positively influences creativeand innovative outcomes. The study aims to contribute

Keywords:

vation. The limitations include the correlational nature

Creativity.

to the research on how diversity impacts learning inno-of the analysis and the need for further generalization.

Innovation.
Multiplicity,
Diversity.

Challenge Based Innovation.
Experience Learning.

Introduction

Innovation, driven by novel and practical ideas, has been ahistorical catalyst for human progress (Castañer, 2016). Today,

Auh & Menguc, 2005; Dahlin et al., 2005). However, the specificways in which these diverse elements influence learning innovation remain unclear. Our research aims to uncover the impact

Western society places a strong emphasis on innovation, as theof disciplinary diversity and multiplicity on learning innovation

Consequently, equipping future generations with the ability toThis study is significant because understanding diversity in-European Commission’s “Horizon 2027” innovation projects.
innovate is paramount.

In a rapidly evolving world, higher education increasingly

prioritizes fostering learning innovation (Figueiredo et al., 2022;
Lahdenperä et al., 2022). Diverse collaborative teams play acentral role in driving this innovation (Klein, 1996; Tuertscher

while examining the moderating role of integration.

tegration can shape educational experiences and foster learning

innovation (e.g., Charosky et al., 2018; Deo et al., 2020; Holzer

et al., 2018). Our primary objective is to comprehend how disciplinary diversity and multiplicity affect learning innovation inhigher education while investigating the role of diversity inte-

et al., 2013). Previous research explored disciplinary, gender,

gration. In this paper, we briefly review key concepts and thenBantel & Jackson, 1989; Ancona & Caldwell, 1992; Ely, 2004;

three educational courses, culminating in meaningful conclusions.

and cultural diversity as factors contributing to innovation (e.g.,26

delve into how diversity influences learning innovation acrossTheoretical background

By welcoming input from different fields, universities can unlock

Learning innovationnovel problem-solving approaches.

ters on the creation of new, practical ideas (Castañer, 2016). To

multiplicity plays a crucial role in unlocking learning innovation’s

biguity, we view innovation as the outcome of an idea-generation

leveraging differences as sources of new knowledge and insights

Creativity involves generating novel ideas, while innovation cendifferentiate creativity from innovation effectively and avoid amprocess (e.g., Amabile, 1983, 1988) (Castañer, 2016).

Among the tapestry of disciplinary backgrounds, integrating

full potential (García-Rodríguez et al., 2012). Integration involves(Eppinger & Kressy, 2002). When teams prioritize inclusive and

The surge of interest in learning innovation has led to thecollaborative learning environments, they facilitate meaningful

creative problem-solving (Brown, 2008; Jackson, 1991). Design

synthesis of diverse perspectives to address complex challenges.

learning and applying innovation principles (Calgren et al., 2014;

Method and dataproliferation of methodologies and approaches aimed at fostering

Thinking, in particular, has emerged as a versatile framework forinteractions among students and scholars, encouraging theChang & Yen, 2021; Panke, 2019). Research has underscored

The sample consists of 3 educational courses (CBI-FP with 27

competencies among learners (Liedtka & Ogilvie, 2011; Meinelon the Challenge Based Innovation methodology (Papageorgiou

Innovation teams

systems thinking approach to solve societal challenges applying

the effectiveness of Design Thinking in cultivating innovation

et al., 2011).

Historically, important innovations have resulted from collab-

orative teams exchanging information and pursuing common
goals (Castañer, 2016). Teams are pervasive across sectors

and hierarchical levels, serving as the cornerstone for clustering

students, CBI4AI with 34 students & TeSi with 27 students) based

et al., 2021; G. Charosky et al., 2018; Hassi et al., 2016), a challenge-driven education experience using a design thinking andcutting edge technologies to develop holistic and sustainablelong-term solutions. They explore challenges framed under the

SDG framework, identifying societal challenges to solve using

early-stage development cutting-edge technologies from thecompetencies and problem-solving in institutions.

Attract Academy Umbrella developing social innovative anduals who socially interact; possess common goals; are brought

Learning Innovation team from IdeaSquare at CERN.

dependencies with respect to workflow, goals, and outcomes;

qualitative and quantitative research (Yin, 2012). We have col-ded in an encompassing organizational system, with boundaries

doing the following:(Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006, p. 79). Many studies on team innovation

 Final feedback session.

A structured definition defines a team as “two or more individ-

together to perform organizationally relevant tasks; exhibit interhave different roles and responsibilities; and are together embed-

and linkages to the broader system context and task environment”
focus on R&D teams as their primary sample (e.g., Shin & Zhou,

2007; Miron-Spektor et al., 2011).

The Role of Diversity

In modern education, diversity encompasses more than just

impactful solutions, plus the participation of the Experiential

We are using a case study approach; the findings integrate

lected qualitative and quantitative data from 88 students in total Recurring feedback forms.
 Final learning reflection feedback form.
 Students’ outcomes.

 Student diversity information.

Results

cultural and gender differences; it extends to disciplinary diversity.

Are participants aware of diversity? The initial findings in theing unique knowledge, methodologies, and problem-solvingof the participants demonstrated an awareness of the diversity

to merge, clash, and intertwine ideas, fostering innovation andsignificance of disciplinary diversity within their teams. Further-

It involves individuals from various academic fields contribut-

approaches (Klaassen, 2018). Embracing it challenges teams

transformative change (Bailey et al., 2021). However, diversity

alone is insufficient; students must recognize and reconcile

realm of multiplicity shed light on this question. Remarkably, 94%
present in their teams. An overwhelming 82% recognized themore, an impressive 78% felt confident in their ability to work pro-ductively with individuals from diverse disciplinary backgrounds,

differences in backgrounds and disciplines (Bailey et al., 2021).

spanning 27% business students, 30% designers, and 43% en-

differences (Figueiredo et al., 2022).

44 years old) and cultures (representing 40 different nationalities).

backgrounds converge in an educational setting, bringing varied

opinion on diversity. One participant noted, “The main learnings

exchange of best practices, and interdisciplinary collaboration.

totally different fields” (CBI4AI Interaction Design, IED). Others

Interpersonal skills are crucial in diverse teams to integrate these
Multiplicity emerges when individuals with diverse academic

perspectives. This diversity fosters a cross-fertilization of ideas,

gineers. These teams also encompassed a range of ages (20 toQualitative feedback echoed this awareness and positiveand inputs have been firstly to work in a group with people from27

Fig. 1. CBI 2022, CBI4AI & TeSi 2023 Self-assessment analysis

expressed their growth in handling diverse teams and the valueof new perspectives and collaborative teamwork. Diversity wasseen as a rich source of learning experiences that equipped
participants with lifelong skills.

having always in mind the final user and the impact we wanted

to make.” (CBI, Telecom Engineering Degree, UPC) pointing out

the importance of understanding people to create useful solutions
to problems. It’s from the ideas discussions and exchanges that

What are the most valuable skills in working in diverse

good and meaningful ideas come through: “Explaining my mindset

competences gained were related to dealing with a multidisci-

not understand how things work in my sector easily” (CBI4AI,

teams? Participants indicated that the most valuable skills andplinary environment (78%) and the ability to collaborate effectively within teams (72%). This consensus emerged from bothquantitative and qualitative data.

and how the ideas can work is also challenging, as others may
Master in Business Analytics, Esade).

Moderating role of integration

The main valuable skills pointed out are related to people

Finally, the moderation role of integration is observed when all

in a long-term project with a great multidisciplinary team, making

scored higher in innovation. Integration of diversity is pointed as

student). As well as empathy as a key element to innovate and“For my future it’s important to be part of a team with people

other backgrounds, and being more empathetic will all add moreenriching being part of it.” (CBI4AI, Computer Science Masters,interaction skills, “it shows us how to work together with passion

people grow in a lot of ways.” (CBI Physics Engineering UPC
focus on the end user: “Being open to taking information fromvalue to my career.” (CBI4AI, Interaction Design Master, IED).

Diversity predicts learning innovation? Analyses demon-

strated strong correlations between diversity and innovative

outcomes. Teams characterized by higher levels of diversity,

including representation from at least three different disciplines,

more than three nationalities, and a broader age range, consistently outperformed others.

Qualitative insights reinforced these findings, with participants

recognizing the far-reaching impact of diversity beyond knowledge

and expertise. They acknowledged the importance of diversity inshaping their future careers, particularly in interdisciplinary teams.

“It has helped me see how to think for innovative solutions while

28

individuals recognized the integration of different knowledge, they

crucial for the generation of innovation and their future career:from different fields, cultures, points of view... Overall it’s really

UPC). Further follow-up interviews with former participants could
verify those impressions.

Discussions and conclusions

This study provides initial insights into R&D team processes andthe impact of diversity on innovation. Integrating diversity into

team dynamics has proven beneficial for fostering innovation,a skill crucial for both learning and future careers.

This research aligns with prior studies recognizing the im-portance of processes in enhancing learning innovation withindiverse teams (e.g., Paulus & Yang, 2000; Sethi et al., 2001; Auh& Menguc, 2005; Somech, 2006; Cabrales et al., 2008; Chowhan,2016). However, it has limitations, as it is correlational and cannot

establish causality. Unmeasured variables like personality might
influence outcomes.

Future research can improve measurements by assessing

self-efficacy, creativity, and innovation before and after courses

to quantify improvements in innovation capabilities. Additionally,

we are developing a comprehensive diversity index, consideringfactors such as age, nationality, and gender, to explore correlations with innovation levels and project quality, as preliminary

analysis suggests.

Acknowledgements

This research wouldn’t be possible without the input and collaboration of the IdeaSquare Team at CERN: Catarina Batista, Ole

Werner, Laura Writavouri, Markus Nordberg & Pablo Tello. Also
the input of the Fusion Point Team: Ramon Bragos (UPC), Juan

Ramons (UPC), Josep Lluis Berral (UPC), Antonio Rubio (UPC),

Marina Ojan (IED), Manuela Procopio (IED), Jordi Pla (IED), Joana

Lliteras (IED), Marta Colillas (IED), Mabel Lazzarin (IED), RafaelPérez (IED), Carla Jörgens (IED & Esade), Ian Collingwood (Esade),

Alyssa Ciccarello (Esade), Linda Castellazi (Esade), Irene Unceta(Esade), Guillermo Beltran (Esade), Sonia Navarro (Esade), Laura

Bellorini (Esade), Imma Rueda (Esade), Nanita Ferrone (Esade)and Victoria Cochraine (Esade). Also, without the contribution

and drive of the funders and impulses of the CBI courses thatare no longer involved: Lotta Hassi and Kyriaki Papergeorgiou.

We extend our heartfelt appreciation to our CBI, CBI4AI,

and TeSi students for their invaluable contributions, dedication,
positive attitude, outstanding achievements, and eagerness tolearn. Without their remarkable efforts, none of this would havebeen possible.

Sponsor and financial support acknowledgments are placed

here: Innovation ecosystem in Europe focused on detection

and imaging technologies for boosting fundamental research,
industrial applications, and social innovation of Attract Academy

funding and supporting the courses mentioned in the research.

References

Amabile, TM (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A
componential conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 45, 357-376.
Amabile, TM (1988). A model of creativity and innovation inorganizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 10, 123-167.
Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. (1992). Demography and design:
Predictors of new product team performance. Organization
Science, 3(3), 321-341.
Auh, S., & Menguc, B. (2005). Top management team diversity
and innovativeness: The moderating role of interfunctional
coordination. Industrial Marketing Management, 34(3), 249-261.
Bailey, J., Read, J., Linder, B. & Neeley, L. (2021). Interdisciplinary
team-based learning: An integrated opportunity recognition andevaluation model for teaching business, engineering, and design
students. Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy, 4(2), 143168.
Bantel, K. A., & Jackson, S. E. (1989). Top management andinnovations in banking: Does the composition of the top teammake a difference?. Strategic Management Journal, 10(S1), 107124.
Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard business review, 86(6), 84.
Cabrales, Á. L., Medina, C. C., Lavado, A. C., & Cabrera, R. V.
(2008). Managing functional diversity, risk taking and incentives
for teams to achieve radical innovations. R&D Management, 38,
35-50.
Carlgren, Lisa, Maria Elmquist, and Ingo Rauth. “Design thinking:Exploring values and effects from an innovation capability
perspective.” The Design Journal 17.3 (2014): 403-423.
Castañer, X. (2016). Redefining creativity and innovation inorganizations: Suggestings for redirecting research. International
Journal of Innovation Management, 20(4), 1640001.
Chang, C.C., Yen, W.H. (2021). “The role of learning style inengineering design thinking via project-based STEM course”, Asia
Pacific Journal of Education, 1-19.
Charosky, G., Leveratto, L., Hassi, L., Papageorgiou, K., RamosCastro, J., & Bragós, R. (2018). “Challenge based education:
an approach to innovation through multidisciplinary teams ofstudents using Design Thinking”, 2018 XIII Technologies Applied
to Electronics Teaching Conference (TAEE), La Laguna: Spain, 1-8
Chowhan, J. (2016). Unpacking the black box: understanding therelationship between strategy, HRM practices, innovation andorganizational performance. Human Resource Management
Journal, 26(2), 112-133.
Dahlin, K. B., Weingart, L. R., & Hinds, P. J. (2005). Team diversity
and information use. Academy of Management Journal, 48(6),1107-1123.
Deo, S., et al., 2020, Creativity and engineering education: Assessing
the impact of a multidisciplinary project course on engineering
students’ creativity, International Design Engineering TechnicalConferences and Computers and Information in Engineering
Conference, American Society of Mechanical Engineers. https://doi.org/10.1115/DETC2020-22250
Díaz-García, C., González-Moreno, A., & Jose Sáez-Martínez,F. (2013). Gender diversity within R&D teams: Its impact onradicalness of innovation. Innovation, 15(2), 149-160.
Ely, R. J. (2004). A field study of group diversity, participation indiversity education programs, and performance. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 25(6), 755-780.
Eppinger, S. D., & Kressy, M. S. (2002). Interdisciplinary productdevelopment education at MIT and RISD. Design Management
Journal (Former Series), 13(3), 58-61.

29

Flinterman, J., Teclemariam-Mesbah, R., & Broerse, J. (2001).
Transdisciplinary: the new challenge for biomedical research.
Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, 21, pp. 253-266.
Figueiredo, S., Ganoo, A., Eriksson, V., & Ekman, K. (2022).
Future-ready skills development through Experiential Learning:
perceptions from students working in multidisciplinary teams.
CERN IdeaSquare Journal of Experimental Innovation, 6(2), 12–19.
https://doi.org/10.23726/cij.2022.1397
García-Rodríguez, F. J., Gil-Soto, E. & Ruiz-Rosa, I. (2012).
New methods in university entrepreneurship education: A
multidisciplinary teams approach. Creative Education, 3(06), 878.
Gassmann, O. (2001). Multicultural teams: Increasing creativity andinnovation by diversity. Creativity and Innovation Management,
10(2), 88-95.
Hassi, L., Ramos-Castro, J., Leveratto, L., Kurikka, J.J., Charosky,G., Utriainen, T.M., Bragós, R., Nordberg, M. (2016). Mixing
design, management and engineering students in challengebased projects, in: Proceedings of the 12th International CDIO
Conference.
Holzer, A., Gillet, D., Laperrouza, M. (2018). “Active Interdisciplinary
Learning in a Design Thinking Course: Going to Class for a
Reason”, IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment,
and Learning for Engineering, TALE 2018, Wollongong, Australia,
906-911.
Jackson, M.C. (1991). Creative Problem Solving: Total Systems
Intervention. In: Systems Methodology for the Management
Sciences. Contemporary Systems Thinking. Springer, Boston, MA.
Klaassen, R. G. (2018). Interdisciplinary education: a case study,
European Journal of Engineering Education, 43:6, 842-859, DOI:
10.1080/03043797.2018.1442417
Klein, J. T. (1996). Crossing boundaries: Knowledge, disciplinarities,
and interdisciplinarities. University of Virginia Press.
Kozlowski, S. W., & Ilgen, D. R. (2006). Enhancing the effectivenessof work groups and teams. Psychological science in the public
interest, 7(3), 77-124.
Lahdenperä, J., Jussila, J., Järbenpää. A., & Jumisko-Pyykkö,
S. (2022) Developing students innovation capability troughinterdisciplinary producto development projects for industry.
1st Design Factory Global Network Research Conference
Proceedings, Designing the Future 5-6 October, 2021.
Liedtka, J., & Ogilvie, T. (2011). Designing for growth: A design
thinking tool kit for managers. Columbia University Press.
Meinel, C., Leifer, L., & Plattner, H. (2011). Design thinking:
Understand-improve-apply (pp. 100-106). Berlin, Heidelberg:
Springer.
Miron-Spektor, E., Erez, M., & Naveh, E. (2011). The effect ofconformist and attentive-to-detail members on team innovation:
Reconciling the innovation paradox. Academy of Management
Journal, 54(4), 740-760.
Papageorgiou, K., Hassi, L., Bragós, R., Charosky, G., Leveratto,
L., & Ramos, J. (2021). Prototyping the future of learning:reflections after seven iterations of Challenge-Based Innovation(2014-2020). “CERN IdeaSquare Journal of Experimental
Innovation”, 30 Juny 2021, vol. 5, núm. 1, p. 5-10.
Panke, S. (2019). “Design Thinking in Education: Perspectives,
Opportunities and Challenges”, Open Education Studies, 1 (1),281- 306.
Paulus, P. B., & Yang, H. C. (2000). Idea generation in groups: A
basis for creativity in organizations. Organizational Behavior andHuman Decision Processes, 82(1), 76-87.
Sethi, R., Smith, D. C., & Park, C. W. (2001). Cross-functional
product development teams, creativity, and the innovativenessof new consumer products. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(1),73-85.

30

Shin, S. J., & Zhou, J. (2007). When is educational specialization
heterogeneity related to creativity in research and development
teams? Transformational leadership as a moderator. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 92(6), 1709.
Simons, R. (2000). Performance measurement and control systems
for implementing strategy. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey (USA):
Prentice Hall.
Somech, A. (2006). The effects of leadership style and team process
on performance and innovation in functionally heterogeneous
teams. Journal of Management, 32(1), 132-157.
Tuertscher, P., Garud, R., & Nordberg, M. (2008). The emergenceof architecture–the case of ATLAS, CERN. In academy ofManagement Annual Meeting Anaheim.
Yin, R. K. (2012). Case study methods. In H. Cooper, P. M. Camic,
D. L. Long, A. T. Panter, D. Rindskopf, & K. J. Sher (Eds.), APA
handbook of research methods in psychology, Vol. 2. Research
designs: Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, andbiological (pp. 141–155).

31

Seung Yeon Choi¹*¹Yonsei University, 50 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, 03722 Republic of Korea*Hyun-Kyung Lee: hyunkyunglee@yonsei.ac.kr

Fragrance as a medium
creating cultural connectionand enhancing learning
experiences in university‘Underwood International College (UIC), Yonsei University’,is a highly selective liberal arts institution that provides

interdisciplinary education to students from 66 countries,

fostering a global and inclusive learning environment. UIC
has implemented diverse programs to promote cultural

exchange and diversity. To be proven with the effect ofprograms, in perspective of design thinking, UIC has

created a signature fragrance collection called ‘Potions

Of UIC’. Former research has proven that fragrances

highly affect cognitive functions and brain activity. After

providing students the set of perfumes, in a qualitative

Key words:

cuted based on following criterias; learning experiences,

Cultural embracement,

Of UIC’ collection comprises three signature scents:

Automated system,and quantitative methodology, the evaluation will be exe-

cultural connection, and sense of belonging. The ‘Potions

Shoot For The Stars, Universe, and Ptzzz-. Each scentis carefully blended to convey specific messages andcreate a comforting and inclusive atmosphere. ‘ShootFor The Stars’ encourages ambition and uses violet as

the main note to promote positive behaviours. ‘Universe’

fosters unity and equality, selecting sandalwood to enhance productivity. ‘Ptzzz-’ symbolises each student’s

value as a shining light, using grapefruit to stimulate

creativity. Furthermore, throughout continuous user tests,
an optimised automated diffusing system, specialisedfor each courses and classrooms, will be developed.

UIC plans to enhance tailored and immersive learning

environments, empowering and inspiring students on
their cultural/educational journey.

32

Fragrance,

Learning experiences,

Inclusive design

33

FRAGRANCEUSEREXPECTEDCOLLECTION
JOURNEY: POTIONS OF X

AUTOMATIC FRAGRANCE DIFFUSING SYSTEMFRAGRANCECOLLECTION:
COLLECTION :POTIONSXFRAGRANCEPOTIONSOFOFUICFRAGRANCE AS A MEDIUM CREATING CULTURAL CONNECTION
AND ENHANCING LEARNING EXPERIENCES IN UNIVERSITY

Sushant Passi

Aalto Design Factory, Puumiehenkuja 5, 02150 Espoo
sushant.rajpassi@aalto.fi

Objects for impact
An artifact crafted by humans, embodies cultural or
historical significance, with the ability to encapsulate amoment in time, revealing past actions and traditions.

Open to intentional design and contextual embedding, itpossesses the ability to spark discourse, narrate stories,

catalyze thought, and stir emotions.

This study delves into and presents an approach to crafting a series of artifacts that facilitate discussions on a

crucial yet complex subject: the sexual and reproductive
health of women in low-resource environments. This

exploration is rooted in research conducted by a social

impact organization located in Helsinki with a focus onfour specific countries: Tanzania, Kenya, Nigeria, andIndia. The primary objective of this work is to explore how
the practice of discursive design alongside artistic object

studies can further emotional engagement towards asocial impact problem like the health and well-being of
women in low-resource settings.

Methodologies of Human Centered Design, Dis-cursive Design, Visual Research and Applied Art
are employed to study the research matter andanalyze how artefacts are designed, formed andcontextually embedded to represent such a topic.

Through this process, narratives of bodily harm, tension, dependency, agency, mobility, society, freedom

and pivotal moments in the life journey of these womenare explored via three collections of pieces: Encapsula-

Key words:

artefacts,

discursive design,experimental design,

applied art, glass,ceramics.

tion, a fusion of ceramic and glass, probing physicality

and conceptuality; Future Fossils, petrified contextually

linked items in glass, telling stories of harmful condi-

tions; and Objects Translated, rendering women’s jour-ney transition moments in adorned ceramics, unravelingcomplexities and interconnections. (Passi, 2019)34

Passi, S. (2019). Objects for impact [Master Thesis]. In aaltodoc.aalto.
fi. https://aaltodoc.aalto.fi/handle/123456789/41433
Scope (2019) Translating women’s voices into art. Retrieved August
31st, 2023 from https://scopeimpact.fi/translating-womensvoices-into-art

35Theme 3

Organizational
design for
multiplicity& diversity

36

The theme of Organizational Design for Multiplicity
and Diversity includes papers dealing with Design
Thinking (DT) and Human Centered Design inprofessional settings or contexts. Challenging as
it may be, implementing these methods in nondesign environments is proven to foster innovation,
improve collaborations, increase empathy, andoptimize skills.
The papers in this section offer novel insights on
ways of integration of DT in such environments.
Van der Marel discusses a case study of applying
DT among hospital employees, showing how it
fosters innovative working culture and produces
a beneficial transformative potential for the staff
members. Spiegeler Castañeda et al. present“Mindset Muscle Training”, a tool developed to train
and increase DT mindset. They reveal that applying
this tool to encourage a better implementation of
DT in a cross-organizational interdisciplinary setting
leads to positive results. Eriksson et al. explore theability of engineering students to identify and map
different stakeholder’s roles as a way to improvetheir ability to design inclusive and holistic solutions
for challenges.

37

38

“Organizational design for
multiplicity & diversity, White
background. Pink andmagenta, Microscopicalimage --c 40 --s 750”
Image: Midjourney × Valtteri Bade, 2023

39

Floris van der Marel¹*

1

Aalto University Design Factory, P.O. Box 17700 (Puumiehenkuja
5, 02150 Espoo), FI-00076 AALTO, Finland
Corresponding author: floris.vandermarel@aalto.fi*

How issue framing changes
through design training:a hospital case study
Abstract

This study examines the impact of design training on

issue framing within a professional setting. The study

was conducted in a regional hospital, where a participatory design initiative was organised for employees fromvarious roles. Participants were asked to share ideas

for a more open and innovative working culture before

and after the design workshops. These statements werecollected and analysed based on thematic similarity. The

findings reveal a shift in participants’ framing, indicating

increased self-efficacy, empathy, and systems thinking.

Ideas for change transformed from external dependen-cies to actionable strategies within their control, reflect-

ing a deeper understanding of the organisation’s com-

plexity and a focus on improving the experience for all

stakeholders. This research highlights the transformative

Keywords:

to identify and address challenges effectively, thereby

design training,organisational culture.

open culture

potential of design training in empowering employees

contributing to fostering a more open and innovative

Introduction

Creating an open and innovative culture is widely acknowledged as a significant driver of organisational success (Amabile, 1998). This is particularly true in organisations withfrontline workers (e.g. receptionists or nurses), who often
identify issues early on (Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2012) yet
might lack the ability to influence decision-making. Raising
perceived needs that require attention, resolution, or management, referred to as ‘issues’, might be hindered due toself-imposed or external constraints. Issues are generally
ill-structured, resulting in a wide variety of ways to formulate
and address them (Dutton & Ashford, 1993). They can be any
aspect of the organisation’s operations, policies, practices, or40

professional education,issue framing,

external environment that may harm its performance, efficiency,
reputation, or overall well-being.

To support issue sharing, participatory design initiatives haveincreased in popularity in organisations. Participatory design

initiatives include employees in decision-making through design

norms (Hatch, 1993). Thus, when studying change in organi-sational culture, the dynamics between employees and theirconversations cannot be ignored. By examining individuals’
frames, researchers and practitioners can better understandhow organisational issues are interpreted, how challenges andworkshops and provide design training for participants. Inviting

opportunities are identified, and how decisions are made. Un-

been shown to lead to more effective and sustainable outcomes

crucial for organisations seeking to foster innovative and adapt-people to influence decision-making in design workshops has

while supporting employee creativity, resulting in organisational

profit and success (Piper et al., 2012). Additionally, design training

positively impacts employee connectedness, job satisfaction,

derstanding how design training impacts issue framing is thus
able cultures.

Method and data

and retention (Edmondson & Besieux, 2021).

A regional hospital adopted a new strategy to support a more

immediate issues and contribute to larger organisational trans-

conducted a participatory design initiative (targeted at reducing

As such, participatory design initiatives support tacklingformations (Smith & Iverson, 2018). Indeed, these larger trans-

open and innovative culture. As part of this shift, the author
patient and family aggression toward employees) to which allformations happen through increased employee voice: the like-

employees were invited. Twenty-eight employees signed up forup about needs and opportunities on the work floor (Morrison,and paramedic), and support service providers (e.g., HR man-indirectly impact other employees and the organisational culture.

team leader). The initiative consisted of five elements, each oneliness of employees taking a proactive stance and speaking2023). Subsequently, participatory design initiative participants
However, how employees frame these issues greatly influences

the desire and ability of other employees to participate equallyin these transformations.

Despite the growing evidence supporting the benefits ofparticipatory design initiatives, a notable research gap exists

concerning the influence of such initiatives on issue framing.

This paper aims to contribute to filling this research gap by examining the impact of design training on issue framing within aprofessional setting. Specifically, we ask how hospital employees
frame ideas for a more open and innovative working culture

this project: nurses, care providers (e.g., social worker, orderly,

ager, occupational health and safety officer, and linen services
month apart: a one-hour one-on-one introductory interview; a full-day design training; a full-day discover and define design workshop;

 a full-day develop and deliver design workshop; and a full-day project closing workshop.

