Design Sprints: A New Tool for Social Entrepreneurship Education

Abstract

The subject of social entrepreneurship has considerably gained traction in recent years. There is significant debate about the optimal teaching concepts for this subject, providing sufficient structure to students, supporting collaborative group work, and encouraging the students to follow up their respective projects after the course or even after graduation.

This study analyzes how the method “design sprint” can positively impact social entrepreneurship education. Design sprints combine several design thinking and lean start-up practices into a structured multiday format. For this study the authors created a university course in the field of social entrepreneurship. To evaluate the impact of the course, a variety of qualitative data sources was collected, ranging from learning diaries to surveys, interviews, and observations. Results indicate that design sprints provide much-needed structure to students, especially if supported by the right digital tools. They also support collaborative group work by reducing free-riding behavior and providing valuable practical skills to students.

1 Introduction

During the last century development aid was the main way to address social challenges such as health, poverty, or education. In recent decades the importance of social entrepreneurship as an alternative has increased (Harding, 2007). Social entrepreneurs are commonly defined as entrepreneurs addressing social problems through market-based and innovative interventions while also seeking financial independence from external funds (Miller et al., 2012). Although it is difficult to calculate the exact impact of social entrepreneurship, reports from a variety of countries show that social entrepreneurs have achieved many successes, from reducing poverty to providing health care and protecting the environment (Ahrend, 2016).

Due to such successes, interest by students in social entrepreneurship education has increased in recent years. Therefore, more and more universities include it in their curricula (Miller et al., 2012).

Lackéus (2015) defines three areas of entrepreneurship education: Teaching about, for, and through entrepreneurship education. Teaching “about” entrepreneurship focuses on the theory of entrepreneurship. “For” reflects the learning of the basic knowledge and skills for entrepreneurial activity (Lackéus, 2015; Bartsch, 2019; Pache & Chowdhury, 2012). The approach “through” entrepreneurship education mainly concerns the methodology. It concentrates on the “doing” of entrepreneurial activities and less on the content learning goal (Bartsch, 2019). Teaching “through” entrepreneurship provides students with hands-on experience through project-based and experiential learning, allowing skills to be acquired during the process (Wihlenda & Brahm, 2020).

This case study combines teaching for (social) entrepreneurship and teaching through entrepreneurship. Specifically, we combine lectures on social entrepreneurship with a design sprint.

Design sprints are a method first developed by Jake Knapp at Google ventures. In a five-day format, a variety of design thinking methods are applied in a very structured format (Knapp et al., 2016).

Design sprints have gained widespread popularity among companies, institutions, and social enterprises. They have been used to develop new software applications (Magistretti et al., 2020), reform the way government services are delivered (Parallel, 2020), and develop innovative health-care approaches (Martinez et al., 2018). Design sprints have been applied successfully by a wide range of organizations which include the United Nations, Lufthansa, and LEGO among many others (Bacq et al., 2020). They are generally valued for the possibility to incorporate user feedback from the start, iterate quickly, and provide testable solutions with clear results after just a few days (Knapp et al., 2016; Magistretti et al., 2020).

These characteristics are also beneficial for social entrepreneurs, as they usually need to move quickly with limited resources while creating a solution that will truly benefit their users. At the same time, design sprints also provide a suitable teaching tool based on their clear structure, short time span, and high level of malleability (Bacq et al., 2020; Ferreira & Canedo, 2020).

Initially, design sprints have been used to teach software development (Magistretti et al., 2021) and entrepreneurial skills in general (Bacq et al., 2020; Neergard et al., 2022). Yet, only few studies have so far explored their use in education beyond the areas of technology and business studies. Notable exceptions are studies by Neegard et al. (2022) which have applied the method to teach nursing students about entrepreneurial methods and Bacq et al. (2020) which have organized a virtual “idea blitz” as a response to COVID-19, incorporating some elements of design sprints. We aim to contribute to this literature and explore how the method can be incorporated in an interdisciplinary course setting focusing on social entrepreneurship.

