Frontiers of Thought: The Integration of Design Thinking & Human Resource Development by Sarah Badding and Katharine Leigh

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299655606
Frontiers of Thought: The Integration of Design Thinking & Human Resource
Development
Conference Paper · February 2015
CITATIONS
0
READS
926
2 authors:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
{Over}consumption: The culprit causing an environmental crisis in your closet. PI, $20,000 grant awarded by School of Global Environmental Sustainability (SoGES),
Colorado State University View project
Dementia Research View project
Sarah Badding
Colorado State University
3 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Katharine Leigh
15 PUBLICATIONS 17 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Sarah Badding on 05 April 2016.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Running head: FRONTIERS OF THOUGHT: THE INTEGRATION OF DESIGN 1
THINKING AND HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

Frontiers of Thought: The Integration of Design Thinking and Human Resource Development
Sarah. B. Badding
Katharine E. Leigh
Copyright © 2014 Sarah B. Badding & Katharine E. Leigh

FRONTIERS OF THOUGHT 2
Abstract
Organizational change requires a cocktail of flexibility, adaptability, effective leadership, and
strategic thinking, among other possible factors. Creativity inherently promotes the crossing of
boundaries and the study of interrelated influences. Design thinking, a creative strategy promoted
by design management is a way to conceptualize applied creativity within organizations and as
an emerging construct invites collaborative inquiry by the discipline of HRD. Human resource
development, with its foundation in psychology, economics, and social systems theory, provides
an appropriate professional domain within which to strategically foster and reinforce creativity.
The purpose of this paper is to explore how HRD’s change models can be informed by
design thinking. A comparison of HRD change models, selected for their seminal contributions
to HRD, and design thinking models in the literature reveals an opportunity for factor
integration. The emerging factors and underlying attributes acknowledge diverse possibilities to
support organizations in creating learning environments, designing performance management
systems, and implementing change initiatives, fostering and reinforcing change at different levels
within an organization. The factors derived from existing models in HRD synthesized with
factors from the design thinking invite an innovative look at a new Model for Change
Management Incorporating Factors and Attributes of Design thinking.
Keywords: Change Management Models, Design Thinking, Human Resource
Development

Frontiers of Thought: The Integration of Design Thinking and Human Resource Development
One certainty in life is that change is constant.
Gilley, Boughton, & Maycunich, 1999
Organizational change requires a cocktail of flexibility, adaptability, effective leadership,
and strategic thinking. Creativity (the production of novel and useful ideas in any domain;
Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby, & Herron, 1996) inherently promotes the crossing of
boundaries and study of interrelated influences (Haring-Smith, 2006). In one study, findings
indicated the greater the creativity of the firm’s activities the greater the revenue, indicating
creativity may play a significant role in effecting an organization’s ROI (Leigh, 2011). Design
thinking, a creative strategy promoted by design management conceptualizes applied creativity
within organizations and as an emerging construct, invites collaborative inquiry by human
resource development (HRD).
In this examination, we probe issues informing HRD, and in turn, design thinking’s
capabilities to influence organizational performance by:
a) examining selected seminal models from HRD and design thinking to co-inform one
another;
b) linking the change management and design thinking processes for improved
performance; and
c) defining keys factors and attributes.
The outcome of this analysis is the conceptualization of a new model for change
management incorporating the factors and attributes of design thinking.
In 2005, Advances in Developing Human Resources’ authors acknowledged:
a) HRD as a discipline and profession seeks to identify, support and lead the creative
revolutions of the 21st century workforce and workplace;

b) creativity can be related to core HRD issues including organizational development,
creating a social context that invites and sustains creativity, reinforcing cultural
change;
c) challenging HRD to orient itself with the major transcendent capabilities or
competencies inherent in creativity and innovation to be equal to or surpass work
from other professional domains positioning HRD as a leader; and
d) exploring the potential for creativity to formulate an entirely new paradigm relative to
organizational development.(Gibb & Waight, 2005)
HRD, with its foundation in psychology, economics, and social systems theory,
encompasses “helping organizations…create the right learning environment, design performance
management systems, and implement change initiatives…to alter an organization’s structure,
mission, strategy, leadership, managerial practices, and work environment” (Gilley, Dean &
Bierema, 2001, p.1) and as such provides an appropriate professional domain within which to
strategically (Gilley & Gilley, 2003) foster and reinforce creativity.
In 2013, HRD researchers continued to suggest exploration of clarification of factors and
attributes impacting creative ideation (i.e., learning, motivation, goal setting, leadership, specific
job characteristics), continuing to be challenged to understand which factors and attributes have
greatest impact in HRD and organizational development (Joo, McLean & Yang, 2013;
Loewenberger, 2013; Waight, 2005).
Linking creativity to HRD is vital in the organizational environment, allowing those
within an organization “to approach the situation at hand with a fresh perspective, [to] link
together previously unrelated or uncombined concepts, to generate new and unexpected ideas
that solve a problem …captur[ing] an opportunity” (Steqmeier, 2008; p. 72). In formulating a

