How Remote Work Changes Design Thinking
Replacing onsite design-thinking sessions with virtual ones fundamentally changes the innovation process and outcomes.
Topics
Taylor Callery
Design thinking is a powerful method for understanding customer needs and developing new solutions to meet them.1 It has been used by innovators to invent consumer products like electric toothbrushes and to develop business-to-business services such as customer relationship management software. A key advantage of the design-thinking process over other innovation methods is its emphasis on the user experience. Whether a team is imagining a car dashboard, a tax declaration app, or an electric lawnmower, each step relies on repeated, personal interactions among team members, end users, and other stakeholders.
To facilitate such interactions, observational workshops are typically conducted onsite in end users’ familiar environments or in carefully arranged design studios. In recent years, however, with the rise in hybrid work, we have seen some innovation processes shift to the digital realm.2 Design-thinking practitioners now frequently watch consumers use products through videoconferencing and discuss their observations on digital conference boards and in group chats. Using these kinds of digital tools is certainly more convenient than getting people into the same room. But by shifting away from in-person interactions, are companies sacrificing the essence of what makes design thinking so powerful in the first place?
To answer that question, we conducted 41 semistructured interviews with design-thinking experts from leading companies, innovation consultancies, and academia and also drew on our own extensive experience running design-thinking projects.3 One key insight that emerged from our research is that the transition from physical to virtual is much more than just a change of medium. It fundamentally changes team members’ experience of the design-thinking process and the outcomes they generate, in both positive and negative ways. Understanding these changes is essential for innovation leaders to determine how they will apply the best features of both the physical and the virtual design-thinking formats.
Virtual Environments Change Perception and Understanding
Design-thinking practice is often thought of as a process that begins with team members gaining a deep understanding of customer problems and then imagining or refining products or services as they move through distinct phases in a sequential, iterative manner.
References
1. T. Brown, “Design Thinking,” Harvard Business Review 86, no. 6 (June 2008): 84-92.
2. E. Tippmann, P.S. Scott, and M. Gantley, “Driving Remote Innovation Through Conflict and Collaboration,” MIT Sloan Management Review, April 15, 2021, https://sloanreview.mit.edu; L. Thompson, “Virtual Collaboration Won’t Be the Death of Creativity,” MIT Sloan Management Review 62, no. 2 (winter 2021): 42-46.
3. A. Minet, D. Wentzel, S. Raff, et al., “Design Thinking in Physical and Virtual Environments: Conceptual Foundations, Qualitative Analysis, and Practical Implications,” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 207 (October 2024): 123596.
4. “An Introduction to Design Thinking Process Guide,” PDF file (Stanford, California: Hasso Plattner Institute of Design at Stanford University, n.d.). (Accessed September 6, 2024).
5. D. Dunne and R. Martin, “Design Thinking and How It Will Change Management Education: An Interview and Discussion,” Academy of Management Learning & Education 5, no. 4 (December 2006): 512-523.
6. Y. Trope and N. Liberman, “Construal-Level Theory of Psychological Distance,” Psychological Review 117, no. 2 (April 2010): 440-463.
7. A.M. Glenberg, “Embodiment as a Unifying Perspective for Psychology,” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science 1, no. 4 (July/August 2010): 586-596.