Hands on Design Thinking

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Conrad Glitza ◽  
Rosa-Sophie Hamburger ◽  
Michael Metzger
Keyword(s):  
Design Thinking ◽  
Hands On

Why Is Safe Science Good Science?

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Camilla Kao ◽  
Che-I Kao ◽  
Russell Furr
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Design Thinking ◽  
Good Science ◽  
Safety Issues ◽  
Safety Requirements ◽  
The Arts ◽  
Hands On ◽  
Obvious Benefit ◽  
New Ideas

In science, safety can seem unfashionable. Satisfying safety requirements can slow the pace of research, make it cumbersome, or cost significant amounts of money. The logic of rules can seem unclear. Compliance can feel like a negative incentive. So besides the obvious benefit that safety keeps one safe, why do some scientists preach "safe science is good science"? Understanding the principles that underlie this maxim might help to create a strong positive incentive to incorporate safety into the pursuit of groundbreaking science.<div><br></div><div>This essay explains how safety can enhance the quality of an experiment and promote innovation in one's research. Being safe induces a researcher to have <b>greater control</b> over an experiment, which reduces the <b>uncertainty</b> that characterizes the experiment. Less uncertainty increases both <b>safety</b> and the <b>quality</b> of the experiment, the latter including <b>statistical quality</b> (reproducibility, sensitivity, etc.) and <b>countless other properties</b> (yield, purity, cost, etc.). Like prototyping in design thinking and working under the constraint of creative limitation in the arts, <b>considering safety issues</b> is a hands-on activity that involves <b>decision-making</b>. Making decisions leads to new ideas, which spawns <b>innovation</b>.</div>

Why Is Safe Science Good Science?

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Camilla Kao ◽  
Che-I Kao ◽  
Russell Furr
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Design Thinking ◽  
Good Science ◽  
Safety Issues ◽  
Safety Requirements ◽  
The Arts ◽  
Hands On ◽  
Obvious Benefit ◽  
New Ideas

In science, safety can seem unfashionable. Satisfying safety requirements can slow the pace of research, make it cumbersome, or cost significant amounts of money. The logic of rules can seem unclear. Compliance can feel like a negative incentive. So besides the obvious benefit that safety keeps one safe, why do some scientists preach "safe science is good science"? Understanding the principles that underlie this maxim might help to create a strong positive incentive to incorporate safety into the pursuit of groundbreaking science.<div><br></div><div>This essay explains how safety can enhance the quality of an experiment and promote innovation in one's research. Being safe induces a researcher to have <b>greater control</b> over an experiment, which reduces the <b>uncertainty</b> that characterizes the experiment. Less uncertainty increases both <b>safety</b> and the <b>quality</b> of the experiment, the latter including <b>statistical quality</b> (reproducibility, sensitivity, etc.) and <b>countless other properties</b> (yield, purity, cost, etc.). Like prototyping in design thinking and working under the constraint of creative limitation in the arts, <b>considering safety issues</b> is a hands-on activity that involves <b>decision-making</b>. Making decisions leads to new ideas, which spawns <b>innovation</b>.</div>

Antipasti

2019 ◽  
pp. 108-130
Keyword(s):  
Process Modeling ◽  
Design Thinking ◽  
Enterprise Modeling ◽  
Working Environment ◽  
Organizational Models ◽  
Modeling Framework ◽  
Business Environments ◽  
Hands On ◽  
Agile Enterprise ◽  
Tools And Techniques

Nowadays megatrend of Industry 4.0 initiative in complex and dynamic business environments require easy and hands-on methods for enterprise modelling that will be able to recalibrate process's models constantly. Processes are often declared as being “modeled” or “documented” but seldom as being “designed.” This leads to certain afflictions in allocation of the particular resources required for the tasks of process modeling or design. There is perception of process modeling as a routine task, which is structured itself by “modeling terms and conditions” or “modeling agreement,” while “design thinking” is mainly considered as much more less structured and belonging to the artist's nature. Implementation of such models in practice or IT automation does not fit the reality because of misinterpretation from the start of modeling and multiplied on each step of model transformation. In such circumstances any thought about fruitful digitalization looks very abused. This chapter describes a set of tools and techniques for enriching organizational models with semantic information and adjusting them on request. Firstly, this chapter considers an innovative approach for the model binding with relevant documents and experts. Secondly, factors that trigger models' changes using company's information environment (field) are defined. Thirdly, an agile enterprise-modeling framework that automatically adapts to the business situation, creating context-aware working environment for employees, is introduced.

Why Is Safe Science Good Science?