new paradigm in HRD, HRD scholars recognize factors (i.e., Amabile, et al., 1996;
Csikszentmihalyi, 1996) important to creative ideation (Joo, McLean & Yang 2013) but these
factors are not considered as primary influences in HRD change modeling.
HRD processes can be enhanced when synthesized with design thinking to connect
change models influencing organizational performance. Design thinking is a meaningful bridge
between creativity and human resource development (Chen & Lai, 2009; Egan, 2005a; Gibb &
Waight, 2005; Joo, Yoon & Jeung, 2009; Madjar, 2005; Taylor & Callahan, 2005; Waight,
2005;) and presents discourse to influence modeling (Basadur & Gelade, 2006; Egan, 2005b;
Mosakowski, 1998;) using language and definitions universal across both disciplines engaged in
deep level discovery and problem solving to effect ROI.
To position HRD in a leadership role among disciplines encompassing the power of
creativity, the factors of design thinking intertwined with creative innovation require inclusion in
the empirical research of HRD. Gibb and Waight (2005) acknowledged HRD has communicated
the importance of…its emphasis on performance and human capital theories but… has not
applied this knowledge to creativity (p. 274).
An obvious opportunity exists to deepen the contributions of HRD encompassing
knowledge management and learning, effective performance, and change management directed
toward outcomes demonstrating organizational effectiveness. Further, as Gilley, Quatro,
Hoekstra, Whittle, and Maycunich (2001) point out, creativity [informed by design thinking] has
the potential to bring about second-order or transformational change by questioning basic
assumptions when integrating new practices, processes, procedures, and values to transform
practitioner responsiveness, focus, service quality and results (p. 4).

Design Thinking as an Emergent Construct
Design thinking is a human-centered approach to innovation drawing from designers’
toolkit to integrate the needs of people, the possibilities of technology, and the requirements for
business success (Brown, 2009); it is a cross-disciplinary approach to problem solving
recognizing the needs to develop innovations that are viable (a business perspective), feasible
(technical capabilities perspective), and desirable (people perspective; Kelley & Kelley, 2013).
Design thinking is concerned about the impact of creativity on organizational performance.
Existing design thinking literature encompasses the use of the design process in problem
identification and problem solving (Curedale, 2013a, 2013b). Design thinking has advanced the
design management process in non-design organizations and evolved dramatically since the 80s
(Curedale, 2013a, 2013b; Lockwood, 2009; Rowe, 1987) deepening meaning, methodology,
application, and ROI outcomes among the global organizational leaders (e.g., Apple, Google,
IDEO).
Concepts related to the design management process initially appeared in the literature, as
visual thinking, mind mapping, and human-centered design (Curedale, 2013a, 2013b). Rowe
(1987) emphasized the “complex texture of decision making” (p. 2), recognizing the design
process is not restrictive, and stressing ways in which designers approach creative problem
solving. In the last decade, ,at least 12 unique, but commonly used definitions surfaced in the
design thinking literature. Consequently, the interpretation and implementation of design
thinking requires refinement of terms in ways tangible for organizations to apply.
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to explore the impact of design thinking factors on HRD’s
change management models. A comparison of HRD change management models, selected for

seminal contributions to the HRD literature, and disseminated design thinking models reveal an
opportunity to co-inform one another. Unveiling prevalent factors and attributes within HRD
invites synthesis of the key factors and attributes, linking change management to design thinking,
to enhance performance. Emerging factors and attributes from both disciplines lead to the
conceptualization of a new model for change management.
Methodology
Callahan (2010) a good literature review is utilizes a methodology that is appropriately
reported in such detail it is adequately meaningful and when necessary, repeatable. Review,
analysis, and synthesis of each model to examine its individual factors and attributes was
conducted using three seminal HRD change management and three published design thinking
models. Factors and attributes were isolated to compare and identify similarities, differences and
areas of synthesis to evaluate design thinking’s capabilities to influence the HRD models.
The four journals published by the Academy of Human Resources Development were searched
to locate articles addressing “change models” and “theory,” “change management” and
“organizational performance.” These broad key words were chosen to capture content considered
relevant to HRD change management models.
To locate appropriate models for design thinking, the Design Management Institute1
(DMI) Review was searched for keywords including “design management,” “design strategy,”
and “change by design” to address the diversity of definitions describing the design thinking
process. A second set of key words were narrowed to “design thinking” and “models” to refine
the results.

1
DMI is the leading association of design management professionals with over 30,000 members
and representing innovative work regarding the design thinking process globally.

A third search for search of scholarly, peer-reviewed journals published from 1999
through 2014 was then conducted for HRD change management and design thinking models
used in empirical research reports if cited frequently or considered as benchmarks publications
for a model (i.e., Cohen & Levinthal, 1989; Mager & Pipe, 1997).
While some subjectivity is unavoidable during the literature review and in the selection
of models, these six models represent factors crucial to understanding the processes of change
management and design thinking and widely accessed, and present a readable landscape for
synthesis. By using these particular models, clarity in understanding and applicability can then
be applied to a wider array of model typologies.
HRD Change Models
The three change models utilized in the study support organizations in (a) creating a
learning environment, (b) designing a performance management system, and (c) directed at
implementing change initiatives. These models foster and reinforce change at different levels
within an organization using a traditional deductive problem solving process:
a) Eleven steps for change (Gilley et al., 2001);
b) Performance analysis and needs assessment (Mager & Pipe, 1997); and
c) Model of absorptive capacity (ACAP, Zahara and George; 2002).
Eleven steps for change model (Gilley et al., 2001)
Organizational change can happen at all levels of the organization, regardless if the
organization is implementing a new recycling system or transforming the workplace culture.
Figure 1 captures the eleven-step model proposed by Gilley et al., (2001) that manages the
change process in different micro and macro change initiatives.

Figure 1. Eleven-step model for change in organizations proposed by Gilley et al. (2001)
The phases are distinct from one another; overlapping when necessary, recognizing
individuals transition through change in different ways (Bridges, 2009):
§ Developing a readiness for change: Before developing the organization’s readiness for
change, the employees’ readiness for change must initially be examined. Employee
readiness is measured by identifying individual assumptions, providing insight into
employee willingness to accept the change. Once this analysis has been started, the
change agent is able to assess if the organization has the capacity to recognize the need
for change.