1.1 Design Sprints

In the regular setup a design sprint starts on the first day (usually a Monday) by convening the team, clarifying roles, and choosing a long-term goal for the project, e.g., what should be achieved in 1–5 years. In his book Knapp (2016) provides an example of a start-up with the long-term goal to match more patients with clinical trial studies, thus providing more patients with access to the latest treatment and accelerating the speed of research. The team then decides on which question they want to focus on during the sprint, rephrasing potential obstacles into questions. In the clinical trial example, these were “can we find matches fast enough?” and “will clinics change their workflow.”

To incorporate existing knowledge and understand stakeholder as well as user opinions, the team then conducts 3–6 stakeholder interviews. The results are collected on Post-its and used to map the customer journey. Any arising questions are phrased in the style of “how might we question,” a common tool in the field of design thinking.

We kept this general approach, but asked teams to conduct the user interviews before the sprint, because we wanted to make sure that the teams were adapting to the schedule of their users. As several of the student teams were working with users in Africa, their users frequently did not have access to a personal mobile phone and were not available at all times. Thus, teams had to adapt and also plan more time for this step. We instructed teams to conduct interviews beforehand and included a review section on the first day, where teams could collect all the input they received from the interviews.

In a regular sprint, Tuesday is used to research best practices from other products, domains, and industries (Knapp et al., 2016; Ferreira & Canedo, 2020). How have others solved our problems before? Which inspirations can be gained here? These examples are presented in the style of “lightning demos,” where many different options are presented in a rapid speed. In the following, promising ideas are presented further and more detailed sketches are created for the best of them.

Participants then use the Wednesday to present the ideas by hanging them on a wall, similar to a museum gallery. Everybody notes which aspect of the different ideas they like best, by sticking little dots next to them.

We combined the activities for Tuesday and Wednesday together into our Day 2, as we found that students were rarely able to leave their courses for a whole week. By limiting our design sprint to 3 days overall (and scheduling them Thursday–Saturday), we could reduce the friction in the student’s schedule.

The Thursday of a design sprint week is usually spend creating the prototype (Knapp et al., 2016). We scheduled this for our Day 3. As we were conducting a completely digital sprint, our students had a variety of helpful digital tools to choose from. Thus, we scheduled 5-minute input sessions for each tool before letting the students start with their prototyping. These tools included Canva for creating flyers, Storyboard for creating explainer videos, and Wix for creating homepages. Some of the tools were presented by the team of lecturers; others by experienced participants in the seminar.

Usually, the Friday of a sprint is spent on testing with real users. This is very helpful, as it increases the focus during the other days and creates a satisfying end to a sprint. Previous studies have sometimes skipped the requirement to test with real users (Neergard et al., 2022) or have replaced them with faculty and research assistants (Ferreira & Canedo, 2020). However, we considered it crucial to get feedback from actual users. Thus, we allowed the team two more weeks to coordinate schedules with the actual users of their proposed solution.

Figure 1 provides an overview about the main stages of a design sprint and how we adapted them for a social entrepreneurship course.

Fig. 1

Design sprints

By adapting the design sprint concept to the teaching context within social entrepreneurship, we aim to provide a new method to practitioners and teachers. We combined this approach with a research project to establish its efficacy and answer the following research questions in Fig. 2:

Fig. 2

Research questions

Thus, we contribute to the existing research in the following ways: First, we follow the call for research by Brock and Steiner (2009) to examine the effectiveness of different in-class activities for teaching social entrepreneurship. By adding the design sprint methodology, we add to the method pool available to teachers in the field.

Second, we explore the use of design sprints in an area where they had previously not been applied. By comparing the methodology to traditional teaching instruments like service-based projects and case studies (Brock & Steiner, 2009), we are able to provide both practitioners and teachers with an implementation roadmap as well as an evaluation of benefits and challenges. Specifically, we focus on benefits for the collaboration between group members, which is a frequent issue in group-based projects.

As social entrepreneurship education is mostly taught in group settings, it is of special importance to achieve a successful collaboration between team members. Students point out that the problem of noncontributing team members is one of their main challenges in successfully completing projects (Brooks & Ammons, 2003). Previous studies have mostly focused on actions students themselves should take to prevent free riding (like peer assessments at the end of the course). We add to this literature by exploring whether changes to the course structure by the instructors can prevent its occurrence from the beginning.