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Camilla Kao ◽  
Che-I Kao ◽  
Russell Furr
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Design Thinking ◽  
Good Science ◽  
Safety Issues ◽  
Safety Requirements ◽  
The Arts ◽  
Hands On ◽  
Obvious Benefit ◽  
New Ideas

In science, safety can seem unfashionable. Satisfying safety requirements can slow the pace of research, make it cumbersome, or cost significant amounts of money. The logic of rules can seem unclear. Compliance can feel like a negative incentive. So besides the obvious benefit that safety keeps one safe, why do some scientists preach "safe science is good science"? Understanding the principles that underlie this maxim might help to create a strong positive incentive to incorporate safety into the pursuit of groundbreaking science.<div><br></div><div>This essay explains how safety can enhance the quality of an experiment and promote innovation in one's research. Being safe induces a researcher to have <b>greater control</b> over an experiment, which reduces the <b>uncertainty</b> that characterizes the experiment. Less uncertainty increases both <b>safety</b> and the <b>quality</b> of the experiment, the latter including <b>statistical quality</b> (reproducibility, sensitivity, etc.) and <b>countless other properties</b> (yield, purity, cost, etc.). Like prototyping in design thinking and working under the constraint of creative limitation in the arts, <b>considering safety issues</b> is a hands-on activity that involves <b>decision-making</b>. Making decisions leads to new ideas, which spawns <b>innovation</b>.</div>

scholarly journals Applying Design Thinking Process in Student’s Project: A case of EGF Products

2018 ◽  
Vol 201 ◽  
pp. 04003
Author(s):  
Chun-Ming Yang ◽  
Hong-Thien T. Man
Keyword(s):  
Growth Factor ◽  
Problem Solving ◽  
Design Thinking ◽  
Class Project ◽  
Solution Generation ◽  
Hands On ◽  
Innovative Solution ◽  
Health Care Applications ◽  
Epidermal Growth ◽  
Thinking Process

Design thinking process is best known as an effective, human-centred approach to more creative problem solving. This method has been applied as an innovative solution generation technique not only for designers but in other disciplines as well. While Epidermal Growth Factor (EGF) is an important growth factor in human body. It plays a crucial role in recent biological researches for many health-care applications. This study incorporated the design thinking process in EGF application products, aims to encourage student designers to embark on this freshly new problem-solving methodology in biological application, and hope to help introduce new medical products in daily life. Two cases as the results came out from the hands-on class project were also presented.

scholarly journals Design Thinking and Organizational Culture: A Review and Framework for Future Research

2018 ◽  
Vol 44 (6) ◽  
pp. 2274-2306 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kimberly D. Elsbach ◽  
Ileana Stigliani
Keyword(s):  
Organizational Culture ◽  
Design Thinking ◽  
Organizational Level ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Specific Design ◽  
Organizational Contexts ◽  
The Past ◽  
Hands On ◽  
Effective Use ◽  
Thinking Tools

Design thinking comprises an approach to problem solving that uses tools traditionally utilized by designers of commercial products, processes, and environments (e.g., designing a new car or the layout of a new airport). While design thinking was originally introduced as an approach that would work best when infused into the culture of an organization, most early studies of design thinking focused on identifying the specific tools and methods that might be used to solve management problems. Only recently have researchers examined how the implementation of design thinking might relate to organizational-level constructs, such as organizational culture. In this review, we examine empirical research (mostly from the past decade) that relates the practice of design thinking to the development of culture in organizations. Through this review, we identify how the use of specific design thinking tools supports the development of specific organizational cultures and vice versa. In addition, we identify how using design thinking tools produces emotional experiences and physical artifacts that help users to understand why and how specific cultures support the effective use of specific tools. Together, our review findings suggest that the experiential nature of design thinking tools and cultures (i.e., that they require people to actively engage in hands-on work) allows them to support one another. On the basis of this insight, we develop a general framework for organizing design thinking research and identify a number of avenues for future research that might advance our understanding of design thinking in organizational contexts.

Sustainability coursework: student perspectives and reflections on design thinking

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 593-611
Author(s):  
Renee M. Clark ◽  
Lisa M. Stabryla ◽  
Leanne M. Gilbertson
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Sustainability ◽  
Design Thinking ◽  
Positive Association ◽  
Student Perspectives ◽  
Environmental Engineering ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Hands On ◽  
Sustainability Challenges

Purpose The purpose of this study was to assess particular student outcomes when design thinking was integrated into an environmental engineering course. The literature is increasingly promoting design thinking for addressing societal and environmental sustainability engineering challenges. Design thinking is a human-centered approach that identifies needs upfront. Design/methodology/approach In an undergraduate engineering course, Design for the Environment, students have begun to obtain hands-on experience in applying design thinking to sustainability challenges. This case study investigates the association between the use of design thinking and student creativity with sustainability design solutions. Student perspectives on their own creativity and future sustainable design practices as a result of the course were also investigated. Findings The findings were favorable for design thinking, being associated with a significant difference and medium-to-large effect with regards to solution novelty. A qualitative analysis showed a positive association between design thinking and students’ perceptions of their creativity and future anticipated sustainability practices. Using a content analysis of reflective writings, students’ application of design thinking was assessed for comprehensiveness and correctness. A two-week introductory design-thinking module and significant use of in-class active learning were the course elements that most notably impacted students’ use of design thinking. Practical implications This case study preliminarily demonstrates that application of design thinking within an environmental engineering course may be associated with beneficial outcomes related to creativity and sustainability. Originality/value A review of the literature did not uncover studies of the use of design thinking for undergraduate socio-environmental challenges to promote creativity and sustainable-practices outcomes, although the literature has been calling for the marrying of these two areas.