§ Identifying the cast of characters: Identify key people to aid the change agent during the
change endeavor by conducting a stakeholder analysis. Those identified should have a
vested interested in the change initiative; their investment is critical to success.
§ Creating a sense of urgency: To build a foundation and create momentum for change,
urgency must be recognized and fostered within the organization. Ways for the change
agent to raise the level of urgency felt by the organization include creating a crisis,
raising the standards of operation, increasing leadership accountability, and interacting
with dissatisfied consumers.
§ Developing a change vision: Create a vision for the future with straightforward, easy to
understand explanations about how the changes will better serve the people. Clarity of
vision develops strategies for the future with (1) a clear direction, (2) motivation and
incentive to move in the desired direction, and (3) a plan to coordinate people in efficient
ways.
§ Charting a course for change: Using the vision as a guide, a change agent creates clear
and precise goals. Each goal must have an easy to understand set of activities needed in
order to carry out the goal successfully. This includes specific dates and time with
responsible parties, and expected results.
§ Conducting a diagnosis and providing feedback: The change agent understands the
employees’ perception of the proposed change through the collection and analysis of
appropriate data. Data collection can be conducted through use of personal interviews,
questionnaires, observations, analysis of already existing data, or any other methods
deemed necessary to diagnose perceptions and provide feedback on progress.

§ Implementing the change initiative: During the implementation process, the change agent
within the organization carries out the proposed plan. Implementation usually beings with
an organization-wide meeting followed by smaller, localized trainings for smaller
divisions or units. Throughout the implementation phase managers and other employees
should meet regularly to continually enforce the change initiative.
§ Obtaining sounding along the way: It is important to continually seek feedback from all
employee groups affected by the change to determine the impact and quality of the
change initiative.
§ Anchoring change into the culture: It is critical to have a long-term plan in place to
ensure success of the change initiative. Employees should be reminded regularly about
the purpose and goal of the change, and encouraged to consider the “cost” of not
changing.
§ Evaluating the change initiative: Accomplishments are continually evaluated and
compared to goals to measure progress. When progress is not satisfactory, goals are
reevaluated for potential adjustment or termination.
§ Terminating the change process: The final step during the change initiative should be a
“well-planned closure...encouraging feedback and allowing each [employee] to share and
reflect upon the success of the change initiative” (Gilley et al., 2001, p. 43). Additionally,
leaders can use this time as an opportunity to identify future collaborations (Gilley et al.,
2001, pp. 31-43).
Implementing these steps, loop back opportunities, allows change agents to better
understand critical components (key factors and attributes) important to the change efforts.
Change agents need to a) recognize interactions between organizational culture and processes, b)

identify key people and isolate logistical and staffing barriers to effectively estimate readiness
for change and recognition of performance gaps, c) create strategies to overcome organizational
fears impeding improved performance moving forward, and (4) foster the vision and resources
needed for change implementation (Gilley et al., 2001). This model primarily focuses on change
in the organization with some attention to the individual.
Emerging factors from the eleven-steps for change model suggestive of organizational
qualities incorporate change makers (key people), and the work environment. Indicators of
organizational preparedness for change include: recognition of evaluation costs, readiness to
change, recognition of performance gaps, and an optimized performance.
Performance analysis and needs assessment (Mager & Pipe, 1997)
Introduced in 1984, Mager and Pipe’s performance analysis process represented in a flow
chart uses a set of questions to determine a solution appropriate to a performance problem
(Figure 2; Mager & Pipe, 1997; Wilmoth, Prigmore, & Bray, 2002). The focus here is in the
individual contributing to the organization. Analyzing individual employee performance allows
managers to understand why people do not perform the way they should and the true or root
problem(s) behind their performance. The questions: (1) what is the problem, (2) is it worth
solving, (3) can we apply fast fixes, (4) are consequences appropriate, (5) does the employee
already know how, and (6) are there more clues, to begin implementing the appropriate solution
to the actual problem (p. 5). Key factors and attributes are identified linking personnel
performance, expectations, evaluation methods, and the working environment.

Figure 2: Performance analysis flow chart developed by Mager and Pipe (1997)

Key steps to productive performance analysis and needs assessment using this model
include:
§ Understanding the organization’s values, objectives, and clientele, defining a gap by
documenting differences between “what is” and “what should be.”
§ Clarifying cost by identifying expenses to fix a problem, and conversely, loss if nothing
is done.
§ Focusing on key people who have the greatest perspective on the problem, and those with
enough power to implement change.
§ Focusing on facts and results by finding data through observations, records, and
experience.
During a preliminary study of needs, the organization identifies plausible solutions. Once
plausible solutions have been identified, the development of materials helps the organization to
problem solve its needs and ultimately reach objectives to implement a solution (Mager & Pipe,
1997).
Factors to be considered emerging from the performance analysis flow chart include a
number of key factors important organizational qualities: change makers (key people), personnel
performance, and the working environment; factors indicative of deepened organizational
preparedness for change include evaluation and change implementation costs.
Model of absorptive capacity (ACAP; Zahara and George, 2002)
The ACAP model utilizes organizational routines to acquire, assimilate, transform, and
exploit (utilize) new sources of knowledge (Figure 3; Cohen & Levinthal, 1989; Cohen &
Levinthal, 1990; Zahara & George, 2002).

