Design Thinking Research - Measuring Performance in Context

Online-Ressource (VIII, 302 p. 127 illus., 78 illus. in color, digital)

Description based upon print version of record

Design Thinking Research; Measuring Performance in Context; Preface; Contents; Design Thinking Research; 1 Design Thinking as Hunting for Big Ideas, AND, Transporting Them Home to the Organization; 1.1 Understanding Innovation Is About Knowing How to Measure It; 2 The HPI-Stanford Design Thinking Research Program; 2.1 Program Vision; 2.2 Program Priorities; 2.3 Part I: Design Thinking Research in the Context of Co-Located Teams; 2.4 Part II: Design Thinking Research in the Context of Distributed Teams; 2.5 Part III: Design Thinking Research in the Context of Embedded Business Teams; 3 Summary

Part I: Design Thinking Research in the Context of Co-located TeamsAssessing d.learning: Capturing the Journey of Becoming a Design Thinker; 1 Introduction and Background; 2 From Mindsets to Mindshifts; 2.1 Human-Centered; 2.2 Experimental; 2.3 Collaborative; 2.4 Metacognitive; 3 Needs; 4 Theoretical Perspectives; 5 Research Methods and Analysis; 6 Assessment Tool Prototypes; 6.1 The Reflective Assessment Rubric; 6.2 The Windaloobah Experiment Task; 6.3 The Designing Twenty-First Century Learning Spaces Task; 6.4 The Assessment Dashboard; 7 Summary and Discussion; References

The Faith-Factor in Design Thinking: Creative Confidence Through Education at the Design Thinking Schools Potsdam and Stanford?1 Introduction; 2 Sources of Self-Efficacy; 2.1 Enactive Mastery Experience; 2.2 Vicarious Experience; 2.3 Verbal Persuasions; 2.4 Physiological and Affective States; 3 Conclusion; 4 Outlook; References; Prototyping Dynamics: Sharing Multiple Designs Improves Exploration, Group Rapport, and Results; 1 Introduction; 2 Exposure to Examples Enhances Individual Exploration; 2.1 Sharing Multiple Designs Improves Collaboration

2.2 Sharing Multiple Ideas Facilitates Conceptual Blending3 Method; 3.1 Study Design; 3.2 Participants; 3.3 Procedure; 3.4 Icebreaker Activities; 3.5 Graphic Design Tool Training; 3.6 Design Brief; 3.7 Individual Design Period; 3.8 Group Discussion; 3.9 Final Design Period; 3.10 Group Interview; 4 Dependent Measures; 4.1 Performance; 4.2 Individual Design Exploration; 4.3 Change in Group Rapport; 4.4 Conversational Turn Taking; 4.5 Design Feature Sharing; 4.6 Group Consensus; 5 Results; 6 Sharing Multiple Led to Higher Quality Designs; 6.1 Ad Campaign Results

6.2 Graphic Design Experience Did Not Effect Campaign Results6.3 Quality Ratings; 6.4 Graphic Design Experience Led to Better Ratings; 7 Sharing Multiple Led to More Individual Exploration; 8 Group Rapport Rose for Partners Who Shared Multiple; 9 Share Multiple Partners Took More Conversational Turns; 10 Share Multiple Pairs Borrowed More Features; 11 Share Multiple Pairs Reached a Better Consensus; 12 Discussion; 13 Hypotheses Revisited; 13.1 Creating and Viewing Multiple Designs Leads to More Individual Exploration

13.2 Sharing Multiple Designs Leads to More Productive Dialogue and Better Group Rapport

10.1007/978-3-642-31991-4 [DOI]

ECONIS - Online Catalogue of the ZBW