In the introductory interview and the closing workshop, participants were asked what was needed to create a more open andinnovative working culture in the hospital. These ideas wererecorded and transcribed verbatim. The ideas of participants who

before and after participating in design workshops.

only shared one idea (either in the interview or closing workshop)

Theoretical backgroundfore participating in design workshops and fourteen after. These

Framing involves the cognitive and linguistic processes throughwhich individuals interpret situations and present information,

were omitted from the results. This resulted in fourteen issues beissues were analysed, described in a one-sentence statement,

and categorised based on thematic similarity to reveal themes.

fundamentally shaping their understanding of problems andThis was done through an iterative sense-making process lever-1984). Individuals’ framing of issues reveals their strategies, ac-while reflecting critically on the themes that emerged from thepotential solutions and influencing their decision-making (Schön,
tions, and solution space (Paton & Dorst, 2011). In the context oforganisations, framing thus reveals how individuals understandaging an in-depth understanding of the context and participants
data (Sundler, Lindberg, Nilsson, & Palmér, 2018).

the complexity of their organisational context, perceive opportunities, and make sense of organisational challenges. In short,different frames highlight distinct aspects of organisational reality.

These frames are reflected in ongoing employee conver-sations and interactions. Work floor conversations serve as ameans of sense-making, knowledge-sharing, and socialisation,

contributing to the development and evolution of organisational

culture (Hatch, 1993). Through conversations, individuals negotiate meaning, establish shared interpretations, and construct

a collective understanding of organisational values, goals, and41

Results

predominantly related to a lack of equality. This ranged from being

Tab. 1. Pre-workshop ideas for a more open and innovative
working cultureStatements

Themes

Better nurse-to-patient ratio
More experienced nurses
Additional ward
Separate observation room
Better transportation options
Better hospital layout

Need for moreresources

More possibility to join meetings
Less blocking of ideas by managers
Less negative talk between teammembers
More civility between team members
More equality

Need for adifferent wayof thinking or
working

Leveraging expertise from otherhospitals
Putting up a suggestion box

Otherincluded in decisions to more supportive interactions amongst

team members and with managers to increase psychologicalsafety.

Two participants provided an issue that could not be cat-egorised in either. One reflected a need for external support,
wishing for better support from doctors and other hospitals to
make use of their expertise, and another’s concrete suggestion

was to put up a suggestion box to be able to report issues andideas anonymously.

Several issues shared in the project closing workshop de-scribed actions to improve their own or team’s practice. Similar
to the need for more resources expressed in the Introduction

interviews, they were related to efficiency, freeing up time to think

about more changes. For example, nurses saw opportunities tostreamline and improve their own practice, and service support

In the Introduction interview, most issues described a need formore resources. These issues most commonly came fromnurses, who lamented having insufficient time or mental capacity

to think about change. For example, improving the nurse-to-patient ratio would give them more time to reflect and think. Other

logistical suggestions were mainly linked to alleviating nurses’

stress to increase headspace.

The second biggest category of issues shared before thedesign workshops described desires to shift how people thinkor work. Service support providers shared most of these issues,

providers described ways to improve the team culture.

Another cluster of needs shared after the design workshops

reflected enhancing patient experiences, pitching ideas tohelp patients feel more comfortable. This, they argued, would

then make everybody’s job easier, again freeing up time to keep
improving their practice.

A third category of needs targeted better internal coordi-

nation, showing that participants understood the interconnect-

edness of issues more. For example, they felt doctors could
improve their practice to improve nurse-patient interactions andreduce their workload.

Lastly, one participant, other than the one who suggested thisin the Introduction interview, pitched to put up a suggestion box.

Tab. 2. Post-workshop ideas for a more open and innovative working cultureStatements

ThemesIncluding pain points in referral
Better pressure injury strategies
More uniform bedside handover
Align own team’s needs
Embed strengths-based practice

Improving own or team’s practiceNametags with roles to reduce patients’ confusion
Freeing up car park space near the entrance for patients
Placing a board above hospital beds with photosof five things important to patients
Better communication of waiting times

Enhancing patient experiences

Doctors finishing after-hours board and med charts
Communicating clearer timelines internallyDoctors doing discharge summaries to free up beds quicker
Earlier involvement of security to avoid escalations

Better internal coordination

Putting up a suggestion box

Other

42

Discussions and conclusions

Ideas for a more open and innovative working culture expressed

before and after the design workshops predominantly reflected

a need for more time to reflect, think, and improve. However, theneeds shared before the workshops mainly described actions

they could not influence, such as wanting more resources, others

to work differently, or bringing in outside expertise – all to support
their work. The needs after the workshops, in turn, showed anincreased ability to make changes themselves, included moreideas to improve the experience for others, and had concrete

ideas for others to make work easier and more efficient for all. As

such, this study suggests that the design workshops supported

participants in becoming better able to push for change effectively through a greater understanding of the complexity of theorganisation, having increased empathy for other stakeholders,and gaining a higher perceived self-efficacy.

Evaluating how employees frame their ideas for a more open

and innovative culture revealed meaningful themes. However, thisstudy was conducted in one location with a small sample size.

Additionally, every participant shared only one idea before andafter the workshop. It is thus not certain to what extent theseabilities were enhanced for each participant. More studies areneeded to understand better how it supports them in identifying

and addressing issues more adequately. These studies can be

executed in professional settings and student courses to un-

References

Amabile, T. M. (1998). How to kill creativity (Vol. 87). Boston, MA:
Harvard Business School Publishing.
Dutton, J. E., & Ashford, S. J. (1993). Selling issues to top
management. Academy of management review, 18(3), 397-428.
Edmondson, A. C., & Besieux, T. (2021). Reflections: voice
and silence in workplace conversations. Journal of ChangeManagement, 21(3), 269-286.
Hatch, M. J. (1993). The dynamics of organizational culture. Academyof management review, 18(4), 657-693.
Morrison, E. W. (2023). Employee voice and silence: Taking stock a
decade later. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology andOrganizational Behavior, 10.
Paton, B., & Dorst, K. (2011). Briefing and reframing: A situatedpractice. Design studies, 32(6), 573-587.
Piper, D., Iedema, R., Gray, J., Verma, R., Holmes, L., & Manning,
N. (2012). Utilizing experience-based co-design to improve theexperience of patients accessing emergency departments in New
South Wales public hospitals: an evaluation study. Health services
management research, 25(4), 162-172.
Schön, D. A. (1984). The reflective practitioner: How professionals
think in action (Vol. 5126). Basic books.
Smith, R. C., & Iversen, O. S. (2018). Participatory design forsustainable social change. Design Studies, 59, 9-36.
Sundler, A. J., Lindberg, E., Nilsson, C., & Palmér, L.
(2019). Qualitative thematic analysis based on descriptive
phenomenology. Nursing open, 6(3), 733-739.
Tangirala, S., & Ramanujam, R. (2012). Ask and you shall hear(but not always): Examining the relationship between manager
consultation and employee voice. Personnel Psychology, 65(2),251-282.

derstand better how people’s perceptions of what should andcan be changed shift as a result of engaging with design tools.

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by Swinburne University’s Tuition Fee

Scholarship and a travel grant from the Foundation for Aalto

University Science and Technology.

43

Scarlett Spiegeler Castañeda1, David Reichert1, Janna Bauknecht2, Clemens Ackermann1

1
2*

Research Campus ARENA2036 e.V., Pfaffenwaldring 19, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany
Institute of Human Factors and Technology Management IAT, University of Stuttgart, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany
Corresponding author: scarlett.spiegeler@arena2036

Mindset muscle training –fostering the design
thinking mindset inorganisations
Abstract

Design Thinking (DT) has been widely used across disciplines. Despite the ubiquitous usage, we still lack under-

standing of the individual and organizational barriers to

adopt DT. We therefore developed a method for training

empathy as part of the DT mindset and conducted astudy at the Research Campus ARENA2036. Our results

point out that the training measurably increased the DT

mindset and generated a supportive infrastructure to help

Key words:

The proposed training concept can be scaled to include

Mindset;participants explore new ways of thinking and behaving.

other DT mindset aspects and provides a framework for
fostering the DT mindset in organizations.

Design Thinking;Empathy.

Introduction

challenged by the complexity of understanding and measuring

Design Thinking (DT) is a mindset and an approach for devel-

the mindset in individuals and organisations (Carlgren et al.,oping innovative and human-centred solutions to complex

2016). Previous work investigated teaching and practising the

problems and has been widely used in organisations acrossDT mindset with experimental learning for MBA students, sug-disciplines (Wrigley et al., 2020). Creating an agile learning andgesting learning objectives and guidance for the DT mindset

working culture, improved collaboration, and better productattributes (Groeger et al., 2019). Liedka et al. provide advice

development are only some of the motivators for implementing

to teach DT to non-designers to ‘find and pursue innova-

DT (Carlgren et al., 2016). Organisations use DT for internaltion opportunities in their own corners of their organisations’challenges, to optimise customer engagement, or for individ-(Liedtka et al., 2017).

ual skill-building (Liedtka, 2014). Successful implementation,

We aim to build on these findings and investigate ways tohowever, is often hindered by barriers, both with respect totrain the DT mindset on the Research Campus ARENA2036

the approach itself as well as the mindset.

(Hoßfeld & Ackermann, 2020) within a cross-organizational and

Despite the ubiquitous usage of DT, we lack an under-interdisciplinary setting. We hypothesise that a concept based

standing of the individual and organisational barriers thaton a Design Science approach can measurably increase thewould actually allow for adopting DT practices (Micheli et al.,DT mindset within employees in such an environment. In this2019). This contradiction between the benefits and barriers ofwork, we propose and evaluate a training for the DT mindset

establishing a DT mindset requires extensive research efforts,

to lower the barriers for a successful implementation of DT.

44

Theoretical background

Method and data

Difficulties implementing DT in organisations may be attributed to

To tackle the complex and intangible problem of training the

A misfit with existing processes and structures (Carlgren et al.,thus creating an abductive method out of existing theories. The

three overarching categories: process, management, and culture.

DT mindset, we opted to choose a Design Science approach,2016), the incorrect implementation of the process as well as theconcept was created by building on the comprehension thatet al., 2019) can hinder a successful implementation. DT may

reflection (Tranquillo, 2016). Therefore, we set up a short andnon-linear nature of the process (Brown & Katz, 2011; Redantethreaten existing power dynamics within management because

the immediate value of DT is often difficult to prove (Carlgren etal., 2016), and it is challenging to measure the results (Redante

et al., 2019). Furthermore, the fear of failure and running risks(Redante et al., 2019), as well as a lack of required organisational

culture and mindset, might not deliver the required results oreven lead to failure (Kimbell, 2011).

establishing and changing a mindset needs time, practice, andregular format with integrated tools from DT. The training waslabelled ‘Mindset Muscle Training’ and was implemented as apilot project with six trainings with a duration of 45 minutes eachover three weeks (Tab. 1). The study included a treatment group(n=12) and a control group (n=9) evaluated with a pre- and a posttest. Adopting a self-assessment questionnaire with a 5-point

Likert scale (1: I do not agree at all; 5: I completely agree) (Dosi etCollaboration and the ownership every team member devel-al., 2018), we focused on four categories, which we considered

can therefore be seen as key for its successful implementation.

centeredness, C. critical questioning, and D: Open to different

preferences, habits, and attitudes (Thames & Webster, 2009,

created with the task for the participants to note elements theyand includes the group mental models, traditions, and behaviours

be found in the Supplementary Materials for reference.

ops are decisive for creating value with DT. Culture and mindset

A personal mindset includes all individual values, behaviours,p.19). In organisations, mindset refers to organisational culture(Waterman Jr et al., 1980). When training mindset in organisations,most relevant for an empathic mindset (A: empathy, B: humanperspectives / diversity). Furthermore, a reflective element was

would like to transfer into their daily work. The questionnaire can
For the control group, we created a one pager as a simple

it is key to be aware of the different attitudes towards unknown

way of introducing a new mindset. This one-pager was also given

between a growth and a fixed personal mindset (Dweck, 2006).

one-pager was handed out, a baseline measurement was madeers to think with a fixed mindset, e.g. to be averse to risk mistakes

did the post-test. We then calculated the difference between thesituations. Dweck et al. introduced a concept differentiating

Building on that, Liedka et al. observed a tendency in non-design-

as well as to go beyond their past experiences. Persons with agrowth mindset, however, see ‘life as a journey of discovery, arecomfortable with iterations and even failure, embrace challenges
and persist in the face of setbacks’ (Liedtka et al., 2017). Whento the treatment group in the first training session. Before theas a pre-test. Three weeks later, after six trainings, participantspre- and post test to get the increase after the three weeks ofthe study. Moreover, the questionnaire included questions about
the general concept and the teaching structure.

training the DT mindset in organisations, it is important to keep
in mind that persons with a growth mindset might be more open
to learning and to developing further in this direction.

This paper mainly focuses on empathy as a pivotal part of

the DT mindset (Dosi et al., 2018). This is especially relevantin the setting of a Research Campus since the simultaneity ofanalytical and empathetic thinking is particularly challenging tonavigate (Jack et al., 2013), which in turn qualifies the ecosystem

under investigation as a role model environment for DT studies.

Moreover, mode switching becomes increasingly important insocio-technical contexts. The central task is accordingly to identify, develop, and test tools that allow for a seamless switching

between different modes, thus allowing participants to develop

an empathetic DT mindset whilst working on technological issues.

This paper builds on the findings of Groeger et al., describingthat the usage of DT tools fosters the DT mindset, even when

detached from the DT process (Groeger et al., 2019).

Tab. 1. Contents of the 6 training sessions.

Trainings

Contents

1

Introduction to Design Thinking
Warm-up (Tangram)2

Empathy Map
Storytelling

3

User journey
Storytelling

4

Persona
Storytelling

5

Value Proposition Canvas
Pitch

6

futuregame2050 / https://www.
thefuturegame2050.com/ (last access: July
2020)
Persona
Storytelling45

Results

Discussions and conclusions

study with respect to the baseline for both the treatment andTraining’ on the Research Campus ARENA2036 e.V. (Hoßfeld

Fig. 1 shows the increase in Likert points after the three week
the control group. In category A, we observed an increase ofLikert points (LP) of the mean value in the treatment group and

LP in the control group. Category B showed an increase of

In this work, we developed and conducted a ‘Mindset Muscle& Ackermann, 2020) to foster the DT mindset. Teaching andlearning a DT mindset is challenging for organisations and indi-viduals (Liedtka et al., 2017) as a mindset change requires time,

LP for the treatment group and LP for the control group. The

self-reflection, and practice (Tranquillo, 2016). Also, a significant

egory D with LP and C with LP. While the standard deviation ofand training findings leads to contradictory Results about thehighest increase in the treatment group was observed for cat-the post-test increase was higher than the actual increase for thecontrol group in all of the categories, the standard deviation inincongruence between the conceptualization, measurement,
trainability (Lam et al., 2011). In the context of ARENA2036, theformat of short and regular sessions with reflective elements

the treatment group was smaller than the increase in categories

was perceived well by participants and could be integrated

each participant by comparing the increase of the Likert scalea safe and supportive infrastructure to help participants explore

ining the categories A to D, the majority of the treatment groupstronger increase of the DT mindset for the treatment group,

the control group, however, two or less participants per categoryof the participants. Interestingly, the standard deviation of therecommend the training to their colleagues, and 11 of the 12

smaller with respect to the actual increase in Likert points when

B, C, and D. We additionally analysed the individual increase ofwith the respective self-observation of the participants. Examparticipants noted an improvement for all of the categories. In

observed an increase. All 12 participants rated that they would

into their daily work. The ‘Mindset Muscle Training’ generated

new ways of thinking and behaving, which is also shown by theboth measured with a Likert scale and in the self-observation

pre- to post-test increase within the treatment group was muchparticipants would integrate such a training regularly into theircompared with the control group. This points in the directionthat the training helped to improve their out-of-the-box thinkingof the training. Also, some participants of the treatment group

daily work. Furthermore, 58% of training participants notedcapabilities and 67% found the training useful to establish newcontacts on the research campus.

that the increase of the DT mindset in participants was a result

self-assessed an increase in their DT mindset, even though themeasured values of the Likert scale weren’t increased or evendecreased. This underlines that the training made participants

aware of and reflect on their personal mindset, which is a requisite for developing further in this direction. The Results of thisstudy, however, must be interpreted with care. Due to the limited

number of participants, we neither tested these differences for

significance nor included sociographic data like age, gender, or
profession. Also, training a DT mindset changes the perceptionof participants with respect to their own mindset, which hardens

the comparison with untrained participants. Future researchshould focus on testing the ‘Mindset Muscle Training’ over longer
periods of time with larger study groups, as well as on adapting
the training and evaluation to include other DT mindset aspects

and new models to measure the DT mindset (Vignoli et al., 2023).

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Georg Nawroth, Johanna Kleinen and Ferran Giones Valls for fruitful discussions and support as well as

the study participants. The authors thank the InnoHub project(02P18Q660) at ARENA2036 and Matthias Bues for supporting
this work.

46

Fig. 1. Increase treatment group (orange) vs. control group (blue) in Likert points (mean value);
A: empathy, B: human centeredness, C. critical questioning and D. Open to different perspectives / diversity

References

Brown, T., & Katz, B. (2011). Change by Design. Journal of ProductInnovation Management, 28(3), 381–383. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1540-5885.2011.00806.x
Carlgren, L., Rauth, I., & Elmquist, M. (2016). Framing design
thinking: The concept in idea and enactment. Creativity andinnovation management, 25(1), 38–57.
Dosi, C., Rosati, F., & Vignoli, M. (2018). MEASURING DESIGNTHINKING MINDSET. DS 92: Proceedings of the DESIGN 2018
15th International Design Conference, 1991–2002. https://doi.
org/10.21278/idc.2018.0493
Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success.
Random house.
Groeger, L., Schweitzer, J., Sobel, L., & Malcom, B. (2019). Design
thinking mindset: Developing creative confidence. Academy of
Design Innovation Management Conference 2019.
Hoßfeld, M., & Ackermann, C. (2020). Der Forschungscampus
ARENA2036. In T. Bauernhansl, M. Fechter, & T. Dietz (Hrsg.),
Entwicklung, Aufbau und Demonstration einer wandlungsfähigen(Fahrzeug-) Forschungsproduktion (S. 1–3). Springer. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-3-662-60491-5_1
Jack, A. I., Dawson, A. J., Begany, K. L., Leckie, R. L., Barry, K.
P., Ciccia, A. H., & Snyder, A. Z. (2013). FMRI reveals reciprocal
inhibition between social and physical cognitive domains.
NeuroImage, 66, 385–401.
Kimbell, L. (2011). Rethinking design thinking: Part I. Design andculture, 3(3), 285–306.
Lam, T. C. M., Kolomitro, K., & Alamparambil, F. C. (2011). Empathy
Training: Methods, Evaluation Practices, and Validity. Journalof MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, 7(16), 162–200. https://doi.
org/10.56645/jmde.v7i16.314

Liedtka, J. (2014). Innovative ways companies are using design
thinking. Strategy & Leadership, 42(2), 40–45. https://doi.
org/10.1108/SL-01-2014-0004
Liedtka, J., Salzman, R., & Azer, D. (2017). Democratizing innovationin organizations: Teaching design thinking to non-designers.
Design Management Review, 28(3), 49–55.
Micheli, P., Wilner, S. J., Bhatti, S. H., Mura, M., & Beverland, M. B.
(2019). Doing design thinking: Conceptual review, synthesis, andresearch agenda. Journal of Product Innovation Management,
36(2), 124–148.
Redante, R. C., De Medeiros, J. F., & Cruz, C. M. L. (2019).
Motivators and Barriers for Using Design Thinking in NPD. New
Global Perspectives on Industrial Engineering and Management:International Joint Conference ICIEOM-ADINGOR-IISE-AIMASEM, 249–257.
Thames, B., & Webster, D. W. (2009). Chasing change: Building
organizational capacity in a turbulent environment. John Wiley &Sons.
Tranquillo, J. (2016, Juni 26). Mirror Mirror: Reflection and the
Building of Mindsets. 2016 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition.
https://peer.asee.org/mirror-mirror-reflection-and-the-building-ofmindsets
Vignoli, M., Dosi, C., & Balboni, B. (2023). Design thinking mindset:
Scale development and validation. Studies in Higher Education,
48(6), 926–940. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2023.2172566
Waterman Jr, R. H., Peters, T. J., & Phillips, J. R. (1980). Structure
is not organization. Business horizons, 23(3), 14–26.
Wrigley, C., Nusem, E., & Straker, K. (2020). Implementing
Design Thinking: Understanding Organizational Conditions.
California Management Review, 62(2), 125–143. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0008125619897606

47

Vikki Eriksson,¹* Teo Keipi1, Tua Björklund1

1*

Aalto Design Factory, Aalto University, PO Box 17700, 00076
Corresponding author: vikki.eriksson@aalto.fi

Identifying and framing
potential stakeholders
in complex innovation
ecosystems

Abstract

While engineering is often characterised as a technicaland analytical discipline, it is essential to recognize thatengineers do not design products or systems in isolation;

they design them to function within societal and envi-

ronmental systems. However, analysing the types andfields of stakeholders to produce holistic stakeholder
maps may be daunting for students. The process may

be scaffolded through the inclusion of specific stake-

Key words:

Stakeholder mapping;engineering innovation;
framingholder roles, which students may use as a starting point.

Drawing from 31 students’ stakeholder analyses, thiscase study explores students’ ability to identify different
types of stakeholders and the range of roles they could

play, when provided with a set of stakeholder roles as apoint of departure. Findings highlight that students wereable to identify a diverse range of stakeholders as well as

the multiplicity of stakeholder roles. Many connections

Introduction and Theoretical backgroundand the students’ backgrounds compared to other poten-

engineering education allows students to better understandresult in 33 unique stakeholders and 66 stakeholders

Miller & Sochacka 2017), while also potentially improving

were, however, close to the provided industry context

tially relevant contexts. The role prompting did however

identified by multiple students, particularly in custom-er, supplier, and possible collaborator roles. As such,

Building socially driven empathetic capacity during mechanicalthe needs, desires, and limitations of the end-users (Walther,
their instrumental contribution to the stakeholder partnership(Bridoux & Stoelhorst 2016). By understanding different user

combining individual, scaffolded mappings can help togroups and their diverse backgrounds, engineers can design

illuminate more diverse collaboration opportunities ina wide range of user abilities. This is also a precondition for

capture innovation ecosystems more systematically anddevelopment projects.

48

solutions that are inclusive, accessible, and accommodate
developing stakeholders’ engagement and cooperation (Joneset al., 2018). Stakeholder partnerships benefit from a clear

understanding of roles and their implications, which can beoriginally developed to support identifying co-creation opportu-

to not only define the characteristics of the stakeholders, suchproject to support small-business experimentation during the

explored through perspective-taking. As such, it is importantas the interest and power dimensions captured in traditional

stakeholder mapping (Boonstra & de Vries 2008), but also thedifferent capacities through which stakeholders connect to asought-after end goal (Freeman et al., 2018).

Understanding the roles that stakeholders can play in de-velopment provides an opportunity to construct a more holistic
mapping of the stakeholder ecosystem, including, for example

non-human stakeholders (Tallberg, García-Rosell & Haanpää

2022) and support more collaborative, human-centered inno-

vation processes (Kojmane & Aboutajeddine 2016).

Mapping this complexity can create new value, as stake-holder intentions and values linked to roles facilitate mutual

nities in the context of a Business, within an applied research

pandemic funded by the Finnish Government. Students wereable to assign multiple roles to a single stakeholder and could
include additional stakeholders.

The stakeholder analyses were open-coded to identify thetypes of stakeholders noted and the multiplicity of their roles.

The most prominent stakeholder groups identified by students

and the extent to which students recognized the multiplicity of
stakeholder roles within a single case was established throughQualitative Data Analysis (QDA).

Results

Stakeholders connected to specific roles were associated with

benefit (Freeman et al., 2018). This study explores the perceived

an array of individuals and organisation as customers (n=84),

through role-based stakeholder analysis in the context of an

porters (n=67), beneficiaries (n=56), and hostiles (n=53). The

scope and multiplicity of stakeholder connections identified
engineering course.

Method and data

To explore the diversity of stakeholders connected to engineering

innovation as well as the diversity of roles that a single stakehold-er can be seen as playing, first-year master’s level mechanicalengineering students were tasked with a role-based stakeholder

analysis of a healthcare technology under development. The diag-

suppliers (n=84), collaborators (n=71), competitors (n=68), sup-final list of stakeholders (n=99) included both individuals as wellas public and private organisations of varying specificity. The

nature of the case impacted the identified stakeholders, whichwere predominantly health and well-being related or engineeringand technology related. The distribution of stakeholders’ roles
identified, and relative novelty varied (Tab 2).

Health and Wellbeing stakeholders (n=254) represented

stereotypical stakeholders but a very wide variety of types of

nostic healthcare technology aims to bring the detection and study

actors. These covered all seven roles of stakeholders, and moststakeholder analyses were submitted by n=31 students. Stake-common roles were competitors (n=64), beneficiaries (n=51), andexploration. The potential roles (Tab 1) communicated to students

active within six of the noted seven roles. When viewed throughcustomers, hostiles, suppliers, and supporters. The customer,

the identification of diverse roles of individual stakeholders.

of pathogens and other diseases to point-of-care. Completed
holder roles were used to scaffold the activity and support student

were stakeholders as beneficiaries, collaborators, competitors,

supplier, collaborator, and supporter roles were drawn from the

Aalto Design Factory stakeholder mapping tool1. The tool was
1 https://designfactory.aalto.fi/toolkits/stakeholders were connected to several roles. The three mosthostiles (n=42 mentions). Three stakeholders were identified as

the lens of multiplicity, the role-based analysis frame supported
Engineering and Technology (n=131) mentions focused main-

ly on companies, mainly identified as suppliers (n=87). Subcat-

egories within this theme included materials and technology,

Tab. 1. Stakeholder role characteristics
Role

Defining Characteristic of person or organisation who/that:

Beneficiary

directly benefits from the existence of the technology and productCollaborator

play an active role in developing and/or commercialising the technology and product.

Competitor

has a technology or product which offers (or will offer) the same or very similar
benefits and value, thus directly competing for resources and end-users.

Customeris positioned to purchase the product or service once available.

Hostileperceives the existence of the technology and product as negative or problematic.

Supplier

plays an active role in supporting a range of resources for the development andcommercialization of the technology and product.

Supporter

perceives the existence of the technology and product as positive and is willing tooffer limited knowledge and input to ensure it succeeds.

49

Tab. 2. Relative novelty and variety of stakeholders identification within initial role-based analysis
Types of stakeholders
identifiedHealth & Wellbeing
Stakeholders

Engineering & Technology
Stakeholders

Additional Stakeholders

Relative novelty of identified
stakeholders

38% stakeholders identified by
5+ students;
42% stakeholders identified by
2-4 students;
19% by just 1 student.

38% stakeholders identified by
5+ students;
14% stakeholders identified by
2-4 students;
48% by just 1 student.

39% stakeholders identified by
5+ students;
20% stakeholders identified by
2-4 students;
41% by just 1 student.

Variety of identified stakeholders

An average of n=6 stakeholders
identified per student.

An average of n=4 stakeholders
identified per student.

An average of n=6 stakeholders
identified per student.

Variety of recognized stakeholderroles

7/7 stakeholder roles identified,
only n=5 stakeholders
identified in a single role acrossthe maps.

7/7 stakeholder roles identified,
only n=10 stakeholders
identified in a single role acrossthe maps.

7/7 stakeholder roles identified,
only n=17 stakeholders
identified in a single role acrossthe maps.

product components, sensors and testing, informatics, energy,

and raw materials. While connections were found to all roles, any

specific stakeholder was typically noted only in one or two roles.
The remaining instances (n=215) included both more general

stakeholders, such as generic research stakeholders (n=50,
predominantly mentioned as collaborators), as well as a wide

range of more specific and distant stakeholders, such as avariety of marine mentions (n=37, predominantly as customers)

and funding (n=26, predominantly as supporters).

