Share:


Promoting creative imagination of non-expressed needs: exploring a combined approach to enhance design thinking

    Samira Bourgeois-Bougrine Affiliation
    ; Souad Latorre Affiliation
    ; Florence Mourey Affiliation

Abstract

Creativity is vital to radical innovation for the generation of new and disruptive ideas. Managers, practitioners and teachers are increasingly integrating design thinking approach to stimulate creativity and innovation. Design thinking implies empathy as an innovation mind-set to understand the latent needs of users observed in real settings. However, it has been suggested that radical innovations do not come from a user-centred approach such as design thinking and that design thinking is often based on anecdotes than data and that its value is difficult to prove. The aims of this paper is to propose an approach to enhance design thinking in educational setting in order to promote radical innovation mindset. Drawing on the benefits of prospective ergonomics, digital mock-up and virtual environment to promote ideation and empathy, the proposed approach takes as a starting point the imagination of future needs using prospective scenarios approach, instead of users’ latent and unmet needs, for the development of artefacts and services that would change social practices. The paper a) discusses why and how this combined approach would foster students’ radical innovations skills by not just satisfying actual users’ needs but by imagining and anticipating new needs and b) propose a method to evaluate the effectiveness and the efficacy of design thinking enhancement.


Santrauka


Kūrybiškumas – iš esmės svarbus radikalioms inovacijoms, generuojant naujas ir griaunančias idėjas. Vadovai, praktikuojantys specialistai ir dėstytojai vis labiau integruoja dizaineriškos mąstysenos metodą, siekdami sužadinti kūrybiškumą ir inovacijas. Dizaineriška mąstysena reiškia empatiją kaip inovacija grindžiamą požiūrį, kuriuo siekiama suprasti slaptus vartotojų, stebėtų realiomis aplinkybėmis, poreikius. Vis dėlto buvo teigiama, kad radikalios inovacijos nekyla iš požiūrio, sutelkto į vartotojus, tokio kaip dizaineriška mąstysena, ir kad tokia mąstysena dažnai grindžiama pavieniais atvejais, o ne duomenimis bei tuo, kad jos vertę sunku įrodyti. Šio straipsnio tikslai – pateikti požiūrį, kuris padidintų dizaineriškos mąstysenos vertę lavinimo aplinkoje, siekiant palaikyti radikaliomis inovacijomis grindžiamą mąstymo būdą. Atsižvelgiant į ateities ergonomikos nešamą naudą, skaitmeninį modelį ir virtualią aplinką, skirtą idėjizavimui ir empatizavimui paskatinti, siūlomas požiūris yra it pradinis taškas, įsivaizduojant ateities poreikius, pasitelkiant ateities scenarijų atvejus, o ne slaptus ir nepatenkintus vartotojų poreikius, siekiant žmogaus darbo produktų ir paslaugų, kurios pakeistų socialines praktikas, plėtros. Straipsnyje svarstoma, kodėl ir kaip šis mišrus požiūris paskatintų studentų radikalių inovacijų įgūdžius, ne tik patenkinant tikruosius vartotojų poreikius, bet įsivaizduojant ir numatant naujus, taip pat pateikiamas metodas, skirtas dizaineriškos mąstysenos tobulinimo veiksmingumui įvertinti.


Reikšminiai žodžiai: kūrybiškumas, dizaineriška mąstysena, skaitmeninės technologijos, lavinimas, ergonomika, inovacijos, poreikių ieškantys asmenys, ateities ergonomika.

Keyword : creativity, design thinking, digital technology, education, ergonomics, innovation, need-seekers, prospective ergonomics

How to Cite
Bourgeois-Bougrine, S., Latorre, S., & Mourey, F. (2018). Promoting creative imagination of non-expressed needs: exploring a combined approach to enhance design thinking. Creativity Studies, 11(2), 377-394. https://doi.org/10.3846/cs.2018.7184
Published in Issue
Dec 21, 2018
Abstract Views
63
PDF Downloads
83
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

References

Altman, M., Huang, T. T. K., & Breland, J. Y. (2018). Design thinking in health care. Preventing Chronic Disease 15. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2018/18_0128.htm

American Psychological Association. (2018). Safety & Design. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/top-ics/safety-design/index.aspx

