The International Journal of Design Management and Professional Practice

ISSN: 2325-162X (Print), ISSN: 2325-1638 (Online)

Volume 18, Issue 2, 2024
https://doi.org/10.18848/2325-162X/CGP/v18i02/81-107

Original Research

Rise and Evolution of Design Thinking

Research for Business Innovation

Jose A. Hernández Ramírez, Universidad Simón Bolívar, Colombia

Magda Zarela Sepúlveda Angarita, Universidad Francisco de Paula Santander, Colombia
Marlen Fonseca Vigoya, Universidad Francisco de Paula Santander, Colombia

Received: 07/14/2023; Accepted: 02/20/2024; Published: 06/21/2024

Abstract: As organizations are increasingly demanding faster and more successful innovations in the
markets, design thinking (DT) has established itself as a generative approach or methodology for solving
complex problems and as a driver for the development of products and services that offer superior value
to users. To understand this phenomenon, this exhaustive review has been carried out through a

Downloaded on Mon Jul 01 2024 at 06:15:17 UTC

scientometric analysis of DT for innovation, examining annual scientific production, country-specific
contributions, journal publications, and collaboration networks between authors. The results allow us to
identify a growing interdisciplinary interest in the applicability of DT for business innovation. The United
States is the country that stands out in academic production, while Germany and Italy concentrate the most
important academic networks. Using the Tree of Science (ToS) metaphor, three subtopics were identified
as current trends in the field: DT for innovation activities within the business sector, applicability and
contributions of DT in other sectors, and DT as a learning and innovation methodology. This study provides
a framework for understanding the evolution and current state of design thinking and thus for projecting
future research and new applications of design thinking as an approach to innovation in increasingly diverse
fields.

Keywords: Design Thinking, Innovation, Review, Scientometrics, Tree of Science

Introduction

Design thinking (DT) has become an authentic phenomenon with the boom caused by IDEO
in the 1990s, derived from a process of analysis and reflection on the way designers think and
do, an evolution that during the last three decades has expanded the use of design to
transdisciplinary fields (Bender-Salazar 2023). In this evolutionary process, DT has been
considered an iterative methodology that enables radical innovations through the generation
and validation of solutions oriented to the needs and values of users (Brown 2009; Verganti
2009), creating business value and competitive advantages (Martin 2009). In this sense,
Liedtka (2020) considers DT as a social technology that enables organizations to build
dynamic capabilities essential for strategic adaptation. The emphasis on prototyping and
conducting small experiments that allow testing the idea in action facilitates better decision-
making by reducing cognitive biases (Liedtka 2011).

81
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DESIGN MANAGEMENT AND PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

The rise in popularity of DT can be attributed to its customized applications and the
increasing demand for learning and training. This trend is particularly evident in the business
sector, where DT is emerging as a strategic component in personnel training programs to
foster creative problem-solving (Bertão et al. 2023). In education, DT is being effectively used
to incorporate design challenges. This allows students to accurately identify stakeholder
needs and test assumptions, thereby improving the quality of the proposed solutions while
developing higher-order thinking skills (Assen et al. 2023; Bender-Salazar 2023).
At the intersection of design and management, DT emerges as both a problem-solving
methodology and a theoretical discipline, with a pronounced emphasis on fostering
innovation, particularly within the business domain. According to Martin (2010, 38),
“design-thinking firms stand apart in their willingness to engage in the task of continuously
redesigning their business.” This article explores the relationship between DT and “business
innovation,” as defined by the Oslo Manual (OECD/Eurostat 2018, 46) as “a new or improved
product or business process (or combination thereof) that significantly differs from the firm’s
prior offerings and has been introduced to the market or adopted by the firm.”
DT has been extensively studied, with numerous systematic and bibliometric reviews

Downloaded on Mon Jul 01 2024 at 06:15:17 UTC

available. For instance, Dragičević, Vladova, and Ullrich (2023) conducted a bibliometric
review of DT in the context of the digital world, while Lyu et al. (2023) focused on virtual
reality in their literature review, and Li and Zhan (2022) undertook a systematic review in
the context of K-12 education. Consequently, this article presents a unique perspective by
concentrating on publications that explore the intersection of DT and business innovation.
Based on the literature reviewed in the study period, this is the first bibliometric review
of DT with a focus on business innovation. We use scientometric analysis to explore the
scientific production, research development, collaboration network, and key themes and
trends in this domain. The study aims to advance the theory of DT in business innovation,
reveal current tendencies, and suggest new research directions in a rapidly evolving field.

Methodology

Recent scholarly literature advocates for the integration of the Web of Science (WoS) and
Scopus databases to conduct more comprehensive scientometric analyses (Grisales Aguirre,
Robledo, and Zuluaga 2023; Aguirre and Cuervo 2023). This study aligns with this
proposition, employing the “bibliometrix” and “tosr” packages (Aria and Cuccurullo 2017)
to consolidate the primary registers with their corresponding references. The search
parameters incorporated the terms “design thinking” and “innovation business” across both
databases (Table 1). The yield was significantly higher in Scopus, constituting 58.86 percent
of the total, thereby highlighting the prominence of the topic within this database. However,
upon merging the two databases and eliminating duplicate entries, the final tally amounted
to 568 documents. Consequently, 125 documents (22.0%) were exclusively found in WoS and

82
 HERNÁNDEZ ET AL.: DESIGN THINKING RESEARCH FOR BUSINESS INNOVATION

not in Scopus, underscoring the necessity of utilizing both databases in scientometric analyses
to ensure comprehensive coverage.

Table 1: Parameters Used in SCM and AI

Parameters Web of Science Scopus
Range 2000–2023
Date July 9, 2023
Document types Papers, books, chapters, and conference
proceedings
Search field Title, abstract, and keywords
Words “Design thinking” AND “innovation
business”
Results 202 491
Total (Wos + Scopus) 568

Downloaded on Mon Jul 01 2024 at 06:15:17 UTC

Figure 1: PRISMA Diagram for Preprocessing Data

PRISMA is a well-established methodology to track the preprocessing data in the

literature review (Page et al. 2021). Figure 1 shows the process from the search in WoS and
Scopus until the selection of final papers in the scientometrics and ToS sections. The files

83
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DESIGN MANAGEMENT AND PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

downloaded from WoS were in text format, while those from Scopus were in bib format. To
create a more readable format, it was necessary to use the bibliometrix package. However,
these files are reached in unstructured data; for example, references to have authors, years,
journal names, and titles. Working with this type of data expands the scientometric analysis
of a research topic; however, more complex processes are needed to disaggregate this type of
data (Robledo, Duque, and Aguirre 2023). We performed text mining and web scraping to
enrich the data from WoS and Scopus. The output is an Excel file with twenty-two sheets
with detailed information on each main and reference paper.