Discussions and conclusions

Findings reveal that students were able to identify a range ofpotentially relevant stakeholders to consider in development.
However, the role-based analysis also revealed opportunities
for additional scaffolding to support considering social andsustainable impact. Diverse actor types were recognized as

stakeholders, including that they can act in more than one role,

which can create a basis to reframe the challenge from therole perspective of a single stakeholder. Furthermore, a third of

stakeholders were unique across the 31 maps, emphasising thevalue of combining individual perspectives for a more holistic

understanding. This holistic understanding is vital in maximising

the mutual benefit from stakeholder interactions, which requires

methods that make social aspects such as the roles of the

stakeholder salient for effective decision-making (Bridoux &Stoelhorst, 2016).

The intentions, values, and goals linked to different roles offer

central bonding points for successful reciprocity in potential

development collaborations (Freeman, Phillips & Sisodie 2018;

Jones, Harrison & Felps 2018), a next step that initial mapping

should facilitate. As such, future studies should examine how
readily stakeholder identification translates into collaboration

intentions, as well as compare the variety of stakeholders inrole-prompted and unprompted stakeholder maps. Furthermore,while the current study utilised a practice-based mapping tool asa scaffold, research-based stakeholder role categories could be

50

developed to further support identifying collaboration opportunities in R&D projects. The current study suggests that prompting

for a variety of roles can offer a starting point for considering

different frames into an innovation ecosystem, helping to identify
a broad range of stakeholders.

Acknowledgements

This project has received funding from the European Union’s
Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant

agreement No. 101004462. The authors would like to thank the

ATTRACT project team.

References

Boonstra, A., & de Vries, J., 2008. Managing stakeholders aroundinter-organizational systems: A diagnostic approach. The Journalof Strategic Information Systems, 17(3), 190-201. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jsis.2008.04.001
Bridoux, F., & Stoelhorst, JW. 2016. Stakeholder relationships
and social welfare: A behavioral theory of contributions to joint
value creation. Academy of Management Review, 41(2), 229-251.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2013.0475
Freeman, R., Phillips, R, & Sisodia, R. 2018. Tensions instakeholder theory. Business & Society, 59(2). https://doi.
org/10.1177/0007650318773750
Jones, T., Harrison, J., & Felps, W. 2018. How applying instrumental
stakeholder theory can provide sustainable competitive
advantage. Academy of Management Review, 43(3), 371-391.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2016.0111
Kojmane, J. & Aboutajeddine, A., 2016. Strengthening
engineering design skills of first-year university students underresources constraints. International Journal of MechanicalEngineering Education, 44(2), pp.148-164. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0306419016641006
Tallberg, L., García-Rosell, J.C. & Haanpää, M., 2022. Human–
animal relations in business and society: Advancing the feminist
interpretation of stakeholder theory. Journal of Business
Ethics, 180(1), pp.1-16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-02104840-1
Walther, J., Miller, S. E., & Sochacka, N. W., 2017. A model of
empathy in engineering as a core skill, practice orientation,and professional way of being. Journal of Engineering
Education, 106(1), 123-148. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20159

51

Theme 4

Re-Thinking
for research &innovation52

As our world is in a constant flux of change, researchand innovation have become the centre of our society.
Conversely, educational systems are still based on
accumulating and transmitting knowledge, and industries arestill centered around institutions and hierarchies. To keep up
with the pace of change, we need to re-imagine educationand industries for research and innovation. Collectively, thepapers in this section emphasize the significance of handson learning, real-world collaboration, innovation hubs,
multidisciplinary teamwork, and prototyping in shaping
the expertise and skills of future professionals, guiding
educational institutions and industries in fostering a cultureof research and innovation among the next generation oflearners.
Dieing et al. explore the benefits of digital fabrication
micro-courses, which enhance practical and 21st-century
skills in engineering students, aligning to produce change
agents. Raty et al. discuss the impact of international
product development projects on students’ expertise andcompetencies, highlighting the importance of real-world
collaboration in preparing students for the professional
world. Mattila et al. delve into the role of innovation hubs as
catalysts for innovation and bridges between academia andindustry, identifying key themes related to their mechanisms
and contributions. Kuikka investigates the developmentof transferable skills among higher education students
through multidisciplinary teamwork, emphasizing themes likeeffective communication, diversity, and personal and grouplearning experiences. Kirjavainen et al. examine prototyping
activities in industrial innovation, highlighting the importanceof personal networks and the challenges in high-technology
industrial contexts.

53

54

“As our world is in a constantflux of change, research andinnovation have become
the centre of our society:bright, cheerful, optimistic,
hyperrealistic --s 750.”
Image: Midjourney × Valtteri Bade, 2023

55

Senni Kirjavainen¹*, Simo Lahdenne², Tua A. Björklund¹

1
2*

Aalto University Design Factory, Puumiehenkuja 5A, 02150 Espoo, Finland
Aalto Venture Program, Aalto University, Puumiehenkuja 5A, 02150 Espoo, Finland
Corresponding author: senni.kirjavainen@aalto.fi

Prototyping in practice –Paths and partners
for testing novel
industrial product andservice ideas
Abstract

Prototyping is a core activity in developing new products,
processes, and organisations, to mention a few. This

paper describes the prototyping activities of 31 engineering design professionals in a high-technology industrial

company, examining the distribution of different types ofactivities across different phases of development based

Key words:

testing pathways, we found that most prototyping paths

Collaboration;on thematic interviews. Examining 62 prototyping andstarted with the practitioners’ own activities, which was

also more likely to lead to paths with more prototyping

Prototyping;

Idea advancement

steps than if the first prototyping activity took placewith a stakeholder. Overall, the paths were short, in-dicating a lack of iteration. Both internal and external

stakeholders were involved in collaborative prototyping.

This collaboration was enabled by personal and unit-level

Introduction and theoretical backgroundin different phases of development. Taken together, oursumptions to make informed design decisions. Extant research

may focus on latter development phases and demon-

purposes. For example, workflow simulations, storyboards,

with opportunities for prototyping highly dependent onmodels (Camburn et al., 2017) are amongst the vast techniquesabsence of flexible prototyping budgets.

digital prototyping practices (Hölttä-Otto et al., 2023). Further-relationships and different stakeholders were involved

results suggest that practitioner attention in prototyping

Product developers often face a need to test ideas and ashas identified a wide array of prototyping tools, methods, andstrate less iteration than what literature might suggest,

mock-ups, scaled prototypes, virtual models, AR, and full-scalepersonal networks in the high-technology context in thefor prototyping, and the COVID-19 pandemic further ushered in
more, the recent rise in design thinking and service design has
further broadened the types of actors and contexts leveraging
and exposed to different types of prototyping practices, as
prototyping is a central practice in both (Fayard, Stigliani &Bechky 2017; Micheli et al., 2019).

56

Indeed, research has documented a range of benefits to

Methodology and results

prototyping. It enhances evaluating, testing, understanding, cre-The data was collected as a part of a larger research project,in active learning (Camburn et al., 2017), and provides supporttion, and two of the authors conducted the interviews. Thirty-one

ating new ideas, and communicating (Lim et al., 2008), helps

for iteration by encouraging learning through failure in the early

where the authors were responsible for planning the data collecsemi-structured thematic interviews focusing on critical incidents

phases of development (Micheli et al., 2019). Iterative prototyp-(Chell, 1998; Flanagan,1954) were conducted with product de-requirements and generating new ideas (Camburn et al., 2017),

in an industrial technology company. The interviews focused on

ing correlates with better chances of meeting complex design

as prototypes help in answering questions that arise during avelopment professionals developing B2B products and services

advancing ideas and collecting descriptions of varying incidents.

design process (Houde & Hill, 1997). Prototyping in collabo-

The interviewees were asked to describe both well-received andit comes to sharing knowledge and co-creating with various

their ideas resulted in filing invention disclosures. They wereration also has many benefits. It is an effective activity when

shot-down ideas, instances where they collaborated or wherestakeholders (Bogers & Horst, 2014), testing hypotheses andalso asked whether their ideas were tested or prototyped. The

allows describing and trying out something that does not yet

corded and later transcribed verbatim.

potential different problem framings (Paton & Dorst, 2011), andexist (e.g., Sanders, 2010).

However, sometimes it can be tricky to set the objectives

for prototyping through understanding and deciding what toprototype, with whom, and with which techniques (Camburn etal., 2017). Despite the documented benefits, it is unclear to what

degree and with whom prototyping is practised in different contexts. Those new to design approach may find it hard to iterate

ideas (Rekonen & Hassi, 2018). Even experienced professionals

may not take full benefit of the array of methods available - forexample, Laakso and Liikkanen (2012) show how structured
methods, for e.g., idea generation and rapid prototyping, areused only scarcely amongst creative professionals. The goalof this study is to investigate prototyping in practice, and findout with whom, which methods, and to what extent prototyping
takes place in industry.

interviews lasted an average of 52 minutes and were audio-reThe interviews were thematically coded to identify recurring

patterns in prototyping activities. First, all instances where theinterviewees talked about testing or prototyping were taggedin the interview transcripts. Second, these segments were cat-egorised according to the type of stakeholders involved in theactivity, the number of prototyping steps described, the type ofactivity taking place, and the phase of the development process.

The analysis resulted in 62 individual prototyping descriptions

or paths. For example, the following quote illustrates testing

the prototype with a customer in the latter stages of a productdevelopment process:“Then we will move on to a plant facility where we have a lot ofbusiness otherwise as well. We have these partnering plants

where we do a lot of product development in collaboration
with them.”

The resulting 62 prototyping paths show that in addition to
prototyping by themselves, product development professionals

included stakeholders in their prototyping and testing activities

Fig. 1. Two prototyping paths out of the identified 62 paths showing
different stakeholders and number of steps.

57

Fig. 2. Timeline displaying how different stakeholders are usually part of different development phases.

in varying stages of the development process. The stakeholder

groups found were other internal units or laboratories in thecompany and external stakeholder groups, including customers,
subcontractors and manufacturing suppliers, universities, andconsulting companies.

Most of the described prototyping instances were paths

instances. When paths started in collaboration, they were very

rarely described to have more than two steps - with only two suchpaths described, both having started with internal stakeholders.
The way these descriptions of prototyping instances werepositioned relative to different development phases (see Figure2) indicates that prototyping with the customer usually happenedof either only one step (n=23, 37%) or two steps (n=19, 31%).

closer to the release of the product than other types of proto-(24%) three-step paths described and only five (8%) paths with

was often described in cases where e.g., the first sold deal was

In most paths (n=33, 53%), the first prototyping activity took

a lab or with subcontractors, illustrating “piloting” having many

Longer iterative prototyping paths were in the minority, with 15
four or more steps (see examples in Figure 1).

place in the unit where the idea was conceived, typically by theinterviewees themselves. These prototypes included drawings,

typing and partnerships. Customer involvement in prototyping

the pilot test. Pilot testing was also described as being done inmeanings to the interviewees.

In the early phases of development, the interviewees tested

3D-models, testing in a laboratory, 3D-prints, and other types of

their ideas with the methods available. The early phases often

work, it most often continued to a second round of individual

contractors and manufacturing suppliers described to be experts

other units, subcontractors, or customers. Especially real scale,company had formed long and strong relationships with many

scribed to be only possible with subcontractors and customers.

location, where prototyping was described to consist of piloting,small-scale testing. When prototyping had started as individual
prototyping before collaborative prototyping and testing withphysical, material, or manufacturing prototypes were often de-

In these cases, the third round most often took place alreadywith customers. Almost all paths with three or more steps started
with prototyping by the interviewees.

In other instances, prototyping was immediately started

included prototyping and testing mechanical designs with sub-in specific areas and, therefore, important collaborators. The

different partners. Testing was also often moved to a customer’s
gathering data, or testing in a real-use environment. The needfor collaboration was described by an interviewee as follows:“Well, at least I would like it if we would have an easy accesstest laboratory, where one could make some crazy inventions

in collaboration with another stakeholder (n=29 paths). In 13

quickly. Of course, it would be preferable, that there would becustomer was involved in the beginning in nine (15%) instancesused to make initial models, like quick and dirty testing, that

instances (21%), this was an internal stakeholder, while theand other identified stakeholder groups only in seven (11%)

58

a 3D-printer that could be used or some tools that could bekind of opportunities would make innovating easier for sure.”Discussions and conclusions

How the practitioners perceived and discussed prototyping

differed from how the literature discusses prototyping (e.g., Camburn et al., 2017; Lim et al., 2008). The interviewees discussing

mostly testing final prototypes or piloting and rarely mentioning
low-fidelity prototyping, suggested that often early steps in idea

development that are regarded as prototyping activities in literature are either not considered prototyping in the practitioners’
minds or then are easily skipped when moving to designing e.g.,
for production. Most of the prototyping paths had only one or two

steps, indicating a lack of iterating in practice. Given researchdemonstrating iterative prototyping correlating with better chances of having new ideas and meeting the design requirements(Camburn et al., 2017), there may be missed opportunities here
in the field, and we suggest that practitioners should pay more

attention to early, iterative prototyping.

Second, the results highlight the significance of the personal

networks of innovators. Those who had connections to external

stakeholders and had collaborated with them in prototyping

before turned often to their existing connections. Similarly, in-terviewees who had experience in in-house prototyping, using
the company’s laboratory units, or that had strong connections

with customers reported turning to them for help. Collaborative

prototyping like this supports cross-organizational knowledge

sharing and designing on the go (Bogers & Horst, 2013). Thesepaths were described as easy and quite commonly used. Con-

versely, interviewees lacking pre-existing connections described

prototyping and testing to be hard or in some cases even impossible. The importance of networks was further emphasisedby an experienced lack of funding in R&D for prototyping andtesting, particularly at scale in the expensive industrial tech-

nology context. This often led developers to defer fully testing
new ideas only at a paying customers’ facility, a risky move. As

such, examining the interconnections in networks, prototyping

practices and risk offers a promising research avenue for further understanding the dynamics of how ideas are advanced incollaboration in organisations.

References

Bogers, M., & Horst, W. (2014). Collaborative prototyping: Cross‐fertilization of knowledge in prototype‐driven problem solving.
Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(4), 744-764.
Camburn, B., Viswanathan, V., Linsey, J., Anderson, D., Jensen, D.,
Crawford, R., ... & Wood, K. (2017). Design prototyping methods:
state of the art in strategies, techniques, and guidelines. Design
Science, 3, e13.
Chell, Elizabeth. (1998). “Critical Incident Technique.” In Qualitative
Methods and Analysis in Organizational Research: A Practical
Guide, 51–72. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Ltd.
Fayard, A. L., Stigliani, I., & Bechky, B. A. (2017). How nascentoccupations construct a mandate: The case of service designers’
ethos. Administrative Science Quarterly, 62(2), 270-303.
Flanagan, John C. (1954). “The Critical Incident Technique.”
Psychological Bulletin 51 (4): 327–58. https://doi.org/10.1037/
h0061470.
Houde, S., & Hill, C. (1997). What do prototypes prototype?. In
Handbook of human-computer interaction (pp. 367-381). NorthHolland.
Hölttä-Otto, K., Björklund, T., Klippert, M., Otto, K., Krause, D.,
Eckert, C., ... & Albers, A. (2023). Facing extreme uncertainty–
how the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic influenced productdevelopment. International Journal of Design Creativity andInnovation, 11(2), 117-137.
Laakso, M., & Liikkanen, L. A. (2012). Dubious role of formal
creativity techniques in professional design. In DS 73-1
Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Design
Creativity Volume 1 (pp. 55-64).
Lim, Y. K., Stolterman, E., & Tenenberg, J. (2008). The anatomy ofprototypes: Prototypes as filters, prototypes as manifestations ofdesign ideas. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction(TOCHI), 15(2), 1-27.
Micheli, P., Wilner, S. J., Bhatti, S. H., Mura, M., & Beverland, M. B.
(2019). Doing design thinking: Conceptual review, synthesis, andresearch agenda. Journal of Product Innovation Management,
36(2), 124-148.
Paton, B., & Dorst, K. (2011). Briefing and reframing: A situatedpractice. Design studies, 32(6), 573-587.
Rekonen, S., & Hassi, L. (2018). Impediments for experimentationin novice design teams. International Journal of Design Creativity
and Innovation, 6(3-4), 235-255.
Sanders, E. B.-N., E. Brandt, and T. Binder. (2010). “A Framework
for Organizing the Tools and Techniques of Participatory Design.”
Proceedings of the Participatory Design Conference 2010,
Sydney, Australia.

Acknowledgements

The data of the study was collected as a part of the Drive research project with financial support from a grant from the Emil

Aaltonen Foundation. The authors also thank Anna Kuukka for
helping to develop the figures of the study.

59

Mattila, Pauliina,¹* Anita Kocsis¹, David Mesa¹, Aaron Down¹

1*

Swinburne University of Technology, John Street 3122 Hawthorn VIC
pmattila@swin.edu.au

Creating the conditions
for innovation –a case study approach
to investigate thefunctions of an
innovation hub
Abstract

Innovation hubs have been gaining popularity in recent

literature and practice due to their roles as engines forinnovation and bridges between academia and industry.

They are set up in various configurations that are con-

Key words:

goal of promoting innovation outputs in the long term.

front-end innovation,text-specific. Nevertheless, these hubs share a common

Some innovation hubs are closely related to academic

institutions; accordingly, they tend to research aspects

innovation,

innovation hubthat drive innovation best practices. At the same time,they cultivate new innovation practices. However, there

is a lack of studies analysing research outputs from

specific hubs to identify which type of research they do,
the topics covered and potential gaps. The mechanisms

Introduction

Innovation hubs have been gaining popularity in recent literatureof an innovation hub, specifically looking at the researchand practice (Nnanna et al., 2023). Sometimes called ‘living

investigate. In this study we explore the relationshipconfigurations and contexts: as public sector-based innovation

research outputs of two selected innovation hubs. Four(Fiore & Rosani, 2018) and in university settings (Youtie & Shapira,ics relating to the innovation process and development

innovation outputs through various means, such as facilitating

they produce, provides an interesting perspective tobetween theory and practice by analysing patterns in 254

emergent themes were identified, the most covered topactivities. A small percentage was related to mindset,

labs’ (Leminen et al., 2012), they have been set up in various

hubs servicing a variety of stakeholders within business settings2008). Nevertheless, the general goal of these hubs is to foster

interaction with novel technologies, enabling multi stakeholder

values, community and culture, while few works analysecollaboration, and providing innovation training on skills likeinnovation. Given the highly contextual nature of the

While setting up an innovation hub is highly context-specific,

characteristics of space and environment that enable
study, implications are discussed with a primary focus

on recommendations for future research.

60

creativity and collaboration (Nnanna et al., 2023).

common elements have been identified that define these spaces.

Three core components of innovation hubs typically include aphysical environment, resources and facilitation (Memon et al.,2018). However, given the emergent approach of setting up an

innovation hub, the staff members connected to it might makedevelopments through trial and error, relying on existing literatureand best practices and adjusting them to their local context. On theother hand, innovation hubs, specifically residing in a university
context, enable staff to conduct studies in vivo, using the hubs

as a fruitful territory for experiments, integrating research andinnovation in real-life situations.

Despite the increased scholarly interest towards innova-

tion hubs, relatively little has been published on the interplay

used a case study methodology to examine the operations of

the innovation hub and its context (Yin, 2009). The case study

methodology is particularly relevant for the explorative and de-scriptive nature of the study. The case in question is an example

of a network of innovation hubs within education and research

institutions. Identifying themselves as drivers for innovation in
their own context, the first innovation hub was established in2008 and has since spread to 39 institutions worldwide, creatinga network of autonomous yet connected innovation hubs. Eachhub is based on similar values and practices yet largely influenced

by the local context, such as the society and culture, institution,

between theory and practice in innovation hubs. For example,

organisational structure and disciplinary influence.

and innovation without focusing specifically on the context offrom two innovation hubs from the innovation network. Purposive

research has explored elements of spaces that support creativity

We combined the data set by collecting research outputs

an innovation hub (Errichiello & Pianese, 2018; Moultrie et al.,sampling was used to reach the research goal by selecting thecomparisons between research and practice in such spaces

considered in determining the sample. Two innovation hubs in theestablishing an innovation hub, where best practices are often

members with an active focus on research contribution. Hence,

2007; Thoring et al., 2019; Vignoli et al., 2018). The lack of direct

poses an interesting inquiry into the dynamics and evolution ofused as a guideline for the hub’s operations. At the same time,

most productive sample (Marshall, 1996). A range of factors were

network were selected as they are the longest-standing network
the two hubs would be best placed to provide insights into the

new insights and theories may emerge through experiments andevolution of theoretical contributions and practices. Furthermore,

evolution and impact of an idea lab since its conception (Thoring

outputs. Finally, the number of hubs was limited to two, allowing

iterations, as evidenced in a longitudinal study that looks at theet al., 2018). In addition, an innovation hub residing in a higher
education context gives rise to the fertile conditions for exploring

both hubs had a high proportion of journal and conference paper

the authors to develop the methodological approach used inthis study and an exploratory approach in the data analysis in

this possible virtuous cycle as a scholarly practice is inherently

preparation for a future larger-scale study.

spark new research questions.

pository maintained by the coordinating body of the network.

by investigating the explicit scholarly activities of a networkand conference articles were included, and the time frame wasinstitutions. As the network has grown drastically since 2008,

hubs respectively (2008 and 2012 until 2020). In addition, eachpresent, and being immersed in the daily practice may naturally

We set out to examine this question through a case studyof innovation hubs housed by higher education and researchfrequent questions have emerged about the methodology of the

The research outputs were accessed from an existing re-

Master’s and doctoral theses, book chapters, journal articles

inclusive of the establishment year of each of the innovation

research output was checked for its topical relevance, with

innovation hub. Despite the hubs being established on similarworks unrelated to innovation practices discarded. Altogether,erature or practice-based is yet to exist. As a result, this study

We used an inductive approach in the research analysis

values and practices, an explicit rule book emerging from lit-

aims to address the call for common practices and approaches

in relation to an innovation hub within a university context by

254 research outputs were included in the final data set.

(Maykut & Morehouse, 1994) and employed a constant compar-

ative method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), whereby each research

examining the research outputs of two of the most establishedoutput was selected, compared to other coded outputs andand core practices can promote higher legitimacy in the eyes of& Morehouse, 1994). If a research output did not fit any of thehubs in the network. Being able to clearly articulate the purpose

external audiences (Wry et al., 2011). This study is a preliminary
attempt to unveil a more nuanced understanding of innovation

hub operations with highly contextual insights. Avenues for

subsequently categorised and coded with similar units (Maykut

existing categories, a new theme was created. During the review

process, some themes evolved through renaming and regrouping.

If a research output matched several themes, it was multiplied

further research with improved generalisations are discussed

and placed to all matching themes.

Method and data

There was a distribution of different research outputs, with confer-scholarly insights situated in the innovation hub. Specifically, wetheses, respectively. Figure 1 shows the breakdown of the type ofat the end of the study.

We employed a case study research design to investigate theResults

ence papers being the largest, followed by journals and master’s

61

140
120

116

100
80

60

60

53

40
20
0

7
conference
paper

journalbook

13book chapter

5
doctoralthesismaster's
thesisFig 1: Breakdown of research outputs by the type of contribution.

contribution. Conference paper contributions might be deemedincluded explorations of methodologies and isolated studies on

the most suitable output for university employees, striking aa particular phase or a method in a process, such as ideation.

theses seem to accomplish the same for students, providing a

to encourage and reward creativity, experimentation, and novel

balance between theoretical exploration and practice. Master’s

substantial scholarly effort with practical outcomes.

Using inductive coding and analysis, four major themes wereidentified in the data set. The emerging themes were defined(c) Mindset - targeted demonstrators and instructive practices

approaches to foster collaboration. Some of the studies expanded to the literature in psychology, such as the concept ofself-efficacy and its role in innovation processes. (d) Community

as (a) Space and Environment - as both physical and intan-

and culture – consisted of targeted events such as showcases,

ic physical areas were mentioned and explored in relation to

include both local and international stakeholders to integrate alearning spaces. (b) Process - pertained to methodologies andThe ‘process’ category was by far the most recurrent theme,

gible sites fostering or hindering innovation activities. Specifactivities to encourage engagement, prototyping, and flexible

methods, practices, and non-routine problem-solving. A broad

lectures, seminars, demonstrators and social engagements tobroader community of practice.

with 183 contributions, followed by ‘mindset’, ‘community &set of disciplinary influences were mentioned, such as design,culture’ and ‘space & environment’. Figure 2 shows the exact

and interdisciplinary contexts. In addition, the ‘process’ theme

type of contribution in each theme. All themes had a reasonableengineering, and business, including mentions of multi, crossnumbers for the breakdown. Table 1 shows the breakdown by

distribution of different outputs.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONSThe emerging themes in this study correlate with the broader aca-32

demic literature defining innovation hubs as spaces for education,
mentoring, funding, co-working and promoting commercialisation.

21

The analysis defined by the parameters in this study revealed four18

emerging themes of Space and Environment, Process, Mindset
and Community and Culture. What perhaps emerges from the183

results is that innovation hubs and their operative dynamics ishighly contextual and equally, the profile and the purpose of thehubs are nuanced. In addition, research into the practices of and

PROCESS & DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIESSPACE & ENVIRONMENTCULTURE & COMMUNITYMINDSET & VALUE-BASE
Fig 2: Breakdown of thematic areas.

62

activities in the hub was by far the popular topic, implying thatthe people interacting and working in the hub can either makeor ‘break’ the hub. This finding is somewhat contradictory to theDul et al. ‘s perspective who say that literature does not explore

how experimentation and innovation takes place in creative

spaces (2011). Nevertheless, human-related factors are import-

Tab 1: Breakdown of each theme by type of contribution
JournalpapersConference
papersBooks

Book chapters

DoctoralthesisMaster’s
thesisProcess & Development activities

40

90

3

9

4

37

Mindset & Valuebase

13

12

2

Community & Culture

6

6

2

Space & Environment

1

8

Theme

ant to complement the interdisciplinary approach to the study ofthese innovation spaces (Ciaramella et al., 2018). What is not

yet clear and requires further analysis with in vivo research is

5
3
1

1

3
8

research literature and evidence of practices is required. How

to communicate the purpose and process of setting up an in-

novation hub is currently a circuitous process for the authors,

how the practice informs the research and vice versa. Therefore,

who currently draw on a combination of anecdotal evidence inthese hubs benchmarked against the four themes derived fromknowledge there are a multitude of factors regarding innovation

subsequent investigation is required comparing practice within
this literature thematic analysis.

