pp 1–9 | Cite as

The Utility of Design Thinking to Promote Systemic Instructional Design Practices in the Workplace

  • Jill StefaniakEmail author
Organizational Training and Performance


Designing within a system is ubiquitous to instructional design. In order to understand the systemic impact of design decisions within an organization, one must understand the interrelatedness of the objects within the system. Developing an understanding of context as it relates to the utility of instructional design solutions will position instructional designers to systemically influence the organization in a positive manner. This paper acknowledges the systemic challenges encountered by instructional designers in the workplace and discusses how design thinking can be leveraged with HPT strategies to assist the instructional designer with designing solutions that have a systemic impact on the organization. This paper also introduces a conceptual framework, grounded in general systems theory, that combines design thinking principles with instructional design practices to improve performance.


Systemic implications General systems, instructional design Design thinking 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The author declares that she has no conflict of interest.


  1. Branch, R., & Dousay, T. (2015). Survey of instructional design models, 5th ed. Bloomington, Indiana: Association for Educational Communications and Technology.Google Scholar
  2. Branch, R., & Merrill, M. D. (2011). Characteristics of instructional design models. In R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River: Merrill-Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  3. Brethower, D. M. (2006). Systemic issues. In J. A. Pershing (Ed.), Handbook of human performance technology 3rd ed. (pp. 111–137). San Francisco: Pfeiffer.Google Scholar
  4. Brown, T., & Wyatt, J. (2010). Design thinking for social innovation. Development Outreach, 12(1), 29–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cennamo, K., & Kalk, D. (2019). Real world instructional design (2 nded.). New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Churchman, C. W. (1964). An approach to general systems theory. In M. C. Mesarovic (Ed.), Views on general systems theory: Proceedings of the second systems symposium at case institute technology (pp. 173–175). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc..Google Scholar
  7. Churchman, C. W. (1965). On the design of educational systems. Audiovisual Instruction, 10(5), 361–365.Google Scholar
  8. Crawford, C. (2004). Non-linear instructional design model: Eternal, synergistic design and development. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35(4), 413–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Crowther, M. S., Keller, C. C., & Waddoups, G. L. (2004). Improving the quality and effectiveness of computer-mediated instruction through usability evaluations. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35(3), 289–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dorst, K. (2011). The core of ‘design thinking' and its application. Design Studies, 32(6), 521–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Foshay, W. R., Villachica, S. W., & Stepich, D. A. (2014). Cousins but not twins: Instructional design and human performance technology in the workplace. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology 4th ed (pp. 39–49). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gilbert, T. F. (1978). Human competence: Engineering worthy performance. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  13. Hall, A. D., & Fagen, R. E. (1975). Definition of system. In B. D. Ruben & J. Y. Kin (Eds.), General systems theory and human communications (pp. 52–65). Rochelle Park: Hayden Book Company, Inc..Google Scholar
  14. Hoban Jr., C. F. (1977). A systems approach to audiovisual communications. In L. W. Cochran (Ed.), Okoboji: A 20-year review of leadership 1955–1974 (pp. 67–72). Dubuque: Kendall/Hunt.Google Scholar
  15. Johansson-Sköldberg, U., Woodilla, J., & Çetinkaya, M. (2013). Design thinking: Past, present and possible futures. Creativity and Innovation Management, 22(2), 121–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Johnson, B. (2005). Design ideation: The conceptual sketch in the digital age. Design Studies, 26(6), 613–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jones, T. S., & Richey, R. C. (2000). Rapid prototyping methodology in action: A developmental study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(2), 63–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jones, M. K., Li, Z., & Merrill, M. D. (1992). Rapid prototyping in automated instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(4), 95–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kaufman, R. (2000). Mega planning: Practical tools for organizational success. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  20. Kenny, R. J. (2017). Introducing journal of formative Design in Learning. Journal of Formative Design in Learning, 1(1), 1–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kenny, R., Zhang, Z., Schwier, R., & Campbell, K. (2005). A review of what instructional designers do: Questions answered and questions not asked. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology/La revue canadienne de l’apprentissage et de la technologie, 31(1).Google Scholar
  22. Kim, J., & Ryu, H. (2014). A design thinking rationality framework: Framing and solving design problems in early concept generation. Human-Computer Interaction, 29(5–6), 516–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Köppen, E., & Meinel, C. (2015). Empathy via design thinking: Creation of sense and knowledge. In H. Plattner, C. Meinel, & L. Leifer (Eds.), Design thinking research: Building innovators (pp. 15–28). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  24. Koskinen, I., & Battarbee, K. (2003). Introduction to user experience and empathic design. In I. Koskinen, K. Battarbee, & T. Mattelmäki (Eds.), Empathic design (pp. 37–50). Hel: IT Press.Google Scholar