Scientometric Mapping

This study subdivides the scientometric mapping into four distinct segments: scientific
production, country-specific contributions, journal collaboration, and author collaboration
analysis. This approach enables researchers to gain a comprehensive overview of DT in business
innovations from a scholarly perspective. Additionally, we adhere to the recently proposed
methodologies of Hurtado-Marín et al. (2021), which advocate for the utilization of authors’

Downloaded on Mon Jul 01 2024 at 06:15:17 UTC

references to construct a more structured social network. This allows for a deeper
understanding of the networking processes among researchers (Robledo, Vasquez, et al. 2022).

Tree of Science

The ToS methodology recommends scholarly articles and organizes them in a dendritic
structure (tree). For instance, seminal articles are situated at the root, articles that provide
foundational support for the topic are placed in the trunk, and papers that address sub-areas
of DT in business innovation are placed in the branches. The overarching process for
constructing the ToS of a scientific domain is to generate a citation network from the WoS
and Scopus files. The SAP algorithm is then used to identify the articles in the root, trunk,
and branches (Zuluaga et al. 2022; Robledo, Zuluaga, et al. 2022). This process facilitates a
rapid, comprehensive understanding of a research topic, bypassing the need for an extensive
screening process. The ToS methodology has been implemented in several disciplines,
including social sciences (Hoyos et al. 2023; Erazo-Muñoz, Escobar-Ospina, and Alexis-Pineda
2022), engineering (Benavides-Sánchez, Castro-Ruíz, and Narváez 2023) and health (Marín-
Rodríguez, González-Ruiz, and Botero 2023; Rabelo Florez 2023). A thorough review of the
initial diffusion process can be found in Eggers et al. (2022).

Scientometric Analysis
Scientific Production

Figure 2 illustrates the scientific production of articles on DT and innovation published in

the WOS and SCOPUS databases from 2002 to 2022. However, no publications on this topic

84
 HERNÁNDEZ ET AL.: DESIGN THINKING RESEARCH FOR BUSINESS INNOVATION

were found between 2003 and 2006. Consequently, the period from 2007 to 2022 was
considered, during which a total of 539 documents were published. The publication pattern
exhibited repetitive cycles or movements, allowing for the identification of three distinct
periods with unique characteristics, which are described in what follows.

Downloaded on Mon Jul 01 2024 at 06:15:17 UTC

Figure 2: Annual Scientific Production of DT for Innovation in Scopus and WoS

Initiation (2007–2012)

This stage exhibits low productivity, with a total of thirty-one published articles, accounting
for 5.8 percent of the overall scientific production. The growth rate stands at 11.8 percent,
indicating the nascent birth and development of the topic. In contrast to the low production
rate, the highest “peaks” in total citations are observed specifically in 2007 and 2011.
The most significant work in terms of citation count in 2007 is Bill Buxton’s book, which
addresses the intersection of DT, innovation, and business within the framework of user
experience sketching as a tool in the design process (2007). Another highly relevant article is
by Beckman and Barry (2007), proposing an integration between the innovation process and
learning models with implications for the structuring, leadership, and learning of innovation
teams in organizations. In 2011, Dorst stands out in terms of citations, serving as a significant
reference in the study field. It presents the central axis of DT and proposes design practice
frameworks for solving complex problems in organizations.

85
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DESIGN MANAGEMENT AND PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

Growth (2013–2018)

This stage witnessed exponential growth in productivity. The number of publications

increased to 222 documents, accounting for 41 percent of the total publications conducted.
A rising trend with an annual growth rate of 32.95 percent is observed, highlighting the
significant interest that DT and innovation have garnered in recent years. The most
significant research (Liedtka 2015) identified how DT could enhance positive innovation
outcomes by reducing cognitive biases in idea generation, user inputs, and testing.
In 2016, notable works emerged, such as the development of a workshop for the value
mapping process as a means through which DT can enhance sustainable business modeling
(Geissdoerfer, Bocken, and Hultink 2016), and the development of a DT framework for
building management and innovation capabilities in health-care systems (Roberts et al. 2016).

Seasonality (2019–2022)

This stage is characterized by the highest volume of publications in the study, exhibiting
periodic patterns in behavior and sustained upward or downward changes, with a ceiling of

Downloaded on Mon Jul 01 2024 at 06:15:17 UTC

over sixty-seven publications per year. Over these 4 years, the total number of publications
amounted to 286 documents, representing 53 percent of the scientific production in the field.
The year 2019 recorded the highest number of publications, indicating that the topic remains
novel and of significant interest to the scientific community. The prominently cited article
examines the review and comparison of Circular Economy–oriented and Sustainability–
oriented approaches in Business Model Innovation (Pieroni, McAloone, and Pigosso 2019).

Country Analysis

Table 2 presents three variables related to the production, impact, and quality of academic
output in the top 10 countries within the analyzed thematic area. Production indicates the
quantity of scientific documents generated by each country. Impact is measured by the
cumulative citations of all the articles generated. Lastly, quality is assessed based on the
Scimago ranking, where Quartile 1 (Q1) represents the highest ranking and Quartile 4 (Q4)
represents the lowest ranking.
In this regard, the US leads the list of the top 10 countries with the highest productivity,
in contrast to Ireland, which occupies the last position. The US, with a total of 101 documents
and 18 percent, leads in terms of publication volume, followed by Germany, with 8.7 percent.
In descending order, the list includes the United Kingdom, Australia, Brazil, Italy, China,
India, Canada, and Ireland. Regarding citations, the US and Canada are the countries with
the highest referencing, accounting for 24.5 and 14.1 percent, respectively, surpassing
countries like Germany, the United Kingdom, and Australia, which, despite having a higher
number of publications, do not exhibit significant citation rates.

86
 HERNÁNDEZ ET AL.: DESIGN THINKING RESEARCH FOR BUSINESS INNOVATION

Table 2: Top 10 Most Productive Countries

Country Production Citation Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
USA 101 18.04% 2,092 24.58% 23 18 14 6
Germany 49 8.75% 505 5.93% 10 5 0 3
UK 40 7.14% 725 8.52% 14 3 3 1
Australia 37 6.61% 412 4.84% 13 6 1 1
Brazil 27 4.82% 125 1.47% 4 2 4 0
Italy 25 4.46% 277 3.25% 8 3 0 2
China 19 3.39% 238 2.8% 3 5 2 2
India 19 3.39% 106 1.25% 3 2 6 1
Canada 18 3.21% 1,200 14.1% 4 3 5 1
Ireland 15 2.68% 168 1.97% 1 1 0 0

Regarding quality, the publication quartiles for articles on DT and innovation are Q1
(eighty-three publications), Q2 (forty-eight publications), Q3 (thirty-five publications), and Q4
(seventeen publications). Seventy-one percent of the categorized publications are found in Q1

Downloaded on Mon Jul 01 2024 at 06:15:17 UTC

and Q2, indicating that a high proportion of publications in this field are of high quality.
On the other hand, Figure 3 depicts a network of the main country groups identified.
The first group is led by Germany, engaging in scientific collaborations with countries such
as Colombia and Finland. The collaborative study with Colombia presents the best practices
of DT for designing academic innovation programs, based on an analysis of eleven university
training programs from different countries (Wiesche et al. 2018). Similarly, the study with
researchers from Finland proposes a curriculum structure with DT methods and theoretical
aspects for the development of courses and workshops (Lugmayr et al. 2014).