We found that the emerging themes accurately represent

practice, in situ and qualification by research outputs. We achubs and that our categorisation is limited to only two innovation

hubs. With the emerging topics of this study, we set to build

the contextual nature of the hubs. However, we are not yet

foundations for a framework and typology to better understandunderpinned by the four themes are unique just to this study.

research from and work in.

clear on whether the practices, programs, and infrastructure

Hence further investigation of other innovation hubs’ outputs ofReferences

Ciaramella, A., Rossi-Lamastra, C., Rovelli, P., & Tagliaro, C.
(2018). Who talks about collaborative spaces, how, and why.
CERN IdeaSquare Journal of Experimental Innovation, 2(1), 3–7.
https://doi.org/10.23726/cij.2018.758
Dul, J., Ceylan, C., & JASPERS, F. (2011). KNOWLEDGE WORKERS’
CREATIVITY AND THE ROLE OF THE PHYSICAL WORKENVIRONMENT. Human Resource Management, 50(6), 715–734.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm
Errichiello, L., & Pianese, T. (2018). Smart work centers as “creative
workspaces” for remote employees. CERN IdeaSquare Journalof Experimental Innovation, 2(1), 14–21. https://doi.org/10.23726/
cij.2018.746
Fiore, A., & Rosani, G. (2018). Two questions to ask before you set
up an innovation unit. Harvard Business Review.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory:
Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine.
Leminen, S., Westerlund, M., & Nyström, A.-G. (2012). Living
Labs as Open-Innovation Networks. Technology Innovation
Management Review, 2(9), 6–11. https://doi.org/10.22215/
timreview/602
Marshall, M. N. (1996). Sampling for qualitative research. Family
Practice, 13(6), 522–525. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
pubmed/9023528
Maykut, P., & Morehouse, R. (1994). Beginning Qualitative Research a philosophic and practical guide. The Falmer Press.
Memon, A. B., Meyer, K., Thieme, M., & Meyer, L. P. (2018).
Inter-InnoLab collaboration: An investigation of the diversity
and interconnection among Innovation Laboratories. Journal ofEngineering and Technology Management - JET-M, 47(November2015), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2017.11.003
Moultrie, J., Nilsson, M., Dissel, M., Haner, U., Janssen, S., & Lugt,
R. Van Der. (2007). Innovation spaces : towards a framework forthe phenomenon we, as members of innovation hubs, derive

understanding the role of the physical environment in innovation.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8691.2007.00419.x
Nnanna, J., Charles, M. B., Noble, D., & Keast, R. (2023).
Innovation Hubs in Australian Public Universities: An Appraisalof Their Public Value Claims. International Journal of Public
Administration, 46(2), 133–143. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2021.1993900
Thoring, K., Desmet, P., & Badke-Schaub, P. (2019). Creative
space: A systematic review of the literature. Proceedings ofthe International Conference on Engineering Design, ICED,
2019-Augus(AUGUST), 299–308. https://doi.org/10.1017/
dsi.2019.33
Thoring, K., Mueller, R. M., Luippold, C., Desmet, P., & BadkeSchaub, P. (2018). Co-creating an idea lab: Lessons learned
from a longitudinal case study. CERN IdeaSquare Journal of
Experimental Innovation, 2(1), 30–37. https://doi.org/10.23726/
cij.2018.743
Vignoli, M., Mattarelli, E., & Mäkinen, S. (2018). Experimenting
with innovation in creative spaces. CERN IdeaSquare Journal of
Experimental Innovation, 29(2), 381–400. https://doi.org/10.1287/
isre.2018.0794
Wry, T., Lounsbury, M., & Glynn, M. A. (2011). Legitimating NascentCollective Identities: Coordinating Cultural Entrepreneurship.
Organization Science, 22(2), 449–463. https://doi.org/10.1287/
orsc.1100.0613
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.).
Sage.
Youtie, J., & Shapira, P. (2008). Building an innovation hub: A
case study of the transformation of university roles in regional
technological and economic development. Research Policy, 37(8),1188–1204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.04.012

63

Clara Dieing¹*, Kirstin Kohler², Christian Müller, Manuel Walter, Damian Wrobel

1

inno.space Design Factory Mannheim, University of Applied Sciences
Mannheim, Paul-Wittsack Straße 10 68163 Mannheim Germany
Corresponding author: c.dieing@hs-mannheim.de*

Making skills:
how courses on digital
fabrication enhance
21st century skills
Abstract

The paper elaborates on critical “design decisions” of aseries of digital fabrication micro-courses offered as an

optional addition to the full one- or two-semester programs on engineering design. It presents the first resultsof an evaluation regarding the learning outcomes and21st-century skills acquired by the students. The evalu-

ation indicates that the courses convey practical making

skills and contribute to 21st-century skills like self-effi-

Key words:

21st-century skills;

cacy, self-initiative, and learning competence. Therefore,course design;

to develop our students into so-called “change agents.”

prototyping;

the courses support the overall aim of our learning space

This result of the work can inspire other universities anddesign factories to set up their device-training courses
similarly to gain this additional benefit.

Introduction

making;digital fabrication;

challenge-based learning;makerspace.

With inno.space, an innovative learning space was created at thedemonstrators. Access to digital fabrication devices (e.g., 3D

students’ action competence through its learning offers, design,

to realise these demonstrators. Students acquire the ability to

University of Applied Sciences Mannheim, which promotes theprinters) is an essential part of the space to enable students

and furnishing. Students can develop into so-called “change

operate digital fabrication devices through micro-courses.

(Wiesche et al., 2018; Kohler et al., 2022) and CBI A3 (Thong

conducted exclusively in presence. We realised it took muchconcrete solutions for complex challenges. All courses follow theassociated learning speeds.

et al., 2018) and teach 21st-century skills (OECD, 2019) such

students to acquire basic skills in operating a device throughagents” through innovative learning formats such as ME310

et al., 2021). In transdisciplinary project teams, they develop
pedagogical concept of “Challenge Based Learning” (Charosky

as self-efficacy, learning competence, and ambiguity competence. One of the core methods is prototyping, which allows

students to transform their ideas into tangible and graspable

64

Initially, these micro-courses on digital fabrication were

work to consider the different levels of prior knowledge and the

For this reason, a series of micro-courses was designed forblended learning. These micro-courses are optional and canbe chosen by the students, depending on the status and fo-

cus of the project as well as their individual experience, which

varies depending on their progress in studies and professional

background. The micro-courses thus take up the “challenge andaffordance character” of the room architecture and self-directed

Course design

Our solution describes a blended learning approach to learn thehandling of digital fabrication devices (3D printer, laser cutter,learning paradigm, which is spatially supported by group work-and vinyl cutter) through micro-courses in the context of chal-through its design and promotes initiative and performanceparts: The first two are accessible via the learning platform andtables and a makerspace and thus already call for prototyping

lenge-based courses. The micro-courses are divided into threecompetence (Galaleldin et al., 2016).

can be worked on independently. Students learn about theof how to empower students in prototyping while using learning

part. Students can choose between:

Based on our challenge-based courses, the question arose

methods that can promote 21st-century skills. For this reason,

we defined the following essential goals in creating the courses:

G1) acquiring basic skills in digital fabrication while promoting,G2) self-efficacy, G3) self-initiative, and G4) learning competence.

Theoretical backgrounddevice and create digital models as a requirement for the third Personalising a model: Students create and personalise thegiven model from the tutorial, Creative design: Students create their own models. Therefore, they have to transfer the tutorial instructions to theirown model.

For the third part, students appear in presence to finish andModern education is challenged to enrich the next generation of“produce” their workpiece as represented in the digital model

knowledge (OECD, 2019; Kirchner et al., 2017). These include

can clarify any questions.

engineers with 21st-century skills in addition to their technicalcreativity, resilience, and flexibility (Byers et al., 2013). It is widely
accepted that university makerspaces encourage engineering

students’ creativity, digital and fabrication skills that they can later

apply in their work environments (Wilczynski, 2015; Forest et al.,2014). As such, makerspaces contribute to the encouragementof dedicated 21st-century skills with this skill transfer. In addition,teaching formats such as design thinking (Koh et al., 2015; Luka,

2019), challenge-based learning (Papageorgiou et al., 2021),

and project-based learning (Rajendra & Patil, 2020; Ravitz et al.,2012; Shaw, 2018) have proven to promote 21st-century skills.
While there is no longer any dispute about the effectiveness ofmakerspaces and course formats in terms of 21st-century skills
in general, there are still no results on whether smaller course

formats for mastering digital fabrication devices are also able topromote self-efficacy, self-initiative, and learning competence
through their course structure and design.

We were seeking an opportunity to change our micro-courses

to a blended concept. In contrast to classical classroom training,
blended learning concepts offer the advantages that everyone

can learn at their own pace and, therefore, build up a betteron the device. They receive support from course coaches andStructuring of the three-part micro-course content in thelearning platform [processing time from the student’s point ofview]:

i. Self-study: Basic information on the subject areas is given
through written material, pictures, and fact sheets. [~1h]ii. Video tutorials: Three short videos introduce students todigital fabrication software. They are guided to create a digitalmodel for a given design independently. Completing the digitalmodel is a prerequisite to taking the third part of the micro-course.

Students submit their digital model through the learning platform

and choose an in-class date. [~2h]iii. Face-to-face appointment: On-site, students can discuss

their digital model with a learning coach, clarify questions, andput the device into operation. As a result, students can takehome their personalised fabricated objects. [~1h]

We assume the following course design details (DD) meetthe objectives (G1-G4) mentioned above.

 DD1: Learning content can be worked autonomously andindependent of the location at one’s own pace and dependingon the level of knowledge (G2, G4).

understanding. In addition, tasks can be repeated as often as DD2: Digital model can be personalised, which has a moti-(Trapp, 2006; Rao, 2019).

 DD3: Students decide which devices to learn and when

design on 21st-century skills, we focus on self-efficacy, self-initia-

 DD4: The micro-course short duration lowers the participa-

conviction of successfully coping with challenging situations

 DD5: Submission of the created digital design (G1).

desired, thus ensuring that the learning objective is achieved

While investigating the influence of our changed micro-course

tive, and learning competence: Self-efficacy describes the innerout of personal strength. In comparison, self-initiative is definedas the ability to motivate yourself to work on goals and tasks.

vating effect (G3).

(G2, G3, G4).

tion hurdle (G3).

Method and data

Learning competence is the ability and willingness to self-direct

A total of 113 students participated in the micro-courses. Of these,

2016; Ehlers, 2019).

the micro-courses voluntarily outside of a full course as anlearning and supervise learning progress. (Bacigalupo et al.,

29 took a challenge-based course, and 84 students completed65

Fig. 1. Percentages of 21st century skills demonstrated in 3D printing interviews.

extracurricular skill. The data for this study were collected from

In addition, we observe that self-management is working

this pool of students through 41 semi-structured interviews con-

(DD3, G2, G3, G4). In the summer semester of 2022, 19 students

students voluntarily participated in the interviews at the end of theat least one of the micro-courses. In the winter semester ofrecorded in person. The interview included questions about theparticipating students submitted a digital design. We conclude

ducted in both semesters of the academic year 2022/2023. The

third part of the course design. All interviews were conducted andgeneral flow of the course and qualitative open-ended questions.
All interviews were transcribed verbatim, and all information

took one of our challenge-based courses while all completed

2022/2023, 8 out of 11 completed a micro-course (G3). All

that students took the courses and understood the content (G4).

Furthermore, to the quantitative analysis, a qualitative anal-that could be traced back to an interviewee was anonymized. The

ysis was carried out as already mentioned under Method andtured content analysis, according to Kuckartz (Kuckartz, 2012).

courses were analysed according to Kuckartz. The coding andanswers to the interview questions underwent a content-struc-data. Here, the interviews of the participants of the 3D printing

Qualitative content analysis, according to Kuckartz, is an iterativeevaluation of these interviews provided evidence of teaching

to refine and improve the results.

tified in interviews with 26 out of 28 (approx. 94%).

method. For this reason, the analysis runs three times in order

21st-century skills, as seen in Figure 1. Self-efficacy was idenSeveral text segments were found in the 3D printing inter-

Results

views indicating 21st-century skills (G1-G4). One per skill is listed

the micro-courses have demonstrated during the face-to-facehas been translated analogously from German.

Our current results show that all students who have completed
portion that they can operate the appropriate device by fabri-cating their digital models using the device (DD5, G1). Many

here as a representative example (Tab. 2). Each text segment

Discussions and conclusions

students submitted personalised digital models; some even had

The quantitative analysis showed that the course teaches stu-

their own creative design (shown in Tab. 1).

the qualitative content analysis showed that only 47% of thecreative designs (DD2, G3). 92 out of 113 students submitted
Tab. 1. Percentages of students’ personalised and own creative
designed model submissions divided into the three microcourses.

Total number ofsubmissions
Percentage of students
handed in a personalised
model
Percentage of students
handed in their creative
digital design

66

3D PrinterLasercutterVinylcutter58

31

24

18,99 %

19,34 %

16,66 %

dents how to operate digital fabrication equipment (G1). However,interviewees unveiled this ability. One possible explanation isthat students may not feel self-confident yet to verbalise this skill

after a micro-course. Also, the quantitative number of own creative digital designs shows us that the course design promotes
self-initiative (G3) and learning competence (G4). The qualitative

content analysis strengthened this finding. Circumstantial evidence supporting self-efficacy emerged in the qualitative content
analysis (G2). It also became apparent during the interviews

that the initial motivations for converting the micro-courses to

81,01 %

80,66 %

83,33 %

a blended learning format proved to be justified. The course

participants appreciate the advantages, such as free time man-agement, that this format provides.

Tab. 2. Representative citation from the analysed 3D printing interviews for each code.
Code

Representative citation

Acquiring basic skills in “We know how to make shapes. We know how to do construction lines; we have a standard on how to do circles.”digital fabrication (G1)
Self-efficacy (G2)

“I say, if, I would fail, then at Fusion, but that would be then probably also a training thing. So, let’s say the basic
understanding is there now and if I then wanted to do a special rounding off or whatever, then you would just haveto look at it again. But I mean, that’s not what an introductory course is for, that you can design perfectly.”

Self-initiative (G3)“And then you can just try it more pleasant and even if there is a problem: On YouTube you can actually findsomething for everything and then you can just try it out often and then just, if you have questions, you can justwrite to you.”

Learning competence(G4)“I think I actually liked online better, especially because it is, let’s say, interdisciplinary here. The probability is quite
high that we have different previous knowledge. And I would say that someone always gets bored, either those forwhom it is too fast or those for whom it is too slow. The way it is now, you can divide it up a bit more freely so thatyou do sometimes more of one thing and sometimes another.”This research aims to inspire other universities and design

factories to set up device training courses so that 21st-century

skills such as self-efficacy, self-initiative, and learning competence can be promoted in addition to the skills to operate thedevices. In doing so, educators can act as a catalyst beyond their

Acknowledgements

skills they need for their professional and personal lives.

SHELLS 4.0 from the Stiftung Innovation in der Hochschullehre.

field of expertise, equipping today’s generation with essential

References

Bacigalupo, M., Kampylis, P., Punie, Y., & Van den Brande, G.
(2016). EntreComp: The entrepreneurship competence framework.
Luxembourg: Publication Office of the European Union, 10,593884.
Byers, T., Seelig, T., Sheppard, S., & Weilerstein, P. (2013). Its rolein engineering education. The Bridge, 43(2), 35-40.
Charosky, Guido, et al. “Challenge based education: an approach
to innovation through multidisciplinary teams of students
using Design Thinking.” 2018 XIII Technologies Applied toElectronics Teaching Conference (TAEE). IEEE, 2018.
Ehlers, Ulf. -D., Kellermann, Sarah A. (2019): Future Skills - The
Future of Learning and Higher education. Results of theInternational Future Skills Delphi Survey. Karlsruhe
Forest, C. R., Moore, R. A., Jariwala, A. S., Fasse, B. B., Linsey, J.,
Newstetter, W., ... & Quintero, C. (2014). The Invention Studio:
A University Maker Space and Culture. Advances in Engineering
Education, 4(2), n2.
Galaleldin, M., Bouchard, F., Anis, H., & Lague, C. (2016). The
impact of makerspaces on engineering education. Proceedings of
the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA).
Kirchner, J., Klier, J., Lehmann-Brauns, C., Winde, M. (2017).
Future Skills: Which skills are lacking in Germany. Stifterverband
für die Dt. Wissenschaft.
Koh, J. H. L., Chai, C. S., Wong, B., & Hong, H. Y. (2015). Design
thinking for education: Conceptions and applications in teaching
and learning. Springer.
Kohler, K., Kaiser, P., Dieing, C., Walter, M., Wrobel, D. (2022)„The smaller siblings of ME310 – Commonalities and differences
between three courses on interdisciplinary and international usercentric innovation“ 1st Design Factory Global Network Research
Conference: Designing the Future. Designing the Future.
Kuckartz, U. (2012). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Methoden. Praxis,
Computerunterstützung, 3, 166-169. ISO 690.
Luka, I. (2019). Design thinking in pedagogy: Frameworks and uses.
European Journal of Education, 54(4), 499-512.

We acknowledge the financial support through the project fund

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development(OECD). (2019). OECD future of education and skills 2030: OECD
learning compass 2030.
Papageorgiou, K., Hassi, L., Bragós Bardia, R., Charosky
Larrieu-Let, G., Leveratto, L., & Ramos Castro, J. J. (2021).
Prototyping the future of learning: reflections after seven iterationsof Challenge-Based Innovation (2014-2020). CERN IdeaSquare
Journal of Experimental Innovation, 5(1), 5-10.
Rajendra, S., & Patil, S. P. K. (2020). Project based learning: aninnovative approach for integrating 21st century skills. Journal ofEngineering Education Transformations, 33(4).
Rao, V. (2019). Blended Learning: A New Hybrid Teaching
Methodology. Online Submission, 3(13).
Ravitz, J., Hixson, N., English, M., & Mergendoller, J. (2012, April).
Using project based learning to teach 21st century skills: Findings
from a statewide initiative. In American educational research
association conference, Vancouver, Canada (Vol. 16).
Shaw, R. L. (2018). Using project-based learning to cultivate 21st
century skills in STEM education. ProQuest Dissertations And
Theses; Thesis (Ed.D.)--Lamar University - Beaumont, 2018.;
Publication Number: AAT 13422541; ISBN: 9780438806887
Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 80-06(E), Section:
A.; 79 p.
Thong, C., Cotoranu, A., Down, A., Kohler, K., & Batista, C. (2021).
Design innovation integrating deep technology, societal needs,
radical innovation, and future thinking: a case study of the CBI A3
program. CERN IdeaSquare Journal of Experimental Innovation,
5(1), 32-39.
Trapp, S. (2006). Blended learning concepts-A short overview. In
CEUR Workshop Proceedings (Vol. 213, pp. 28-35). Wiesche,
M., Uebernickel, F., Byler, E., Garcia-Cifuentes, J. P., Suzuki,
S., Vignoli, M., ... & Krcmar, H. (2018). Teaching innovation ininterdisciplinary environments: Toward a design thinking syllabus.
Wilczynski, V. (2015). Academic maker spaces and engineering
design. In 2015 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition (pp. 26138).

67

Meri Kuikka¹*

1*

Aalto University Design Factory, Puumiehenkuja 5, 02150 Espoo, Finland
Corresponding author: meri.kuikka@aalto.

Transferable skills
from multidisciplinary
teamwork: insights from
5 years of courses
Abstract

This study examines the impact of multidisciplinary teamwork on the development of transferable skills among

students in higher education. Inter-and multidisciplinary

learning is known to enhance critical thinking, problem-solving abilities, and effective communication. The

study collects survey data (n=129) from undergradu-

ate students participating in a multidisciplinary teamwork-based project course over a five-year period. Thematic analysis of the responses uncovered recurring

themes that highlight the significance of effective com-munication, clear roles and responsibilities, leveraging

diversity, addressing challenges, and fostering personaland group learning experiences. The insights derived

from this paper contribute to a deeper understandingof the impact of multidisciplinary teamwork on students’

educational trajectories and can be used to inform peda-

gogical practices and equip students with competencies
sought by employers.

Key words:

multidisciplinary
teamwork,collaborative learning,transferable skills

68Introduction

Multidisciplinarity in higher education is valued for enhancing

student learning outcomes and preparing them for the complexities of the real world. Collaborative learning enhances criticalexperiences as they prepare students for the demands of themodern workforce.

Method and data

thinking, problem-solving skills, and effective communication.

This study gathered survey data from undergraduate students

learning are widely acknowledged, the connection between

design for additive manufacturing. The course was conducted

While the benefits of both multidisciplinarity and collaborative
multidisciplinarity, teamwork, and the creation of transferable

skills remains understudied. An enhanced understanding ofenrolled in a multidisciplinary project course focused on productat Aalto University, a public research university in Finland comprising six schools. The participants’ distribution across schools

this connection can inform pedagogical practices and provide

was as follows: Engineering (24%), Electrical Engineering (22%),

ciplinary teamwork for students.

and Arts, Design & Architecture (6%). 9% of participants did not

What transferable skills do students gain from multidisciplinary

male and 26% female. This elective course had no prerequisites

evidence-based strategies to maximise the benefits of multidisThis study aims to address the following research question:

Science (21%), Business (11%), Chemical Engineering (7%),

disclose their affiliated school. The gender distribution was 74%

teamwork? By analysing survey data collected over five courses,

and was open to students at all academic levels.

carry forward from their multidisciplinary teamwork experiences.

weeks to ideate, design, and pitch a 3D-printed product. One ofthis study aims to identify the transferable skills that students

Theoretical background

Students worked in multidisciplinary teams of 5 people for 12

the intended learning outcomes of the course involved students

using their own disciplinary knowledge to solve open-ended

Inter- and multidisciplinary learning involves integratingproblems in a teamwork setting. This was supported by mixed

complex problems. Experiences incorporating multicultural anding regular expert, user and peer feedback, and classes andknowledge and perspectives from various disciplines to address

method teaching from a multidisciplinary teaching team, includ-

diverse conditions provide a unique space for learning at theworkshops on teamwork and communication skills.

Interdisciplinary majors enhance enjoyment of reading, expres-course participants to reflect on their learning about working inborder of disciplinary, cultural and social groups (Klaassen 2018).

sion in writing, and engagement in cognitive activities (Lattuca

et al, 2017). According to Johnson, Johnson, and Stanne (2017),

The voluntary survey, administered electronically, asked

a group during the project. The data covered five years (20182023, excluding 2020 due to the pandemic), with a total ofengaging students in collaborative projects that integrate knowl-

129 anonymized responses. Thematic analysis was employedlem-solving skills, and effective communication.

selected as the data collection method in order to efficiently

edge from diverse disciplines enhances critical thinking, prob-

to identify recurring patterns in the responses. Surveys wereCollaborative learning is an educational approach that in-collect data over the 5 year period, with open-ended questions

complete a task, or create a product. Multidisciplinary teamwork

was chosen as the data analysis tool for its ability to uncovercontent but also from interaction with team members of otherknowledge, skills, and attitudes.

volves groups of learners working together to solve a problem,

enables students to learn not only from interaction with the course

disciplines (van Breukelen, de Vries, and Schure 2017). Collaborative learning typically results in higher achievement, supportive

being used to capture nuanced reflections. Thematic analysis

recurring themes, thus enhancing understanding of acquired

Results

relationships, and improved psychological health when compared

Analysis revealed six major themes: scheduling and planning, di-Transferable skills are competencies that can be appliedroles and responsibilities, challenges and conflict resolution, andwith individualistic efforts (Laal & Ghodsi, 2012).

across different contexts and disciplines, and are increasingly

versity and team composition, communication and collaboration,
learning and growth. As each respondent discussed an average

being sought by employers. These skills include being a teamof 2.6 themes, the percentages don’t add up to 100%.

being proactive (McGunagle & Zizka, 2020). Scott (2015) refers

Scheduling and planningplayer, self-motivation, communication, problem-solving, andto a similar set as “employability skills”, including critical thinking,problem-solving, communication and collaboration, creativity

and innovation, and information, media and technology literacy.

Andrews and Higson (2018) emphasise the importance of developing transferable “soft” skills through collaborative learning“In the next project, I would set a weekly fixed meeting fromthe beginning so that everyone holds this time free for the

project. We had huge problems to find a time to meet all

together, as we all have different course schedules.” Re-

spondent #70, 2022.

69

Tab. 1. Recurring themes in student responses to “What did you
learn about working in a group from this project that you will
carry into your next group experience?”
Theme

Respondents%

Scheduling and planning
Dividing work
Working efficiently
Regular team meetings

46
20
10
8

36%
16%
8%
6%

Diversity and team composition
Leveraging strengths
Communicating expectations
Recognizing own disciplinary expertise

45
16
11
9

35%
13%
9%
7%

Communication and collaboration
Listening
Voicing opinions
Using communication & collaboration
platforms/tools

45
10
9
7

35%
8%
7%
5%

Roles and responsibilities
Team leadership
Taking responsibility & initiative
Teambuilding

34
13
9
8

27%
10%
7%
6%

Challenges and conflict resolution
Compromise, adaptability
Varying levels of motivation
Dealing with freeloaders

21
7
5
2

16%
5%
4%
2%

Learning and growth
Developing teamwork skills
Learning from others
Other

24
17
2
6

19%
13%
2%
5%

Scheduling and planning is highlighted as a crucial factor for

successful group work in 36% of the responses. Dividing work

clearly by assigning tasks and responsibilities (16%), finding
ways to work together effectively (8%), and having regular team

Active listening (8%), voicing opinions (7%), and utilising collaboration tools and platforms (5%) were seen as valuable forsharing tasks.

Roles and responsibilities“I learned that a team needs some kind of coordination anda team leader. In the beginning we decided to keep working

without any hierarchy and in the end it was hard to get meetings and work going, since usually nobody had any ideas or

had not given the assignments any thought. My takeaway fromthis is that, as I think I became a de facto project manager/
leader, I can be a team leader in future projects, even when I

do not have the best skills in the team for the particular task.”
Respondent #61, 2021.

Clear roles within the team (27%) and taking responsibility andinitiative (7%) are mentioned as necessary for quality work.

Some teams reported a need for a dedicated project manager

or team leader to ensure smooth functioning (10%), while others

found success in decision-making using voting and democracy.

Proactive engagement (7%) and team-building activities (6%)

were mentioned as beneficial.

Challenges and Conflict Resolution“I’ve learned to set some boundaries for myself. Before I would

have let people take advantage of me and my work effort
but not anymore. I also learned that it’s important to build

good relationships with the group members.” Respondent#46, 2021

Participants acknowledged challenges related to differing levels

meetings (6%) were seen as ways to ensure progress.

of motivation (4%), freeloaders (2%), and conflicting ideas or

Diversity and team composition

maintaining motivation, resolving conflicts, and establishing a

opinions in 16% of the responses. Addressing these challenges,“I learned that heterogeneity within a group can be very fruit-

supportive team environment were considered important. Com-tongues and big differences in age. First I was not sure howwere emphasised.

it went very well I would say.” Respondent #17, 2018.

Learning and Growthful. All of us were from different countries, different motherthis will work out. But due to good guidance within the course

Working with multidisciplinary and multicultural teams was seen

as a key learning in 35% of responses. Diverse backgrounds,

promise and adaptability (5%) and setting personal boundaries“The biggest thing I learned was that if you put yourself out
there you can achieve anything.” Respondent #56, 2021.

skills, and perspectives contributed to the success of the team.

Responses highlighted personal and group learning experiences

communicating expectations (9%), and recognizing personal dis-

teamwork and collaboration skills (13%), understanding theLeveraging individual strengths and resources (13%), as well as

ciplinary expertise via working with others (7%) were highlighted.

Communication and collaboration“Everybody’s different in the way we think and do things. Listening and communication is key.” Respondent #15, 2018.

Effective communication emerged as a critical factor for successful group work in 29% of responses. Clear and straightforward

communication, both in person and online, was emphasised.

70

throughout the project (19%). Participants mention developing

importance of effective teamwork, and acquiring new techni-

cal or organisational skills (2%). Reflecting on the experience,
participants express a desire to apply their learnings in futuregroup work situations.

Looking at the trends response themes over five years, somepatterns can be recognized. Mentions of communication, roles

and responsibilities, and addressing challenges and conflicts

stay relatively stable with a 13-15% difference between thehighest and lowest mentions per year, while diversity and teamcomposition, scheduling and planning, and learning and growthfluctuate more with differences between 24-33%. This suggests

a dynamic approach to multidisciplinary teamwork, potentiallyinfluenced by changes in team composition, teaching methods,

and other environmental factors. One potential influencing factor
could be the shift from on-site teaching in 2018-2019 to fully

online in 2021, hybrid online/on-site in 2022, and returning to fully

on-site in 2023 due to the pandemic, impacting communication,scheduling, and conflict management.

Discussions and conclusions

Acknowledgements

through multidisciplinary teamwork in higher education. Effec-

support in the preparation of this paper.