Assink, M. (2006). Inhibitors of disruptive innovation capability: a conceptual model. European Journal of Innovation Management, 9(2), 215-233. https://doi.org/10.1108/14601060610663587

Baillie, C. (2002). Enhancing creativity in engineering students. Engineering Science and Education Journal, 11(5), 185-192. https://doi.org/10.1049/esej:20020503

Behm, M., Culvenor, J., & Dixon, G. (2014). Development of safe design thinking among engineering students. Safety Science, 63, 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2013.10.018

Bertrand, Ph., Guegan, J., Robieux, L., McCall, C. A., & Zenasni, F. (2018). Learning empathy through virtual reality: multiple strategies for training empathy-related abilities using body ownership illusions in embodied virtual reality. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 5, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2018.00026

Bourgeois-Bougrine, S., Buisine, S., Vandendriessche, C., Glaveanu, V., & Lubart T. (2017). Engineering students’ use of creativity and development tools in conceptual product design: what, when and how? Thinking Skills and Creativity, 24, 104-117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2017.02.016

Bourgeois-Bougrine, S., Richard, P., Lubart, T., Burkhardt, J. M., & Frantz, B. (2018, 26-30 August). Do virtual environments unleash everyone’s creative potential? In S. Bagnara, R. Tartaglia, S. Albolino, Th. Alexander, Y. Fujita (Eds.), Proceedings of the 20th Congress of the International Ergonomics Association (IEA 2018) (pp. 1328-1339). Series: Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing. Vol. 824. Congress of the International Ergonomics Association. Florence. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96071-5_134

Bourgeois-Bougrine, S., Sandoz, B., Allena, R., & Dallez, B. (2015, 17–18 September). Group creativity in biomedical engineering education. In R. P. Dameri & L. Baltrametti (Eds.), ECIE 2015 10th European Conference on Innovation and Entrepreneurship (ECIE 2015) (90 p.). University of Genoa, Italy. Genoa, Italy.

Bradfield, R., Wright, G., Burt, G., Cairns, G., & Heijden, Van Der K. (2005). The origins and evolution of scenario techniques in long range business planning. Futures, 37(8), 795-812. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2005.01.003

Brangier, E., Barcenilla, J., & Robert, J-M. (2017). Prospective ergonomics and innovative ideas in the early stages of design projects. In A. Zunjic (Ed.), Ergonomic Design and Assessment of Products and Systems (pp. 47-68). New York: Nova Science Publishers.

Brangier, É., & Robert, J-M. (2014). L’ergonomie prospective: fondements et enjeux. Le Travail Human, 1(77), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.3917/th.771.0001

Brown, T. (2009). Change by design: how design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation. New York: HarperCollins.

Brown, T., & Katz, B. (2011). Change by design. The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28(3), 381-383. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2011.00806.x

Buerkli, D. (2013). Why the d.school has its limits. The Stanford Daily. Retrieved from https://www.stanforddaily.com/2013/03/07/why-the-d-school-has-its-limits/

Buisine, S., Guegan, J., Barré, J., Segonds, F., & Aoussat, A. (2016). Using avatars to Tailor ideation process to innovation strategy. Cognition, Technology & Work, 18(3), 583-594. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-016-0378-y

Buur, J., & Matthews, B. (2008). Participatory innovation. International Journal of Innovation Management, 12(3), 255-273. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1363919608001996

Cahour, B. (2002). Décalages socio-cognitifs en réunions de conception participative. Le travail humain, 65(4), 315-337. https://doi.org/10.3917/th.654.0315

Cairns, G., Wright, G., Fairbrother, P., & Phillips, R. (2017). “Branching scenarios” seeking articulated action for regional regeneration – a case study of limited success. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 124, 189-202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.01.014

Carlgren, L., Elmquist, M., & Rauth, I. (2016). The challenges of using design thinking in industry – experiences from five large firms. Creativity and Innovation Management, 25(3), 344-362. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12176

Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1987). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: toward the solution of a riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(3), 497-509. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.53.3.497

dschool.fr. (2018). d.school Paris. Retrieved from http://www.dschool.fr/

Dym, C. L., Agogino, A. M., Eris, O., Frey, D. D., & Leifer, L. J. (2005). Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning. The Research Journal for Engineering Education, 94(1), 103-120. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2005.tb00832.x

economie.gouv.fr. (2015). Industrie du Futur: transformer le modèle industriel par le numérique. Retrieved from https://www.economie.gouv.fr/lancement-seconde-phase-nouvelle-france-industrielle

Friedman, R. S., & Förster, J. (2010). Implicit affective cues and attentional tuning: an integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 136(5), 875-893. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020495

Gibbs, G. (1988). Learning by doing: a guide to teaching and learning methods. Oxford: Further Education Unit, Oxford Polytechnic.