In addition, we add to initial studies applying design sprints in educational settings (like software development) and identify necessary adaptations. For instance, Neegard et al. (2022) point out that students in interdisciplinary courses which include many non-tech and nonbusiness students will need more preparation time before conducting a sprint to introduce key concepts to them. Also, previous studies have skipped testing the resulting prototype with users (Ferreira & Canedo, 2020; Neergard et al., 2022) and replaced them with pitching events or interviews with faculty members, presumably due to challenges with course logistics. We aim to adapt the method in a way that it is possible to include real user feedback.

Finally, we transfer this method which was initially designed for in-person events to a virtual setting. A few previous studies have demonstrated that this is possible (Bacq et al., 2020). We add to this stream of literature by examining the positive and negative effects of a virtual setting and exploring suitable tools that can support this setup.

2 Literature Review

While many definitions of social enterprises exist, we follow Kruse (2019, 2021) (see p. 3, in Kruse et al. (2021)) and define a social enterprise as an enterprise that “(a) has a business model, (b) combines a social mission with the aspiration to generate financial profit, and (c) is innovative and involves considerable risk.” Social entrepreneurship is then considered as the process through which social entrepreneurs create social value by innovatively using and combining resources (Mair & Marti, 2006).

The growing general interest in entrepreneurship and the rising awareness of societal issues among students has led to an increase in social entrepreneurship education (Brock & Steiner, 2009). Yet, just as long as the topic has existed, there have been extensive discussions about the right teaching methods (Tracey & Phillips, 2007; McNally et al., 2020).

Previous studies have found that courses have moved away from instructor-oriented courses to student-centered courses (McNally et al., 2020). These often include a service-learning experience, where students conduct a project that benefits an NGO or other organization (Brock & Steiner, 2009). This is frequently done through some kind of group project, such as creating a business plan for a social enterprise, a marketing campaign, or writing a grant proposal (Brock & Steiner, 2009).

However, these types of projects have the constraint that they require a close match between student skills and organizational needs. In addition, if students feel that they lack the structure to reach their goal, they might feel lost during the project or deliver substandard results to their clients. Furthermore, they might need high levels of support from the teaching team, reducing the possibility of scaling the approach.

We explore whether the design sprint methodology explained in the introduction can be a tool for social entrepreneurship education that addresses these challenges. Specifically, we want to understand whether the detailed structure of an action-oriented learning methodology like design sprints can support students. Especially we focus on those students that are new to the field of entrepreneurship and might lack confidence in their own competence.

2.1 Advantages Compared to Other Teaching Methods

Previous studies on the use of design sprints in education have found that they helped teams to develop creative ideas quickly (Bacq et al., 2020), gain a deeper understanding of course content (Ferreira & Canedo, 2020), and empower students to act entrepreneurially (Neergard et al., 2022). In addition, the few studies having focused on their use in social entrepreneurship education have found that they can also accelerate social entrepreneurial actions (Bacq et al., 2020).

Adding to this list, we theorize that design sprints can also help reduce free riding of some group members – one of the challenges hindering many project-based learning activities.

As discussed, social entrepreneurship courses are strongly based on service-learning activities, where students solve a real societal need, usually conducted as part of a group project (Brock & Steiner, 2009). However, student group works are frequently plagued by free-riding behavior from some team members (Brooks & Ammons, 2003; Ashraf, 2004). As this problem occurs in many group-based settings, various remedies to this problem have been proposed. They range from early and frequent peer evaluations by students (Brooks & Ammons, 2003) to let group members “fire” the free-riding group members (Abernethy & Lett, 2003).

Researchers have identified a variety of reasons for free riding (beyond the frequently assumed laziness), such as feelings of insecurity about the task at hand, differing opinions with regard to how quickly work needs to be completed, or even purposeful exclusion of weaker team members by stronger ones (Hall & Buzwell, 2012).

During a design sprint, all team members work on the problem at the same time and frequently reconvene with each other and the lecturer to discuss their findings (Knapp et al., 2016). Thus, intentional free riders would have to return after a working session with nothing to show for. This would not only be immediately visible to their teammates but also to instructors who have permanent access to all team results through the shared digital boards. Unintentional free riders, on the other hand, receive frequent opportunities to clarify potential questions and are less likely to be excluded as all tasks are completed on a joint time frame.