In conclusion, this study highlights the transferable skills gained
tive communication, clear roles and responsibilities, leveraging

diversity, addressing challenges, and fostering personal andgroup learning emerged as key themes. These skills enhance

critical thinking, problem-solving, and collaboration, preparing

students for the complexities of the real world. Educators canuse these findings to design pedagogical practices that maximise
the long-term benefits of multidisciplinary teamwork.

The limitations of this study include potential sample bias

due to the specific course and voluntary participation, relianceon self-reported data with subjective perceptions and potential

response bias, a small sample size (n=129) that limits gener-

alizability, and the lack of follow-up assessments or external

validation of the identified transferable skills. These limitations

highlight the need for caution when interpreting the findings andsuggest avenues for future research to address these limitations.
Future research in the field of multidisciplinary teamwork andtransferable skills could explore the long-term impact of such

experiences on professional success outcomes or investigate

effective pedagogical strategies for skill development within multidisciplinary teamwork settings.

I would like to thank Elina Kähkönen for their guidance andReferences

Andrews, J., & Higson, H. (2008). Graduate employability, ‘soft skills’
versus ‘hard’ business knowledge: A European study. Higher
Education in Europe, 33(4), 411-422.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Stanne, M. B. (2017). Cooperative
learning methods: A meta-analysis. University of Minnesota.
Klaassen, R. G. (2018). Interdisciplinary education: a case study.
European Journal of Engineering Education, 43(6), 842-859
Laal, M., & Ghodsi, S. M. (2012). Benefits of collaborative learning.
Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31, 486-490.
Lattuca, L. R., Voigt, L. J., Fath, K. Q., Hodge, E. R., & Lange, R.
E. (2017). Examining the impact of interdisciplinary programs on
student learning. Innovative Higher Education, 42, 337-353.
McGunagle, D., & Zizka, L. (2020). Employability Skills for 21stCentury STEM Students: The Employers’ Perspective. Higher
Education, Skills and Work-Based Learning.
van Breukelen, D. H., de Vries, M. J., & Schure, F. A. (2017).
Concept Learning by Direct Current Design Challenges inSecondary Education. International Journal of Technology and
Design Education, 27(3), 407-430.
Scott, C. L. (2015). The Futures of Learning 3: What Kind of
Pedagogies for the 21st Century. Education Research andForesight Working Papers, UNESDOC Digital Library.

71

1st Milla Räty,¹ 2nd Sanna-Maaria Siintoharju,² 3rd Jari Jussila³*
1
2
3*

HAMK International, Häme University of Applied Sciences, Hämeenlinna, Finland;
HAMK Design Factory, Häme University of Applied Sciences, Hämeenlinna, Finland;
HAMK Design Factory, Häme University of Applied Sciences, Hämeenlinna, Finland
Corresponding author: jari.jussila@hamk.fi

Developing expert
knowledge byinternational productdevelopment project
Abstract

Higher education has the challenge and responsibility to

educate good professionals. Cooperating with companies is important for students to gain first-hand knowl-edge of skills required in worklife. This study investigates
students’ perceptions of expert knowledge and skills

development in an international product development

project course organised by inno.space Design Factory
Mannheim and HAMK Design Factory. The interviews ofstudent perceptions early in the course and during the

Key words:

the course and how their expert knowledge and skills

design factory;

end of the course uncover students’ expectations ofdeveloped during the course.

Introduction

Expert knowledge;
product development project

Higher education has the challenge and responsibility to ed-

Mannheim and HAMK Design Factory. Häme University ofucate good professionals (Collado et al., 2022). International

Applied Science (HAMK) has approximately 8000 students andand interdisciplinary product development collaboration withis organised into three types of units: Schools, Research Units,

industry provides an authentic learning setting (Nachtigall etand a Design Factory. The role of HAMK Design Factory is toal., 2022) for students to develop relevant skills required byorganise international and interdisciplinary courses involving

the industry. Yet, there are very few studies (Mikkonen et al.,students from different schools and international partners,

2018; Collado et al., 2022; Figueiredo et al., 2022; Lahdenperä

including Design Factory Global Network and the Regional Uni-

et al., 2023) that directly address students’ skill development inversity Network – European University. HAMK Design Factoryinterdisciplinary product development projects for companies.

also develops and conducts research on student learning ex-

The context of this study is an international product development project organised by inno.space Design Factory

72

periences, university-industry collaboration and design-based
education, the educational concept applied at HAMK.

Mannheim University of Applied Sciences (HSMA) is com-

In a previous study on product development projects at

posed of nine faculties. Inno.space, the Design Factory Mann-

Aalto Design Factory, the perceived significance of socio-be-

proximately 5400 students from all faculties interdisciplinary

multidisciplinarity, and communication skills formed the largest

heim, is part of the Computer Science faculty, and offers ap-

havioural interpersonal skills was highlighted, in which teamwork,

and international challenge-based courses in collaboration withcategories of student-reported learning outcomes (Mikkonen,

dustry, business, and society. In addition, scientific research is

students, communication with multidisciplinary teams was theglobal networks as well as local cooperation partners from inconducted to explore future skills, passion-based learning, andprototyping-methods.

Since design-based education and challenge-based cours-

et al. 2018). In a recent survey on product development project
most prominent skill that students considered developing during
the course (Figueiredo et al., 2022). In UPV Design Factory, thestudents perceived that teamwork and leadership, time planning,es tend to cultivate more skills demanded in the worklife, thisanalysis and problem solving, application and practical thinking,skills development in working to solve authentic challenges ofship were the soft skills that developed most by participating instudy investigates students’ expectations and perceptions ofcompanies. The research is guided by the following researcheffective communication, innovation, creativity and entrepreneurDesign Factory projects (Collado et al., 2022). A previous study

questions: 1) What are students’ expectations for an interna-

on HAMK Design Factory product development project course

perceive skills development during the international productalready in an eight-week course (Lahdenperä et al., 2023). The

tional product development project? 2) How do the students

development project? and 3) What are the future skills according
to the students?

Theoretical backgroundThe 21st Century skills framework is often used to describe skills
needed in worklife. 21st Century Skills are understood as skills

that young people or students need in balancing and succeedingsuggested that students can develop their innovation capabilities
results of the study also showed that working in interdisciplinary
teams and solving authentic product development challenges

supported students in constructing and applying knowledge,

as well as collaboration and communication (Lahdenperä etal., 2023).

Method and data

during their student life and worklife. The core of these skills is

The data was collected by interviews with students participating

and career skills, and literacy skills (Rotterham & Willingham

ised from February 2023 to June 2023. The students worked individed into three categories: learning and innovation skills, life

2010; Gonzáles-Peréz & Ramírez-Montoya 2022; Fandino 2013).
Learning and innovation skills include critical thinking, creativity,

in an international product development project that was organinternational and interdisciplinary teams to solve four productdevelopment challenges provided by companies in Finland andcommunication, and collaboration skills. The development of crit-

Germany. Each team included three students from HAMK anddifficult to achieve in traditional teacher-centred learning envi-

in total, 6 students working on each challenge.

Tynjälä (1999) one of the most important challenges to university

and all the 24 students participated in the interviews. The sec-

theoretical knowledge and more informal, practical knowledge,

June, and 23 students participated in the interviews. In the firstknowledge, which can be achieved by student-centred ap-

choose the course and what were their expectations for thelearning, project-based learning, challenge-based innovation,tations were met, did they learn something new, and were theyical thinking, collaboration, and communication has been foundronments (Fisher & Newton, 2014; Tynjälä, 1999). According topedagogy is developing teaching methods that integrate formal,

as well as the development of meta-cognitive and self-regulatory
proaches. Student-centred approaches include problem-based

three students from HSMA. The project started with 24 students
The first interview round was conducted early in the project,

ond interview round was conducted at the end of the project ininterview round, we inquired students’ reasons why did theycourse. In the second interview round, we inquired if their expec-

and design-based education (Figueiredo et al., 2022; Lahdenperä

surprised by something during the course. We also asked about

Following the aforementioned student-centred approaches,

product development project could support learning future skills.

et al., 2022; Joore et al., 2022; Vignoli et al., 2021; Tynjälä, 1999).
some previous studies have been conducted on students’ skills

development in product development project courses organised
at Aalto Design Factory, UPV

Design Factory and HAMK Design Factory (Mikkonen et al.,2018; Collado et al., 2022; Figueiredo et al., 2022; Lahdenperä

et al., 2023).

the students’ opinions on future skills, and how an international

Results

From the first round of interviews, we uncovered the main reasons

why the students have chosen an international product devel-

opment project (iPdP) course and what were their expectationsof the course. The results of the interviews help to understandwhat kind of skills the students wish and expect to learn. The

73

Fig. 1. Expectations of an international product development
project compared to expert knowledge that have improved byparticipating in iPdP.

reasons for selecting an international product development

course are illustrated in Table 1.

issues.

The last part of the interviews deals with future skills students

Tab. 1. Reasons for choosing and applying for an international
product development project.
Reasonwere personal growth, time management, and flexibility-related

Answers

Internationality

15

Attractiveness11

Supports studies

9

Multidisciplinarity

5

Future skills

5

Hands-on, not theory based

5

Creativity

4

We categorised the responses based on the frequency ofperceived as important. Most answers in Table 2 were rather

self-evident, like problem solving, teamwork, and presentation

skills. Interpersonal skills occurred often in the responses, e.g.,as “…trustworthiness, kindness”, “understanding and respecting
others”, “Based on the course topic, I feel mastering emotional

intelligence and digital literacy are skills that will help me to stay

relevant and thrive in the future.”

Under theoretical skills we categorised answers like “Knowwhere and how to get information and how to spread information”, “technical skills, everything is moving quickly forward”,

and “Fundamental skills based on your occupation”.

certain expressions recurring in the interviews. The most frequent

Tab. 2. What are the future skills that need to be learned in the
future?

about a trip to Finland or Germany. The second most frequent

Future skills

category included internationality, where students were talking

category was attractiveness that included sayings such as:“sounds cool”, and “wow factor”. Third most frequent category

was supporting studies that included e.g., “thesis opportunity”,

and “opportunity to learn about prototyping”.

Concerning the expectations towards iPdP and how students

perceived improvements after iPdP we categorised student
responses in Figure 1 based on identified expert knowledge

components (Tynjälä, 1999).

For participating in the iPdP, the most often mentioned im-provements to procedural knowledge included multicultural team-work, communication skills, and technical skills. In terms of me-ta-cognitive and self-regulative knowledge, common responses

74

Answers

Interpersonal skills

11

Theoretical skills

11

Teamwork

9

Problem solving

5

Communication

5

Technical skills

5

Presentation skills

3

Time management

3

Flexibility

3Discussions and conclusions

The iPdP course offers students an international and interdisciplinary learning environment where students work in mixed

teams to solve authentic product development challenges ofindustry partners. The internationality of the course was indi-cated by 60% of the students as the reason why they chose thecourse, with almost 50% of the students joining because they
perceived the course as attractive. 20% of the students indicatedmultidisciplinarity, future skills and the hands-on approach as
the reason why they chose the course.

Results highlight that although students’ expectations on

future skills development were not the main reasons for choosing

the iPdP course, according to student perceptions, they did,
however, develop during the course. Aligned with the theoryof expert knowledge (Tynjälä, 1999), students perceived developing in factual knowledge, conceptual knowledge, proceduralknowledge, tacit knowledge, and self-regulative knowledge

during iPdP, which indicates that solving authentic problems
in international and interdisciplinary teams helped students todevelop sought after future skills and 21st Century Skills.

The research was limited to one international product de-velopment project course. There is a need to expand researchalso to other course implementations. In addition, linking 21stCentury skills to European skills could bring a deeper understanding of the topic.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the inno.space Design Factory Mannheim
and HAMK Design Factory iPdP course faculty and students
for their participation in this study.

References

Collado López, M. F., Villalonga Grañana, I., Giménez Carbó, E., &Gómez Martín, M. E. (2022). The UPV Design Factory. What is it
good for?. In Towards a new future in engineering education, newscenarios that european alliances of tech universities open up (pp.
1892-1897). Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya.
Fandino, Y.J. (2013). 21st Century Skills and the English Foreign
Language Classroom: A Call for More Awareness in Colombia.
Gist Education and Learning Research Journal. No 7, Nov 2013,
p. 190-208.
Figueiredo, S., Ganoo, A., Eriksson, V., & Ekman, K. (2022).
Future-ready skills development through Experiential Learning:
perceptions from students working in multidisciplinary teams.
CERN IdeaSquare Journal of Experimental Innovation, 6(2), 12-19.
Fisher, K., & Newton, C. (2014). Transforming the twenty-firstcentury campus to enhance the net-generation student learning
experience: Using evidence-based design to determine whatworks and why in virtual/physical teaching spaces. Higher
Education Research & Development, 33(5), 903-920.
Gonzaléz-Peréz, L.I., Ramiréz-Montoya, M.S. (2022). Componentsof Education 4.0 in 21st Century Skills Frameworks: Systematic
Review. Sustainability. Vol 14, Issue 3.
Joore, P., Björklund, T., Thong, C., & Zancul, E. D. S. (2022). Cocreating the future through design-based education in innovation
hubs. CERN IdeaSquare Journal of Experimental Innovation, 6(2),1-3.
Lahdenperä, J., Jussila, J., Järvenpää, A-M., Jumisko-Pyykkö,
S. 2023. Developing students’ innovation capability throughinterdisciplinary product development projects for industry. 1st
Design Factory Global Network Research Conference ‘Designing
the Future’5-6 October 2022.
Lahdenperä, J., Jussila, J., Järvenpää, A. M., & Postareff, L. (2022).
Design Factory--Supporting Technology Students’ Learning ofGeneral Competences through University-Industry Collaboration.
LUMAT: International Journal on Math, Science and Technology
Education, 10(1), 127-150.
Mikkonen, M., Tuulos, T., & Björklund, T. (2018). Perceived longterm value of industry project-based design courses: Alumni
reflections from two decades of the Product Development Project.
DS 91: Proceedings of NordDesign 2018, Linköping, Sweden,
14th-17th August 2018.
Nachtigall, V., Shaffer, D. W., & Rummel, N. (2022). Stirring asecret sauce: a literature review on the conditions and effects ofauthentic learning. Educational Psychology Review, 34(3), 14791516.
Rotherham, A.J., Willingham, D.T. (2010). “21st Century” Skills: Not
New, but a Worthy Challenge. American Educator, vol 34, p.17.20.
Tynjälä, P. (1999). Towards expert knowledge? A comparison
between a constructivist and a traditional learning environment in
the university. International journal of educational research, 31(5),357-442.
Vignoli, M., Balboni, B., Andreea, C., Dosi, C., Noemi, G., Kirstin,K., ... & Christine, T. (2021). Inspiring the future change-makers:
Reflections and ways forward from the Challenge-Based
Innovation experiment. CERN IdeaSquare Journal of Experimental
Innovation, 5(1), 1-4.

75

Theme 5

Sustainability:
exploring
diverse futures

76

Design-driven methods and mindsets are increasingly
used as effective tools to address sustainability
challenges. These approaches rely on humanistic
approaches such as Human-Centered Design, Positive
Design, and Universal design and have in common
the idea of analyzing how the consequences of design
choices propagate across inter-individual, social,and environmental layers. The papers belonging tothis subtheme can be classified by the level at which
research is done and the methods applied. Aue et al.
work at the national level, investigating how the design
ecosystem in Singapore is an engine for implementing
progressive policies. Rafael and Peñafort investigate
trust building in realizing sustainability initiatives inurban systems characterized by poor governance.
Poulaillon’s and Galiot’s papers can be positioned at thecommunity level.
The first paper analyzes how an innovation hub
integrated UN Sustainable Development Goals into
innovation projects and practices, while the second
presents a case study on how social entrepreneurshipstudents developed social innovations and addressed
wicked problems through design thinking. Kuukka et
al. and Coturanu et al. study how sustainability canbe integrated into design-driven pedagogy. Coturanu
et al. present a design-driven pedagogic approach toempower students to solve complex global problems.
Kuukka et al. presents a Design+Sustainability card deck
to prioritize sustainability in decision-making throughout
the design process. Mardsen et al. work at the productlevel and present a methodology to design sustainable
footwear.

77

78

“Design-driven methods andmindsets are increasingly
used as effective tools
to address sustainability
challenges: White
background, Violet andlight purple, Microscopicalimage --c 40 --s 750.”
Image: Midjourney × Valtteri Bade, 2023

79

Karin Aue,1 Keith Wong,2 Aimee Kyffin,3 Jeffrey Tzu Kwan Valino Koh,4 Agnes Xue5

1,2,3 Chemistry Team Pte Ltd, 17a Jalan Pinang, Singapore 199149;
4.5 Singapore Institute of Technology, 10 Dover Dr, Singapore 138683* Corresponding author: Agnes.Xue@singaporetech.edu.sg

Important discoveries fora better nation by design
Abstract

Singapore’s design-driven development aims at enhancing lives and strengthening its identity as a smart nation.

This study defines design in the context of Singapore, its

impact, and its role. It employs a multi-method approach,including a literature review, interviews, and international

benchmarking of Singapore’s design ecosystem. The

study reveals key aspects of the local design ecosystem,
including the roles of design and designers, ecosystem

conditions, the perception of the industry, and the potential of design. Design stands central to Singapore’s

Key words:

opportunities remain for exploration and enhancement

Design Education;

progressive policies. While a vibrant ecosystem exists,
to address future challenges and realise ambitious goals.

Introduction
Design plays and continues to play an integral role in shaping

the physical, cultural, economic, and social landscape of Singa-pore since its independence in 1965 (Kawakami, N. 2016). No

aspects of the country, from its rapid economic growth to its
international standing or its multi-racial, multi-cultural populace

Design;Future Designers.

(DesignSingapore, 2019). While there are examples of analyses
for design policies published by different countries around theworld, there is a clear lack of a comparative review with emerging

design cities like Singapore in regards to the local definition ofdesign, the intended outcomes of design in policy-making, andthe wider conditions of local design ecosystems. In light of theare happenstance – design, and human-centeredness are em-

expanding role of design and the new challenges designers areby the Singapore government, such as the Creative Industries

design, as well as a comprehensive analysis of the local design(DesignSingapore Council, 2016). Fast-forwarding five decades

identified as key gaps to cover.

of Design in 2015 and joined the UNESCO Creative Cities Net-

scape study, with the first phase being conducted between

bedded within multiple major policies and initiatives championed

Development Strategy (CIDS) and the Design 2025 Masterplan
later from independence, Singapore was designated as a City

work (UCCN), a clear and powerful endorsement of design’s
importance in Singapore to develop a creative culture, a loveable

city, and a sustainable future for its citizens (DesignSingapore

tackling, a critical review and potential revision of the definition oflandscape, including the role design plays in Singapore, areThis is the starting point and motivation for a 3-phase land-

January and June of 2021. The study aims to conduct an indepth analysis of the Singapore design ecosystem, understandthe role of designers and design education in the Singapore

Council, 2021).

context, and identify key challenges as well as opportunitiesin Singapore’s past, present, and future, ensuring the futureThis paper provides an overview of the key findings of the firstharnessing the power of design for its people and as a nationof design in the Singapore context.

With the discipline of design playing such a critical rolereadiness of the local design ecosystem is critical to continue

80

for Singapore, its design, and design education ecosystem.

phase of the study, focusing on the definition, impact, and role

Theoretical backgrounddesign hubs across the globe. This research aims to fill this gap

the interconnectedness and complexity of our world give rise to

and how design affects its people, economy, and culture. In

fronts (Den Ouden, E. 2012). These challenges span a wide spec-

approach to design to establish the foundation for creating a

In an era marked by disruptive and multifaceted transformations,a host of challenges and opportunities on societal and economic
trum, encompassing issues like aging populations, the climate

crisis, resource scarcity, pandemics, and global inequalities. At

by investigating how Singapore uses design to create policies

this mission, it is important to understand Singapore’s uniquerobust approach to teaching design in the country.

the heart of these transformations lies the potential for design

Method and datachanges that can generate value for individuals, organizations,research approach was deployed to conduct the first phase ofand designers to play a pivotal role in facilitating the essential

and the planet as a whole (Spitz, R., Böninger, C., Schmidhuber,S., & Frenkler, F. 2021).

Richard Buchanan’s ground-breaking concept of the ‘Four

Between January and June of 2021, a qualitative, multi-method

a 3-phased design landscape study. The approach consists ofa systematic literature review of local and international reports(annual, research, technical, project, etc.), working papers, gov-

Orders of Design’ serves as a lens through which we observe

ernment design strategy policies, white papers, and academic

is embracing (Buchanan, R. 1992). As global dynamics drive

ses of publicly available grey literature from aspiring international

the increasing complexity of challenges that the field of design

disruptive shifts, design, its practitioners, and educators confront

a moment of introspection and redefinition, illustrated by theirintense engagement with the future of design education. Thisjournal articles. The international literature review includes analy-

design cities in countries such as India and China in APAC, Latvia
and Estonia in Europe, and Brazil in the Americas, as well asfrom established international design cities in countries such as

study aligns with two significant global research projects that

South Korea and Australia in APAC, UK, Denmark and the EU

Whitebook Designing Design Education” and “Rethinking Design

In parallel, qualitative research in the form of 24 in-depth

explore the path of design education: the “IF Design Foundation
Education” by the Design Lab at the University of California inregion in Europe, and USA and Canada in Americas (see Table 1).
interviews is conducted with design thought leaders, both new/collaboration with IBM’s Global Design Group. These studies are

aspiring and established design practitioners, design employers

to handle the growing responsibilities of design, including thetions (MNCs), and the public sector, design educators, anddedicated to deciphering how designers can be well-preparedin small-medium enterprises (SMEs), multinational corpora-necessary skills, abilities, and ways of thinking.

other stakeholders of the Singapore Design Ecosystem. Thesedesign and designers in the setting of Singapore, learning fromof the design ecosystem in Singapore. The participant profiles

profoundly shaped by its distinctive cultural, historical, andof experience, covering a broad selection of design disciplines,

The main aim of this investigation is to explore the role ofexamples around the world. Singapore’s design landscape isgeographical context, cultivating a distinctive design language

and ecosystem (Zhuang, J. 2012). Moreover, Singapore’s histor-

interviews are conducted to understand the overall conditions

range across different types of organizations, roles, and years

such as image-making, object-making, place-making, and experience-making, as defined by the Design Singapore Council

ical and contemporary status as a polyglot and interdisciplinary(DesignSingapore Council, 2019).

mercial transactions further embellishes its design ecosystem

to compare and analyse the insights gathered from the local andhub for knowledge exchange, cultural discourse, and com-

(DesignSingapore Council & Ministry of Information, Communi-

Last but not least, a cross-comparative analysis is carried out

international literature review against the rich qualitative insights

cations and Arts Singapore, 2009).

gathered from stakeholders in the Singapore design ecosystembigger picture of how design is influenced by Singapore’s national,

local context, the role, and the impact of the design ecosystem

Considering this complex background, understanding the(See Figure 1). From this comparison, key insights about thecultural, and societal context becomes crucial. The scope ofand designers are established, as well as a comprehensive andgic design, urban design, service design, and user experience

versus international examples.

design now covers a wider range of domains, including stratedesign. This extended conception reflects Singapore’s strategic

dedication to using design as a tool for both economic advance-

holistic understanding of the definition of design in Singapore

Results

ment and societal progress (DesignSingapore Council, 2019).

The insights from qualitative interviews and strategic desk re-Singapore’s design ecosystem in relation to the global landscapeof ‘design’ in the local context and understand the local design

Nevertheless, a comprehensive analysis and assessment ofremains conspicuously absent. Furthermore, a comparative lenshas not been turned toward other emerging and establishedsearch enabled the study to examine and refine the definition

ecosystem, its unique drivers, potential, and challenges.

81Definition of Design in Singapore

Tab. 1. Titles of design policy papers and academic papers fromSingapore and internationallycontext of Singapore must be established. Insights from quali-No.

Name of Publication

1

Design 2025

As a baseline for the study, a clear definition of ‘design’ in thetative interviews with actors in the local ecosystem are distilled
to define design in the local context. A literature review of local

and international design policy papers and other design research

publications allows to extract key descriptors of design, common
patterns, and unique local definitions.

The team cross-analyses the findings of the interviews with

2

DERC

3

Skills Framework for Design345National Design Industry and Manpower Study 19/20

Cox Review of Creativity in Business: Building on the UK’s
strengths (UK)
Design for Public Good (EU)6The Design Economy (UK)7

Design Perspectives: Design Skills (UK)

“Design is a practice-based, strategic approach for prob-

8

Designing a Future Economy (UK)9

Design in Innovation Strategy 2020-2024 (UK)create impact (e.g., social, behavioural, psychological, emo-

10

The Vision of the Danish Design 2020 Committee (DEN)

11

National Acton Plan for Design Estonia (EE)

gible output, drives innovation, and shapes a nation’s identity.”

12

Mapping Design For Innovation in Wales and Scotland (UK)13

Policy Framework: Design in Enterprise in Ireland (IR)the comparative desk research. This analysis leads to a distilled

definition of ‘design’ for the Singapore context.

lem-framing and -solving that employs empathy in order totional, economic, cultural, environmental, etc.). It creates tan-

Based on this definition, further qualitative research is conducted
to explore the roles of design and designers within the conditionsof the local design ecosystem. The most relevant findings are:14

Design of Latvia 2020 (LV)

15

Australian Design Strategy 2.0 (AU)16

DIA Design Education Policy 2014 (AU)

Roles of Designers in Singapore

17

Better Placed: An Integrated Design Policy for the Built
Environment of New South Wales (AU)Designers increasingly work in non-design contexts such as

18

The History and Future of Japan’s Design Policy 2008 (Japan)

healthcare, finance, or public service. Hence, designers must

19

Cool Japan, Creative Industries, and Diversity 2019 (Japan)

be able to make sense of the world outside of design (Design

20

Seoul Design Survey 2009 (Korea)

Council United Kingdom, 2010). Additionally, along with industry

21

needs, a designer’s skillset is constantly evolving (Meyer, M. W., &Norman, D. 2020). These insights highlight that design educationmust prepare designers for a rapidly changing environment, newroles, and challenges. However, design education in Singapore,and internationally, is struggling to adapt with the necessary
speed (Meyer, M. W., & Norman, D. 2020).

Conditions of the Design Ecosystem in Singapore

22
23
24
25
26
27

Design, Economic Development, and National Policy:
Lessons from Korea 2004 (Korea) Policy: Lessons from Korea
The Challenges and Transformation of Design Education inContemporary China 2018 (China)
Barriers to Strategic Design 2017 (China)

Viewpoint Yongxiang Lu on China’s Design and Innovation
Policy 2016 (China)
Comparative Study of industrial design undergraduate
education in China and USA 2020 (China)
National Design Policy 2011 (India)

Lessons from Asia: South Korea and China 2010 (South
Korea, China)

Singapore actively utilizes design as a driver for its national

28

such as the Creative Industries Development Strategy (Ministry

The Potential of Design in Singapore

Design 2025 Masterplan (DesignSingapore Council, 2016). Al-international cities due to the prominent role design plays as a

identity (Lee Hsien Loong, 2018). This can be seen in policies

of Communications and Information Singapore 2002) and thethough Singapore is actively proliferating design across the public

Design 2025

Singapore’s design policies are described as ahead of otherdriver for innovation and economic growth (Spitz, R., Böninger,

and private sectors, it remains a risk-averse and result-oriented

C., Schmidhuber, S., & Frenkler, F. 2021). Yet Design is a rela-and vibrancy in the design ecosystem.

tradition can also be seen as the ability to break new ground, as

environment. Such an environment can limit experimentation

Perception of Design in Singapore

Large organizations across sectors, such as banking, finance, or

healthcare, transform to be more design-driven and user-centric.

Yet decision-makers in local SMEs still lack appreciation for thetransformative power of design, leading to a lack of investment(time and money) in design.

