Managing design innovation challenges in a digital environment

References

• Arnellos, A., Spyrou, T., & Darzentas, J. (2007). Exploring creativity in the design process: A systems-semiotic perspective. Cybernetics and Human Knowing, 14(1), 37–64.
   Google Scholar
• Atman, C. J. (2019). Design timelines: Concrete and sticky representations of design process expertise. Design Studies, 65, 125–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2019.10.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bacq, S., Geoghegan, W., Josefy, M., Stevenson, R., & Williams, T. A. (2020). The COVID-19 virtual idea blitz: Marshaling social entrepreneurship to respond to urgent grand challenges rapidly. Business Horizons, 63(6), 705–723. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2020.05.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Björklund, T., Maula, H., Soule, S. A., & Maula, J. (2020). Integrating design into organizations: The coevolution of design capabilities. California Management Review, 62(2), 100–124. https://doi.org/10.1177/0008125619898245
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. sage.
   Google Scholar
• Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
   Google Scholar
• Braune, K., Rojas, P., Hofferbert, J., Sosa, A. V., Lebedev, A., Balzer, F., Thun, S., Lieber, S., Kirchberger, V., & Poncette, A.-S. (2021). Interdisciplinary online hackathons as an approach to combat the COVID-19 pandemic: Case study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 23(2), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.2196/25283
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braybrooke, K., Janes, S., & Sato, C. (2021). Carefull design sprints, online? Addressing gaps in cultural access and inclusion during Covid-19 with vulnerable communities in London and Tokyo. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Communities & Technologies - Wicked Problems in the Age of Tech (pp. 25–37). https://doi.org/10.1145/3461564.3461583
   Google Scholar
• Brown, T. (2008, June 1). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2008/06/design-thinking
   Google Scholar
• Brown, T., & Katz, B. (2019). Change by design: how design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation. HarperCollins.
   Google Scholar
• Cash, P., Škec, S., & Štorga, M. (2019). The dynamics of design: Exploring heterogeneity in meso-scale team processes. Design Studies, 64, 124–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2019.08.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Creswell, J. W. (2014). Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. SAGE Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Donaldson, J. P., Choi, D., & Layne, J. (2021). Online design thinking faculty development workshops: A design-based research study. Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning-CSCL 2021.
   Google Scholar
• Dorst, K. (2019). Co-evolution and emergence in design. Design Studies, 65, 60–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2019.10.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550. https://doi.org/10.2307/258557
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Franco, S., Presenza, A., & Petruzzelli, A. M. (2021). Boosting innovative business ideas through hackathons. The “Hack for Travel” case study. European Journal of Innovation Management, 25(6), 413–431. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-06-2021-0300
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2013). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 15–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428112452151
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough?: An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05279903
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guest, G., MacQueen, K. M., & Namey, E. E. (2011). Applied thematic analysis. Sage publications.
   Google Scholar
• Heylighen, A., & Dong, A. (2019). To empathise or not to empathise? Empathy and its limits in design. Design Studies, 65, 107–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2019.10.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hölzle, K., & Rhinow, H. (2019). The dilemmas of design thinking in innovation projects. Project Management Journal, 50(4), 418–430. https://doi.org/10.1177/8756972819853129
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kane, G. C., Nanda, R., Phillips, A., & Copulsky, J. (2021). Redesigning the post-pandemic workplace. MIT Sloan Management Review, 62(3), 12–14.
   Google Scholar
• Kempster, S., & Parry, K. W. (2011). Grounded theory and leadership research: A critical realist perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(1), 106–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.12.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kindström, D., Kowalkowski, C., & Sandberg, E. (2013). Enabling service innovation: A dynamic capabilities approach. Journal of Business Research, 66(8), 1063–1073. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.03.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kolb, J., & Rothwell, W. (2002). Competencies of small group facilitators: What practitioners view as important. Journal of European Industrial Training, 26(2/3/4), 200–203. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090590210422085
   Google Scholar
• Larsson, A. (2007). Banking on social capital: Towards social connectedness in distributed engineering design teams. Design Studies, 28(6), 605–622. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2007.06.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leonardi, P. (2021). Picking the right approach to digital collaboration. MIT Sloan Management Review, 62(2), 1–7.
   Google Scholar
• Liedtka, J. (2015). Perspective: Linking design thinking with innovation outcomes through cognitive bias reduction. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32(6), 925–938. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12163
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luther, K., & Bruckman, A. (2008). Leadership in online creative collaboration (pp. 343–352).