Figure 3: Country Collaboration Network

87
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DESIGN MANAGEMENT AND PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

On the left side of the graph, the number of groups (communities) is displayed according
to their size. Group 1 comprises a total of twelve countries, significantly larger than groups 2
and 3, which consist of nine countries each. The second figure from the left illustrates the
number of nodes and links generated over time. The graph demonstrates a consolidation of
the scientific community, starting in 2017, characterized by a growth in connections
exceeding the number of countries entering this academic community.

Journal Analysis

Table 3 presents the academic productivity and impact (measured by impact factor and h-
index) published in WoS and Scopus, as well as the quality measured in quartiles, of the top
journals in the field of DT and innovation. In general, there is a high productivity of journals
with a high impact according to the quartiles specified in the Table 3, as 70 percent of them
fall within Q4, Q3, Q2, or Q1 journals.

Table 3: Top 10 Most Productive Journals

Journal WoS Scopus Impact h-Index Quantile

Downloaded on Mon Jul 01 2024 at 06:15:17 UTC

Factor
Journal of Cleaner Production 16 8 1.98 268 Q1
Design Journal 13 8 0.4 25 Q2
Lecture Notes in Computer Science
(Including Subseries Lecture Notes in
0 11 0.32 446 Q3
Artificial Intelligence and Lecture
Notes in Bioinformatics)
Communications in Computer and
0 10 0.19 62 Q4
Information Science
Proceedings of the European Conference
on Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 0 9 0 7 –
ECIE
Lecture Notes in Business
0 7 0.35 56 Q2
Information Processing
Technology Innovation Management
6 0 0.56 15 Q2
Review
Advances in Intelligent Systems and
0 6 0 58 –
Computing
Smart Innovation, Systems and
0 6 0.17 31 Q4
Technologies
ASEE Annual Conference and
0 5 0 39 –
Exposition, Conference Proceedings

88
 HERNÁNDEZ ET AL.: DESIGN THINKING RESEARCH FOR BUSINESS INNOVATION

Two journals stand out in terms of academic productivity. The first one is the Journal of
Cleaner Production, published by Elsevier and based in the UK. It is classified in Q1 and focuses
on topics related to clean technologies and practices, renewable energy, the environment,
and sustainability. This journal is relevant to the present study as it has published articles
connecting innovation and DT to sustainability (Geissdoerfer, Bocken, and Hultink 2016;
Pieroni, McAloone, and Pigosso 2019).
The second journal in terms of productivity is Design Journal, published by Taylor &
Francis and also based in the UK. It is classified in Q2 and covers the broad field of design,
including novel perspectives such as the integration of DT in business education curricula
(Çeviker-Çınar, Mura, and Demirbağ-Kaplan 2017) or the understanding of how DT is
relevant in the entrepreneurship process, specifically in opportunity identification,
generation of innovative solutions, and development of innovation capabilities in
organizations (Carella et al. 2023).

Author Collaboration Network

Downloaded on Mon Jul 01 2024 at 06:15:17 UTC

At an individual level in the review of DT and innovation, the most relevant researchers, their
different collaborative networks, and affiliations were identified. Table 4 presents the top 10
authors based on productivity and impact.

Table 4: Production by Author

Total Scopus
No. Researcher Affiliation
Articles h-Index
1 C. Wrigley 8 18 The University of Queensland,
Brisbane, Australia
2 V. Taratukhin 6 0 Silicon Valley/Us West, US
3 F. Uebernickel 5 17 Hasso-Plattner-Institut Für
Softwaresystemtechnik, Potsdam,
Germany
4 K. Cormican 4 14 Hasso-Plattner-Institut Für
Softwaresystemtechnik, Potsdam,
Germany
5 D. de Paula 4 6 Hasso-Plattner-Institut Für
Softwaresystemtechnik, Potsdam,
Germany
6 C. Dell’era 4 24 Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy
7 I. Hawryszkiewycz 4 11 University of Technology Sydney,
Sydney, Australia
8 J. Liedtka 4 22 Treehouse Innovation, US
9 S. Magistretti 4 14 Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy
10 C. Baughn 3 13 Boise State University, Boise, US

89
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DESIGN MANAGEMENT AND PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

The author with the highest productivity is Cara Wrigley. Her research focuses on the
application of design to foster innovation processes in organizations and design education,
proposing the creation of a DT training program. She stands out for her proposal of an
educational innovation matrix based on the design as a working prototype and
methodological framework for teaching DT (Wright and Wrigley 2019). In terms of the
highest number of citations, Claudio Dell'Era leads the list of authors with the highest h-
index. His most significant work (Magistretti, Pham, and Dell’Era 2021) proposes five
dynamic capabilities of DT necessary for identifying opportunities for a more human-centric
digital transformation.
The second most cited researcher is Jeanne Liedtka, whose research has focused on
studying the link between DT and innovation. Her most recent work (Jaskyte and Liedtka
2022) analyzes DT practices (in a sample that includes business, government, and nonprofit
sectors) and their effectiveness in generating innovation in organizations, revealing that the
benefits are not only directed at users and innovation teams but can have a systemic reach.
As shown in Figure 4, the network of scientific collaboration among authors consists of
seven communities. The two largest communities are formed by researchers from the Hasso

Downloaded on Mon Jul 01 2024 at 06:15:17 UTC

Plattner Institute (Germany) and the Politecnico Di Milano (Italy), respectively. These
communities reflect both thematic and geographic proximity, which enable effective
collaboration among peers.

Figure 4: The Collaboration Network Is Built from the Top Researchers’ Ego Network

90
 HERNÁNDEZ ET AL.: DESIGN THINKING RESEARCH FOR BUSINESS INNOVATION

The School of Management at Politecnico di Milano hosts the most representative

cluster, led by Stefano Magistretti and Claudio Dell’Era, who study the relationship between
DT and innovation. They found that DT projects can pursue solution innovation (new
products and services), strategic transformation, or neither of the two (Magistretti et al. 2022).
The second most representative cluster is headed by Falk Uebernickel, who collaborates
with Danielly de Paula, both from the Design Thinking and Innovation Research at the Hasso
Plattner Institute. They also have ties with other prominent researchers, such as Kathryn
Cormican, from the School of Engineering at the University of Galway (Ireland). For
example, these researchers have proposed a managerial mental model that uses DT to foster
a culture of innovation in organizations seeking digital transformation (de Paula et al. 2023).