2.2 Disadvantages Compared to Other Teaching Methods

At the same time, the highly structured format of a design sprint can also be a disadvantage. Within a design sprint, students operate in an environment where expectations and next steps are clearly articulated. On the one hand, one could argue that this is never the case in a true entrepreneurial setting, leading to an experience that is too far removed from the reality of starting a social enterprise, not preparing participants sufficiently for the messy world of entrepreneurship.

On the other hand, exactly this structured format can provide students with feelings of mastery, as they are able to develop, implement, and test their own ideas within a very short time frame. This initial feeling of mastery could then help with kickstarting follow-up activities that would otherwise have appeared too daunting. Bacq et al. (2020) found a similar effect in their study, where many participants of their idea blitz (which was based on the design sprint methodology) conducted independent follow-up projects after the end of the project.

2.3 Need for Adaptation of the Method Compared to Previously Used Settings

Compared to previous studies where design sprints have been used for teaching software development and nursing (Neergard et al., 2022), using design sprints in social entrepreneurship poses some additional challenges. In many cases users of the potential solution are located far away from the teams conducting the design sprint. This complicates the gathering of feedback that is essential.

Also, cultural differences and differences in socioeconomic circumstances might make it harder to truly understand users’ needs, a frequent challenge in the field of UX research (Lee & Kun-Pyo, 2007).

We addressed these challenges with a variety of different remedies: First, the design sprint format was changed to allow for more flexibility in coordinating interviews and feedback sessions with users. Second, we provided teams with mentors from the respective user communities. These mentors offered the necessary connections to the users, were able to build trust between the users and the team, and could mediate in the case of cultural challenges. Third, we addressed the challenges caused by this setting in the course and teams exchanged their experiences and best practices.

2.4 Effects of a Digital Setting

Finally, due to COVID-19, the design sprint was conducted in a completely virtual setting, whereas the concept was originally developed for in-person meetings (Knapp et al., 2016). We theorize that this has mixed effects on the successful use of the method. On the one hand, a completely virtual setting allows the instructors to check in on students’ progress in regular intervals without having to disturb the group work, as all work is being done on a shared virtual whiteboard.

It also avoids the frequent problem of not having consistent access to the same rooms and having to switch rooms, disrupting the progress (Knapp et al., 2016; Bacq et al., 2020). At the same time, previous studies (in in-person settings) have found that mobile phones and digital devices can be a significant distraction for students (Ferreira & Canedo, 2020). During in-person sprints, all digital devices are banned from use during the sprint. In our case, their use as a research tool was explicitly encouraged. We will use the case study to explore the effects of this policy.

3 Case

The intention of the course was to convey the theoretical foundations of successful social innovations and enable students to take the first steps towards the implementation of their own ideas. Students were recruited from all degrees offered at the university, including Bachelor as well as Masters degrees and the course was offered as an elective. The course was divided into two parts: four classroom sessions and a three-day block seminar. Students were encouraged to develop their own projects in the field of social entrepreneurship and to start implementing them. In particular, they were supposed to learn to work in a customer- and user-centered way, build prototypes quickly, and gather feedback.

The entire lecture, including the block seminar, took place completely digitally. This involved alternating between discussion and presentation of results in the Zoom plenum and working in group rooms, using different tools like a digital whiteboard (Miro).

The first session included digital keynote speeches from stakeholders in the field of social entrepreneurship. These lectures were intended as a source of inspiration for possible project ideas. For example, an initiative promoting sustainability in the region, a representative of Amnesty International, and a former founder were guests. At the same time, students were also able to contribute their own ideas. In the end, the projects chosen by the students covered a wide range of topics and the 11 students split across three groups:

• 1. Creation of a women’s shelter in rural Kenia to protect women fleeing from domestic violence. This project was started based on input from a local Amnesty International representative from Tanzania. The goal is that the shelter can support its own operation. How this should be achieved (through the offering of services, selling of goods, etc.) was to be explored during the course.

• 2. The creation of a fairly produced gin, which supports high-quality jobs in South Africa. This project was developed based on the idea of a participant with ties to the area.

• 3. The development of an app that supports customers with a wide range of food allergies by letting them know which meals are safe to eat in a restaurant. This project originated from the experiences of a team member with a severe food allergy.