Figure 3. Model of absorptive capacity (ACAP; Zahara & George, 2002)
ACAP begins with organizational experience and knowledge sources. Activation triggers
(e,g,, increased external market competition) prompt the organization to discover new, external,
sources of knowledge (Easterby-Smith, Graca, Antonacopoulou, & Ferdinand, 2008). The
absorptive capacity of an organization encompasses the attributes of potential and realized
capacity:
§ Potential capacity includes acquisition and assimilation of knowledge, and speaks to the
organizations ability to identify and acquire externally generated knowledge. Knowledge
captured by the organization must be analyzed, processed, and interpreted to become
useful for the organization.
§ Realized capacity is the knowledge the organizational transforms and uses. The realized
capacity of an organization includes the transformation and exploitation of knowledge,
and is the action of combining existing knowledge with newly acquired knowledge.
Newly acquired knowledge is transformed into the functional operations of an

organization and recognized as impacting the organization’s outcomes (Cohen &
Levinthal 1989; Cohen & Levinthal 1990; Zahara & George, 2002).
First introduced as an economics-based model explaining the ROI of an organizations
ability to learn, the key factors of potential and realized capacity of ACAP has proven useful in
increasing organizational innovation and success (Cohen & Levinthal 1989; Cohen & Levinthal
1990). The unique nature of the key attributes: acquisition, assimilation, transformation, and
exploitation acknowledge this models unique ability to aid organization in its ability to recognize
the need and consequently seek out new sources of knowledge for future success. Factors to be
considered from the ACAP model include the importance of knowledge types to the organization
in increasing success and innovation rates.
Design Thinking Models
The design thinking models initially examined suggest different lenses to interpret the
implementation of design management and the factors of design thinking directed at
organizational change. These models include Balanced Scorecard for the Design Manager
adapted from Kaplan and Norton’s (1992) Balanced Scorecard (Borja de Mozota, 2006), Four
Roles of Design (Junginger, 2009), Knowledge Funnel (Martin, 2009), Three Gears of Business
Design (Fraser, 2009), the Two-domain Creativity Model (Owen, 2007), and DMI’s Balanced
Scorecard (2014) incorporating Junginger’s work on design application within the organization.
When Borja de Mozota (2005, 2006) re-conceptualized Kaplan and Norton’s (1992) Balanced
Scorecard into a specialized Balanced Scorecard specifically created for the Design Manager,
she incorporated four design-focused perspectives into the scorecard, the four powers of design:
design as differentiator, design as integrator, design as transformer, and design as good
business. The four powers of design provide design managers with a source of competitive

advantage through various avenues including consumers, market, and price. When implemented
in organizations, outcomes were derived from both the organizational vision and strategy.
Three models were examined for their ease of use by organizations and their relevance in
supporting organizations to implement change initiatives at different levels within an
organization through the creative problem solving process:
a) Design Value Scorecard (DMI, 2013);
b) Three Gears of Business Design (Fraser, 2009); and
c) The Four Roles of Design (Junginger, 2009)
Design value scorecard (Design Management Institute, DMI, 2013)
According to DMI, design thinking organizations outperform other organizations by
93%, validating the critical nature and impact of design thinking on performance and
productivity. The design value scorecard tracks accomplishments by locating their use and level
of maturity relative to design thinking strategies (Figure 4). The scorecard permits an
organization to use a continuum illustrating the resources given to key growth drivers leading to
the development and delivery of improved strategic performance (DMI, 2013; Westcott et al.,
2013).
The design value scorecard incorporates best-practice “zones” to reflect how
organizations implement design to improve business value. Moving horizontally the design value
scorecard, the zones are:
§ Development and delivery (Zone 1): has tangible impact through methods such as the
redesign and/or other aesthetic and functional product attributes. Delivery, service, and
customer communication also appear here.

§ Organization (Zone 2): requires a shift and re-thinking of the organization and stresses
design value be defined in metrics such as product conversion, customer value, loyalty
and market share.
§ Strategy (Zone 3): reserved for organizations that have made design a core competency.
The move to incorporate design into strategy can be studied in organizations through
structure, operations, profit margin and even stock performance.
Figure 4. The design value scorecard developed by DMI (2013)
Five levels of design maturity move vertically on the scorecard:
• Optimized (maturity) is the most established level of design maturity with the greatest
productivity.

• Initial/ad hoc is the least established level of maturity characterized by low quality in
product output and high levels of risk and waste (DMI, 2013; Westcott et al., 2013).
The level of design allows an organization to begin tracking and evaluating progress.
Overtime, the organization can realize its progress through evaluation and feedback, encouraging
increased support and resources for leaders to aid in business growth and increase competitive
advantage. Measuring design maturity functions as a fundamental organizational quality when
incorporating characteristics of design thinking. In certain instances when design implementation
is not ideal, the scorecard also illustrates an organization’s digression.
Emerging from the design value scorecard are a number of key factors and attributes:
levels and maturity of design application, important organizational qualities in the change
management process; competitive advantage and evaluation and feedback techniques indicative
of an organizations preparedness for change.
Three gears of business design (Fraser, 2009)
The implementation of design thinking strategies is used as a path to understand
stakeholder priorities, as well as a tool to visualize new concepts, and a process to translate new
ideas into strategy. Fraser (2009) created the three gears of business design (Figure 5) suggesting
“the greatest payout of design thinking is in the design of business itself…(Lockwood, 2009, p.
35).