Tree of Science in Design Thinking for Business Innovation

Utilizing the algorithmic results, we identified works that contribute to shaping the “tree of
science” in our research focus on “design thinking and business innovation.” Figure 5 visually
represents this tree, showcasing key articles in each category. The roots represent

Downloaded on Mon Jul 01 2024 at 06:15:17 UTC

foundational articles, offering theoretical underpinnings to the topic. The trunk encompasses
articles providing structure, facilitating the consolidation and growth of the subject. In the
branches, one finds the most recent works revealing perspectives shaping the future of the
subject. Collectively, the “tree of science” for DT in business innovation allows a
chronological visualization of the academic production’s evolution.

Figure 5: Tree of Science in Design Thinking for Business Innovation

91
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DESIGN MANAGEMENT AND PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

Based on the identification of the articles, a review of the most important aspects of DT
for the business innovation is carried out in order to present a general overview of the topic.

Roots (Classic or Foundational Works)

In the tree metaphor, the roots represent the works that underpin the field of study. In our
case, the work by Buchanan (1992) serves as a cornerstone that lays the foundations of DT, as
it infers that the designer can deliberately shape design problems by managing different
interests and developing invention as a working hypothesis for exploration and development.
In the same vein, Dorst (2011) explains that the central challenge of design, the complex
problems of organizations, requires a type of abductive reasoning that involves generating
both the “what” and the “how” that lead to a desired value.
The link between design and innovation is rooted here with perspectives from
management or design that seek to take a perspective beyond the product and into the
organizational realm. In this regard, we find industrial designer Tim Brown, a figure
popularized for promoting DT as a “discipline,” a methodology, a culture, and a form of

Downloaded on Mon Jul 01 2024 at 06:15:17 UTC

leadership that leverages the sensitivity and methods of designers (thinking and doing) to
create solutions oriented toward people’s needs, which can be developed with available
technology and can generate profitability for companies (Brown 2008, 2009).
From a management perspective, Roger Martin makes a distinction between DT as the
way in which a designer “thinks”—the cognitive processes used to design products, services,
and systems—and design as the “end result”—aesthetic and functional products and services
(Dunne and Martin 2006). He proposes that through DT, companies can achieve a balance
between exploration and exploitation of knowledge, thereby creating value and competitive
advantages (Martin 2009). On the other hand, Verganti (2009) suggests, in addition to
technological and market innovation, a third pathway: innovation of meanings, which aims
to create products and services that fundamentally change the sense and purpose for users.
Lastly, we encounter scholarly works focused on the tools applicable in DT. Liedtka
(2011) concludes that DT facilitates the generation and validation of more effective and less
risky ideas by employing tools such as journey mapping, assumption testing, rapid
prototyping, and customer co-creation. Furthermore, Osterwalder and Pigneur (2010)
propose the utilization of the “Business Model Canvas” as a visual tool for the design,
redefinition, and implementation of business models. In this respect, we can consider this
work a seminal contribution to the field of business design.

Trunk (Structural Works)

Following the metaphor of the tree of science, the trunk represents works that provide
essential structure and support for the development of the topic. Within this core, three

92
 HERNÁNDEZ ET AL.: DESIGN THINKING RESEARCH FOR BUSINESS INNOVATION

distinct thematic lines emerge: DT for innovation activities, DT for sustainability, and DT in
the context of entrepreneurial and business education.
The first thematic line explores the application of DT in innovation activities, with a
specific focus on customers, online services, product development, processes, strategies, and
competition. D‫׳‬Ippolito (2014) conducted a literature review on DT and its influence on
achieving competitiveness in companies from a multidisciplinary and multivariate
perspective. It describes various aspects and dimensions of DT that influence the performance
and competitive advantage of companies, such as product design, services, processes,
organization, and strategy.
Liedtka (2015) proposes a theoretical framework to link DT with innovation outcomes.
The objective is to reduce information processing biases that individuals may have, which
directly impact decision-making. The article identifies the main cognitive biases that hinder
the innovation process, such as overconfidence, failure to verify information, fear of resource
loss, and beliefs.
In their work, MacDonald and Elahee (2016) analyze the integration of DT with co-
creation, addressing the challenges commonly faced by project managers in collaborative efforts

Downloaded on Mon Jul 01 2024 at 06:15:17 UTC

with clients. The study advocates the application of network theories and consumer behavior
to better assess and manage the contributions of customers belonging to an online community,
taking into account four aspects: the nature of the problem, the type of community, motivation,
and compensation for participation. It analyzes and compares two case studies, the
InnoveCentive platform and OpenIDEO, emphasizing their strengths and weaknesses.
Moving to the realm of circular economy, sustainability, and innovation, Nedergaard
and Gyrd-Jones (2013) explore, through case analysis, how innovation serves as a crucial
factor for brand growth from a sustainability perspective. The study establishes three key
management elements: directing innovation investments toward the brand, customer
knowledge orientation, and allocation of resources to maintain competitive advantages.
Bicen and Johnson (2015) explore how organizations can innovate by breaking
paradigms with limited resources and in environments characterized by abrupt and
unpredictable changes, which have been less studied at the time of publication. Similar to
the previous article, it describes the innovation capacity methodology called Lean, which
adds the ability to experiment to the DT process of companies by combining available
resources with agile prototypes to address new challenges and opportunities.
Geissdoerfer, Bocken, and Hultink (2016) suggest combining DT and innovation to
develop sustainable business models. This approach aims to enhance the creative process and
overall business modeling, resulting in truly sustainable value propositions. The study
presents a new working framework based on value mapping, which was developed through
an analysis of existing literature, expert interviews, and workshops. As a result, it generated
alternative forms of value: economic, social, and environmental, aligning with the interests
of current and potential stakeholders.

93
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DESIGN MANAGEMENT AND PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

Finally, several articles on DT applied in the context of business education are identified.
Lugmayr et al. (2014) address the application of DT in media management education,
drawing from the experience of developing such courses in different universities. In the same
vein, Glen, Suciu, and Baughn (2014) invite business schools to explore non-traditional
pedagogical approaches by combining analytical reasoning with DT. Both articles illustrate
how DT enables students to tackle complex and uncertain problems that require disruptive
thinking, providing guidance for developing similar courses and programs across various
educational contexts.
It is important to note that some documents cover overlapping topics, reflecting the
diverse applications that DT has had and continues to have in its evolution.

Branches (Current Trends in DT for Business Innovation)

This section elucidates the primary clusters that constitute the subtopics within the
overarching theme, as identified through the Tree of Science (ToS) methodology. Figure 6
presents a citation network accompanied by a word cloud analysis for each cluster. In line

Downloaded on Mon Jul 01 2024 at 06:15:17 UTC

with the metaphor of the ToS, these subtopics can be envisioned as branches, representing
“current trends” on the topic of DT for business innovation.