The course was structured to support the groups in moving forward with these projects. They first learned the basics in the field of social entrepreneurship, such as the design of business models in the social sector. They also gained in-depth insights into different methods and frameworks such as design thinking, lean start-up, and business model canvas as well as the impact model canvas.

Towards the end of the semester, a three-day block seminar followed. This block seminar was based on the concept design sprint developed by Knapp et al. (2016), as described in the introduction.

After completion of the design sprint, the groups had 3 weeks to gather user feedback on their results and prepare a presentation. These were then presented at a pitch event to a jury. The course grade was based on the presentation, divided between pitching the respective solution and reflecting on progress during the course. All presentations took place digitally via Zoom. In addition, each student prepared a learning diary, reflecting on their own learning progress. Based on this form of examination, we were able to record and recognize individual learning progress. This was important as students from different semesters and majors had participated in the elective.

4 Methodology

The focus of this study, combining social entrepreneurship and design sprints, has not been covered extensively so far. Thus, we decided to adopt a case study methodology (Yin, 2012), allowing a deeper understanding of the data compared to a quantitative study (Magistretti et al., 2021).

During the course, we collected a range of different data sets and used them as input for our study:

• 1. The students created learning journals reflecting on their projects.

• 2. They filled out anonymous questionnaires about the experience. A total of 11 participating students received a half-structured questionnaire, which was based on the previously made observations and on the research questions that had been established. The principles of creating a qualitative questionnaire were taken into account (Mayring, 2016). The questions were formulated according to the target group and kept open in order to best reflect the behavior and experience of the students. Closed-ended questions were also incorporated in order to use filtering functions, e.g., by asking more in-depth questions from students with more experience (Döring et al., 2016).

• 3. A selection of students took part in half-structured qualitative interviews. A half-structured interview was based on an interview guide with open-ended questions (Döring et al., 2016). According to the principle of openness, unexpected information and new aspects on a topic could be captured (Gläser & Laudel, 2010).

• 4. The instructors, together with a separate researcher, observed group interactions during the course and collected their results.

The learning journals and surveys were already available in a written format. The interviews and observations were transcribed in order to be coded. The collected data was evaluated interpretatively with an inductive coding system using the MAXQDA program (Döring et al., 2016).

In this process, the documented data sources were analyzed in a systematic procedure and a category system was formed (Mayring, 2016). Information was then assigned to the different categories, in order to reduce the complexity of the data, and key insights were extracted (Gläser & Laudel, 2010). Following the approach by Magistretti et al. (2021), information was first analyzed separately by the authors and then discussed jointly to extract the most insightful information.

5 Findings

In Fig. 3 we showcase our findings regarding the different research questions.

Fig. 3

Findings (if a finding was based on several data sources, this is indicated by the small additional Post-its)

5.1 Advantages and Disadvantages Compared to Other Teaching Methods

Combining the insights from the learning journals, the questionnaires, the interviews, and the observations, we find a range of advantages of design sprints compared to other teaching formats like traditional lectures and more unstructured project-based learning formats.

The design sprint format provided a very clear understanding of which tasks were required from students. This significantly reduced task ambiguity and reduced fears from students with low levels of previous exposure to entrepreneurial activities. At the same time, it allowed for the creative expression of student ideas. Students felt that they could quickly turn their ideas into something real.

This structure helped me a lot because it provided a concrete goal towards which we were heading as a team. […]. The design sprints gave that missing structure, which is why I think the results were better here, too. Everyone knew where the journey was going and of course, everyone had to do their part. (Learning diary, course participant 1)

The prototyping made the whole product feel real. (Survey D)

Through the method, students had a clear understanding on how they could make progress on their idea, which was perceived as highly motivating. Students also gained a better understanding why concepts like prototyping and user research are important to create good ideas:

We moved along faster. We were not stuck as long as usual and we had more creative ideas. (Survey B)

In those (previous courses taken at university) there was mainly a lot of research and only few aspects were confirmed or refuted with interviews and questionnaires. Therefore, I will use the design sprint approach in future projects to get feedback as early as possible! (Learning diary, course participant 5)

These results exhibit a progression that students do not experience in a traditional lecture. Traditional project-based learning usually provides a problem and some guidance to students, but it is a lot less detailed than during a design sprint. This can be beneficial for highly independent students, but detrimental for those who are initially overwhelmed.