Gordon, Th. J., & Glenn, J. C. (2004, 13–14 May). Integration, comparisons, and frontier of futures research methods. EU-US Seminar: New Technology Foresight, Forecasting & Assessment Methods (pp. 106-122). Seville.

Guegan, J., Buisine, S., Mantelet, F., Maranzana, N., & Segonds, F. (2016). Avatar-mediated creativity: when embodying inventors makes engineers more creative. Computers in Human Behavior, 61, 165-175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.024

Hussain, M., Tapinos, E., & Knight, L. (2017). Scenario-driven roadmapping for technology foresight. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 124, 160-177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.05.005

iea.cc. (2018). International ergonomics association. Retrieved from http://www.iea.cc/whats/index.html

Iskander, N. (2018). Design thinking is fundamentally conservative and preserves the Status Quo. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2018/09/design-thinking-is-fundamentally-conservative-and-preserves-the-status-quo

Jaruzelski, B., Staack, V., & Goehle, B. (2014). Global innovation 1000: proven paths to innovation success. Strategy+Business, 77. New York: PwC Strategy & Inc.

Jouvenel, de H. (2002). La démarche prospective. Un bref guide méthodologique. Revue Futuribles 247. Retrieved from http://maelko.typepad.com/JouvenelProspective.pdf

Kirkpatrick Partners. (2009–2018). The Kirkpatrick model. Retrieved from https://www.kirkpatrickpartners.com/Our-Philosophy/The-Kirkpatrick-Model

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc.

Kristensson, P., & Magnusson, P. R. (2010). Tuning users’ innovativeness during ideation. Creativity and Innovation Management, 19(2), 147-159. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8691.2010.00552.x

Kristensson, P., Magnusson, P. R., & Matthing, J. (2002). Users as a hidden resource for creativity: findings from an experimental study on user involvement. Creativity and Innovation Management, 11(1), 55-61. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8691.00236

Kujala, S. (2003). User involvement: a review of the benefits and challenges. Behaviour & Information Technology, 22(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/01449290301782

Kunc, M., & O’Brien, F. A. (2017). Exploring the development of a methodology for scenario use: combining scenario and resource mapping approaches. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 124, 150-159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.03.018

Latorre, S., Markowski, K., & Pointet, J.-M. (2016, 1–4 June). How do management and human behavior bring success to virtual collaboration? European Academy of Management (EURAM) 2016. Paris: European Academy of Management, Université Paris-Est Créteil (unpublished source).

Leifer, L. J., & Steinert, M. (2011). Dancing with ambiguity: causality behavior, design thinking, and triple-loop-learning. Information, Knowledge, Systems Management, 10(1-4), 151-173.

Liedtka, J. (2015). Perspective: linking design thinking with innovation outcomes through cognitive bias reduction. The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32(6), 925-938. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12163

Lubart, T. I. (1999). Componential models. In M. A. Runco & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Creativity (pp. 295-300). Vol. 1. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Lubart, T. (2003). Psychologie de la créativité. Series: Cursus. N. Bacri, C. Chiland, G. Moser, F. Winnykamen (Eds.). Paris: Armand Colin/VUEF.

Mathisen, G. E., & Bronnick, K. S. (2009). Creative self-efficacy: an intervention study. International Journal of Educational Research, 48(1), 21-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2009.02.009

McCullagh, K. (2010). Design thinking: everywhere and nowhere, reflections on the big re-think. Core77. Retrieved from https://www.core77.com/posts/16277/design-thinkingeverywhere-and-nowhere-reflections-on-the-big-re-think-16277

McGregor, J. (2007). Clayton Christensen’s innovation brain. Bloomberg. Retrieved from https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2007-06-15/clayton-christensens-innovation-brainbusinessweek-business-news-stock-market-and-financial-advice

McKiernan, P. (2017). Prospective thinking; scenario planning meets neuroscience. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 124, 66-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.10.069

McWilliam, E. (2009). Teaching for creativity: from Sage to Guide to Meddler. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 29(3), 281-293. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188790903092787

Norman, D. (2013). The design of everyday things. New York: Basic Books.

