The document discusses design thinking and innovation. It argues that design thinking is not exclusive to designers, as creativity and innovation are innate processes that can be developed through learning. It examines definitions of innovation, theories of how ideas are generated, and components necessary for creative responses. It suggests design thinking be viewed as a learning process where individuals with different cognitive styles can be assigned based on their strengths to cultivate cross-disciplinary innovation teams.

1. Innovation within design thinking is
not exclusive to the designer as it is
an innate creative process that can
be developed through learning
HI DESIGN THINKING IRA RIZAL YATIM
Saturday, 25 October, 14

2. INTRODUCTION HI DESIGN THINKING IRA
Innovation have been a buzzword within design thinking as it is often proclaimed as the best way to be
creative and to innovate. Design thinking often is associated exclusively to the designer as a design specific
cognitive process that designers apply when designing. The notion of design as “a way of thinking” have
been viewed also as a designer’s way of thinking which Lucy Kimbell identified in three ways:
All 3 ways places the designer as the main agent of change and is derived from key design concepts to
approach each problem. What started out as a an activity within a discipline has gain merit to a process with
the power to simulate, drive innovation and transform organizations.
Does this mean the term design thinking is exclusive only to the designer’s way on making sense of things
with the designers own terms? A better understanding is necessary into the basis of design thinking before
adopting the process for the achievement of innovation.
A cognitive style
A general theory
of design
An organizational
resource
Saturday, 25 October, 14

3. Most often, we adopt design daily in our lives from how we organize our
workstation, laying out our furniture at home to choosing our wardrobe for the
day. Everyone is a designer and it has become something we can all practice as
part of our consumption activities.
At the same time, design disciplines have been trying to describe the specific
things that design professionals do and how they are distinctive. Design methods
have been discussed since the 1960s and has found a key role in innovation urging
everyone to be a design thinker instead, especially in management. To
understand this better, lets look at an elemental understanding of what innovation
is to establish a basis for our inquiry into design thinking.
THE DESIGNER IN ALL OF US HI DESIGN THINKING IRA
Saturday, 25 October, 14

4. “the act of introducing something new”
- IP Nelson
“the implementation of a new significantly
improved product (good or service) or
process, a new marketing method, or a
new organizational method in business
practice, workplace organization, or
external relations.”
- Oslo Manual
a new “thought, behavior, or thing” is
conceived of and brought into existence
- H.G Barnett
Each of this definition suggests that innovation as a
creation of something new which requires an action
or process of some type that introduces something
new. However, we may note that there can be some
ambiguity in what exactly constitute to be new and its
introduction. New things can take a variety of forms
such as a product behavior, system, process or
organizations but at the heart of all these “new
things” is an idea when acted upon ultimately affects
innovation.
By introducing some action inspired by the idea starts
the process with which the eventual “introduction”
can occur thus initiating the innovation. Relevant to
design thinking as a creative approach to innovation,
we explore the genesis of the idea for an
understanding of the design thinking method on
ideation. (Wylantt, 2008)
A LOOK INTO INNOVATION HI DESIGN THINKING IRA
Saturday, 25 October, 14

5. Barry Wylantt proposed key elements in the idea mechanism that
provides us some insights into how ideas are generated. He
introduced the element of a considered stimuli that has to exist
in a setting or context within one’s imaginative perception.
One can cognitively nest perception within a body of experience
and learning that can inform the comprehension of a particular
stimulus and make sense of it in an imaginative way.
Within this cognitive contextualization, the key interplay of its
elements is the capacity of the stimulus to hold one’s attention
and the malleability of the imaginative perception itself.
It is important to note that the quality of the innovation requires
the need to move beyond imitative and continuos innovations
with the consideration of the stimuli in increasingly disparate
context. This ultimately can improve one’s creative output into the
ideation process for innovation. (Wylantt, 2008)
THE GENESIS OF AN IDEA SUGGESTED EVIDENCE
A considered
stimuli
imaginative perception
A considered
stimuli
imaginative perception
cognitivecontextualization
Saturday, 25 October, 14

6. Wylantt then further explored this process with psychologist, Teresa Amabile’s componential theory of
creativity where she proposes a comprehensive model of the social and psychological components
necessary for an individual to produce creative work hence stimulating innovation.
Amabile’s theory was then drawn parallel to a basic design process and distinct similarities was discovered
which is useful in understanding how smaller aspects of the design process might be completed. Within
any creative endeavor, the final creative outcome is based on a single idea and this end state is achieved
through the genesis of many smaller ideas. (Wylantt, 2008)
Problem/ Task
Presentation
Preparation
Response
Generation
Response
Validation
Creative
Outcome
Problem Definition
/Design brief
Background
Research
Sketch
Generation
CAD Work
Prototype &
User Testing
Design
Specification
Wylantt’s process of design
Amabile’s creative process
THE GENESIS OF AN IDEA SUGGESTED EVIDENCE
Saturday, 25 October, 14