   Google Scholar
• Marion, T. J., & Fixson, S. K. (2021). The transformation of the innovation process: How digital tools are changing work, collaboration, and organizations in new product development. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 38(1), 192–215. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12547
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marshall, B., Cardon, P., Poddar, A., & Fontenot, R. (2013). Does sample size matter in qualitative research?: A review of qualitative interviews in is research. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 54(1), 11–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2013.11645667
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin, R., & Martin, R. L. (2009). The design of business: Why design thinking is the next competitive advantage. Harvard Business Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nordbäck, E. S., & Espinosa, J. A. (2019). Effective coordination of shared leadership in global virtual teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 36(1), 321–350. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2018.1558943
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osborne, S., Powell, M., Cucciniello, M., & Macfarlane, J. (2022). It is a relay not a sprint! Evolving co ‑ design in a digital and virtual environment: Neighbourhood services for elders. Global Public Policy and Governance, 2(4), 518–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43508-022-00053-y
   Google Scholar
• Paton, B., & Dorst, K. (2011). Briefing and reframing: A situated practice. Design Studies, 32(6), 573–587. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2011.07.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peng, D. X., Heim, G. R., & Mallick, D. N. (2014). Collaborative product development: The effect of project complexity on the use of information technology tools and new product development practices. Production and Operations Management, 23(8), 1421–1438. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1937-5956.2012.01383.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rice, D. J., Davidson, B. D., Dannenhoffer, J. F., & Gay, G. K. (2007). Improving the effectiveness of virtual teams by adapting team processes. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 16(6), 567–594. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-007-9070-3
   Google Scholar
• Scaletsky, C. C., & da Costa, F. C. X. (2019). Design management & strategic design: Cross perspectives. Strategic Design Research Journal, 12(1), 27–42. https://doi.org/10.4013/sdrj.2019.121.03
   Google Scholar
• Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Sage Publications, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Temiz, S. (2021). Open innovation via crowdsourcing: A digital only hackathon case study from Sweden. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc7010039
   Google Scholar
• Thai, M., Chong, L., & Agrawal, N. (2012). Straussian grounded-theory method: An Illustration. The Qualitative Report, 17(26), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2012.1758
   Google Scholar
• Thompson, R. N. (2020). Novel coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan, China, 2020: Intense surveillance is vital for preventing sustained transmission in new locations. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 9(2), 498. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9020498
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ulfsnes, R., Stray, V., Moe, N. B., & Šmite, D. (2021). Innovation in large-scale agile - benefits and challenges of hackathons when hacking from home. In P. Gregory & P. Kruchten (Eds.), Agile processes in software engineering and extreme programming – workshops (pp. 23–32). Springer International Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Ullman, D. G. (1992). A taxonomy for mechanical design. Research in Engineering Design, 3(3), 179–189. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01580519
   Google Scholar
• Valkenburg, A., & Dorst, C. (1998). The reflective practice of design teams. Design Studies, 19(3), 249–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(98)00011-8
   Google Scholar
• Vallis, C., & Redmond, P. (2021). Introducing design thinking online to large business education courses for Twenty-First Century learning. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 18(6), 213–232. https://doi.org/10.53761/1.18.6.14
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wiederhold, B. K. (2021). Connecting through technology during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic: Avoiding “Zoom fatigue. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 23(7), 437–438. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2020.29188.bkw
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Windahl, C., Karpen, I. O., & Wright, M. R. (2020). Strategic design: Orchestrating and leveraging market-shaping capabilities. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 35(9), 1413–1424. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-03-2019-0133
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Winfield, K. E., Sizer, N. D., & Siena, F. L. (2022, September). Design sprint methodologies transformed in a digital environment. Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education (E&PDE 2022). London, UK: London South Bank University
   Google Scholar
• Yang, Z., Xiang, W., You, W., & Sun, L. (2021). The influence of distributed collaboration in design processes: An analysis of design activity on information, problem, and solution. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 31(3), 587–609. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-020-09565-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (Vol. 5). sage.
   Google Scholar
• Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). United Stated of America.
   Google Scholar
• Yokoi, T., Obwegeser, N., & Beretta, M. (2021). How digital inclusion can help solve grand challenges. MIT Sloan Management Review, 62(4), 1–5.
   Google Scholar