Figure 6: DT Citation Network with the Three Biggest Clusters

94
 HERNÁNDEZ ET AL.: DESIGN THINKING RESEARCH FOR BUSINESS INNOVATION

By leveraging this co-citation network, we can map the most recent works in the field,
pinpointing key areas where research is developing. Three main branches emerge: DT for
innovation activities within the business sector, applicability and contributions of DT in
other sectors, and DT as a methodology for learning and innovation. Notably, the first branch
is distinct from the other two, signifying a well-defined thematic focus, albeit with some
nodes intertwined with the others. Meanwhile, the latter two branches are intertwined,
suggesting they are still evolving and share common thematic approaches.

Branch 1—Design Thinking for Innovation Activities within the Business Sector

The first branch encompasses a variety of studies focusing on the theoretical aspects that
underpin the framework, development, and perspective of DT in the innovation activities in
business and organizations. These studies primarily analyze the applicability of DT across all
levels of the firm, with a particular emphasis on its connection to innovation in products,
services, customers, and organizational support activities. Through a case study, Aranha,
Corrêa, and El Mouallem (2021) demonstrate how a company applies DT to identify market

Downloaded on Mon Jul 01 2024 at 06:15:17 UTC

opportunities and foster innovation.
Furthermore, the capabilities of DT in different business contexts are examined. In this
regard, the digital world and sustainability have posed challenges for organizations. In
response to these challenges, DT has gained considerable importance by offering tools for
solving complex problems. Dragičević, Vladova, and Ullrich (2023) provides a theoretical
review of the relationship between DT and digital capabilities in the fields of education and
business, revealing the connection between DT and the necessary competencies in the digital
world, such as creativity, multidisciplinary collaboration, critical thinking for solving
complex problems, empathy, and practical iteration with users. Similarly, Mortati et al.
(2023) discuss the practical and theoretical implications of using big data and different types
of data (old and new, large and small) in the DT process. Their discussion revolves around
the stages of the DT process, such as observe and learn, synthesize and frame, vision and
opportunity, and solve and realize, drawing insights from the analysis of eight innovation
projects in Italian consulting service companies.
In the context of sustainable business models, techniques such as workshops,
brainstorming, co-creation, and prototyping are highlighted as linking DT and sustainability,
with a focus on customer-oriented innovation and the study of stakeholder needs (Kurek et
al. 2023). In the textile industry, a methodology based on DT proposes the incorporation of
circular economy elements in the development of new innovative products based on design
and consumption cycles, covering five main stages of DT: (1) empathy; (2) defining user needs
and problems; (3) ideation; (4) prototyping; (5) testing, and three macro phases of new
product development (planning, development, closure) (Battesini Teixeira et al. 2023).

95
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DESIGN MANAGEMENT AND PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

Additionally, the positive contribution of incorporating future anticipation methods in

the success of DT projects is highlighted, with scenario planning, a widely used and popular
method for strategic foresight in DT, standing out as an effective approach to address future
challenges (Schwarz, Wach, and Rohrbeck 2023).
Another field of application for DT is education, where the impact of DT on the higher
education sector has been analyzed, revealing improvements in creativity development and
problem-solving skills among university students who applied DT. These results support the
need to incorporate DT programs or curricula in the training of university professionals
(Guaman-Quintanilla et al. 2023). In the realm of non-designers, a model for solving complex
problems is presented, based on collaboration and idea exchange, along with theoretical and
practical scope (Mount, Round, and Pitsis 2020).

Branch 2—Applicability and Contributions of Design Thinking in Other Sectors

DT has gained significant popularity as a methodology for problem-solving, fostering

innovation, and creating sustainable value. This second branch encompasses studies on the

Downloaded on Mon Jul 01 2024 at 06:15:17 UTC

applicability and contributions of DT in sustainability, circular economy, and other sectors.
In the face of sustainable development challenges, Shapira, Ketchie, and Nehe (2017)
propose a prototype for incorporating strategic sustainability into the DT process to contribute
to achieving strategic and sustainable outcomes. This study presents the contributions and
barriers of the DT process in relation to strategic sustainable development (SSD).
In technology companies, research on users, prototyping-experimentation, user-
customer journey mapping, interaction with people, the use of visual tools, and co-creation
with users are identified as key aspects of the successful implementation of DT to drive
innovation in technical design (Eisenbart et al. 2022).
Another success factor that facilitated the adoption of DT practices was the
implementation of a personalized DT-based training methodology, as evidenced in the case
study of the Research and Development department at LG, where empathetic observation
expanded learning possibilities, enhancing the importance and effectiveness of DT (Bertão et
al. 2023). In the health-care sector, practical examples of DT application are presented, along
with recommendations for its implementation in medical education (Madson 2021).
In the telecommunications sector, a managerial model is proposed by de Paula et al.
(2023) to drive innovation in the realm of digital transformation, utilizing DT. This requires
a mindset and organizational culture shift that fosters user-centered innovation and agile
experiences. DT facilitates this change by providing a process for solving complex problems
with innovative solutions. The managerial mindset model comprises dimensions of attitude,
knowledge, skills, and behavior (de Paula et al. 2023).
Education is another sector that has been impacted by DT. Positive effects on
interdisciplinary learning are observed as it provides university students with a broader

96
 HERNÁNDEZ ET AL.: DESIGN THINKING RESEARCH FOR BUSINESS INNOVATION

intellectual perspective to apply different viewpoints and solve complex problems (Blocker
2023). Similarly, in the online education market, the applicability of the design sprint or
accelerated design is presented, specifically in the creation of an innovative solution that
involves actions such as defining, framing, experimenting, and learning (Magistretti et al.
2022). In the same vein, Fridman, Meron, and Roberts (2022) present a study supported by
three examples applied in diverse educational contexts. It examines education in DT and the
responsibility it holds in combining feasibility, viability, and desirability principles with
social responsibility, environmental sustainability, ethics, critical thinking, and
accountability. The authors propose the conceptual and operational framework for
integrating responsible design into DT education, inviting debate on its challenges and
limitations in current practice.
In this context, the opinions of professional designers and marketing researchers
regarding creative design contrast. Professionals perceive it as a means to solve user problems
with products, while marketing researchers associate creative design with a set of product
characteristics or requirements (Sameti, Koslow, and Mashhady 2022).
Lastly, Giraldo Ospina and Guevara Sánchez (2022) draw attention to the designing

Downloaded on Mon Jul 01 2024 at 06:15:17 UTC

individual and their personality traits associated with thinking, their passive cognitive
resistance to innovation, and their link to linear thinking. The authors present a model of
differential equations determined by data from 342 engineering and business professionals.

