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


This chapter, the conclusion, pulls together the different strands of the argument. First, the conclusion provides a brief review how Design Thinking, at least in theory, can create pathways for organisational transitions towards ‘messy institutions’. Second, the chapter reviews how DT implementation programmes fared in practice. In particular, the conclusion looks at whether implementation programmes brought about changes in each institutional dimension and whether these changes contributed towards making organisations more ‘messy’. Using the ‘feedback grid’, the chapter assesses what worked and what didn’t work. Moreover, the conclusion outlines the new insights as well as the new questions that emerge from this analysis.


  1. Carlgren, L., Elmquist, M., & Rauth, I. (2014). Exploring the use of design thinking in large organizations: Towards a research agenda. Swedish Design Research Journal, 1(14), 47–56.Google Scholar
  2. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Colebatch, H. K. (2009). Policy. Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Dribbisch, K. (2016). Translating innovation: The adoption of design thinking in a Singaporean Ministry.Google Scholar
  5. Habermas, J. (1987). Theorie des Kommunikativen Handelns Bd.2 (vierte Auflage). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  6. Hirschman, O. (1972). Exit, voice, and loyalty: Response to decline in firms, organizations, and states. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Hood, C. (1998). The art of the state: Culture, rhetoric, and public management. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google 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. Liedtka, J., & Bennett, K. B. (2013). Solving problems with design thinking: 10 stories of what works. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  11. March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Martin, R. L. (2009). The opposable mind: Winning through integrative thinking. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.Google Scholar
  13. Ney, S., & Verweij, M. (2014b). Messy institutions for wicked problems: How to generate clumsy solutions. Available at SSRN 2382191.Google Scholar
  14. O’Reilly, C., & Tushman, M. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present and future. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 324–338. Scholar
  15. Pierre, J., & Peters, B. G. (2000). Governance, politics, and the state. London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  16. Plattner, H., Meinel, C., & Leifer, L. J. (2014). Design thinking research: Building innovators. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  17. 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
  18. Rhinow, H. (2018). Design thinking Als Lernprozess in Organisationen: Neue Chancen Und Dilemmata Für Die Projektarbeit. Doctoral thesis, University of Potsdam, Potsdam.Google Scholar
  19. Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Schmiedgen, J., Rhinow, H., Köppen, E., & Meinel, C. (2015). Parts without a whole? The current state of design thinking practice in organisations (Technical Report No 97). Potsdam: Verlag der Universität Potsdam.Google Scholar
  21. Thompson, M., Ellis, R., & Wildavsky, A. (1990). Cultural theory. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.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