Search results

This chapter suggests that welfare management is becoming a matter of being able to use the open space in between formal roles, silos and organisations to actualise a not yet possible, qualitatively better welfare here and now. The discourse about the open-ended and futuristic space in between is challenging practices of welfare education. A growing field of studies is criticising the centres of education, learning and research for being a McDonald’s culture, with an overly linear approach, unable to connect passion, sensitivity and intuition with knowledge. This chapter goes further than criticising existing practices. Building on notions of affective studies, the aim is to experiment on how to shift the focus from thinking about open spaces to intensifying thinking-spaces, able to generate the processual relations increasing the opportunity for a qualitative better welfare to occur here and now.

The object of the chapter is an experiment entitled The Future Public Leadership Education Now. It is based on non-representational studies and designed to operate on the affective registers.

The chapter offers a theoretical and pragmatic wandering as wondering. It continues and expands the experiment as an ongoing thinking-spaces moving between the known and the unknown. It aims at gently opening the opportunity for a qualitatively better welfare to occur.

Researchers become welfare artists intensifying affective co-motions as ongoing and form-shifting processes.

This chapter focuses on practical considerations for organizations when endeavoring to invest in design, specifically how designers and their organizations should view their profession for the benefit of corporate innovation. Given the lack of consensus regarding what strategic design entails, the author interviewed strategic designers from across the United States to solicit their opinions on design thinking, strategic design, and design strategy, the relationship between those concepts, and how those concepts are, could be, and should be reflected in practice.

The overarching purpose of this chapter is to explore the relatively nascent profession of strategic design, from which the author distinguishes design strategy, as well as to provide guidance regarding how design and designers should be viewed and supported by the leadership of their organizations in order to fully empower them to support innovation. In addition, this chapter serves to better define the concepts of design thinking, strategic design, and design strategy. While design as a discipline is broad, for the sake of consistency, the author discusses design in the context of technological development and, in turn, in terms of human-computer interaction.

Entrepreneurial opportunity (EO) identification pertains to the core processes of entrepreneurship and innovation. The initial phase of this process starts with individual cognition, which is why cognition has been established as a critical theoretical perspective.

Knowledge and new information have been confirmed as essential cognitive impact factors. However, it is not understood well, how individuals apply those factors and how they actually identify innovative and economically viable EOs. To address the limitations of current research, this chapter investigates the current literature on underlying cognitive processes of opportunity identification.

The literature analysis demonstrates that there is not a single cognitive process but rather a magnitude of different micro-mechanisms that are necessary for the successful identification of EOs. The findings are grouped to four categories of cognitive processes and entail their micro-mechanisms: pattern recognition, information processing, and creative thinking. Furthermore, the analysis reveals that those micro-mechanisms have seldom been related to each other within the scope of opportunity identification. This chapter closes this gap by discussing and contrasting and the different process categories and respective micro-mechanisms and suggests an integrative theory development and avenues for future research.

Purpose: This study examines the use of Design Thinking by international development actors in the Middle East & North Africa (MENA) region. Factors contributing to Design Thinking’s adoption, its evolution, and contributions to the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are identified.

Methodology/approach: The study used a desk review, survey questionnaire, and semi-structured interviews with purposefully selected experts to capture experiences from across the MENA region. Snowballing enabled more experts to be reached.

Findings: Over the past decade, Design Thinking has been successfully adopted by a growing number of organizations and sectors. Its low-resource requirements and focus on mindset enable it to empower communities to find solutions by and for themselves. Its human-centered approach, use of empathy to deepen understanding of the user makes it well suited for advancing the 2030 SDGs vision of “no one left behind.”

Research limitations/implications: This was a small exploratory study that involved 13 respondents in 4 countries. All experts interviewed lead Design Thinking projects across the MENA region. The chapter identifies actions to enhance research/knowledge in this area.

Practical implications: A systematic mapping of Design Thinking actors and initiatives across the MENA region and the establishment of communities of practice could improve knowledge and resource sharing and more effective/wider application of Design Thinking.

Social implications: Design Thinking can contribute to the 2030 SDGs in the MENA region. As a low-resource methodology, Design Thinking can empower grassroots actors to make and own needed changes.

Originality/value of paper: This chapter appears to be the first one to examine Design Thinking’s contribution to achieving the 2030 SDGs in the MENA region.

Design thinking has become something of a buzz word in innovation discussions and has recently also invested occupied education spaces. In this chapter we briefly compare design thinking to problem-based learning (PBL) and enquiry-based learning (EBL) approaches to problem solving in education before focusing on the approach itself and current debates about its meaning and significance. This chapter focuses particular attention on the problem finding aspect of design thinking and its integration of creative methods for solving a range of tame to wicked problems in a variety of spaces. We ground our analysis in three environments of design thinking and five specific cases of application across education sectors from primary through to university. The examples focus on the generative potential of design thinking for all students and especially those from non-design disciplines. It is this capacity of design thinking to complement existing pedagogies and provide inspiration for change and innovation that is the strength of the model.

In this chapter, Arendt’s reflections on the question of personal responsibility are taken as a discussion of ‘interrupting the legal person’. Examining trials that took place after World War II, Arendt observes in ‘Some Questions of Moral Philosophy’, ‘What the courts demand … is that the defendants should not have participated’ (pp. 33–34). Following Arendt, the author argues that thinking could have enabled possible perpetrators of great evil to meet this demand, for when a person stops to think, whatever they are doing is interrupted. What is more, the person who stops to think is themselves interrupted by thinking. In brief, becoming aware of the possibility that they exist as a person in a mode other than what Ngaire Naffine calls ‘the responsible subject’, thinking disrupts the legal person. A discussion of thinking as interrupting the legal person thus illuminates not only what may turn a person away from participation in the life of a criminal state, but also what that turn means for responsibility.

Morality is primarily a system of values, meanings, convictions, beliefs, principles, and drivers of good behavior and good outcomes in any organization. Using systems thinking concepts and applications introduced and developed during the last 50 years or so by various scholars from MIT, Stanford, and Wharton, such as Chris Argyris, Russell Ackoff, G. K. Forrester, Peter Senge, Stephen Covey, and Jim Collins, this chapter seeks to explore various past and contemporary market systems and challenges in terms of specific inputs, processes, and outputs. Systems thinking reckons everything in the cosmos (usually classified as subjects, objects, properties, and events) as a system (composed of two or more interactive parts with individual and interactive effects) that is connected to every other system in the universe. Various systems thinking laws and archetypes that have been developed thus far by systems thinkers will be introduced in order to identify basic patterns, structures, and constraints of human thinking and reasoning that create market phenomena. The academic and managerial challenge is to identify, explore, and capitalize such nonobvious connections for creating and developing new markets and corporate growth opportunities in the highly turbulent markets of today. In a globalized, digitized, and networked planet and universe, systems thinking is a very effective tool for analyzing turbulent market systems holistically and in an inclusive and integrated manner, with their specific inputs, processes, and outcomes. Several contemporary market cases will be included to illustrate the contents of this chapter.