Branch 3—Design Thinking as a Methodology for Learning and Innovation

This particular subtopic is focused on the application of design in learning and organizational
contexts. Primarily, we identify authors who seek to study the links between DT and
innovation in higher education pedagogy through a student-centered approach. To foster an
innovative mindset in engineering students, they combine STEAM strategies with a symbiosis
of DT and business thinking (Solodikhina and Solodikhina 2022). In postgraduate business
education, especially in MBA studies, some authors aim to integrate DT into pedagogical
innovation (Selvalakshmi, Suresh, and Kolluru 2021) or develop a mindset that promotes
designerly ways of thinking and doing in students (Groeger and Schweitzer 2020). Others
explore intersections such as DT and anthropology to teach strategic innovation and enable
students to address challenges responsibly (Cruz Megchun 2022). In this subtheme, Seidel,
Marion, and Fixson (2020) identify DT as one of the four methods for teaching innovation,
which focuses on learning the design process and is oriented toward incremental innovation
projects with high levels of uncertainty. Therefore, DT-based innovation courses tend to be
both experiential and interdisciplinary.
From the perspective of DT as a methodology in organizations, Allen (2022), after a
literature review of hybrid models between DT and Lean Startup, presents a novel
methodology for Business Model Design that harnesses both the lean nature and user-

97
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DESIGN MANAGEMENT AND PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

centeredness. On the other hand, Dobni, Wilson, and Klassen (2022), in a study with a sample
of Japanese firms, found that DT is associated with innovation orientation: high-innovator
companies use DT as a business practice, in contrast to low innovators.

Implications of Research
Theoretical Implications

The conducted scientometric analysis, involving the search, review, and evaluation of
published literature, has provided insights into the thematic structure of DT in the realm of
business innovation.
Utilizing the metaphor of the ToS, we successfully identified foundational works that
laid the groundwork for the construction of the DT paradigm for innovation. The
contemporary understanding of DT has evolved as a result of the intersection between design
and management. It is through the application of DT that design practices seamlessly
integrate with business practices. Notably, when profound transformations occur in the
latter, DT becomes intricately linked to innovation, as emphasized by Dorst (2011). These

Downloaded on Mon Jul 01 2024 at 06:15:17 UTC

transformative changes manifest in the creation of competitive advantages (Martin 2009) and
dynamic capabilities (Liedtka 2011). This, in turn, empowers organizations to address wicked
problems (Buchanan 1992), generate user-centered solutions (Brown 2009), or pursue less
conventional innovations, such as imbuing products with meaning (Verganti 2009).
This study has delineated three primary subtopics, resembling branches of a tree, which
spotlight the prevailing trends in the field: (1) DT for innovation activities within the business
sector, concentrating on the applicability of DT in various organizational areas and processes to
create value; (2) applicability and contributions of DT in other sectors, encompassing studies
focused on its implementation in areas like sustainability, circular economy, digital
transformation, and related domains; (3) DT as a methodology for learning and innovation,
centering on studies that explore its integration in educational contexts (learning innovation
and design processes) and business contexts (business model design and innovation processes).
These three branches exhibit certain overlaps, indicating the ongoing maturation of the
thematic evolution of DT for business innovation. Our study introduces a distinct perspective
on business innovation and employs a novel methodology, the ToS, in contrast to previous
reviews (Dragičević, Vladova, and Ullrich 2023; Lyu et al. 2023; Li and Zhan 2022), with
which it can be aligned and complemented.

Practical Implications

Bibliometric analyses provide a valuable means to explore key research areas, trace the
evolution of a topic, elucidate connections between concepts and keywords, highlight areas
of interest, and anticipate potential future research directions. In addition to providing

98
 HERNÁNDEZ ET AL.: DESIGN THINKING RESEARCH FOR BUSINESS INNOVATION

research opportunities for DT scholars, the practical significance of the trends identified in
this study extends to providing guidance for professionals engaged in the integration of DT.
This includes its application in innovation activities within organizations; in the education
and training of work teams; or in interdisciplinary collaborations with other sectors, such as
sustainability, circular economy, or digital transformation.
The presented bibliometric analysis aids not only in mapping research networks to
identify partnerships and collaborative efforts but also in recognizing crucial journals for
publication decisions. Moreover, it delves into citation patterns to gather relevant
information on the topic and assesses the impact of publications by country, thereby helping
to identify research stakes, resources, and sponsorship opportunities.

Conclusions

Utilizing citation network analysis on publications related to “design thinking” and “business
innovation” through the WoS and Scopus platforms, this study constructed the ToS for this
thematic area. Employing various bibliometric methods, the research aimed to illustrate the
evolutionary trajectory of “design thinking for business innovation.”

Downloaded on Mon Jul 01 2024 at 06:15:17 UTC

From 2007 to 2022, the behavior of academic publications on DT for innovation reveals
that it was not a passing fashion but rather that it established itself as a disciplinary core that
will continue to grow and develop. Consequently, three distinct periods of scientific
production were identified: Initiation (2007–2012), Growth (2013–2018), and Seasonality
(2019–2022). Positioned as a social technology (Liedtka 2020), DT has evolved through
continuous research and the assimilation of new elements at various levels, be it mindset,
tools, or activities. This evolution underscores that DT, as understood today, is a co-created
technology that remains dynamic and has yet to reach its final version.
While the US dominates academic production on the topic, the most influential
collaboration networks are centered on two academic institutions: the Hasso Plattner
Institute in Germany and the Politecnico Di Milano in Italy. F. Uebernickel, leads the first
cluster, while the second is spearheaded by C. Dell'era, and S. Magistretti,—dedicated
professors and researchers in the field of DT and innovation. Both academic centers house
specialized design schools and offer educational programs intertwining design and
management, fostering numerous projects and research initiatives. This highlights that
collaboration networks are shaped not only by geographic proximity but also by the
establishment of comprehensive educational and research systems centered on the topic. The
enduring institutional commitment in these academic clusters suggests that, if maintained
and reinforced, Germany and Italy have the potential to take the lead in academic discourse
and the advancement of DT for innovation in the future.
As a set of recommendations, although DT offers great potential for successful
application in various areas, it is necessary to leave superficiality behind in its integration: it

99
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DESIGN MANAGEMENT AND PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

requires methodological experts, appropriate environments, a collaborative and flexible

organizational culture, managerial commitment, and, above all, overcoming the conceptual
design phase and achieving the implementation of solutions (Eisenbart et al. 2022). In
corporate contexts it is necessary to design an internal training plan that includes strategies
to overcome limitations at the individual and organizational levels (Bertão et al. 2023).
The efficacy of DT in generating value for organizations has been a subject of scrutiny
within research (Liedtka 2020). Existing literature reviews, such as the one conducted by
Dragičević, Vladova, and Ullrich (2023), have highlighted the prevalent methodological
approach, wherein most publications adopt an empirical and qualitative stance, with case
studies being the dominant method. One of the more ambitious studies in this regard is that
of Liedtka (2020), which examined fifty organizations, delving deeply into twenty-two of
them along with their DT projects. This research follows purposive and non-probability
sampling methods.
In light of these observations, we recommend that future studies on DT consider
venturing into quantitative methods or adopt a hybrid approach combining both
quantitative and qualitative methods. There should be a particular emphasis on longitudinal