Figure 5. The three gears of business design by Fraser (2009)
§ Gear two: focuses on concept visualization as a goal. Gear two stresses the use of various
tools during the strategic planning process to explore a broad set of problem solutions.
Creative tools like prototyping and ideation enrich the organization and allow for the
discovery of novel solutions.
§ Gear three: analyzes which design thinking strategies will drive success, prioritizes
activities which deliver those strategies, and defines how the design thinking strategies fit
together operationally, and economically (Fraser, 2009). Through this, “broad concepts
[align] with future realities through strategy formulation and design of the business model
itself” (Lockwood, 2009; p. 40).
The cycling movement of the three gears is suggestive of the way in which key attributes
of creative thinking are integrated; significant to knowledge acquisition within the organization.
Discovery and assimilation of new concepts back into the organization’s operating system
creates feedback loops encouraging innovative ideation, optimizing problem-solving
performance techniques, and increasing the organizations ability to visualize strategies driving
success and organizational competitive advantage. The momentum of acquired knowledge

reflected through creative thinking, impacts preparedness for change within the organization and
is measured through the creation of a strategic business design, thus optimizing of performance,
and creating competitive advantage. Ideally, the three gears cycle together to solve business
problems faster, resulting in new strategic business models.
Emerging from the three gears of business design are a number of key factors and
attributes: creative thinking incorporating the discovery, innovation, problem solution and
visualization of knowledge; deepened understanding and value creation, strategic business
design and optimized performance suggestive of an organizations preparedness for change.
The four roles of design (Junginger, 2009)
Junginger’s model depicting the four roles of design raises awareness of design in the
organization, as few organizations know at any given point in time “when, where, and how they
are making use of [design]” (p. 4). To answer this question (Figure 6) bubbles are used to
visualize four “archetypical” places where design thinking and design methods are found, and
shaping organizational qualities to describe the design thinking organization.
Figure 6. The four roles of design thinking in the organization constructed by Junginger
(2009)

The bubble model discusses, assesses, speculates, describes, analyzes, plans and
communicates the role of design in the organizational context (Junginger, 2009, p. 4). Design
can be:
§ Add-on: design on the organization periphery with no defined role, seen as an external
resource without a continuous presence, and often limited to classic design problems of
product communication and function.
§ Design as part of the organization: design as a component of selected teams in specific
locations, with gaps existing between those teams and the remainder of the organization.
Design remains limited to existing products and services.
§ Design at the core of the organization: design is exceedingly visible with access to
organizational leadership. Design is linked directly to strategy with significant impact in
the organization and on its identity.
§ Design integral to all aspects of the organization: design is being questioned, formed and
shaped by ongoing design-oriented inquiries. Design as a process of creative problem
identification and problem solving involves a wide variety of complex situations,
uncovering and changing organizational beliefs, values, and norms.
These bubbles generate conversations about how and where design could be used in the
organization. The ability to recognize the location of design activity enables the organization to
link creative problem solving approaches and strategic business principles (Junginger, 2009).
The bubbles rather than representing values of good or bad, instead provide a commonly
understood language when communicating why design thinking may or may not be used at the
macro or micro levels of the organization (Junginger, 2009). Factors to be considered from this
model include design location in proximity to the organization’s core.

Linking HRD and Design Thinking
Developing from the examination of HRD change management and design thinking
models are two contributions. The first, a linkage to change management and design thinking
through the integration of factors and attributes emerging from the examined models; the second,
the development of a Model for Change Management Incorporating Factors and Attributes of
Design thinking.
Factor Integration
In order to link relevant discoveries evolving from the study of change management and
design thinking models, key factors and attributes were extracted (Table 1). Key factors and
attributes were selected and combined for their similar and contrasting interpretations pertaining
to: pertaining to: (a) diverse possibilities to support organizations in creating learning
environments, (b) designing performance management systems, and (c) implementing change
initiatives, fostering and reinforcing change at different levels within an organization. Outcomes
of the factor integration revealed three broad characteristics (Figure 7):
§ Knowledge, a key indicator of an organization’s ability to seek out new sources of
knowledge. Organizational knowledge forecasts future success of learning environments
and innovation rates;
§ Organizational Qualities, representing organizational characteristics critical when
designing performance management systems. Emerging from the review of models
suggests a consistent presence of selected factors and attributes are necessary to design
effective problem solutions.
§ Preparedness for change, suggests organizations realize the need for change, desiring
improved performance.

Table 1
Factors Derived from the Change Management and Design Thinking Models
Models Change Management Design Thinking Synthesizes Factors
Eleven steps for change
model (Gilley et al., 2001)
§ Acculturation
§ Change makers
§ Culture
§ Evaluation
§ Implementation
§ Mapping
§ Readiness
§ Reflection
§ Sense of urgency
§ Termination
§ Vision
§ Change makers
§ Culture
§ Evaluation
§ Optimized performance
§ Readiness for change
§ Recognition of
performance gaps
§ Resources
Performance analysis and
needs assessment (Mager &
Pipe, 1997)
§ Appropriate
Consequences
§ Appropriate Solutions
§ Change makers
§ Evaluation
§ Facts and Data
§ Fast Fixes/Cost
§ Knowledge
§ Performance
§ Problem identification
§ Understanding Culture
§ Change makers
§ Culture
§ Evaluation
§ Personnel performance
Model of absorptive
capacity (ACAP; Zahara
and George, 2002)
§ Activation triggers
§ Competitive advantage
§ Experience
§ Innovation
§ Knowledge source
§ Potential capacity
§ Realized capacity
§ Success
§ Experience
§ Potential knowledge
§ Realized knowledge
Design value scorecard
(DMI, 2013)
§ Maturity of design
§ Strategic performance
§ Resources
§ Level of design
§ Evaluation and
feedback
§ Evaluation and
feedback
§ Levels of design
§ Maturity of design
§ Resources
§
The three gears of business
design (Fraser, 2009)
§ Deep user
understanding
§ Creative thinking
§ Strategic tools
§ Problem solutions
§ Strategic business
design
§ Creative thinking
§ Strategic business
design
The four roles of design
(Junginger, 2009)
§ Location of design
§ External resource
§ Selected part
§ At core
§ Integral
§ Location of design