82

tively new practice in Singapore. Such a seeming lack of design

compared to more established design hubs. Based on this legacy,
Singapore has untapped potential to establish its own flavor ofdesign – system-centric, community-centric, and collaborative.

Discussions and conclusions

This study unveils opportunities for innovative practices andsignificant implications for the broader design ecosystem andeducation. Design education institutions play a pivotal role inFig. 1. Comparison of local and International Design Definitions.

nurturing the next generation of designers, contributing to Sin-gapore’s and the region’s design landscape. By adopting abroader definition of design and integrating interdisciplinary

approaches and mindsets, design education equips students

with skills, capabilities, and knowledge to address evolving

societal challenges. Furthermore, the local design ecosystem,

characterized by few rigid structures and historical confines,
possesses a unique potential to shape its own region-specificculture. It leverages its regional diversity and rich history as
strengths, incorporating them into a multidisciplinary approachfor both regional and international collaborations.

Yet, the study has limitations.

 The study has a time limit. Evolving societal, cultural, and economic dynamics could impact the relevance of the findings.

It’s advisable to conduct ongoing, regular, and comparative

analyses.

 The outcomes shared are just part of the larger research study.
Upcoming papers will explore design education, contrasting
local and global institutions and suggesting effective teaching

methods across the learning journey.

In closing, Singapore has demonstrated that design can significantly contribute to envisioning a nation’s future trajectory,

utilizing design as a national competitive strategy. Despite being ahead in local design policy compared to numerous othermarkets, the local design ecosystem still has room for growth.

Acknowledgements

Many thanks to the interviewees who have wished to remain

anonymous as all other key stakeholders of the Singapore design
ecosystem who contributed their time.

References

Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked Problems in Design Thinking, Design
Issues, 8(2): pp. 5-21.
Den Ouden, E. (2012). Innovation design: Creating value for people,
organizations and society (p. 196). London: Springer.
DesignSingapore Council (2016). Design 2025 Singapore by Design.
https://designsingapore.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/
Design2025Masterplan_v2.pdf
DesignSingapore Council (2019). Charting the future of design
education.
https://designsingapore.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/DERC_
Report_v2_updatedJune2020.pdf
DesignSingapore Council (2021). The Loveable Singapore Project
Report. https://www.designsingapore.org/ initiatives/loveablesingapore-project.html
DesignSingapore Council, & Ministry of Information Singapore,
Communications and Arts (2009). Strategic Blueprint of the
DesignSingapore initiative. https://designsingapore.org/wpcontent/uploads/2022/06/Dsg_II_Strategic_Blueprint-1.pdf
Design Council United Kingdom (2010). Multi-disciplinary design
education in the UK.
https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/fileadmin/uploads/dc/
Documents/multi-disciplinary-design-education.pdf
Kawakami, N. (2016). Singapore by design—Singapore’s new design
strategy for 2025. Axis: world design journal, (181), 90-94.
Lee, H.L. (2018). Singapore: Prime Minister’s Office. https://www.
pmo.gov.sg/Newsroom/pm-lee-hsien-loong-sutd-ministerialforum
Meyer, M. W., & Norman, D. (2020). Changing design education forthe 21st century. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, andInnovation, 6(1), 13-49.
Ministry of Communications and Information Singapore (2002).
Creative Industries Development Strategies.
Montréal World Design Summit (2017). Montréal Design Declaration.
Spitz, R., Böninger, C., Schmidhuber, S., & Frenkler, F. (2021).
Designing Design Education: White Book on the Future of Design
Education. Hanover: If Design Foundation.
Zhuang, J. (2012). Independence: The History of Graphic Design in
Singapore Since the 1960s. Design Society.

83Andreea Cotoranu,¹* John Cronin,² Leanne Keeley³

1
2
3
*

NYC Design Factory, Information Technology Department, Pace University, U.S.A.;
Blue CoLab, Pace University, U.S.A.;
Computer Science Department, Pace University, U.S.A.
Corresponding author: acotoranu@pace.edu

Acting locally on global
challenges: harnessing
design thinking andthe pedagogy ofplace-based learning
Abstract

Key words:

The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals pres-design thinking;This study illustrates a pedagogical approach targetingsustainable development goals;

cept of university campuses as ‘living labs’, we createdpedagogy.

ent a complex challenge for college students to address.

the Clean Water and Sanitation Goal. Leveraging the con-a course to introduce design thinking principles among

first- and second-year students, using place-based

place-based experiential learning;technology,

pedagogy. The course centered on the ‘right-to-know

Introduction

advanced technology for solutions. The distinctive fea-

in “The Great Work,” (Berry, 2011), we recognize that higher

water quality’ challenge, prompting students to harness

Drawing inspiration from the concept put forth by Thomas Berrytures of the course include a narrowly defined problem

education, amongst society’s institutions, has the unique ability,

to advanced technology, and utilization of the university’s

In addition, we are inspired by the concept of university cam-scope, an interdisciplinary learning environment, accessnatural resources, like its pond. To assess the effectiveness of this approach, reflections were gathered from 22

students and analyzed using content analysis. The results
revealed students’ insights into various dimensions of thewater quality issue, encompassing social, environmental,
technological, and legal factors. A recurring theme wasand therefore responsibility, to be an agent of positive change.
puses serving as ‘living labs’ or ‘living systems,’ as discussed

by Evans et al. (2015) and Lipschutz et al. (2017) in the context

of experiential learning (Kolb, 1984). Building on these perspectives, we have developed a course centred on problem-basedlearning that applies place-based pedagogy to teach design

thinking principles while tackling the United Nations Sustainable

the role of effective communication. Our findings sug-

Development Goals: Clean Water and Sanitation (UN SDG #6).

students to grasp the critical issue of public access toselves become agents of positive change early in their academic

tial learning early in students’ academic journeys, uni-solve the complex problem of right-to-know water quality throughamplifying their capability to address global challenges

requirements in computing, civic engagement, and public values.

gest that this integrated pedagogical approach enables

water quality information. By introducing such experienversities can nurture environmentally conscious leaders,effectively.

84

Spanning 14-weeks the course empowers students to them-journeys. We equip them with essential skills and knowledge tothe use of technology. In the process, they also fulfil academic
Inspired by established problem-based ‘capstone’ courses

such as Challenge Based Innovation A3 (Thong et al., 2021)

and Product Development Project (Figueiredo et al., 2022), andinformed by the design thinking curricula models (Wiesche et al.,2018), our course is distinctive in two ways. Firstly, the course

stands as an introductory ‘cornerstone’ experience in design

thinking and innovation tailored for first- and second-year stu-

dents across all academic disciplines. Secondly, our pedagogicalapproach taps into the university’s internal assets and expertiseenvironmental studies, policy, and technology. These resources
guide students throughout their learning journey by empowering

them to develop solutions that better reflect the world at large,

where societal activities, such as innovation and policy making,can have profound impacts on each other.

Lastly, this course incorporates elements of place-basedlearning (Wurdinger and Carlson, 2009), thus emphasising theto create a rich experiential learning context. Our approach en-significance of the ‘local’ dimension in cultivating active engage-

scope; a learning environment that combines interdisciplinary

harness the university campus itself as a ‘living lab,’ leveraging

compasses four integrated features: a narrowly defined problem
expertise; advanced technology typically reserved for advanced

ment within the community for our students. Specifically, we

its assets such as water bodies and water infrastructure. Thisand graduate students; and a ‘living lab’ utilising the university’s

approach empowers students to directly apply design thinking

is regulated as a “community water system” under federal law.

understanding of the complexities involved. By anchoring thecampus pond, and campus drinking water infrastructure which

Theoretical backgroundprinciples to the design challenge at hand, allowing for a deeper

design challenge within the university campus context, we enhance accessibility for first and second-year students, fostering a

Problem-based learning is a pedagogical approach that immers-

deeper connection and insight into the subject and encouraging(Barrow and Tamblyn, 1980). This approach has proved effec-

and beyond.

problems akin to those presented by the UN SDGs. However,access to advanced technology, and place-based learning inlike the UN SDGs. We, therefore, narrow the problem scope tonecessary skills and knowledge to drive meaningful change

es students in real-world challenges to facilitate their learning

tive in developing students’ competencies to solve complex

students often struggle with the analysis of multifaceted issues
focus on a specific design challenge within UN SDG #6: thethem to employ these skills throughout their academic careers

Through this blend of problem scoping, expert coaching,a ‘living lab’ setting, we strive to equip our students with thein addressing the pressing issue of the public’s right-to-know

imperative to ensure the public’s right of access to informationwater quality. In this case study, we aim to assess how well our

rhetorically by public officials but has yet to be guaranteed inclean water and ‘right-to-know’ issue while they devise solutions.

about water quality. This “right-to-know” is often professedpractice (Kolar et al., 2009). In our course, students are tasked

with developing a technology-based solution to tackle thispedagogical approach enhances students’ understanding of the

Method and data

challenge. While problem analysis is a crucial skill for students

To evaluate our pedagogical approach, we gathered written

and challenging for less experienced students. By narrowing

thinking and innovation course at our private university in spring(Thomassen and Stentoft, 2020), its execution can be lengthy

our focus, we provide students with a clear direction for theirreflections from 22 students who were enrolled in this design2023. These students were pursuing studies in different ac-

problem-solving endeavours.

ademic disciplines: technology (8), business (10), nursing (3),by engagement with stakeholders, including domain experts andfemales and 11 males.

Problem-based learning experiences are typically enriched

end-users. One way to foster this engagement is through collaboration with industry clients. In contrast, in this course, we create

and biology (1). There was an equal gender distribution of 11
Following the completion of the course, the students were

presented with the following prompt to guide their reflection:a learning environment that encourages problem exploration“What insights did you gain about the issue of ‘the right-to-know

expertise within our university. Specifically, we collaborate withfor your project?”and solution development by leveraging the wealth of domain
the Blue CoLab, an applied research lab on Pace University’s

your water quality’ through the process of designing a solution

To analyse the students’ reflections, we employed a content

Pleasantville campus. The Blue CoLab was founded on the prin-analysis approach (Krippendorff, 2018). Initially, we utilised words

UN SDG #6, requires the right-to-know water is clean. The lab’sof specific words in the text. This analysis allowed us to gain

ciple that the assurance of clean water access, as highlighted inresearch and training program includes a distributed water quality

as a unit of analysis and examined the frequency of occurrence

insights into the students’ perceptions and language usage.

sensor network situated in the campus pond. The lab provides

Additionally, we employed themes as the unit of analysis. Twotechnology and systems for water quality data acquisition. Ad-

assigned a theme to each one. Themes were first drawn fromstudents with valuable resources, including access to sensing

ditionally, students benefit from multidisciplinary expertise in

instructors independently coded the students’ reflections andthe raw text itself to further understand the data. Lastly, themes85were then drawn using the PESTLE analysis (2016) model –reflections underscore the importance of enacting policies andenvironmental aspects – as a framework. Subsequently, theclean water.

the interpretation of the identified themes and their implications.

mental factors, most of them in relation to health and waterborne

stand the students’ reflections and uncover the prominent words

water infrastructure, as well as water pathogens and contam-

covering political, economic, social, technological, legal, andinstructors engaged in discussion to ensure a consensus on

By employing these analysis techniques, we aimed to under-

and the recurring themes that emerged from their responses,
reflecting their learning experiences.

regulations to ensure universal access to water information andEnvironmental. Twelve students identified several environ-

illnesses. These factors encompass water sources, water utilities,
inants. The students emphasised the necessity of proactive

measures to safeguard the health and well-being of individuals,

especially vulnerable populations like children, older adults, andResults

To capture the students’ understanding of the course principles,
we used several prominent words from the course to centre

their reflections on right-to-know water quality. Among thesewords, the most prominent ones, listed in order of frequency,

those with weakened immune systems.

Technology. Two students grasped the potential of existing

technology in addressing the issue. However, they also acknowledge a technological limitation, as real-time monitoring

technologies that will provide water quality data in advance

were ‘water’, ‘quality’, ‘know’, ‘people’, ‘right’, ‘information’, andare under development. Students emphasised the need forin the students’ reflections. From the students’ reflections, thenecessity of developing innovative detection technologies. They‘contaminants’. Tab. 1 displays the 20 most frequent words foundautomated health warnings to be issued to individuals and the

instructors identified themes using PESTLE as the framework.

also expressed their belief that advancements in technology,

on their frequency, and summarised in Fig.1.

of solutions for water quality monitoring and public information

These themes are discussed below, in order of prominence based

both existing and forthcoming, should facilitate the development

Tab. 1. 20 most frequent words in students’ reflections.

dissemination.

Word
water
learnedqualityknow
many
issue(s)peopleright
couldof laws in the United States that safeguard individuals’ right

Legal. Only one student explicitly recognized the absence

Frequency
25
14
11
8
8
8
7
6
5

information
littlereallyways
problem
cometimecontaminants
drink
important

5
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3

to access water quality information and to protect themselvesfrom waterborne illnesses. Their understanding aligns with ex-perts’ assessment that real-time monitoring technologies andthe public’s right-to-know are not sufficient to address the issue

unless recognized globally in the UN SDGs and federally withregulatory implications.

Economic. While students’ reflections touched on environ-mental and social facets linked to water quality, there was no

explicit mention of economic aspects like the costs associatedwith bottled water or infrastructure replacements. This omission
is evident in the thematic PESTLE count.

Beyond the thematic PESTLE count, further analysis revealed

that students’ reflections were solution-facing. Although theprompt did not specifically encourage solution proposals, most

responses implicitly or explicitly provided solutions. Moreover,the students overwhelmingly recognized the role of communica-tion in tackling the problem. They emphasised the significance ofSocial and Political. Thirteen students recognized the funda-

mental right to access water quality information, understanding

its significance on both local-global and individual-society levels.

They emphasised the pressing need to address this issue andto ensure a safe and sustainable future for all. While explicit

educating individuals and communities about the issue of water
quality, as well as the need to gather and share information inreal time, particularly through emergency notifications. Acces-

sibility and availability of water quality information for all werehighlighted as crucial aspects by the students.

In summary, the findings reveal that students gained insights

mentions of political aspects such as constitutional rights, legal

into various dimensions of the ‘right-to-know your water quality’and thus not included in the thematic PESTLE count, students’and legal factors. A common theme throughout their reflections

protections, and government actions or inactions were absent

86

issue, encompassing mainly social, environmental, technological,

was the importance of effective communication to raise aware-ness about the issue and its potential solutions among individuals and communities, both locally and globally. Moreover, theand readiness to contribute to creating a safer and more sustainable future for all.

Through the development of this type of place-based experi-

overall tone of their reflections reflects a sense of empowerment

ential learning experience, universities can contribute to cultivat-

and the integration of diverse stakeholder perspectives.

are well-equipped to make a positive impact on the world. By

Discussions and conclusions

learning and university-industry partnerships, universities canin tackling this issue, with the exploration of multiple solutions

Traditional research labs within universities, particularly in thefield of technology, have primarily catered to graduate students

or advanced undergraduates. In contrast, our pedagogical approach seeks to leverage the existing domain expertise within

ing a new generation of environmentally conscious leaders whoembracing the place-based approach, alongside project-basedenhance their capacity to nurture and tap into talent necessary
for addressing global issues on a larger scale.

Acknowledgements

universities and extend the conversation to include first and

The authors thank the participating students, and the generousof understanding and engagement among university students,

formation Systems, as well as the Blue CoLab at Pace University

second-year students. By doing so, we can broaden the reachempowering them to contribute creative solutions to global
challenges early in their academic journeys and to embracethose principles throughout their academic careers.

Overall, the findings suggest that the course’s pedagog-

ical approach, focusing on problem scoping, expert support,

and experiential learning within the campus setting, effectively
empowered students to understand and tackle the pressing

issue of the public’s right-to-know water quality. The students’reflections capture their personal engagement, critical thinking,and readiness to contribute to creating a safer and more sustainable future for all.

Through the development of this type of place-based experi-

ential learning experience, universities can contribute to cultivating a new generation of environmentally conscious leaders who

are well-equipped to make a positive impact on the world. Byembracing the place-based approach, alongside project-basedlearning and university-industry partnerships, universities canenhance their capacity to nurture and tap into talent necessary
for addressing global issues on a larger scale.Traditional researchlabs within universities, particularly in the field of technology,

have primarily catered to graduate students or advanced un-dergraduates. In contrast, our pedagogical approach seeks toleverage the existing domain expertise within universities andextend the conversation to include first and second-year students. By doing so, we can broaden the reach of understanding

and engagement among university students, empowering themto contribute creative solutions to global challenges early in theiracademic journeys and to embrace those principles throughout
their academic careers.

Overall, the findings suggest that the course’s pedagog-

ical approach, focusing on problem scoping, expert support,

and experiential learning within the campus setting, effectively
empowered students to understand and tackle the pressing

issue of the public’s right-to-know water quality. The students’reflections capture their personal engagement, critical thinking,donors of the Seidenberg School of Computer Science and Infor making this learning experience possible.

References

Barrows, H. S., & Tamblyn, R. M. (1980). Problem-based learning:
An approach to medical education (Vol. 1). Springer Publishing
Company.
Berry, T. (2011). The great work: Our way into the future. Crown.
Figueiredo, S., Eriksson, V., Björklund, T., & Ekman, K. (2022).
Mapping Design Briefs and Results Over a Decade of UniversityIndustry Student Projects. In DS 117: Proceedings of the 24th
International Conference on Engineering and Product Design
Education (E&PDE 2022), London South Bank University in
London, UK. 8th-9th September 2022.
Evans, J., Jones, R., Karvonen, A., Millard, L., & Wendler, J. (2015).
Living labs and co-production: university campuses as platforms
for sustainability science. Current Opinion in Environmental
Sustainability, 16, 1-6.
Kolar H., Cronin J., Hartswick P., Sanderson, A. C., Bonner, J.
S., Hotaling, L. Ambrosio, R. F., Liu, Z., Passow, M. L. (2009)
Complex real-time environmental monitoring of the Hudson
River and estuary system. IBM Journal of Research andDevelopment. https://doi.org/10.1147/JRD.2009.5429017 #dblp
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experience as the source of learning anddevelopment. Upper Sadle River: Prentice Hall.
Krippendorff, K. (2018). Content analysis: An Introduction to its
methodology. Sage publications.
Lipschutz, R. D., De Wit, D., & Lehmann, M. (2017). Sustainable
Cities, Sustainable Universities: Re-engineering the campus
of today for the world of tomorrow. Handbook of Theory andPractice of Sustainable Development in Higher Education: Volume
2, 3-16.
Thong, C., Cotoranu, A., Down, A., Kohler, K., & Batista, C. (2021).
Design innovation integrating deep technology, societal needs,
radical innovation, and future thinking: a case study of the CBI A3
program. CERN IdeaSquare Journal of Experimental Innovation,
5(1), 32-39.
PESTLE Analysis. (2016). What is PESTLE Analysis? A Tool for
Business Analysis. PESTLE Analysis. https://pestleanalysis.com/
what-is-pestle-analysis.
Wiesche, M., Uebernickel, F., Byler, E., Garcia-Cifuentes, J.
P., Suzuki, S., Vignoli, M., ... & Krcmar, H. (2018). Teachinginnovation in interdisciplinary environments: Toward a design
thinking syllabus.
Wurdinger, S. D., & Carlson, J. A. (2009). Teaching for experiential
learning: Five approaches that work. R&L Education.

87

Lucas Rafael Ivorra Peñafort¹*

1

Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Carrera 7ª No.40-62. Edificio 18 - Roberto
Rodriguez Silva, First floor, west entrance. Bogotá, Colombia.
Corresponding author: ivorral@javeriana.edu.co*

Building trust and engaging
in sustainability projects.
A strategic design
perspective
Abstract

Colombia’s 2018 Resolution 1407 required industry stake-holders to coordinate their efforts across the manufactur-

ing, consumption, and recycling systems within packaging value chains. This resolution increased manufacturers’

obligation to recover packaging waste. Although suchcollaboration can be forced, it is considered that it needssome level of trust to function properly. The businessecosystem in Medellín, Colombia, which includes the pro-

Key words:

duction and recycling of plastic packaging, exhibits com-stakeholder engagement,

human and technical components, offering a variety ofdesign for sustainable behaviour,

plexity with intricate interactions between the system’s

obstacles to trust-building and engagement. A significant

body of work investigates, mostly in developed countries

with strong institutions and good governance, the elements that influence stakeholders’ rational and emotional

decisions and behaviours in sustainability projects, thesedecisions and behaviours being influenced by individual,organisational, and system-level factors. For example,

trust-building,strategic design

Introduction

Sustainability issues in projects often arise from conflicts between

stakeholder needs, capabilities, and motivations for protecting

the environment. Having a better understanding of the projectstakeholders’ needs and motivations is critical to improving thethe needs and capabilities of people and organisations.

comprehension of their relationships when ideating new solutions.

trust-building in nations with poor governance. This pa-

where people and organisations feel safe enough to develop joint

the case study was the result of the review of 151 items

research that investigated stakeholder engagement and trust

However, very few research focus on engagement andper stems from the author’s doctoral dissertation, whereof Colombian government legislation related to solid

Better collaboration is often related to a trust-based environment

project activities. This paper stems from the author’s doctoral

regarding a plastic packaging waste management system inwaste management and 27 semi-structured qualitative

Medellín, Colombia. The framework of design for sustainablewaste management system build trust and interact inand non-material stakeholder needs and motivations in theirwhen designing solutions to sustainability challenges.

on sustainability projects.

interviews. Stakeholders in Medellín’s plastic packaging

projects spontaneously, progressively, and dynamically

They do it following the satisfaction of their material andnon-material needs and motivations.

88

behaviour helped better understand the influence of the material

decisions and behaviours when building trust and collaborating
Most of the reviewed literature currently understands therelationship of trust to engagement, examining how stakeholders

pursue their goals and learn to make better-informed decisions

design solutions to sustainability situations that adapt to diverse

knowledge and understanding of how this happens in unequal

environment (Australian Public Service Commission, 2007; Kajzer

in sustainability initiatives. However, there is a critical deficit incontexts where governance is weak, such as in the case studyof this research in Colombia. Elevated levels of trust and involvement are viewed in the literature on sustainability efforts as nec-changing stakeholder interactions, different objects and a natural

Mitchell and Walinga, 2017; Rittel and Webber, 1973) Complexity

theories and theories of socio-technical systems ((Foster, C. J.,

Plant, K. L., and Stanton, N. A., 2019; Herszon and Keraminiyage,

essary conditions for project success. However, most empirical

2014; Linger and Owen, 2020) give light on the various difficulties

and non-material human needs influence project stakeholders’solutions to the plastic packaging waste management system

research lacks an understanding of how differentiated material

in such a prolonged and difficult endeavour, such as designingdecisions and behaviours when building trust and collaborating.

in Medellín to comply with Resolution 1407/2018.

their collaboration, affected by their needs, satisfaction and ca-

Method and data

The level of trust among stakeholders is seen to influencepabilities when they need to overcome sustainability challenges.

The implication is that projects cannot be successful without

solid motivation to engage and trust and having stakehold-According to Maloutas (2003), the nature and scope of problems

in sustainability programs are highly context-dependent. There-

fore, the doctoral research where this paper stems from was

ers with their basic needs satisfied. Nevertheless, in Colombia,

case-based. Here, the plastic packaging waste management

such as unbalanced stakeholder needs satisfaction. This paper

doctoral research. Twenty-seven semi-structured interviews

a case study on what drives stakeholders to engage in unequal

plastic packaging waste management system make up one ofsustainability projects go ahead despite problematic dynamics,
reports partial results of the author’s doctoral dissertation about
relationships of mistrust, serving as the basis for the doctoral

system in Medellín served as the case study for the author’swith representatives from major stakeholder groups in Medellín’s
the main bodies of research data. This research nurtured theresearch question: What drives stakeholders to engage when

activities of an industry project called “Waste to Opportunity ‘’,

resources unequal?

and facilitate three design workshops with the stakeholders,Theoretical background

potential solutions.

the motivation to trust is low and the distribution of power and

The diversity and interconnectedness of stakeholders makewhere the author had the chance to help in the development
where they could identify sustainability challenges and ideate

The analysis of the interview data was influenced by a study

their engagement in sustainability initiatives complex, needingof 151 pieces of legislation enacted by the Colombian govern-

capabilities to work together (S. Clegg, Australian, and Pacificpolicies and more general environmental protection policies thatTo, 2011; Morin, 1992a; Muff, 2017). Material and non-material

and relate it to the goals of governmental law and the findings ofholder motivations to engage (Max-Neef, 1986; Maslow, 1943;

approach and an iterative coding process (Braun and Clarke,and motivations (Desmet and Pohlmeyer, 2013; Niedderer, 2017).

emergencies and stakeholder diverse qualities in impacting

and affect how they prioritise their commitment to sustainability

complexity theory and socio-technical systems theory were used.

project stakeholders to maintain their motivation and have the

Researchers in Organization Studies, 2002; Liao, Chuang, andneeds are shown to be crucial to better understanding stakeNussbaum, 2011). It includes assessing human emotional needs

Human needs influence stakeholder decisions and behaviours

strategies (Ceschin, 2012). When addressing sustainability challenges, not only are the technical aspects of solutions important,but also the social and cultural aspects to better understandcollaboration dynamics (Ceschin, 2012; Frick, Kaiser, and Wilson,
2004; Martínez Sepúlveda et al., 2018). Here, trust-building isment between 1973 and 2020, including the waste management
took waste management into account. To process the actual data
the literature research, the author employed a thematic analysis2013). To focus data collection and analysis on the effects ofengagement and trust-building in the conduct of the case study,

Results

The research participants’ individual experiences and perspectives about their challenges when designing strategies to comply

with Resolution 1407/2018 put to the test the abstract con-a key component of making better-informed project decisions

cepts that define the stakeholder concept in the literature on

Fukuyama, F., 1995; Hardin, R., 2002; Jucevicius, G., and Jucev-

could benefit from their assessment of the specific attributes of

The complexity of sustainability initiatives is increased by theabout the system they design for. Project stakeholders designingto poor governance. Here, practitioners face the challenge toopportunities when including intertwined social and technical(Armstrong, A. et al., 2022; Bunduchi, R., 2013; Covey, S., 2006;
iciene, R., 2015).

difficulties in building trust, where trust is likely to be low due

stakeholder engagement and trust-building. Here, practitioners

the context and the network of stakeholders to keep learning

solutions to their sustainability challenges could also find better

89

Fig. 1. A Dance of Trust between project stakeholders. Imagen taken from Ivorra, L. (2022)

initiatives in their projects (C. W. Clegg, 2000; Molleman and

Broekhuis, 2001; Savaget et al., 2019)

Trust is crucial when assessing stakeholder participation insustainability initiatives. The various motivations driving boththe actual and expected level of trust during a project. It is also

necessary to regularly evaluate the information stakeholders

utilise to make project decisions. As illustrated in Fig. 2, thiscase illustrated that stakeholders develop trust by adapting toindividual and organisational stakeholders to cooperate in such

spontaneous situations, where emergent opportunities arise,in sustainability projects. Stakeholders competing material andsustainability challenges. People and organisations progressively

initiatives illustrate the various drivers of stakeholder involvement
non-material needs influence their incentives for participating insustainability projects. For example, a solution aiming to improve

such as the “aha moment” when designing new strategies to facedeepen their ties to develop trust, which could help them betterknow each other and formulate new projects. For example, they

packaging waste recovery could consider the stakeholder’s

could test a process to convert plastic waste into new products

and the stakeholder’s need to be recognised in society for his

They also routinely evaluate their connections to assess whether

are inherent challenges to co-designing better sustainability

example, after launching a new product to market, two businessneed for improving the efficiency of its waste recovery processcontribution to the protection of the environment. However, there

solutions. Trust-building and engagement are also affected bycultural differences and the complexity of Medellín’s plastic

before delving into scaling up the development of new products.

they want to continue strengthening their relationships or not. For
partners could choose to develop a whole new line of products.

packaging waste management system.