Downloaded on Mon Jul 01 2024 at 06:15:17 UTC

studies, allowing for the accumulation of evidence regarding the impact of DT integration
over the medium and long term.
Some limitations are inherent in this study. First, the final data set and the works
subjected to content analysis were selected by the authors, potentially introducing a selection
bias into the analysis. However, stringent eligibility criteria were established and applied to
mitigate this bias and ensure data quality.
Another limitation pertains to the evident overlap of articles concerning subtopics
within the identified branches. Despite declarations of the “death” of DT dating back over a
decade (Dorst 2011), this suggests that DT for innovation is still in a continuous process of
evolution, incorporation, structuring, and development. Such a process may eventually lead
to the consolidation of cohesive subthemes in the future.

AI Acknowledgment

Generative AI or AI-assisted technologies were not used in any way to prepare, write, or
complete essential authoring tasks in this manuscript.

Conflict of Interest

The author declares that there is no conflict of interest.

100
 HERNÁNDEZ ET AL.: DESIGN THINKING RESEARCH FOR BUSINESS INNOVATION

REFERENCES

Aguirre, Kelly Andrea, and Diego Paredes Cuervo. 2023. “Water Safety and Water
Governance: A Scientometric Review.” Sustainability 15 (9): 7164.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su15097164.
Allen, Graeme Joseph. 2022. “ConcepturealizeTM: A New Contribution to Generate Real-
Needs-Focussed, User-Centred, Lean Business Models.” Journal of Innovation and
Entrepreneurship 11 (1): 6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-022-00198-4.
Aranha, Elzo Alves, Juliana Bárbara Silva Corrêa, and Antoun Charles El Mouallem. 2021.
“Entrepreneurship, Business Model, and Design Thinking in Brazilian Small and
Medium-Sized Brazilian Enterprises (SMEs).” Revista Dimensión Empresarial 19 (3):
46–64. https://doi.org/10.15665/dem.v19i3.2799.
Aria, Massimo, and Corrado Cuccurullo. 2017. “Bibliometrix: An R-Tool for Comprehensive
Science Mapping Analysis.” Journal of Informetrics 11 (4): 959–975.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007.
Assen, Hanneke, Latifa Benhadda, Erwin Losekoot, and Migchiel van Diggelen. 2023.

Downloaded on Mon Jul 01 2024 at 06:15:17 UTC

“Design Thinking in Hospitality Education: Lessons Learned and Future
Opportunities.” Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 32:100439.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhlste.2023.100439.
Battesini Teixeira, Thomas Germano, Janine Fleith de Medeiros, Camila Kolling, José Luis
Duarte Ribeiro, and Donato Morea. 2023. “Redesign in the Textile Industry:
Proposal of a Methodology for the Insertion of Circular Thinking in Product
Development Processes.” Journal of Cleaner Production 397:136588.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.136588.
Beckman, Sara L., and Michael Barry. 2007. “Innovation as a Learning Process: Embedding
Design Thinking.” California Management Review 50 (1): 25–56.
https://doi.org/10.2307/41166415.
Benavides-Sánchez, Edward Andrés, Camilo Andrés Castro-Ruíz, and Miguel Angel Brand
Narváez. 2023. “El emprendimiento de base tecnológica y su punto de encuentro
con la convergencia tecnocientífica: una revisión a partir del algoritmo Tree of
Science” [Technology-Based Entrepreneurship and Its Meeting Point with Techno-
Scientific Convergence: A Review Based on the Tree of Science Algorithm]. Revista
CEA 9 (19): 1–31. https://doi.org/10.22430/24223182.2153.
Bender-Salazar, Rahmin. 2023. “Design Thinking as an Effective Method for Problem-Setting
and Needfinding for Entrepreneurial Teams Addressing Wicked Problems.” Journal
of Innovation and Entrepreneurship 12 (1): 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-023-
00291-2.
Bertão, Renato Antonio, Chris Heeseok Jung, Jaeyoung Chung, and Jaewoo Joo. 2023.
“Design Thinking: A Customized Blueprint to Train R & D Personnel in Creative

101
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DESIGN MANAGEMENT AND PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

Problem-Solving.” Thinking Skills and Creativity 48:101253.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2023.101253.
Bicen, Pelin, and William H. A. Johnson. 2015. “Radical Innovation with Limited Resources
in High-Turbulent Markets: The Role of Lean Innovation Capability.” Creativity and
Innovation Management 24 (2): 278–299. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12120.
Blocker, Christopher P. 2023. “Take a Hike: Promoting Interdisciplinary Learning and
Sustainable Value with Design Thinking.” Marketing Education Review 33 (2): 149–
155. https://doi.org/10.1080/10528008.2023.2198503.
Brown, Tim. 2008. “Design Thinking.” Harvard Business Review 86 (6): 84–92, 141.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18605031.
Brown, Tim. 2009. Change by Design: How Design Thinking Transforms Organizations and
Inspires Innovation. New York: Harper Collins.
Buchanan, Richard. 1992. “Wicked Problems in Design Thinking.” Design Issues 8 (2): 5–21.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1511637.
Buxton, Bill. 2007. Sketching User Experiences: Getting the Design Right and the Right Design.
Burlington, MA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.

Downloaded on Mon Jul 01 2024 at 06:15:17 UTC

Carella, Gianluca, Cabirio Cautela, Michele Melazzini, Xue Pei, and Felicitas Schmittinger.
2023. “Design Thinking for Entrepreneurship: An Explorative Inquiry into Its
Practical Contributions.” Design Journal 26 (1): 7–31.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2022.2144565.
Çeviker-Çınar, Gözde, Gökhan Mura, and Melike Demirbağ-Kaplan. 2017. “Design
Thinking: A New Road Map in Business Education.” Design Journal 20 (suppl. 1):
S977–S987. https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2017.1353042.
Cruz Megchun, Beatriz Itzel. 2022. “Integrating Design Thinking and Anthropology as
Enablers in Addressing Responsible Innovation.” Journal of Design, Business & Society
8 (2): 167–190. https://doi.org/10.1386/dbs_00038_1.
de Paula, Danielly, Carolin Marx, Ella Wolf, Christian Dremel, Kathryn Cormican, and Falk
Uebernickel. 2023. “A Managerial Mental Model to Drive Innovation in the Context
of Digital Transformation.” Industry and Innovation 30 (1): 42–66.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2022.2072711.
D‫׳‬Ippolito, Beatrice. 2014. “The Importance of Design for Firms‫ ׳‬Competitiveness: A Review
of the Literature.” Technovation 34 (11): 716–730. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.technovation.2014.01.007.
Dobni, C. Brooke, Grant Alexander Wilson, and Mark Klassen. 2022. “Business Practices of
Highly Innovative Japanese Firms.” Asia Pacific Management Review 27 (3): 155–162.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmrv.2021.06.005.
Dorst, Kees. 2011. “The Core of ‘Design Thinking’ and Its Application.” Design Studies 32 (6):
521–532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2011.07.006.