Figure 7. Key qualities emerging from the analysis of change management and
design thinking models
Knowledge. Factors and attributes emerging from the change and design thinking models
(Table 2) reflect similarity in knowledge acquisition, suggesting the ability to seek out new
sources of knowledge is critical for success and increased innovation rates (Cohen & Levinthal
1989; Cohen & Levinthal 1990; Zahara & George, 2002). New sources of knowledge present in
organizations implementing design thinking strategies are applied towards the creative thinking
and problem solution processes (Fraser, 2009; Lockwood, 2009). Creative thinking is also
utilized to explore and discover customer and stakeholder needs when visualizing future
possibilities. Ultimately, and organization’s use of creative thinking generates innovative
problem solutions and enhances the organization’s learning environment (Fraser, 2009).
Organizational Qualities. Emerging factors and attributes (Table 3) represent qualities
important for organizations to consider when designing performance management systems.
Emerging from the review of models suggests a consistent presence of selected factors and

Knowledge

Preparedness
for Change
Organizational
Qualities

Table 2
Change and Design Thinking Models with Key Factors and their Attributes
Knowledge
Change Models Design Thinking Models
Potential Knowledge Creative Thinking
-discovery
-innovation
-problem solutions
-visualization
-acquisition
-assimilation
Realized Knowledge
-transformation
-exploitation
attributes are necessary to design effective problem solutions. For example, Mager and Pipe
(1997) suggest the overall working environment affects outcomes of performance. Recognizing
how these factors and attributes in the HRD change models affect one another must happen
before change agents are able to aid the organization in their change efforts (Gilley et al., 2001).
Table 3
Organizational Qualities
Culture
Key People
Personnel Performance
-expectation
Work Environment
Culture
Levels of Design
-ad hoc or repeatable
-defined or managed
-optimized
Location of Design
-external resource
-specific location
-fully integrated
Maturity of Design
-aesthetic/functional
-customer connection
-strategic operations
and performance
Resources
Design thinking models offer the consideration of design-minded strategies including:
design level, location, maturity, and readily accessible resources during the recognition of
performance gaps and problem solutions (DMI, 2013; Fraser, 2009; Junginger, 2009). As the

organization matures in its use of design, increasing resources are dedicated to enhancing the
level of design, integrating the location into the organizational core and increasing maturity of
use (DMI, 2013; Junginger, 2013).
Preparedness for Change. In change management models, preparedness for change
suggests organizations realize the need for change when performance gaps are realized and
optimized performance is desired (Table 4; Gilley et al., 2001; Mager & Pipe, 1997). Readiness
for change is gauged by the reaction to external activation triggers and the sense of urgency
these external triggers place on the organization (Gilley et al., 2001; Zahara & George, 2002).
Table 4
Preparedness for Change
Evaluation Competitive Advantage
-clear goals Deepened Understanding
Implementation -value creation
-cost Evaluation and Feedback
-vision -encouragement
Readiness for Change -increased support
-activation triggers Optimized Performance
-sense of urgency Strategic Business Design
Recognition of Performance Gaps Competitive Advantage
Resources Deepened Understanding
Optimized Performance
In contrast, design thinking models offer less attention focused on strengthening
preparedness for change and instead focus on implementing qualities commonly recognized in
design focused organizations (Lockwood, 2009). Design focused organizations are not measured
by an organizations devotion of resources, reaction to external activation triggers, or recognition
of performance gaps. Instead, the preparedness for change in the design thinking organization is
measured through the creation of a strategic business design, the optimizing of performance and

the competitive advantage that business design brings (DMI, 2013; Fraser, 2009). Evaluation
and feedback is focused on the encouragement of continual creative problem solving, and the
increased support of key people (DMI, 2013; Fraser, 2009).
Model for Change Management Incorporating Factors and Attributes of Design thinking
Using the emerging factors and attributes the authors suggest a new model for change
management incorporating factors and attributes of design thinking in the HRD change process
(Figure 8). Organizations using this proposed model would initially need ideas for improved
performance at the level of the line management. To create a deepened understanding of the
potential contributions of creative thinking, encouraging and seeking group or organizational
level thinking aggregates ideas for change. Innovative ideation is synthesized in these groups and
the groups representing the organizational culture. Strategies are identified and visualized and
discovered. These strategies lead to change in the business design requiring support by
management and employees as well as the necessary resources to fuel the change process.
For example, organization X, seeking for sources of new potential knowledge about prospective
investment venues would tap into the organizations key people revealing potentially unknown
factors capable of shifting and encouraging a readiness for the change processes. These unknown
factors acquired and transformed into realized knowledge become vital to organization X’s
survival during the change management process, as new sources of knowledge increase capacity
for creative thinking and success (Zahara & George, 2002). Furthermore, line managers aid in
the discovery and recognition of performance gaps, shifting from traditional and rigid problem
solving techniques through reductionism to address a best fit solution.

