Hunting, Gathering and Taking It Home: Bringing New Perspectives and Perceptions into Organisations

  • Steven Ney
  • Christoph Meinel
Part of the Understanding Innovation book series (UNDINNO)


Design Thinking helps people innovate by mobilising a plurality of approaches, skills and perspectives. This is why exploration spaces in large organisations (discussed in Chap.  4) need large reservoirs of variegated (and even contending) ideas. In this chapter, we look at how Design Thinking generates and manages these pools of contending ideas, frames and perspectives. In particular, this chapter reviews two ways of creating a plurality of views for exploration. First, the chapter examines the way multi-disciplinary teams contribute to these reservoirs of ideas. Relying on the available evidence, the chapter depicts how DT implementation programmes encouraged and mobilised a plurality of views and perspectives within DT teams. Second, the chapter also shows how methods of qualitative social science and ethnography enable design teams to ‘hunt and gather’ insights from users and stakeholders (Plattner et al. Design thinking research: Measuring performance in context. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012). Here, again based on available empirical evidence, the chapter looks at the effects the introduction of these methods have had on large organisations in the private and public sectors. Like Chap.  4, this chapter draws lessons from the analysis of the implementation cases.


  1. Bohman, J. (1998). Survey article: The coming of age of deliberative democracy. Journal of Political Philosophy, 6(4), 400–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Carlgren, L., Elmquist, M., & Rauth, I. (2014a). Design thinking: Exploring values and effects from an innovation capability perspective. The Design Journal, 17(3), 403–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carlgren, L., Elmquist, M., & Rauth, I. (2014b). Exploring the use of design thinking in large organizations: Towards a research agenda. Swedish Design Research Journal, 1(14), 47–56.Google Scholar
  4. Douglas, M. (1987). How institutions think. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  5. Douglas, M. (1996). Thought styles: Critical essays on good taste. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  6. Dribbisch, K. (2016). Translating innovation: The adoption of design thinking in a Singaporean Ministry, doctoral thesis. Potsdam: University of Potsdam.Google Scholar
  7. Fung, A. (2003). Survey article: Recipes for public spheres: Eight institutional design choices and their consequences. Journal of Political Philosophy, 11(3), 338–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kingdon, J. W. (1984). Agendas, alternatives and public policies. Boston, MA: Little Brown.Google Scholar
  9. Köppen, E. (2016). Empathy by design: Untersuchung einer Empathie-geleiteten Reorganisation der Arbeitsweise. Konstanz und München: UVK Verlagsgesellschaft mbH.Google Scholar
  10. Martin, R. L. (2009). The opposable mind: Winning through integrative thinking. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.Google Scholar
  11. Plattner, H., Meinel, C., & Leifer, L. J. (2014). Design thinking research: Building innovators. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  12. Rauth, I., Carlgren, L., & Elmquist, M. (2014). Making it happen: Legitimizing design thinking in large organizations. Design Management Journal, 9(1), 47–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Rhinow, H. (2018). Design thinking Als Lernprozess in Organisationen: Neue Chancen Und Dilemmata Für Die Projektarbeit. Doctoral thesis, University of Potsdam, Potsdam.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Steven Ney
    • 1
  • Christoph Meinel
    • 2
  1. 1.T-Systems InternationalBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Hasso Plattner InstituteUniversity of PotsdamPotsdamGermany

Personalised recommendations