Measuring the Impact of Design Thinking

Part of the Understanding Innovation book series (UNDINNO)


This article focuses on how organizations measure the impact of design thinking. The results are based on a quantitative survey that is complemented by qualitative interviews with experienced design thinkers. Even though a majority of respondents perceive some kind of impact, only a minority has tried to determine the impact in some way. Those who do not evaluate the impact, often do not know how or lack the necessary resources. The metrics of those who do measure design thinking’s impact vary considerably, but customer feedback and satisfaction is a recurring theme. We propose that the traditional means of performance measurements are often ill-suited for evaluating the impact of design thinking. We conclude with a promising industry example of how traditional measures can be used to gauge overall performance and how a story-based approach can capture the role of design thinking.


Organizational Setting Customer Experience Design Thinking Employee Engagement Customer Engagement 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



All results are part of a survey on the impact of Design Thinking in organizations. We would like to thank Prof. Hasso Plattner and the HPI-Stanford Design Thinking Research Program Committee for their support. We thank Dr. Sharon Nemeth for her editorial support.


  1. Carlgren L, Elmquist M, Rauth I (2013) Demystifying design thinking: a conceptual framing of design thinking in use. Draft, GoteburgGoogle Scholar
  2. Eisenhardt K (1989) Building theories from case study research. Acad Manage Rev 14(4):532–550Google Scholar
  3. Eisenhardt K, Graebner M (2007) Theory building from cases: opportunities and challenges. Acad Manage J 50(1):25–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. European Commission (2003) Recommendation 2003/361/EC: SME definition. Accessed 18 Nov 2014
  5. Hilborn R (2004) Sea gulls, butterflies, and grasshoppers: a brief history of the butterfly effect in nonlinear dynamics. Am J Phys 72:425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Köppen E, Meinel C (2015) Empathy via design thinking: creation of sense and knowledge. In: Plattner H et al (eds) Design thinking research. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  7. Lindberg T, Noweski C, Meinel C (2010) Evolving discourses on design thinking: how design cognition inspires meta-disciplinary creative collaboration. Technoetic Arts 8(1):31–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Rhinow H, Meinel C (2014) Design thinking: Expectations for a management perspective. In: Plattner H et al (eds) Design thinking research: understanding innovation. Springer International Publishing, Heidelberg, pp 239–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Richard PJ, Devinney TM, Yip GS, Johnson G (2009) Measuring organizational performance: towards methodological best practice. J Manage 35(3):718–804. doi: 10.1177/0149206308330560 Google Scholar
  10. Schepurek S, Dulkeith E (2013) Innovation performance measurement: KPIs for goal-setting. Paper presented at the XXIV ISPIM conference—innovating in global markets: challenges for sustainable growth, Helsinki, Finland, 16–19 June 2013Google Scholar
  11. United Nations Statistics Division (2008) International standard industrial classification of all economic activities (ISIC), Rev.4 classification scheme for determining the industry sectors. Accessed 18 Nov 2014
  12. University of Chicago (2010) The Chicago manual of style, 16th edn. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  13. Weick KE, Sutcliffe KM, Obstfeld D (1999) Organizing for high reliability: processes of collective mindfulness. Res Organ Behav 1:81–123Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.HPI-Stanford Design Thinking Research ProgramHasso Plattner Institute for Software Systems EngineeringPotsdamGermany

Personalised recommendations