Another advantage was that the format helped to reduce lengthy discussions about the merits of potential ideas, which frequently slow down efficient decision-making in group projects. Students specifically praised the voting mechanism, which allowed them to move forward quickly and without negatively connotated discussions while also incorporating each group member’s opinions. This was also noted by the observers, which noticed a much higher progression rate of the teams than expected, based on other traditional course formats.

[The method] helped to move forward fast from idea to implementation, there were no lengthy discussions. […] Through democratic decisions, we came to decisions quickly and discussed for a shorter time. (Survey A)

What I found very helpful about this method is that after listing the possible goals, you then vote democratically. (Learning diary, course participant 4)

The democratic decisions were helpful, as everybody could and had to contribute. (Interview, course participant 1)

Finally, our results showed that the design sprint phase almost eliminated free-riding behavior within the groups. Whereas the learning journals and observations indicated that free riding was a significant problem prior to the sprint, the 3 days during the sprint showed the teams working as a cohesive unit. This is attributed to the fact that teams worked in parallel in comparatively short time units. They frequently had only 30 min or an hour to complete a task and all activity was visible to all other team members and the teaching staff on the virtual whiteboard.

Thus, a design sprint format seems to be able to prevent free-riding behavior during the activity:

The team worked intensively together and developed a prototype together. Especially the close exchange and the long time spent together on the elaboration of the idea promotes progress enormously. The objectives of the individual phases also forced everyone to get to grips with the subject matter. In retrospect, it can be said that the teamwork worked best here. Everyone contributed and developed new ideas on how to move our idea forward. Positive criticism was also voiced, which was almost unheard of before. (Learning diary, course participant 1)

In addition, previously discussed reasons for involuntary free-riding behavior such as feelings of uncertainty about the task at hand, differing opinions about how quickly the work must be completed, or even the deliberate exclusion of weaker team members by stronger ones (Hall & Buzwell, 2012) were also prevented by the design sprint format.

The structured timeframe required the results. You had to deliver and could not procrastinate. (Survey G)

However, it could be observed that after the design sprint phase, productivity and group affiliation leveled off and complaints of free-riding behaviors returned.

It can be so tiring to wait for reactions and input from others who are obviously not interested in the topic. (Learning diary, course participant 2)

Regarding the disadvantages, students mainly noted that they initially felt stressed by the time pressure created by the sprint format. Interestingly, many also noted that they came to appreciate this aspect later on and are even considering to implement time boxing in other projects outside the class. Also, it was noted that for teams interacting with users in Africa, the time frame for interviews was still considered too short. The team would have liked to interview more users and get an even better understanding. In this case, the design sprint might have cut short beneficial user interactions.

Finally, it remains to be seen how teams fare outside the classroom, after being used to a highly structured environment, as entrepreneurial settings rarely provide clear-cut directions how to proceed. After receiving a lot of support and structure during the sprint, the gap to the entrepreneurial world outside the classroom might be perceived as larger than in a regular project-based course (Braukmann et al., 2009).

5.2 Necessary Adaptations

We noted that a few important adaptations are necessary to a design sprint if students from nonbusiness or non-tech majors participate. First, students from degrees like “Health Management” have less initial knowledge of entrepreneurial activities in general. Thus, more introductory lectures are needed, before they can start with their sprint. These students might also harbor fears whether they possess the right competencies for such a course. We included initial lectures on social entrepreneurship before starting the sprint, which proved to be beneficial.

In addition, the resulting ideas from a social entrepreneurship course might need more support if students want to follow up. These ideas are less geared towards profit maximization and more towards a positive societal impact. Students thus expressed worries about finding sufficient funding to follow their ideas further.