7. With this, I would suggest to look deeper into the
components that is necessary in any creative
response, mainly in design thinking, which can
now be thought of more as a professionalized
version of the creative process.
As Amabile identified within the theory, there are
four components necessary in any creative
response; three components within the individual
and one outside the individual.
This provides us some insights in which innovation
can be achieved with better confluence of all the
components. More research can be done to
consider this components within design thinking
to achieve innovation instead of approaching it
from only a designer’s perspective.
TOWARDS THE IDEA OF INNOVATION RECOMMENDATION
1) domain relevant skills
This refers to the knowledge, technical skill or expertise from an individual that can
be acquired through experience or learning.
2) creativity relevant processes
This include cognitive styles and personality characteristics to synthesize information
which can be develop through experience and training.
3) intrinsic task motivation
Underlying the components before, motivation forms an individual and in effect
improve the achievement of creativity. More significantly, intrinsic motivation sets
as the central tenet in Amabile’s theory such as passion, interests or the challenge of
the work itself.
4) the social environment in which the individual is working
The social environment in which creativity is practiced can influence the
achievement of innovation. Hence, building a creative culture within the
environment can affect better creative response. (Amabile, 2012)
Saturday, 25 October, 14

8. COGNITIVE
CONTEXTUALIZATION
Within Wylantt’s idea mechanism, he proposed that in order to ideate, the stimuli need to placed in increasingly disparate context
to achieve the highest level of innovation. He gave the “idea” in innovation with the need to breathe within a context or setting
given. The need for a constant reframing of the idea within a given context improves the quality in the innovation. He continues to
give the analogy of the expression “thinking outside the box” as a cognitive contextualization to give meaning to an idea and
suggest that it would be more appropriate to express it as “thinking in a different box”. This is significantly similar towards
Buchanan’s thoughts on design thinking specifically on his discussion with placements as the boundary of context or orientation
to thinking. He proposes seeing the possibilities of innovation through conceptual placements.
Placements are ‘tools’ for intuitively or deliberately shaping a design situation, identifying the views of all participants, the issues of
concern, and the intervention that becomes a working hypothesis for exploration and development, thereby letting the problem
formulation and solution go hand in hand rather than as sequential steps. (Sköldberg, Woodilla and Çetinkaya, 2013)
It is evident then that both processes feature some concepts of contextualization for the achievement of innovation. Both
concepts agree on the importance of contextualization that can ultimately simulate creation of something new.
CONCEPTUAL
PLACEMENTS=
THE CONTEXT IN INNOVATION SUGGESTED EVIDENCE
Saturday, 25 October, 14

9. With this similar approach in achieving
innovation, we suggest that the approach
towards design thinking be more of a
learning process instead of a model
towards innovation. Cultivating creativity
can improve innovation within design
thinking as it is an innate cognitive
process especially when a deeper
understanding is established through
learning.
This process can be viewed as proposed
by Beckman and Barry’s paper to look into
the innovation process as a learning
model where they adopted from Kolb’s
“experiential learning model” in 1985.
TOWARDS THE CONTEXT IN INNOVATION RECOMMENDATION
In essence, it requires the individual to
engage in
a) concrete experience
b) abstract conceptualization
c) reflective observation
d) active experimentation
as an ongoing reconstruction of whereby
knowledge is created through the
transformation of experience. Each of
the phase can be approached with a
learning style and by adaptability within
the innovation process can cultivate cross
disciplinary innovation teams.
There is then evidence that role
assignments on team are best based on
learning styles not exclusive to only the
designer as the main agent of change.
Where individuals in a team are assigned
based on their strengths and not their
seniority. (Beckman, Barry, 2007)
The integration of the innovation process
model and the learning process model
provides an opportunity to construct cross
disciplinary innovation with better
understanding of different cognitive styles
hence simulating better innovation.
Saturday, 25 October, 14

10. Design thinking offers a a huge possibility with a better understanding on its
attitude towards innovation. This suggests that an innate creative process evidently
deep within all individuals that can be developed when approaching design
thinking. Moving away from the designer as the exclusive agent of change,
everyone has the competency to lead innovation with having a sense of
appreciation for the design process.
However, being creative is only part of the competence and practice of a designer’s
work and it is impossible to take the designer out of design thinking but to provide
better clarity in the term itself as part of a thought process rather than just a
model for adoption, more meaningful participation towards design thinking can
encourage innovation.
Looking at the whole design process as a matter of meaning creation, we do not
believe that there is a unique meaning of “design thinking”. Instead we look for
where and how the concept is used in different situations and what meaning is given
to the concept. (Sköldberg, Woodilla and Çetinkaya, 2013)
CONCLUSION HI DESIGN THINKING IRA
Saturday, 25 October, 14

11. Wylant, Barry (2008), Design Thinking and the experience of innovation, Design Issues Vol 24 No 2
Kimbell, Lucy (2011), Rethinking Design Thinking: Part 1 Vol 3 Issue 3
Amabile, Teresa M. (2012), Componential Theory of Creativity
Buchanan, Richard (1992) Wicked Problems in Design Thinking, Design Issues Vol VIII No 2
Backman, Sara L & Barry, Michael (2007) Innovation as a Learning Process: Embedding Design Thinking Vol 50 No 1
Sköldberg, Ula Johansson, Woodilla, Jill & Çetinkaya, Mehvis (2013) Design Thinking: Past, Present And Possible Future
BIBLIOGRAPHY HI DESIGN THINKING IRA
Saturday, 25 October, 14