Figure8.ModelforChangeManagementIncorporatingFactorsandAttributesofDesignThinking(Badding&Leigh,
2014)

31

By integrating design thinking factors and attributes into previous HRD change models,
as an example, the process invites deeper thought leading to wider discoveries and the
visualization of new opportunities for prototyping. The implementation of these discoveries
drives the organizational change process forward, enhancing the application and maturity of the
design process and characterizes to what degree design can influence decision-making. As a
result of organizational change process incorporating factors and attributes of design thinking,
organization X experiences improved performance due to the enhancements in the application
and maturity of the design process. The Model for Change Management Incorporating Factors
and Attributes of Design Thinking concludes with the testing and evaluation of the
organizational change process and is considered successful when improvements in performance
(i.e., increase in ROI, advancements in the triple bottom line, etc.) are realized.
Implications for HRD
“The [HRD change] process begins when organization decision makers discover that
there is a need or problem within the organization…the need is different between ‘what is’ and
‘what should be’ and the gap is the problem that must be resolved” (Gilley, Eggland, & Gilley,
1989, p. 144). The process to solve the gap between “what is” and “what should be” is often
rigid and prescribed, indicative of traditional problem solving processes. While these processes
can vary slightly from one another, HRD change processes generally consist of similar phases
(Gilley et al., 1989; Gilley et al., 2001). Moreover, an organizations’ ability to adhere to the
prescribed HRD process dictates success in their change initiative (Gilley et al., 1989).
Creative problem solving approaches emerging from the factors revealed in the design
thinking models recognize performance problems and work to create change without prescribed
steps (DMI, 2013; Junginger, 2009). Rather, design thinking models equip key people in the

32

organization with tools to approach problems using deep discovery and visualization tools: “We
aren’t talking about turning managers into designers, but about helping them to become better
design thinkers, literate in the tools and process that designers use, and able to use that process
not to design products, but to solve business problems” (Liedtka, King, & Bennett, 2013; p. 36).
Alignment of Factors in Design Thinking to HRD Change Management and the Workplace
Organizations need design thinking to innovate and succeed. This thinking reveals how
knowledge advances from one stage to another – from mystery (something we can’t explain), to
heuristic (a rule of thumb that guides us to a solution) to algorithm (a predictable formula for
producing and answer) to code (when the formula becomes so predictable it can be fully
automated; Martin, 2009). As knowledge advances across these stages, productivity grows, and
costs drop, creating significant value and internalization of creative innovation strategies within
individuals and organizations.
The contributions of this paper invite the alignment and inclusion of factors from both
design thinking and change management models to partner in strengthening processes
constructing greater creative output and solidly aligning HRD with the global innovation
movement. Gupta, Singh, and Khatri (2013) cite employee creativity is a key driver of growth
performance, and valuation in organizations. The alignment of key factors from both model
sources with the major movements impacting design, business, and engineering can create an
environment in which HRD can play a major role. Design thinking bridges the existing gap from
creativity to HRD to respond to activation triggers for change (Zahara & George, 2002).

33

References
Amabile. T. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work
environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal , 39 (5), 1154-1184.
Basadur, M. & Gelade, G. A. (2006). The role of knowledge management in the
innovation process. Creativity and Innovation Management, 15 (1), 45-61.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8691.2006.00368.x.
Borja de Mozota, B. (2005). The complex system of creating value through design: Using
the balanced scorecard model to develop a system view of design management from a
substantial and fiscal point of view. Design System Evolution (pp. 1-15). Bremen: The 6th
European Academy of Design Conference.
Borja de Mozota, B. (2006). The four powers of design: A value model in design
management. Design Management Review, 17(2), 44-53.
Bridges, W. (2009). Managing transitions: Making the most of change. Philadelphia, PA.
Brown, T. (2008, June). Design Thinking. Harvard Business Review , 1-9.
Brown, T. (2009). Change by design: How design thinking transforms organizations and nspires
innovation. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
Burke, W. (2008). Organization change: Theory and practice (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Burnes, B. (2004). Kurt Lewin and the planned approach to change: A re-appraisal.
Journal of Management Studies, 41(6), 977-1002.

34

Callahan, J. L. (2010). Constructing a manuscript: Distinguishing integrative literature reviews
and conceptual and theory articles. Human Resource Development Review , 9 (3), 300-
304.
Chen, Y-S. & Lai, Y-C. (2009). The impact of others creativity expectations and self-
views of past creative behaviors on HRD practitioners’ creative teaching performance:
The mediating effect of creative role identity. Proceedings of 2009 AHRD international
research conference in the Americas, n.p.
Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1989). Innovation and learning: The two faces of
R&D. The Economic Journal, 99(397), 569-596.
Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on
learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quartley, 35, 128-152.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and
invention. New York, NY: Harper Collins.
Curedale, R. (2013a). Design thinking pocket guide. Topanga, CA: Design Community
College Inc.
Curedale, R. (2013b). Design thinking process and methods manual. Topanga, CA:
Design Community College Inc.
DMI. (2013). What is design worth?:Quantifying the ROI of Design. Retrieved
December 27, 2013, from DMI: Design value project:
http://dmi.org/dmi/html/aboutdmi/roi_2013.htm
Egan, T. M. (2005a). Creativity in the context of team diversity: Team leader
perspectives. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 7(2), 207-225. doi:
10.1177/1523422305274526.