If I had financial support, I would be more likely to keep working on the idea and the start-up. A seed-funding from the universities or something similar would be helpful. (Interview, course participant 2)

5.3 Impact of a Digital Format

The design sprint was conducted completely virtually. Previous studies have used tools like Google Docs (Bacq et al., 2020). We find virtual whiteboard tools like Miro to be even more suitable, as they are a good fit for the highly visual nature of a design sprint. Every group received a previously prepared digital whiteboard with all the relevant questions and sample answers as well as an introduction to a variety of tools for prototyping. Students perceived this as very helpful:

It [the digital whiteboard] was a great overview and can only be recommended. (Survey E)

It was the first time that I worked with it [the digital whiteboard], but I had heard a lot about it previously. I really liked it and will definitely use it for future projects. Survey F)

During their digital design sprint, students also built competencies in other digital tools while they were creating their prototypes (webpage builder, design tools, video tools). This was perceived as a highly transferable skill, which the students considered very useful.

In the course of the design sprint I got to know different tools that I wasn’t aware of before. Tools like Wix, to create websites, or Canva, which we used to create our flyer. I will enjoy using them in the future for my further projects at university, but also in my professional life. I especially liked Miro, because even complicated issues can be recorded in a structured way on the board. (Learning diary, course participant 5)

6 Conclusion

This work provides insight into how the design sprint methodology can be used effectively in the education field, particularly for teaching social entrepreneurship. We confirm findings by McNally et al. (2020) and Brock and Steiner (2009) that social entrepreneurship education benefits from experiential learning formats and project-based approaches.

Specifically, we find the use of a three-day virtual design sprint in combination with some preliminary lectures to be a highly suitable teaching tool. We agree with the findings by Ferreira and Canedo (2020) that sprint sessions should be concentrated and not dispersed across the semester. If this is the case, we found the three-day format to be a sufficient amount of time.

The challenges described in the study by Ferreira and Canedo (2020) regarding student shyness, delays in returning to the course, and lack of motivation were not confirmed by our study. Instead, motivation and contribution from participants peaked during the design sprint section of the semester and participants were highly punctual. Potentially, this is due to the more intrinsically motivating topic of the course, compared to traditional software engineering.

We also assessed the potential of design sprints to reduce free-riding behavior, as this is seen as highly detrimental to group-based service-learning projects. So far, a reduction of free-riding behavior had mostly been addressed from an assessment perspective (e.g., through peer assessment) or by excluding free-riding group members (Abernethy & Lett, 2003). We add to this literature by proposing a change in course structure as an alternative tool and find first promising results. Thus, we come to the conclusion that a course structure that incorporates a highly structured format, maximum transparency with the help of digital tools, and immediate group feedback through the use of voting tools can be a suitable alternative to reduce free riding. However, we also find that free-riding behavior returns after the end of the design sprint. Hence, a combination of different methods might be needed to reduce it as much as possible.

Finally, we also assessed the impact of a digital format. Our data shows a strong positive effect of conducting the design sprint in a digital format, as the digital tools have shown to be highly efficient in informing students about the task at hand, providing transparency and a practical collection point for the group’s findings. This structured environment also alleviated fears among students who have had little exposure to entrepreneurial activities beforehand. In addition, the use of digital whiteboards reduces the usually tedious work of documenting design sprint results for future reference. Thus, we can recommend this approach for future courses.

The results of our study are applicable beyond the university context as well, for instance, for social impact incubators. These incubators assist social enterprises with financial and nonfinancial support (Hirschmann et al., 2021). Our abbreviated design sprint format can be a useful addition to the available toolkit of these incubators. Due to its digital format, it can even be conducted with internationally dispersed teams or in situations where no expert is available onsite to support a team.

With regard to the limitations of the study, it should be noted that it is hard to generalize from the studies’ conclusions, due to its qualitative nature and small sample size. Also, we are aware that the creators of the course are likely to be biased regarding its effectiveness. Consequently, we have included an outside collaborator to conduct a joint evaluation of its results.

For future research, we propose follow-up studies with a quantitative approach, especially with regard to the findings on free riding, in order to generalize them to a wider population and transfer the results.

Also, it would be helpful to conduct a controlled experiment, comparable to Camuffo et al. (2020). In such a study, one group of founders (or students) is trained in the design sprint methodology and a control group receives a standard entrepreneurial training. By randomly assigning founders/students to each group, it would be possible to examine the effects of the design sprint methodology on the subsequent success of social entrepreneurs and the learning success of students.

In addition, we aim to continue this program in upcoming semesters to collect more data points on the topic. This will also allow to follow up on groups from the current cohort to determine whether projects are continued beyond the end of the term.