Norman, D. A., & Verganti, R. (2012). Incremental and radical innovation: design research versus technology and meaning change. Design Issues, 30(1), 78-96. https://doi.org/10.1162/DESI_a_00250https://doi.org/10.1080/02188790903092787

Nussbaum, B. (2011). Design thinking is a failed experiment. So what’s next? Fast company. Retrieved from https://www.fastcompany.com/1663558/design-thinking-is-a-failed-experiment-so-whats-next

O’Brien, F. A. (2004). Scenario planning – lessons for practice from teaching and learning. European Journal of Operational Research, 152(3), 709-722. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00068-7

P21: Partnership for 21st Century Learning. (2018). Framework for 21st century learning. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/our-work/p21-framework

Patnaik, D., & Mortensen, P. (2009). Wired to care: how companies prosper when they create widespread empathy. San Mateo, CA: Jump Associates LLC.

Pescovitz, D., Rucker, R., Ellis, W., Naam R., Ashby, M., Sterling, B., & Doctorow, C. (2013). An aura of familiarity: visions from the coming age of networked matter. Palo Alto, CA: Institute for the Future.

Pink, D. H. (2006). A whole new mind: why right-brainers will rule the future. New York: Riverhead Books.

Plattner, H. (2010). An introduction to design thinking: process guide. Stanford: Institute of Design at Stanford.

Robert, J.-M., & Brangier, E. (2009). What is prospective ergonomics? A reflection and a position on the future of ergonomics. In B.-T. Karsh (Ed.), Ergonomics and Health Aspects of Work with Computers (pp. 162-169). HCI International 2009, LNCS 5624. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.

Scott, G., Leritz, L. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2004). The effectiveness of creativity training: a quantitative review. Creativity Research Journal, 16(4), 361-388. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400410409534549

Seelig, T. (2012). inGenius: a crash course on creativity. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.Seidel, V. P., & Fixson, S. K. (2013). Adopting design thinking in novice multidisciplinary teams: the application and limits of design methods and reflexive practices. The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30(S1), 19-33. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12061

Shin, D. (2018). Empathy and embodied experience in virtual environment: to what extent can virtual reality stimulate empathy and embodied experience? Computers in Human Behavior, 78, 64-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.09.012

Stanton, N., Hedge, A., Brookhuis, K., Salas, E., & Hendrick, H. (2005). Handbook of human factors and ergonomics methods. Boca Raton, London, New York, Washington, D.C.: CRC Press LLC.

Steidle, A., & Werth, L. (2013). Freedom from constraints: darkness and dim illumination promote creativity. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 35, 67-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.05.003

Thornhill-Miller, B., & Dupont, J.-M. (2016). Virtual reality and the enhancement of creativity and innovation: under recognized potential among converging technologies? Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 15(1), 102-121. https://doi.org/10.1891/1945-8959.15.1.102

Verganti, R. (2010). User-centered innovation is not sustainable. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2010/03/user-centered-innovation-is-no

Ware, C. (2008). Visual thinking for design: active vision, attention, visual queries, gist, visual skills, color, narrative, design. Series: The Morgan Kaufmann Series in Interactive Technologies. S. Card, J. Grudin, J. Nielsen (Eds.). Amsterdam: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Elsevier Inc.

Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. (2018). Hill climbing. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hill_climbing

Wright, G., Cairns, G., & Goodwin, P. (2009). Teaching scenario planning: lessons from practice in academe and business. European Journal of Operational Research, 194(1), 323-335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2007.12.003

Wrigley, C., Mosely, G., & Tomitsch, M. (2018). Design thinking education: a comparison of massive open online courses, She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 4(3), 275-292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sheji.2018.06.002

Yang, Ch. M. (2018). Applying design thinking as a method for teaching packaging design. Journal of Education and Learning, 7(5), 52-61. https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v7n5p52

Yee, N., Bailenson, J. N., & Ducheneaut, N. (2009). The proteus effect: implications of transformed digital self-representation on online and offline behavior. Communication Research, 36(2), 285-312. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650208330254