Discussions and conclusions

Medellín’s plastic packaging ecosystem was challenging becauseof the city’s poor governance, which was worsened by the asymmetry between stakeholders’ needs, capabilities, and access totrustworthy information. Despite these obstacles to engaging andtrusting, the interviewees did engage in collaborative initiatives,

frequently in the pursuit of a purpose-filled existence. Whenbuilding trust and designing joint initiatives to tackle sustainabil-Fig. 2. Trust builds and varies spontaneously, progressively, anddynamically. Created from Ivorra, L. (2022)

The literature on stakeholder engagement in sustainabili-

ty projects emphasises the value of trust-building dynamics

ity solutions, the dynamics of these adaptability actions might

without sufficiently illuminating the reasons why stakeholders(1999) book Dance of Change and Echeverría’s (2009) concept

stakeholders must contend with a variety of obstacles and forces

be compared to dancing, as illustrated in Fig. 1. Senge et al.’s“Dance of the promises” inspired the use of dance as a metaphor.

Unequal needs, capabilities, and access to trustworthy infor-

would cooperate in situations where there is little trust. Projectthat push them to carry on with daily activities while adjusting
to each new experience. Here, a strategic design perspective

mation affect stakeholders’ motivation to collaborate on projects,

concerning the understanding of the material and non-material

To determine whether they need to build, strengthen, or restore

on how trust-building and engagement occur in sustainability

resulting in dynamics that affect engagement and trust-building.
trust, project leaders must establish procedures for evaluating90

needs and motivations of people and organisations sheds light

projects.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to acknowledge the contributions of the“Waste to Opportunity” project team members: Assoc. Prof. Kurt
Seemann, Dr Matthew Parnell, Dr Carlos Serrano Lobos, Ms
María Camacho and Mr José González.

References

Armstrong, A., Flynn, E., Salt, K., Briggs, J., Clarke, R., Vines, J.,
and MacDonald, A. (2022). Trust and temporality in participatory
research. Qualitative Research, 1-22.
Australian Public Service Commission. (2007). Tackling wicked
problems. A public policy perspective. Australian Capital Territory.
Braun, V., and Clarke, V. (2013). Successful qualitative research: A
practical guide for beginners. London. Sage.
Bunduchi, R. (2013). Trust, partner selection and innovation outcome
in collaborative new product development. Production Planningand Control, 24(2-3), 145-157.
Ceschin, F. (2012). The Introduction and scaling up of sustainableproduct-service systems. A new role for strategic design forsustainability. Politecnico di Milano. Milán.
Clegg, C. W. (2000). Sociotechnical principles for system design.
Applied Ergonomics, 31(5), 463-477.
Clegg, S., Australian, and Pacific Researchers in Organization
Studies. (2002). Management and organization paradoxes.
Amsterdam. John Benjamins Publishing.
Covey, S. M. R. (2006). The speed of trust: The one thing thatchanges everything. New York. Free Press.
Echeverría, R. (2009). Ontología del lenguaje (Comunicaciones
Noreste Ltda., Ed.). Santiago. Lom Ediciones.
Desmet, P., and Pohlmeyer, A. (2013). Positive design: An
Introduction to design for subjective well-being. International
Journal of Design, 7(3), 5-19.
Foster, C. J., Plant, K. L., and Stanton, N. A. (2019). Adaptation as asource of safety in complex socio-technical systems: A literature
review and model development. Safety Science, 118, 617-631.
Frick, J., Kaiser, F. G., and Wilson, M. (2004). Environmental
knowledge and conservation behavior: Exploring prevalence andstructure in a representative sample. Personality and Individual
Differences, 37(8), 1597-1613.
Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust: The social virtues and the creation ofprosperity. London. Hamish Hamilton.
Hardin, R. (2002). Trust and trustworthiness. New York. Russell Sage
Foundation.
Herszon, L., and Keraminiyage, K. (2014). Dimensions of projectcomplexity and their impact on cost estimation PMI® Global
Congress 2014, Phoenix. Project Management Institute.
Ivorra, L. (2022). Weighing the importance of trust in maximising
stakeholder engagement: A case study from Colombia ona plastic packaging waste management system [Doctoral
dissertation, Swinburne University of Technology]. Swinburne
Research Bank. http://hdl.handle.net/1959.3/470006
Jucevicius, G., and Juceviciene, R. (2015). Smart development oforganizational trust: Dilemmas and paradoxes. Procedia - Social
and Behavioral Sciences, 213, 860-866.
Kajzer Mitchell, I., and Walinga, J. (2017). The creative imperative:
The role of creativity, creative problem solving and insight as
key drivers for sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 140,
1872-1884.
Linger, H., and Owen, J. (2020). The Project as a Social System:
Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Project Management (Vol. 1).
Melbourne. Monash University.

Maloutas, T. (2003). Promoting social sustainability. The case of
Athens. City, 7(2), 167-181.
Martínez Sepúlveda, J. A., Gómez Gutierrez, D., and Florentino
Márquez Ospina, J. C. (2018). Herramientas de empoderamiento
ciudadano para la sostenibilidad urbana (U. EAN, Ed. 1 ed.).
Bogotá. Universidad EAN. http://editorial.universidadean.edu.
co/media/pdf-ean/libro-empoderamiento-ciudadano-para-lasostenibilidad-urbana.pdf
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological
Review, 50(4), 370-396.
Max-Neef, M. A. (1986). Desarrollo a escala humana. Una opción
para el futuro. Santiago. CEPAUR.
Molleman, E., and Broekhuis, M. (2001). Sociotechnical systems:
Towards an organizational learning approach. Journal ofEngineering and Technology Management, 18(3-4), 271-294.
Morin, E. (1992a). The concept of system and the paradigm ofcomplexity. In M. Maruyama (Ed.), Context and Complexity (pp.
125-138). New York. Springer.
Muff, K. (2017). The collaboratory: A co-creative stakeholder
engagement process for solving complex problems. London.
Routledge.
Niedderer, K. (2017). Facilitating behaviour change through mindful
design. In Design for behaviour change: Theories and practices ofdesigning for change. (1 ed., pp. 104-115). Milton. Routledge.
Nussbaum, M. C. (2011). Creating capabilities: The humandevelopment approach. Cambridge. Belknap Press of Harvard
University Press.
Rittel, H. W. J., and Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general
theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155-169.
Savaget, P., Geissdoerfer, M., Kharrazi, A., and Evans, S. (2019).
The theoretical foundations of sociotechnical systems change forsustainability: A systematic literature review. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 206, 878-892.
Senge, P. M., Ross, R., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Roth, G., andSmith, B. (1999). The dance of change: The challenges ofsustaining momentum in learning organizations. London. Nicholas
Brealey.
Wu, K.-J., Liao, C.-J., Tseng, M.-L., and Chou, P.-J. (2015).
Understanding innovation for sustainable business management
capabilities and competencies under uncertainty. Sustainability,
7(10), 13726-13760.

91

Poulaillon, Jimmy¹*

1*

CERN IdeaSquare, Building 3179, Route de Meyrin 385, 1217 Meyrin, Switzerland
Corresponding author: jimmy.poulaillon@gmail.com

Transformative experiences ininnovation spaces:
Exploring secondary socialisation
towards sustainability throughUN Sustainable Development
Goals integration
Abstract

This sociological study explores the impact of integrating the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals(SDGs) into projects within an innovation hub. The research investigates how this integration affects participants’ values and capacity to act, with a focus on whether

it leads to secondary socialisation towards sustainability.

The innovation hub, being part of the Design Factory

Global Network, uses the SDGs as tools for problem-solv-

ing and systems thinking in student programmes. Par-

power-related dimensions of sustainability. The SDGs

ing their targets and indicators and considering theiring participants’ perspectives.

ticipants are asked to tackle specific SDGs, understandinterconnections with other societal challenges. Thisapproach aims to broaden participants’ perspectives,
evaluate priorities, and inspire innovative solutions.

To understand the transformative potential of this experi-themselves carry embedded values, potentially influenc-

The findings highlight the need for critical thinking and amultidisciplinary approach to achieve sustainable solutions. While the innovation hub offers opportunities fornon-market-based solutions, a mindset shift towards

ence, the study draws upon the sociology of knowledge,

sustainability requires exposure to thought-provoking

oped by Berger and Luckmann (1966) and contemporaryconnectedness of societal challenges. Addressing blindcapability by Sen and Nussbaum (1993) is used to assessvital for socialisation towards sustainability.

employing the concept of secondary socialisation develinsights from de Singly (2022). Additionally, the notion of
how the experience empowers participants to act.

Data collection includes semi-structured interviews withideas that challenge worldviews and consider the inter-spots related to political and institutional dimensions is
In conclusion, the study emphasises the importance ofbroadening the focus of innovation hubs beyond indi-

innovation hub team members and questionnaires ad-vidual-level actions and considering the societal andresearcher also engages in participant observation as a

ciplinary approach, encompassing social sciences, isministered to students in educational programs. The
science communicator within the innovation hub.

Preliminary results indicate that the innovation hub fosters a collaborative mindset. However, the study reveals

limited evidence of strong socialisation towards sus-

tainability. Participants tend to focus on individual-level

actions, overlooking broader political, institutional, and92

institutional aspects of sustainability. A truly multidisessential for empowering individuals to act effectively
towards achieving the SDGs’ ambitious objectives. By
embracing a comprehensive view of sustainability, innovation hubs can play a more significant role in fosteringtransformative experiences that inspire positive change
towards a more sustainable future.

Key words:

Sustainability;
innovation;

innovation hub;United Nations Sustainable

Development Goals (SDGs);

secondary socialisation;

values;capability;

collaboration;

political dimensions;institutional level;

education.

Introduction

Sustainability has become an essential topic of discussion, withnumerous governmental and non-governmental entities endeav-ouring to tackle it by means of the UN Sustainable Development(Sen & Nussbaum, 1993), by letting them realise through the
SGDs that unsuspected means of action exist.

The underlying research question in this study focuses on

how an innovation space can create an experience of sec-

Goals (SDGs) (Biermann et al., 2022). They are integrated into

ondary socialisation towards sustainability. It can therefore be

there, this integration could prove to be a transformative expe-

innovation projects impact the values and the ability to act ofprojects and programmes, and depending on how they appear
rience for those who work with them. A stay arousing a strong

commitment in an innovation hub of the Design Factory Global

formulated as follows: How does the inclusion of the SDGs into
their participants?

Network using them could expose its users to a system ofTheoretical backgroundsecondary socialisation experience.

cal framework of the sociology of knowledge by mobilising thevalues and norms different from their own, and thus result in a

Many studies exist on innovation spaces. Yet they are of-ten start-up incubators, hubs that therefore practise a form

To study these mechanisms, the study falls within the theoreticoncept of secondary socialisation—the adaptation of individual identities to a social system taking place in adulthood—asof market-oriented innovation and the creation of businesses

developed by Berger and Luckmann (1966) and complemented

SDGs are used as tools to innovate and think in systems, andconcept helps us understand how an individual’s immersion in a

as a society without necessarily having the market as an end,

by internalising the value system of an institution through aand marketable products. In the studied innovation hub, theto understand the interconnectivity of the challenges we facewhich makes it special and particularly interesting for the anal-

with de Singly’s typology of secondary socializations (2022). This

new system of values and norms could change their worldview
meaningful experience. This is done by highlighting alternativeysis. More precisely, they are used in student programmes asworldviews and roles that participants are unfamiliar with.

limited number of SDGs are chosen, and the students are asked

ability to act is evaluated regarding the concept of capability

at their indicators, familiarise themselves with their objectives

themselves empowered by realising that they could act throughthe problem to tackle during a particular challenge. One or ato elaborate on a solution around them. They are asked to lookand be particularly attentive to how the issues that they tackle

The effect of the innovation space experience on people’s

developed by Sen and Nussbaum (1993). An individual could findindirect ways to tackle a sustainable development goal, but theare interlinked. Working with this mindset could participate in

opposite hypothesis—being overwhelmed by the complexity of

new orders of magnitude, acquire new perspectives, reevaluate

The blind spots of innovation are highlighted, with the dif-changing people’s scope of vision and making them think in

the issue—is also questioned.

priorities, and open their eyes to blind spots of innovation. In

ferent forms that it could take, such as imitation, innovationa specific milieu— (Berger & Luckmann, 1966) of the innovation

This dimension is notably covered in the work of Godin & Vinckother words, to internalise the ‘sub world’—the set of values ofspace and its way of integrating the SDGs into innovation. By

confronting a value system different from their own, the users

by withdrawal, illegal innovation, resistance to innovation, etc.

(Baya-Laffite, 2019).

The SDGs are not mobilised without a critical eye, and aof the innovation space could find themselves changing theirs,

particular analysis of their depoliticized dimension is made in

the experience. Moreover, the experience could increase theircisation and political action are borrowed from Lagroye (2003).

or on the contrary rejecting them, depending on how they value

Larsen, Haller, and Kothari’s work (2022). Definitions of politi-

capabilities—their positive freedom to realise what they want—

93

Method and data

The studied innovation hub was chosen because of its endeavour
to implement SDGs into innovation projects in its educational

A second important result is that when asked about the mainbarriers that participants see to achieving the SDGs, the lack of

information and knowledge about sustainability in society is the

programmes. It is doing so by asking the students to materialise

most cited. There seems to be a focus on the individual level.

technologies developed by the research infrastructure it is part

it’s often the action of the individual in the mentioned institu-

their solutions to SDGs into prototypes, adapting the specificof, to investigate how these technologies can help with sustainability, outside their usual fields of application. This way of doing

innovation is particularly interesting, not only because it directly

Even if a more structural or institutional level may be mentioned,
tional context that is cited and not the action of institutions inthemselves. Therefore, we can underline missing, or at least
little present dimensions when it comes to the worldviews ofconnects technology to the SDGs through a physical object,interlocutors: politics, groups of interest, and power relations.

students to think about the contextual needs of the stakeholders,them a set of values (those of the UN interpreted by the institution

but also because the adaptation of these technologies leads

leaving one specific domain to explore another, totally different

one. They must determine what is suitable and what is not,emphasising the interconnection between all aspects affectedby their solution, both technical and social. The choice was also

It is interesting to note that the SDGs themselves carry withinstudied). The less politicised worldviews of the participants may
reflect this. (Langford, 2016; Louis & Marteans, 2021).

The innovation hub nevertheless offers a potentially trans-

formative experience to its users by allowing them to become

motivated by questions of accessibility since the researcher had

aware of their power to act in relation to sustainability issues and

The studied population includes all the users of the innovation

the possibility of collaborating on a large scale, and potentiallythe possibility to work there as a full-time employee for one year.
hub, which are the innovation hub’s team members as well as

the students partaking in the educational programmes. Having
the perspective of both the developers as well as the recipientsof the educational programmes was necessary for the depth of
the analysis.

The hub’s team members are interviewed with the semi-struc-tured method, and data about the students are collected throughby giving them tools to think in different orders of magnitude, byby sparking new interests.

Discussions and conclusions

An innovation hub such as the one studied nevertheless offersa chance to think of solutions that are not market-based. But
to achieve these solutions, critical thinking is needed, which is

not possible if the focus stays at the individual level and doesn’t

a questionnaire, including qualitative questions. To complement

expand to the structural and institutional levels. To have a true

by working as a science communicator in the innovation hub.

exposed to thought-provoking ideas that change their worldview

this data, the researcher uses the participant observation method

First, unrecorded exploratory interviews were conducted with all

experience of internalising a new ‘sub world’, one should beby offering them new perspectives that make sense to them,members of the innovation hub team. Then, twelve semi-struc-and by allowing them to connect the dots between societal

and the questionnaire was completed by eleven students. Obser-

plays in that direction and seems to be an important blind spot

tured interviews were thus held with the members of the team,vation data were recorded in a field diary. The interview grid, thequestionnaire, as well as the observation grid and the field dairy,challenges. Questioning power relations and political forcesin the data collected so far.

An innovation hub may act as a place where users have an

have been structured according to dimensions instigated byexperience of secondary socialisation, but integrating SDGs in

professional socialisation, capabilities, politicisation, and space.

sustainability. In order to achieve this, a reflection on the mindset

these dimensions and more specific points such as “prototyping”,

but also through the lens used in the projects, is important. If in-

the theoretical framework and are as follows: innovation, SDGs,

The observation data thus collected were coded according to“techno-solutionism”, or even “climate”. The data is then analysedprojects will not automatically socialise participants towards
that is communicated, through the discourses inside the space

novation is designed only for the individual level, it blinds itself to

not to be representative of all innovation hubs’ experiences, butsome necessary dimensions that should be considered to tackle

in one integrating SDGs in its projects.

and the complexity and interconnectivity of SDGs that individuals

Resultsthese goals. More precisely, this study stresses the necessity

to understand the underlying mechanisms that could take place

One of the main results is that despite the focus on sustainability, there doesn’t seem to be a strong socialisation towards

sustainability, but rather towards the collaborative mindset ofthe space and the institution in which it is located.

94

the SDGs. It is only by taking into account all their dimensions

might be able to increase their capabilities and act to achieveof a truly multidisciplinary approach, including social sciences,to understand the interconnectivity of societal challenges. The

multiplicity of disciplines to understand the multiple aspects ofsustainability is a prerequisite.

References

Baya-Laffite, N., 2019, Critical studies of innovation. Alternative
approaches to the pro-innovation bias. Godin B. & Vinck D. (eds.),
2017, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, Revue d’anthropologie desconnaissances 13, 3, no. 3 (2019): 919–27.
Berger P. & Luckmann T., 2022, La Construction sociale de la réalité,Sociologia, Paris: Armand Colin.
Biermann F., Hickmann T., Sénit C.-A., Beisheim M., Bernstein S.,
Chasek P., Grob L., Kim R. E., Kotzé L. J., Nilsson M., Ordóñez
Llanos A., Okereke C., Pradhan P., Raven R., Sun Y., Vijge M.
J., van Vuuren D. & Wicke B., 2022, Scientific evidence on thepolitical impact of the Sustainable Development Goals, Nature
Sustainability, Nature Publishing Group, 5(9), pp. 795‑800.
Lagroye, J., 2003, La politisation. Paris: Belin.
Langford M., 2016. Lost in Transformation? The Politics of the
Sustainable Development Goals, Ethics & International Affairs, 30,
pp. 167‑176.
Louis M. Maertens L., 2021, Why International Organizations Hate
Politics: Depoliticizing the World, Oxfordshire: Routledge.
de Singly, F., 2022, ‘Postface. Sur la socialisation secondaire’. In
La Construction sociale de la réalité, 3e éd.:321–34. Sociologia.
Paris: Armand Colin.
Larsen, P. B., Haller T., & Kothari A., 2022, ‘Sanctioning Disciplined
Grabs (SDGs): From SDGs as Green Anti-Politics Machine to
Radical Alternatives?’ Geoforum 131: 20–26.
Sen, A., & Nussbaum M., 1993, The Quality of Life. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.

95

Ricardo Galiot,¹*1*

Häme University of Applied Sciences, B-rakennus: Tietotie 1 37630 Valkeakoski, Suomi
Corresponding author: ricardo.galiot@hamk.

From the stories of natureand those who inhabited it
Sustainability requires an interconnected approach thattranscends traditional boundaries. However, current

practices often address the dimensions of sustainability separately. This experiential research investigates the

Keywords:

speculations and fiction as a means of knowledge plu-

restoration,

concept of multiplicity in sustainability praxis by exploring

rality. It investigates the phenomena of multiplicity in de-regeneration,
inclusion,

sign praxis through a relational lens. Borrowing from theco-creation,

oppressed and oppressor to nature and culture, and by

original communities

intersectional notions, it transfers the tension between

doing so, questions the implications of the absence of

nature,nature as a stakeholder when exploring social innovations in a sustainability project. This is a multidisciplinary

study grounded in social sciences and design framework,crosscutting intersectionality and critical design.

The research studies the experience of participants
during a workshop with a multicultural group of social

entrepreneurship students following design thinking

methodologies in developing social innovations. Stu-

dents are tasked with addressing wicked problems as a

trigger to a new business idea that is just. After a phaseof familiarization, students are challenged to explore
the relationship between nature and culture through a

speculative fiction activity centred on the metaphor of thetree and its rings as a temporal map. The intention was
to explore identification with natural forms and, throughthis, the inclusion of nature in the design output.

The research question is: to what extent do fictions andspeculations allow participants to occupy abstract identities such as nature? The objective is to contribute tounderstanding how new ways to knowledge inform thedesign journey seeking inclusion critically.

96

References

Dunne, A., & Raby, F. (2013). Speculative Everything: Design, Fiction,and Social Dreaming. The MIT Press.
Escobar, A. (2017). Designs for the Pluriverse: Radical
Interdependence, Autonomy, and the Making of Worlds. Duke
University Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv11smgs6
Crenshaw, K. W. (1991). Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality,
Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color. Stanford
Law Review, 43(6), 1241. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229039
Crenshaw, K. W. (2018). Demarginalizing the intersection of Raceand Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine,
Feminist Theory, and Antiracist Politics [1989]. In Routledge
eBooks (pp. 57–80). https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429500480-5
Collins, P. H., & Bilge, S. (2020). Intersectionality. John Wiley & Sons.
Megatrends - Sitra. (2023, April 27). Sitra. https://www.sitra.fi/en/
topics/megatrends/Šuran, O. (2019, September 22). Dunne & Raby: Designers need torecognise their limitations and work with them - SpeculativeEdu.
SpeculativeEdu. https://speculativeedu.eu/interview-dunne-raby/Šuran, O. (2019, August 28). Critical about Critical and Speculative
Design - SpeculativeEdu. SpeculativeEdu. https://speculativeedu.
eu/critical-about-critical-and-speculative-design/
THE 17 GOALS| Sustainable Development. (n.d.). https://sdgs.
un.org/goals

97

1st Anna Kuukka,¹* 2nd Floris van der Marel,¹ 3rd Vikki Eriksson,¹ 4th Tua Björklund¹
1

1st Anna Kuukka, 2nd Floris van der Marel, 3rd Vikki Eriksson, 4th Tua Björklund,
Aalto Design Factory, Puumiehenkuja 5A, 02150 Espoo, Finland

Design &sustainability
case toolkit
Product designers and engineers have a pivotal role toplay in advancing sustainability. Successfully addressing

sustainability challenges requires collaboration with awide variety of professionals. However, it can be challenging to see how dimensions of sustainability and design

approaches connect.

The Design+Sustainability card deck is an open-source

online toolkit developed by Alto Design Factory researchers based on real-life cases and practices. Representing

a range of diverse examples to support understanding,learning, and reflection, the card deck offers prompts toprioritize sustainability in decision-making throughout the

Key words:

a broader range of stakeholders when making sense

toolkit;design process. These decisions range from includingof the challenge to using different types of prototyping
methods to test ideas.

The toolkit covers design phases Identifying opportunities,

Design; sustainability;
education;
scenarios.

Ideating solutions, Experimenting & testing, and Producing& implementing, and intersects them with environmental,
economic, and social dimensions of sustainability.

The Design+Sustainability cards are designed to offer

educators, students and anyone interested in sustain-

ability the opportunity to learn more and reflect on how

sustainability dimensions could influence their practice.

The toolkit offers step-by-step instructions with activities
suitable for individuals, teams as well as larger groups.

For educators, the Design+Sustainability card deck offers a tool to enable sustainability-focused discussions

in class and construct learning experiences that draw

from real-world cases. For students and professionals

in working life, it’s an exciting way to learn more about

the design process and the various dimensions of sustainability!

Access the Design+Sustainability Case Toolkit withdiverse use scenario demonstrations:
https://designfactory.aalto.fi/designsustainability/casetoolkit

98

99

Rebecca Marsden rebecca.marsden@tus.ie, Anna Huoviala
anna.huoviala@hamk.fi, Ville Siipola, ville.siipola@hamk.fi Jorge Brandao Pereirajmpereira@ipca.pt Hugo Palmares hpalmares@ipca.pt

1
2
3
4
5

Forge Design Factory, Limerick School of Art and Design, Technological University of the Shannon, Ireland,
Hame University of Applied Sciences, Hämeenlinna, Finland
Hame University of Applied Sciences, Hämeenlinna, Finland
School of Design ESD-Instituto Politecnico do Cavado e do Ave, Portugal
School of Design ESD-Instituto Politecnico do Cavado e do Ave, Portugal

A model for multiplicity;
sustainable footwear futures
This poster illustrates how multiplicity strengthens design innovation in educational contexts and identifies themethodologies used. Combined expertise and resources

dedicated to this Short Advanced Programme, SAP alongwith the methodologies and tools employed, allowed 3
RUN-EU partner institutions to deliver a programme thatharnessed the potential of multiplicity through co-devel-

opment, co-design, and co-delivery, providing a templatefor further progamme iterations.

100

101

A. Optimise collaborative planning
across 3 independent design
institutions using collaborative
tools.
B. Arrive at effective modes ofdelivery to enhace online and faceto-face engagement with students,
industry experts and staff frommultiple backgrounds and areas ofexpertise.
C. Develop a programme that canbe replicated and iterated acrossthe partner institutions

02. Objective

inclusiveness’

approaches to design and sustainability

individual space to express their unique

was accessible to all, while allowing thedelivering the programme in a way that

programme effectively was designing andlanguages and cultures engaging with the

postgraduate degrees in design, different

and with undergraduate andKey to students from multiple institutions

educational contexts.

strengthens design innovation inThis poster illustrates how multiplicity

Multiplicity. Group work,
Collaboration and the Individual

network that embodies the values of sustainability, multiculturalism, andIPCA, as part of RUN-EU, a ‘regional development-oriented European University

hybrid delivery of a Short Advanced Programme across 3 Institutions: TUS, HAMK &from SAP participants at the mid-point face-to-faceweek and on completion of the programme. Partners
then returned to Miro to complete a self reflection

space participants can continue to meet and invite
other designers, host virtual events and arrange
meetings with potential collaborators.

This QR code will give you accessto the Sustainable Footwear
Futures virtual exhibition

Partners dedicated to time to gathering feedback

This virtual gallery using Spatial remains live and is areport. This will be used to inform future iterations.

05. Analysis

projects and presenting to staff and industry experts.

again in the virtual gallery where they worked on curating their

the SAP, participants created their avatars and joined together

hosted Week 3 in the Metaverse using Spatial. In culmination of

the Face-to-Face week was retained, the programme coordinators

In Week 3, to ensure engagement and the collective energy fromof the studios created a dynamic design exchange.

adjoining studio on pattern cutting and prototyping. The proximity

textiles skills and techniques, while the other 10 worked in theworkshops were delivered back-to-back, 10 participant focusing on

travelled with workshop materials to HAMK, Finland. Design

In Week 2 lecturers from Limerick School of Art and Design

expertise.

Centre, delivered presentations and shared their insights andcompanies, as well as from Portuguese Footwear Technological

Week 1 industry experts from footwear sector, of small and large

SAP.

from multiple backgrounds and areas of expertise contributed to theFace-to-Face engagement with students. Industry experts and staff

Effective modes of delivery were identified to optimise online and04. Methodologies employed in
Delivering a SAP

05. Results & Findings

Ireland, Finland and Portugal.

together across our institutions inefficient and enjoyable way to workcollective offering. This proved a very

could contribute to strengthen thecourse identifying core areas eachstructure and content of the SFF

simultaneously, to map out theMiro and Teams platforms

worked collaboratively online withadvanced programme, the teamFor the planning of the short,institutions using collaborative tools.

across 3 independent design

Optimising collaborative planning

03. Methodology
employed in
Designing a SAP

The combined expertise and resources dedicated to this Short Advanced Programme, along with the methodologies andtools employed, allowed 3 RUN-EU partner institutions to deliver a SAP that harnessed the potential of multiplicity
through co-development, co-design & co-delivery, providing a template for further progamme iterations.