35

Egan, T. M. (2005b). Factors influencing individual creativity in the workplace: An
examination of quantitative empirical research. Advances in Developing Human
Resources, 7(2), 160-181. doi:10.1177/1523422305274527.
Easterby-Smith, M., Graca, M., Antonacopoulou, F., & Ferdinand, J. (2008). Absorptive
capacity: A process perspective. Management Learning, 39(5), 483-501.
Fraser, H. M. (2009). Designing business: New models for success. In T. Lockwood
(Ed.), Design thinking: Integrating innovation, customer experience, and brand value
(pp. 35-45). New York, NY: Allworth Press.
Gibb, S. & Waight, C. L. (2005). Connecting HRD and creativity: From fragmentary
insights to strategic significance. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 7, (2), 271-
286. doi:10.1177/1523422305274530.
Gilley, J. W., Boughton, N. W., & Maycunich, A. (1999). The performance challenge:
Developing management systems to make your employees your organization’s greatest
asset. New York: Perseus Books.
Gilley, J. W., Dean, P., & Bierema, L. (2001). Philosophy and practice of organizational
learning, performance and change. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing.
Gilley, J. W., Eggland, S. A., & Gilley, A. M. (1989). Principles of human resource
development (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Basic Books.
Gilley, J. W. & Gilley, A. M. (2003). Strategically integrated HRD (2nd
ed.). Cambridge,
MA: Perseus Books.
Gilley, J. W., Quatro, S. A., Hoekstra, E., Whittle, D. D., & Maycunich, A. (2001). The
manager as change agent: A practical guide for developing high-performance people
and organizations. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing.

36

Gupta, V., Singh, S., & Khatri, N. (2013). Creativity in research and development laboratories: A
new scale for leader behaviors. IIMB Management Review, 25(2), 83–90. DOI:
10.1016/j.iimb.2013.02.001
Haring-Smith, T. (2006). Creativity research review: Some lessons for higher education.
Peer Review, 8(2), 23-27.
Joo, B-K., McLean, G. N., & Yang, B. (2013). Creativity and human resource development: An
integrative literature review and a conceptual framework for future research. Human
Resource Development Review , 12 (4), 390-421.
Joo, B-K., Yoon, H. J., & Jeung, C-W. (2009). The influences of core self-evaluations
and transformational leadership on organizational commitment and creative behavior.
Proceedings of 2009 AHRD International Research Conference in the Americas, n.p.
Junginger, S. (2009). Design in the organization: Parts and wholes. Design Research
Journal, 23-29.
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1992, January-February). The balanced scorecard –
measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Review, 71-79.
Kelley, T., & Kelley, D. (2013). Cretive confidence: Unleashing the creative potential within us
all. New York, NY: Crown Business.
Leigh, K. (2011). Organizational change: The relationship between creativity, values, and
performance in architectural practice. (Doctoral dissertation, Colorado State University).
Retrieved from http://digitool.library.colostate.edu/R/?func=dbin-jump-
full&object_id=13097
Liedtka, J., King, A., & Bennett, K. (2013). Re-framing opportunities: Design thinking
in action. Rotman Management, 35-39.

37

Lockwood, T. (Ed.). (2009). Design thinking: Integrating innovation, customer
experience, and brand value. New York, NY: Allworth Press.
Loewenberger, P. (2013). The role of HRD in stimulating, supporting, and sustaining creativity
and innovation. Human Resource Development Review , 12 (4), 422-455.
Madjar, N. (2005). The contributions of different groups of individuals to employees’
creativity. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 7(2), 182-206. doi:
10.1177/1523422305274525.
Mager, R. F., & Pipe, P. (1997). Analyzing performance problems or you really oughta
wanna: How to figure out why people aren't doing what they should be, and what to do
about it (3rd ed.). Atlanta, GA: The Center for Effective Performance.
Martin, R. (2009). The design of business: Why design thinking is the next competitive
advantage. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
Mosakowski, E. (1998). Entrepreneurial resources, organizational choices, and
competitive outcomes. [Electronic version]. Organization Science, 9(6), 625-643.
Owen, C. (2007). Design thinking: Notes on its nature and use. Design Research Quartly, 2 (1),
16-27.
Rowe, P. G. (1987). Design thinking. London, England: MIT Press.
Stegmeier, D. (2008). Innovation in office design: The critical influence approach to effective
work environments. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Taylor, M. A. & Callahan, J. L. (2005). Bringing creativity into being: Underlying
assumptions that influence methods of studying organizational creativity. Advances in
Developing Human Resources, 7(2), 247-270. doi: 10.1177/1523422305274529.

38

Waight, C. L. (2005). Exploring connections between human resource development and
creativity. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 7(2), 151-159. doi:
10.1177/1523422305274524.
Westcott, M., Sato, S., Mrazek, D., Wallace, R., Vanka, S., Bilson, C., Hardin, D. (2013).
The DMI design value scorecard: A new design measurement and management model.
Design Management Institute, 10-16.
Wilmoth, F. S., Prigmore, C., & Bray, M. (2002). HPT models: An overview of the major
models in the field. Performance Improvement, 41(8), 16-24.
Zahara, A., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: A review, re-conceptualization,
and extension. The Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 185-203.

View publication statsView publication stats

Frontiers of Thought: The Integration of Design Thinking & Human Resource Development by Sarah Badding and Katharine Leigh

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

Similaire à Frontiers of Thought: The Integration of Design Thinking & Human Resource Development by Sarah Badding and Katharine Leigh

Similaire à Frontiers of Thought: The Integration of Design Thinking & Human Resource Development by Sarah Badding and Katharine Leigh (20)

Plus de Rodrigo Narcizo

Plus de Rodrigo Narcizo (8)

Dernier

Dernier (10)

Frontiers of Thought: The Integration of Design Thinking & Human Resource Development by Sarah Badding and Katharine Leigh