  25. Koszalka, T. A., Russ-Eft, D. F., & Reiser, R. (2013). Instructional designer competencies: The standards (4th Ed.). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  26. Kouprie, M., & Visser, F. S. (2009). A framework for empathy in design: Stepping into and out of the user’s life. Journal of Engineering Design, 20(5), 437–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lee, S. H. (1999). Usability testing for developing effective interactive multimedia software: Concepts, dimensions, and procedures. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 2(2).Google Scholar
  28. Matthews, M. T., Williams, G. S., Yanchar, S. C., & McDonald, J. K. (2017). Empathy in distance learning design practice. TechTrends, 61(5), 486–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Merrill, M. D., Drake, L., Lacy, M. J., & Pratt, J. (1996). Reclaiming instructional design. Educational Technology, 36(5), 5–7.Google Scholar
  30. Miller, J. G. (1978). Living systems. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  31. Mizikaci, F. (2006). A systems approach to program evaluation model for quality in higher education. Quality Assurance in Education, 14(1), 37–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mood, A. (1964). Some problems inherent in the development of a systems approach to instruction. Paper presented at conference on new dimensions for research in educational media implied by the systems approach to education. Syracuse: Syracuse University.Google Scholar
  33. Parrish, P. (2006). Design as storytelling. TechTrends, 50(4), 72–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pershing, J. A. (2006). Human performance technology fundamentals. In J. A. Pershing (Ed.), Handbook of human performance technology (3rd ed., pp. 5–26). San Francisco: Pfeiffer.Google Scholar
  35. Pulsinelli, A., & Roubie, C. (2001). Using diversity modeling for instructional design. Performance Improvement, 40(7), 20–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rapanta, C., & Cantoni, L. (2013). Being in the users' shoes: Anticipating experience while designing online courses. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(5), 765–777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Razzouk, R., & Shute, V. (2012). What is design thinking and why is it important? Review of Educational Research, 82(30), 330–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Reeves, T. C., & Reeves, P. M. (2015). Educational technology research in a VUCA world. Educational Technology, 55(2), 26–30.Google Scholar
  39. Richey, R. C., Klein, J. D., & Tracey, M. W. (2011). The instructional design knowledge base: Theory, research, and practice. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. Roberts, J. P., Fisher, T. R., Trowbridge, M. J., & Bent, C. (2016). A design thinking framework for healthcare management and innovation. Healthcare, 4(1), 11–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rose, E., & Tingley, K. (2008). Science and math teachers as instructional designers: Linking ID to the ethic of caring. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 34(1).Google Scholar
  42. Rothwell, W. (2005). Beyond training and development: The groundbreaking classic on human performance enhancement (2nd ed.). New York: Amacom.Google Scholar
  43. Roytek, M. A. (2010). Enhancing instructional design efficiency: Methodologies employed by instructional designers. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(2), 170–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rummler, G. A. (2006). The anatomy of performance: A framework for consultants. In J. A. Pershing (Ed.), Handbook of human performance technology 3rd ed. (pp. 986–1007). San Francisco: Pfeiffer.Google Scholar
  45. Segal, L. D., & Fulton Suri, J. (1997). The empathic practitioner: Measurement and interpretation of user experience. Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society 41st annual meeting, Albuquerque, NM.Google Scholar
  46. Smith, P. L., & Ragan, T. J. (2005). Instructional design (Third ed.). Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc..Google Scholar
  47. Stefaniak, J. (2018). Performance technology. In R. E. West (ed.), Foundations of learning and instructional design technology: The past, present, and future of learning and instructional design technology. Retrieved from
  48. Stefaniak, J., Baaki, J., Hoard, B., Stapleton, L. (2018). The influence of perceived constraints during needs assessment on design conjecture. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 30(1), 55–71.Google Scholar
  49. Sugar, W. (2014). Studies of ID practices: A review and synthesis of research on ID current practices. London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tessmer, M. (1993). Planning and conducting formative evaluations. New York: Kogan Page Limited.Google Scholar
  51. Tessmer, M., & Richey, R. C. (1997). The role of context in learning and instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(2), 85–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tessmer, M., & Wedman, J. F. (1990). A layers-of-necessity instructional development model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 38(2), 77–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Tracey, M. W. (2015). Design team collaboration with a complex design problem. In B. Hokanson, G. Clinton, & M. W. Tracey (Eds.), The design of learning experience (pp. 93–108). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tripp, S., & Bichelmeyer, B. (1990). Rapid prototyping: An alternative instructional design strategy. Educational Technology Research & Development, 38(1), 31–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Valkenburg, R., & Dorst, K. (1998). The reflective practice of design teams. Design Studies, 19(3), 249–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. van Rooij, S. W. (2012). Based personas: Teaching empathy in professional education. Journal of Effective Teaching, 12(3), 77–86.Google Scholar
  57. von Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General system theory (Vol. 1). New York: Braziller.Google Scholar
  58. von Bertalanffy, L. (1972). The history and status of general systems theory. The Academy of Management Journal, 15(4), 407–426.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications & Technology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of GeorgiaAthensUSA

Personalised recommendations