Why Is Safe Science Good Science?

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Camilla Kao ◽  
Che-I Kao ◽  
Russell Furr
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Design Thinking ◽  
Good Science ◽  
Safety Issues ◽  
Safety Requirements ◽  
The Arts ◽  
Hands On ◽  
Obvious Benefit ◽  
New Ideas

In science, safety can seem unfashionable. Satisfying safety requirements can slow the pace of research, make it cumbersome, or cost significant amounts of money. The logic of rules can seem unclear. Compliance can feel like a negative incentive. So besides the obvious benefit that safety keeps one safe, why do some scientists preach "safe science is good science"? Understanding the principles that underlie this maxim might help to create a strong positive incentive to incorporate safety into the pursuit of groundbreaking science.<div><br></div><div>This essay explains how safety can enhance the quality of an experiment and promote innovation in one's research. Being safe induces a researcher to have <b>greater control</b> over an experiment, which reduces the <b>uncertainty</b> that characterizes the experiment. Less uncertainty increases both <b>safety</b> and the <b>quality</b> of the experiment, the latter including <b>statistical quality</b> (reproducibility, sensitivity, etc.) and <b>countless other properties</b> (yield, purity, cost, etc.). Like prototyping in design thinking and working under the constraint of creative limitation in the arts, <b>considering safety issues</b> is a hands-on activity that involves <b>decision-making</b>. Making decisions leads to new ideas, which spawns <b>innovation</b>.</div>

Why Is Safe Science Good Science?

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Camilla Kao ◽  
Che-I Kao ◽  
Russell Furr
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Design Thinking ◽  
Good Science ◽  
Safety Issues ◽  
Safety Requirements ◽  
The Arts ◽  
Hands On ◽  
Obvious Benefit ◽  
New Ideas

In science, safety can seem unfashionable. Satisfying safety requirements can slow the pace of research, make it cumbersome, or cost significant amounts of money. The logic of rules can seem unclear. Compliance can feel like a negative incentive. So besides the obvious benefit that safety keeps one safe, why do some scientists preach "safe science is good science"? Understanding the principles that underlie this maxim might help to create a strong positive incentive to incorporate safety into the pursuit of groundbreaking science.<div><br></div><div>This essay explains how safety can enhance the quality of an experiment and promote innovation in one's research. Being safe induces a researcher to have <b>greater control</b> over an experiment, which reduces the <b>uncertainty</b> that characterizes the experiment. Less uncertainty increases both <b>safety</b> and the <b>quality</b> of the experiment, the latter including <b>statistical quality</b> (reproducibility, sensitivity, etc.) and <b>countless other properties</b> (yield, purity, cost, etc.). Like prototyping in design thinking and working under the constraint of creative limitation in the arts, <b>considering safety issues</b> is a hands-on activity that involves <b>decision-making</b>. Making decisions leads to new ideas, which spawns <b>innovation</b>.</div>

scholarly journals Design Thinking: A Creative Approach to Problem Solving

2019 ◽  
pp. 237929811987146
Author(s):  
Mary K. Foster
Keyword(s):  
Problem Solving ◽  
Design Thinking ◽  
Resource Constraints ◽  
Lesson Plan ◽  
Real Problem ◽  
Graduate Courses ◽  
Human Needs ◽  
Complementary Approach ◽  
Hands On ◽  
Thinking Process

Design thinking—understanding the human needs related to a problem, reframing the problem in human-centric ways, creating many ideas in brainstorming sessions, and adopting a hands-on approach to prototyping and testing—offers a complementary approach to the rational problem-solving methods typically emphasized in business schools. Business school instructors may perceive design thinking, a relatively new and complex multistep, iterative process, to be beyond their capabilities or time/resource constraints. This experiential exercise provides a relatively easy, low-investment approach to incorporating an overview of design thinking into any course. With minimal instructor preparation, participants can have a positive experience using design thinking to solve a real problem, consuming as little as an hour of class time. This activity is suitable for undergraduate and graduate courses in any business discipline. The provided lesson plan, slides, and workbook make it easy to facilitate students’ experience of the design thinking process.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document