A Model for Multiplicity;
Sustainable Footwear Futures

This research presents the findings of remote co-development, face-to-face andSustainable Footwear Futures

01. Introduction

ID+/FBAUP/IPCA

Hugo Palmares, PhD Research Fellow & Lecturer,

ESD-IPCA

Jorge Brandao Pereira, PhD, Director School of Design

Design, Hame University of Applied Sciences

Ville Siipola, Senior Lecturer, Smart & Sustainable

Hame University of Applied Sciences

Anna Huoviala, Head of Smart & Sustainable Design,

Design Factory, Limerick School of Art & Design, TUS

Rebecca Marsden, Research Project Manager, FORGE

AUTHORS

programme for 2023/24.

are currently developing the second iteration of thisWith the findings and programme analysis, the partners

and network building for tutors and guest speakers.

peer learning and continued professional development

wide range of experts and has also supported peer-to-

Co-delivery has enabled the participants to learn from a

successful way of enriching the course content

Co-design for programme development has proven a

06. Conclusion

AFFILIATIONSTheme 6

Technology
adoption &transformation

102

The constant evolution and advancement oftechnology, coupled with the growing prominenceof AI, have fundamentally transformed thelandscape of design practices. On one hand, AI
has become a valuable tool for designers, aidingthem in conveying their ideas through visual means.
On the other hand, integrating technology into
the design process compels all involved parties
to revaluate both the design processes and theprinciples of design thinking.
In a comprehensive study conducted by David andet.al., valuable insights were gleaned regarding
how students perceive the utility of Generative
Artificial Intelligence (GAI) tools within theframework of Design Thinking Double Diamondprocesses during an academic makeathon they
organized. As technology and AI continue to assert
their presence, Vignoli and et.al. pose a crucial
question: how can design thinking be tailored toaccommodate technology-driven projects? Their“tech-to-organization” model demonstrates how
design thinking can be customized and applied toassess the integration of a given technology within
an organization.

103

104

“The constant evolution andadvancement of technology,
coupled with the growing
prominence of AI, havefundamentally transformed
the landscape of design
practices: White background,
Cyan and light purple,
Microscopical image --s 750”.
Image: Midjourney × Valtteri Bade, 2023

105

Yigal David,¹* Assaf Krebs,² Alon Rosenbaum³

1
2
3
*

Design Factory Shenkar, Shenkar - Engineering. Design. Art., Israel (yigal.david@shenkar.ac.il)
Design Factory Shenkar, Shenkar - Engineering. Design. Art., Israel (assaf.krebs@shenkar.ac.il)
Design Factory Shenkar, Shenkar - Engineering. Design. Art., Israel (designfactory@shenkar.ac.il)
Corresponding author: yigal.david@shenkar.ac.il

The use of generative AI tools
in Design Thinking academic
makeathon
Abstract

This paper examines the application of Generative Arti-

ficial Intelligence (GAI) tools in a Design Thinking Double Diamond (DDDT) academic makeathon. It analyses

students’ interaction with these tools in problem-solving

scenarios, offering insights into their perceptions andusage. The research reveals that GAI, such as ChatGPT,

and visual tools like Midjourney and Dall-E 2, are viewed

more as assistive than solution-dictating. It emphasises

the potential of GAI in fostering creativity, information

Key words:

gathering, and design presentation, while highlighting a

Generative Artificial

potential within the DDDT methodology.

Design Thinking Double

need for future exploration into its deeper capacity andIntelligence;
Diamond;

Academic makeathon.

Introduction

Theoretical backgroundengineering use Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI) tools tosince the beginning of AI. The early pioneers of AI consideredThis paper explores the ways by which students of design andsolve real-world problems. It is based on data collected during
Shenkar Jamweek’s Design Thinking (DT) Sprint Makeathon andaims to explore how disruptive GAI tools were used by students

during the process, and how they might be incorporated to allow

innovation and improve the DT methodology. Shenkar Jamweek

The idea of humans and GAI working together has been aroundits role to help users to solve difficult problems, make better

decisions, and achieve goals more efficiently (Licklider, 1960).

Although researchers such as Noy and Zhang (2023) claim thatGAI tools serve primarily as a substitute for worker effort rather
than for complementing skills, others claim that GAI tools, suchis an annual four-day academic makeathon for interdisciplinary

as ChatGPT and Midjourney, are being increasingly adopted inart and engineering students. Jamweek focuses on social andmilitary, and design (Chong et al., 2022). Other researchers

problem-based learning. It brings together hundreds of design,

entrepreneurial innovation led by the Double Diamond Design

Thinking (DDDT) approach.

106

various decision-making domains, including healthcare, business,

add that GAI tools are also used for research, generating ideas,
drafting documents and summarising information (Cardon, 2023).

Vasconcelos (2023) discusses the use of generative GAI tools,

evaluate the potential effects of ChatGPT on their critical thinking,of education, and argues that it can assist in cultivating reflec-

commonalities in the responses provided by the two groups ofparticularly ChatGPT, as “objects-to-think-with” in the context
tive and critical thinking, problem-solving skills, and concept

comprehension. Jakesch, et al. (2023) argue that AI language

technologies can affect the ability of what users write and think.

However, According to Borji (2023), GAI tools lack a “world model”

and they fail to understand the complex connections between
concepts and entities. Wang (2023), though, has shown evidence

problem-solving, teamwork, etc. Its conclusions show numerous
participants.

3. The use manner of GAI along DDDT stages:Jamweek

DDDT Sprint dedicated its first two days to research and empathy(mainly convergence work-mode, which explores the problem

domain), and the two last days to ideation and prototyping (mainly
divergence work-mode in creating a solution). Esling and Devisof advanced models such as ChatGPT4 which demonstrates(2020) define these two work-modes as follows: convergent

level of knowledge and the research gap.

parameter answer led by a specific set of questions with only one

progress in “understanding the world”.establishing the current

Method and data

In the makeathon there were 705 participating students: 380 ofthem came from the engineering faculty, and 325 came from thedesign and art faculty. All of them were approaching the end of
their second year (out of four), just when they were concluding
their core studies and starting their practitioner journey.

Each day of the four-day makeathon was dedicated to adifferent stage of the Design Thinking model, as follows: The

first day to Research & Empathy, the second day to Problem
Definition and Ideation, the third day to Ideation and Prototyping

thinking involves applying knowledge and logic to find a single

correct answer (in our case problem definition). Divergent thinking
involves a framework that encourages the generation of a diverse

range of ideas in response to a given question or stimulus (in ourcase, finding a solution). In the Jamweek Research and Empathy

stage, 70% of the students used textual AI tools (ChatGPT) while

only 30% used visual GAI tools (e.g., Mid-journey and Dall-E 2), or
both textual and visual tools. No significant behavioural difference

was found between design students and engineering students.

In the Ideation and Prototype stage, though, the adoption levelof visual GAI tools increased from 30% to 50%. Here too, there
was no significant behavioural difference between design andand the fourth day to Prototyping and Presentation.

engineering students. Students used visual GAI tools for specifictative data which were collected in 260 questionnaires that weredeveloping their solution. Along this, some design students have

The research methodology combines quantitative and quali-tasks, such as visualising ideas to quickly validate and continue

filled each day (in total about 750), triangulated with documented

expressed their concerns over the GAI and their unwillingness

We also encouraged students to use GAI tools such as

4. Revolutionary AI or only advanced search engine?Some

ever, we left it open for the students to choose how to operate

tual GAI tools in the Research and Empathy stage. They reported

observations, which were carried out during the makeathon.

ChatGPT and Midjourney. We provided only basic training. Howit (a free-style approach).

to use those tools, declaring: “They are taking our jobs.”of the qualitative feedback suggests that students preferred texthat it facilitated their research initiation and accelerated their in-formation gathering, and testify that they did it in order “to discover

Results

more about the challenge”, “to get a broader understanding ofstudents in Shankar’s Jamweek stated that they have alreadyand “to narrow the range of information and focus the thoughts’’.

(85%) considered these tools to be merely assisting or guiding

accuracy and ease of use. These answers suggest that most of

2. The perceived link between results quality and GAI con-and operated it in a conservative way, as a means to conductof the engineers stated that they think their final product was

opinion, this manner of use misses the enormous potential of GAI.

1. Assisting or dictating? Around 70% of the participatingused GAI tools in the past. However, a vast majority of themtools (on the way to a solution) rather than dictating tools.

tribution:Among the students, 73% of the designers and 86%
worthy of use as a valuable solution for the host organisation(scoring 5-7 on a 1-7 scale). Moreover, a high level of correlation

was found between the students’ evaluation of the project quality

and their belief in the GAI effectiveness. The same correlation

the topic”, “to get access to a lot of information across the web”

Other answers referred to the unique combination of speed,
the students used ChatGPT as a traditional digital search engine

classic information collection and getting direct answers. In our

To name just a few examples, using ChatGPT in a Socratic way(Chang, 2023) can allow students to improve their creativity andlearning techniques; prompting specific questions can provoke

critical thinking rather than facts and information (Brown & Kelly,(between results’ quality and GAI effectiveness) was also found

1994; 2007); and conducting certain types of conversations may

in a study published by Amani, White et al. (2023). In this study(Baidoo-Anu & Owusu, 2023). While the research phase of DDDT

among the students’ mentors (faculty staff). Similar results appear
the researchers asked both faculty members and students toprovide ongoing feedback about the process of learning itself
indeed requires gathering information, we believe that using GAI

107

tools can expand the meaning of ‘information’ and ‘research’ in

critical ways. It can also replace the usual process of information-driven use and solution-driven use. This understanding canlead to changes in the DDDT model when it is conducted by GAI

tools.

5. Information veracity and user trust:To the question “Didyou validate the results provided by the GAI tools in order to ensure data reliability?” 40% of the students admitted that they had

not done so. However, our survey shows a significant difference

between designers and engineers: 65% of the design students

did not validate ChatGPT’s results compared to only 28% of theengineers. This can come aligned with Ahmed’s paper (2003),
which examines the differences between the ways by which

novice designers approach design tasks. It indicates that novice

designers (such as our design students) tend to focus on gaining

a better understanding of the challenge and adopt numerical dataas accurate, without questioning it.

Discussions and conclusions

The extensive use of GAI tools by students, both prior to andduring Jamweek, underscores the feasibility of integrating suchtechnology within the DDDT methodology. This is consistent withthe current research suggesting the synergy between GAI and

DDDT (Bouschery et al., 2023). Furthermore, our study reveals
that the incorporation of GAI into these learning environments

appears to enhance student perception of their own work quality.

However, the influence of these tools, particularly language mod-els like ChatGPT, on users’ creative process is not exhaustive,
and it deserves further exploration. Our research shows thatstudents perceive GAI as an assistive or guiding tool rather thana dictating-solution tool. They use ChatGPT as a search engine

without exploring and exhausting its deeper capacities, and theyuse visual GAI to improve their presentations. This is a traditionaluse of an AI tool that misses its potential capacity. We also founda significant difference between engineering students, who weremore sceptical and mostly challenged and cross-checked the

GAI results, and design students, who mostly accepted the GAI

and aligned with the results. Is it possibly related to designers’
state of mind of openness to new concepts? or does it imply
fear from the new disruptive technology, which aims to replacedesigners, as some of them expressed?

Our research suggests that GAI tools can improve some

aspects of DDDT, particularly finding and gathering information

rapidly and designing presentations effectively. Having said that,the integration of GAI tools has a greater potential yet to be

explored in terms of their ability to radically improve the entire
process of DT as a method.

108

References

Ahmed, S., Wallace, K. M., & Blessing, L. T. (2003). Understanding
the differences between how novice and experienced designers
approach design tasks. Research in engineering design, 14, 1-11.
Amani, S., White, L., Balart, T., Arora, L., Shryock, Dr. K. J.,
Brumbelow, Dr. K., Watson, Dr. K. L. (2023). Generative AI
perceptions: A survey to measure the perceptions of faculty,
staff, and students on generative AI tools in Academia. arXiv.org.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.14415
Baidoo-Anu, D. and Owusu A. L. (2023), Education in the era ofGenerative Artificial Intelligence (AI): understanding the potential
benefits of ChatGPT in promoting teaching and learning. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4337484
Borji, A. (2023). A categorical archive of ChatGPT failures. arXiv.org.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.03494
Bouschery, S. G., Blazevic, V., & Piller, F. T. (2023). Augmenting
human innovation teams with Artificial Intelligence: exploringtransformer-based language models. Journal of ProductInnovation Management, 40(2), 139-153. https://doi.org/10.1111/
jpim.12656
Browne, M. N., & Keeley, S. M. (2007). Asking the right questions: A
guide to critical thinking. Pearson Education.
Cardon, P. W., Getchell, K., Carradini, S., Fleischmann, C., & Stapp,J. (2023). Generative AI in the Workplace: Employee perspectivesof ChatGPT benefits and organisational policies. SocArxiv. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/b3ezy
Chang, E. Y. (2023). Prompting large language models with thesocratic method, 2023 IEEE 13th Annual Computing andCommunication Workshop and Conference (CCWC), Las Vegas,
NV, USA, 351-360. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2303.08769
Chong, L., Zhang, G., Goucher-Lambert, K., Kotovsky, K., &Cagan, J. (2022). Human confidence in artificial intelligenceand in themselves: The evolution and impact of confidence
on adoption of AI advice. Computers in Human Behavior, 127.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.107018.
Esling, P., & Devis, N. (2020). Creativity in the era of artificial
intelligence. arXiv.org https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2008.05959
Jakesch, M., Bhat, A., Buschek, D., Zalmanson, L., & Naaman, M.
(2023, April). Co-writing with opinionated language models affects
users’ views. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on
Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1-15).
Licklider, J. C. (1960). Man-computer symbiosis. IRE transactions onhuman factors in electronics, (1), 4-11.
Noy, S., & Zhang, W. (2023). Experimental evidence on the
productivity effects of Generative Artificial Intelligence. Working
paper. MIT.
Vasconcelos, M. A. R., & dos Santos, R. P. (2023). Enhancing STEM
learning with ChatGPT and Bing Chat as objects to think with: A
Case Study. arXiv.org. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2305.02202.
Wang, G., et al. (2023). Voyager: An open-ended embodied agent
with large language models.

109

Matteo Vignoli,¹ Nicolò Cocchi,¹* Clio Dosi¹

1*

Department of Management, Alma Mater Studiorum – University of Bologna
Corresponding author: nicolo.cocchi2@unibo.it

Tech to organization.
Assessing anddesigning technology
adoption with design
thinking
Abstract

This article explores how design thinking can be tailoredto address projects that focus on assessing the value oftechnology adoption within an organisation and designing an appropriate application for the technology. Our

research shows how Open.Space, the Design Factoryfor Open Innovation at the University of Bologna, has

adapted design thinking to effectively tackle such technology-driven projects and created an ad-hoc process

Key words:

Innovation management;

Technology management;
Design thinking;New productdevelopment.

called Tech to Organization.

Introduction

In today’s rapidly evolving business environments, organisations

things, customer relationship management, or business intelli-

are increasingly driven to embrace novel technologies to remain

gence. These projects start with a constraint on the technology

Dosi, and Vignoli 2023). The adoption and integration of new tech-

the value of the technology for the organisation and designingcompetitive and adapt to changing market dynamics (Cocchi,
nologies holds substantial potential for enhancing productivity,

streamlining operations, and achieving sustainable growth (Iansiti

1995). However, adopting and implementing a novel technology

to adopt, leaving the design team with the issue of identifying

a specific application that uses it.

In particular, the successful integration of a novel technology

within an organisation requires a structured process that enables

within a firm is not without its challenges (Parente and Prescotta comprehensive understanding of its potential, implications, andface numerous hurdles and complexities, ranging from techni-(Karlsson, Taylor, and Taylor 2010). Notably, some organisations(Karlsson, Taylor, and Taylor 2010). Nevertheless, despite theseunderstanding of the value sought by users enables them to

1994; Magistretti, Dell’Era, Verganti 2020). Organisations often
cal and logistical issues to cultural and organisational barriers

challenges, many organisations are launching projects aimed at

integrating specific technologies such as blockchain, internet of110

the necessary steps to bring it inside the organisation effectively
have discovered that anchoring technology choices in a deeper

strike a better balance among feasibility, viability, and desirabilityof potential solutions (Kim et al. 2020).

In this context, design thinking (Brown 2008), one of the mostthinking is implemented. This narrow perspective restricts ourwidely adopted approaches to problem-solving and innovation

understanding of the relationship between design thinking andto do with a novel technology and, possibly, integrate it into their

Accordingly, it becomes crucial to investigate whether and how

sign thinking has been regarded as a human-centred approacha given technology (Cocchi, Dosi, and Vignoli 2023). Given ourment of products and services (Cocchi, Dosi, and Vignoli 2021).

within organisations, this paper explores how design thinking(Liedtka 2015), can empower organisations to understand what

systems, products, services, and processes. Traditionally, de(Martin 2010) driven by user needs and desires in the developYet, design thinking has also proven effective in contexts which

are traditionally less human-centric, such as technology-driv-en organisations and projects (Mahmoud-Jouini, Fixson, andBoulet 2019). Existing research is not considering whether andhow design thinking ought to be adapted when confronted with

its impact on innovation outcomes (Seidel and Fixson 2013).

design thinking might adapt when applied to projects focused on

specific focus on the adoption and integration of new technologies

can be tailored to address projects that primarily revolve aroundassessing the value of technology integration within a firm anddesigning an appropriate application for the technology.

Method and datatechnology integration projects. To address this gap, this study

To conduct our research, we initially selected a representative

thinking be leveraged to support technology integration within

identify an organisation suitable for effectively addressing ouraims to answer the following research question: How can designorganisations?

Theoretical backgroundorganisation (Siggelkow 2007). We employed two criteria toresearch question. First, we sought an organisation that uses

design thinking as its main methodology for conducting innovation projects. Second, we looked for an organisation that

Design thinking refers to “a discipline that uses the designer’s

actively engages in technology-driven projects. The organisation

technologically feasible and what a viable business strategy can

Factory for Open Innovation at the University of Bologna. Oper.

sensibility and methods to match people’s needs with what ischosen for our study is Oper.Space, which serves as the Design

convert into customer value and market opportunity” (Brown 2008,

Space functions as an interdisciplinary innovation hub, bringing

design thinking approaches innovation: desirability, feasibility, andOper.Space undertakes approximately 200 innovation projects

find the product or service compelling and how they will interact

concepts. Additionally, Oper.Space has been actively involvedp.2). This definition highlights the three lenses through which

viability (Brown 2009). Desirability concerns whether users willwith it, feasibility refers to the possibility to adapt the technology

for the solution in the organisation, and viability addresses thefinancial and economic sustainability of the solution for the firm

(Carlgren, Rauth, and Elmquist 2016).

together students, teachers, researchers, and industry partners.

each year, using design thinking to generate novel solution
in technology-driven projects for the past five years, exploringnew opportunities and developing solution concepts based on

emerging technologies.

Within this context, we conducted in three distinct phases a

In terms of process, design thinking can be conceptualised ascase study research (Eisenhardt 1989). In phase 1, we collected

involves data collection about users’ needs. It entails empathisingtion, final presentation) related to 18 technology-driven projects

encompassing three main stages (Liedtka 2015). The first stage

with the individuals who will be using the product or service tothe project documentation (i.e., project brief, mid-term presenta-

carried out by Oper.Space over the period 2017-2021. In phaseobtain a deep understanding of their needs and desires (Dell’Era

2, we performed 9 semi-structured interviews with the designfrom their perspective (Beckman and Barry 2007). The second

nated the design activities of all the 18 technology-driven projects.

et al. 2020) and thus defining the problem that requires resolution

thinking coaches from Oper.Space who supervised and coordi-

stage revolves around generating the broadest range of ideas

The interviews aimed to understand whether the design thinking

third stage entails prototyping the ideas by transforming theming process when dealing with technology-driven projects and,to solve the identified problem (Micheli et al. 2019). Finally, theinto tangible representations (McCullagh 2013) and testing thecoaches made any adaptations to the conventional design thinkif so, why and how. We recorded and transcribed the interviews

ideas with potential users to evaluate their efficacy (Beverland,

and triangulated interviewees’ answers with the documentation

One inherent limitation of contemporary design thinking ap-

and identified an adapted design thinking process, named “TechWilner, and Micheli 2015).

proaches is characterised by its “normative and essentialist na-

ture” (Carlgren, Rauth, and Elmquist 2016). Design thinking isfrequently portrayed as a fixed set of tools and methods, failingto acknowledge the unique nature of innovation projects and thediverse characteristics of organisational contexts where design

provided (Jick 1979). In phase 3, we analysed the data collectedto Organization”, which Oper.Space crafted specifically for thosetechnology-driven projects that aim to integrate a given technol-

ogy within an organisation. To validate our understanding of theTech to Organization process, we conducted a workshop involving
all the design thinking coaches from Oper.Space. This workshop

111

Fig. 1. Tech to Organization processserved as an opportunity to discuss and refine the process based

Discussions and conclusions

on our collective expertise and experiences.

Tech to Organization shows how design thinking might be adapt-

Results

given technology within an organisation, thereby contributing to

The Tech to Organization process has been developed to facilitate

the evaluation of the value associated with the adoption of a given

ed and used to assess the adoption and implementation of athe ongoing conversation about the implementation of design

thinking in technology-driven projects (Mahmoud-Jouini, Fixson,

technology within an organisation and the subsequent design ofand Boulet 2019). Tech to Organization holds practical impli-

with an assessment of the organisational processes, products,

approach to address projects that focus on evaluating the value

an appropriate application for that technology. The process starts

and services wherein the specific technology could potentiallybe implemented. By doing so, it allows for the identification of

the most promising contexts in which the technology can befeasibly applied, while also facilitating the recognition of the

problems and needs of users that can potentially be addressed

through the Introduction of the technology. The process consistsof three primary stages: technology-organisation fit, context
research, and solution concept design. Each of these stages

comprises both divergent and convergent phases. Figure 1
presents the structure of the Tech to Organization process andTable 1 a preliminary toolkit. In the full paper, we will provide acomprehensive account of a case study involving the applicationof design thinking tools through the Tech to Organization process
in the context of drones for facility management services

112

cations as it offers design teams a specialised and structuredof technology adoption and to develop an appropriate application
for the given technology.

References

Beckman, S.L. and Barry, M. (2007), “Innovation as a
Learning Process: Embedding Design Thinking”, California
Management Review, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 25–56. https://doi.
org/10.2307/41166415
Beverland, M.B., Wilner, S.J. and Micheli, P. (2015), “Reconcilingthe tension between consistency and relevance: Design thinking
as a mechanism for brand ambidexterity”, Journal of the Academyof Marketing Science, Vol 43 No. 5, pp. 589–609. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11747-015-0443-8
Brown, T. (2008), “Design thinking”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 86
No. 6, pp. 84–92. https://hbr.org/2008/06/design-thinking
Brown, T. (2009), Change by design: How design thinking transforms
organizations and inspires innovation, New York: Harper-Collins
Cocchi, N., Dosi, C. and Vignoli, M. (2021), “The Hybrid Model
Matrix. Enhancing Stage-Gate with Design Thinking, Lean Startup,
and Agile”, Research-Technology Management, Vol 64 No. 5, pp.
18–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/08956308.2021.1942645

Tab. 1. Tech to Organization toolkit
Stage

Divergence/Convergence

Examples of tools

Diverge

Reflection around technology and their field of application,
Organisational opportunities mapping,
Breakdown of technology in abilities and field of application in specific activities

Converge

Selection of the most interesting tech+field,
Relevant org competences onboarding,Definition of target org processes,
Specific assumption Challenge Definition

Diverge

Stakeholder mapping,
Process mapping,
Ethnographic interviews,
Observations

Converge

Personas,
Research questions (Activity, Company, Design),
Research questions ranking

DivergeBrainstorming,
Rapid prototyping,
Tech partner involvement,
Future service envisioning

Converge

Proof of Value,
Proof of Concept,
Business Case,
Organisational Sharing

Technology-Organization fit

Context research

Solution concept design

Cocchi, N., Dosi, C., and Vignoli, M. (2023), “Tech to Market.
Finding and designing suitable technology applications withdesign thinking”, Proceedings of the International Conference on
Engineering Design (ICED23), Bordeaux, France, 24–28 July 2023.
https://doi.org/10.1017/pds.2023.332
Dell’Era, C., Magistretti, S., Cautela, C., Verganti, R. and Zurlo, F.
(2020), “Four kinds of design thinking: From ideating to making,engaging, and criticizing”, Creativity and Innovation Management,
Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 324–344. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12353
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989), “Building Theories from Case Study
Research”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp.
532–550. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4308385
Iansiti, M. (1995), “Technology integration: Managing technologicalevolution in a complex environment”, Research policy, Vol. 24, No.
4, pp. 521–542. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(94)00781-0
Jick, T.D. (1979), “Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods:
Triangulation in action”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol 24,
No. 4, pp. 602–611. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392366
Karlsson, C., Taylor, M. and Taylor, A. (2010), “Integrating
new technology in established organizations: A mapping ofintegration mechanisms”, International Journal of Operations &Production Management, Vol. 30, No. 7, pp. 672–699. https://doi.
org/10.1108/01443571011057290
Kim, E., Simonse, L.W., Beckman, S.L., Appleyard, M.M.,
Velazquez, H., Madrigal, A.S., and Agogino, A.M. (2020),“User-centered design roadmapping: anchoring roadmapping incustomer value before technology selection”, IEEE Transactions
on Engineering Management, Vol. 69, No. 1, pp. 109–126. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2020.3030172
Liedtka, J. (2015), “Perspective: Linking design thinking with
innovation outcomes through cognitive bias reduction”, Journalof Product Innovation Management, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 925–938.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12163

Magistretti, S., Dell’Era, C. and Verganti, R. (2020), “Searchingfor the right application: A technology development review
and research agenda”, Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, Vol. 151 No. 119879, pp. 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
techfore.2019.119879
Mahmoud-Jouini, S.B., Fixson, S.K. and Boulet, D. (2019), “Making
design thinking work: Adapting an innovation approach to fit alarge technology-driven firm”, Research-Technology Management,
Vol 62 No. 5, pp. 50–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/08956308.2019.
1638485
Martin, R.L. (2010), “Design thinking: achieving insights via the“knowledge funnel””, Strategy & Leadership, Vol 38 No. 2, pp.
37–41. https://doi.org/10.1108/10878571011029046
McCullagh, K. (2013), “Stepping up: Beyond design thinking”,
Design Management Review, Vol 24 No. 2, pp. 32–34. https://doi.
org/10.1111/drev.10238
Micheli, P., Wilner, S.J., Bhatti, S.H., Mura, M. and Beverland, M.B.
(2019), “Doing design thinking: Conceptual review, synthesis, andresearch agenda”, Journal of Product Innovation Management,
Vol 36 No. 2, pp. 124–148. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12466
Parente, S.L. and Prescott, E.C. (1994), “Barriers to technology
adoption and development”, Journal of political Economy, Vol.
102, No. 2, pp. 298–321. https://doi.org/10.1086/261933
Schatzki, T.R. (2005), “Peripheral Vision: The Sites of Organizations”,
Organization Studies, Vol 26 No. 3, pp. 465–484. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0170840605050876
Seidel, V.P. and Fixson, S.K. (2013), “Adopting design thinking in
novice multidisciplinary teams: The application and limits ofdesign methods and reflexive practices”, Journal of ProductInnovation Management, Vol 30, pp. 19–33. https://doi.
org/10.1111/jpim.12061
Siggelkow, N. (2007), “Persuasion with case studies”, Academyof Management Journal, Vol 50 No. 1, pp. 20–24. https://doi.
org/10.5465/amj.2007.24160882

113

My notes and reflections

114