102
 HERNÁNDEZ ET AL.: DESIGN THINKING RESEARCH FOR BUSINESS INNOVATION

Dragičević, Nikolina, Gergana Vladova, and Andre Ullrich. 2023. “Design Thinking
Capabilities in the Digital World: A Bibliometric Analysis of Emerging Trends.”
Frontiers in Education 7:1012478. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.1012478.
Dunne, David, and Roger Martin. 2006. “Design Thinking and How It Will Change
Management Education: An Interview and Discussion.” Academy of Management
Learning & Education 5 (4): 512–523. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2006.23473212.
Eggers, Fabian, Hans Risselada, Thomas Niemand, and Sebastian Robledo. 2022. “Referral
Campaigns for Software Startups: The Impact of Network Characteristics on
Product Adoption.” Journal of Business Research 145:309–324.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.03.007.
Eisenbart, Boris, S. Bouwman, J. Voorendt, S. McKillagan, B. Kuys, and C. Ranscombe. 2022.
“Implementing Design Thinking to Drive Innovation in Technical Design.”
International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation 10 (3): 141–160.
https://doi.org/10.1080/21650349.2022.2048698.
Erazo-Muñoz, Pablo Andrés, Angie Lolita Escobar-Ospina, and Santiago Alexis-Pineda. 2022.
“Motivación de los empleados: importancia, evolución y enfoques usando análisis

Downloaded on Mon Jul 01 2024 at 06:15:17 UTC

cienciométrico” [Employee Motivation: Importance, Evolution and Approaches
Using Scientometric Analysis]. Clío América 16 (31): 800–815.
https://doi.org/10.21676/23897848.4907.
Fridman, Ilya, Yaron Meron, and Julie Roberts. 2022. “Responsible Design Thinking:
Informing Future Models of Cross-Disciplinary Design Education.” Journal of Design,
Business & Society 8 (2): 145–166. https://doi.org/10.1386/dbs_00037_1.
Geissdoerfer, Martin, Nancy M. P. Bocken, and Erik Jan Hultink. 2016. “Design Thinking to
Enhance the Sustainable Business Modelling Process—A Workshop Based on a
Value Mapping Process.” Journal of Cleaner Production 135:1218–1232.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.020.
Giraldo Ospina, Juan Miguel, and Daniel Eduardo Guevara Sánchez. 2022. “Design Thinking
Traits and Cognitive Passive Resistance: Mediating Effect of Linear Thinking.”
Management Research Review 45 (9): 1155–1184. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-11-
2021-0803.
Glen, Roy, Christy Suciu, and Christopher Baughn. 2014. “The Need for Design Thinking in
Business Schools.” Academy of Management Learning & Education 13 (4): 653–667.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2012.0308.
Grisales Aguirre, Andrés Mauricio, Sebastian Robledo, and Martha Zuluaga. 2023. “Topic
Modeling: Perspectives from a Literature Review.” IEEE Access 11:4066–4078.
https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3232939.
Groeger, Lars, and Jochen Schweitzer. 2020. “Developing a Design Thinking Mindset:
Encouraging Designerly Ways in Postgraduate Business Education.” In Design

103
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DESIGN MANAGEMENT AND PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

Thinking in Higher Education, edited by Gavin Melles, 41–72. Design Science and
Innovation. Singapore: Springer.
Guaman-Quintanilla, Sharon, Patricia Everaert, Katherine Chiluiza, and Martin Valcke.
2023. “Impact of Design Thinking in Higher Education: A Multi-Actor Perspective
on Problem Solving and Creativity.” International Journal of Technology and Design
Education 33 (1): 217–240. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-021-09724-z.
Hoyos, Oscar, Mauricio Castro Duque, Natalia Toro León, Damiand Trejos Salazar, Luz
Alexandra Montoya-Restrepo, Ivan Alonso Montoya-Restrepo, and Pedro Duque.
2023. “Gobierno corporativo y desarrollo sostenible: un análisis bibliométrico”
[Corporate Governance and Sustainable Development: A Bibliometric Analysis].
Revista CEA 9 (19): 1–28. https://doi.org/10.22430/24223182.2190.
Hurtado-Marín, V. Andrea, J. Dario Agudelo-Giraldo, Sebastian Robledo, and Elisabeth
Restrepo-Parra. 2021. “Analysis of Dynamic Networks Based on the Ising Model for
the Case of Study of Co-Authorship of Scientific Articles.” Scientific Reports 11 (1):
5721. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-85041-8.
Jaskyte, Kristina, and Jeanne Liedtka. 2022. “Design Thinking for Innovation: Practices and

Downloaded on Mon Jul 01 2024 at 06:15:17 UTC

Intermediate Outcomes.” Nonprofit Management & Leadership 32 (4): 555–575.
https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.21498.
Kurek, Juliana, Luciana Londero Brandli, Marcos Antonio Leite Frandoloso, Amanda Lange
Salvia, and Janaina Mazutti. 2023. “Sustainable Business Models Innovation and
Design Thinking: A Bibliometric Analysis and Systematic Review of Literature.”
Sustainability 15 (2): 988. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15020988.
Li, Tingting, and Zehui Zhan. 2022. “A Systematic Review on Design Thinking Integrated
Learning in K-12 Education.” Applied Sciences 12 (16): 8077.
https://doi.org/10.3390/app12168077.
Liedtka, Jeanne. 2011. “Learning to Use Design Thinking Tools for Successful Innovation.”
Strategy & Leadership 39 (5): 13–19. https://doi.org/10.1108/10878571111161480.
Liedtka, Jeanne. 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.
Liedtka, Jeanne. 2020. “Putting Technology in Its Place: Design Thinking’s Social
Technology at Work.” California Management Review 62 (2): 53–83.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0008125619897391.
Lugmayr, Artur, Bjoern Stockleben, Yaning Zou, Sonja Anzenhofer, and Mika Jalonen. 2014.
“Applying ‘Design Thinking’ in the Context of Media Management Education.”
Multimedia Tools and Applications 71 (1): 119–157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-
013-1361-8.

104
 HERNÁNDEZ ET AL.: DESIGN THINKING RESEARCH FOR BUSINESS INNOVATION

Lyu, Qiner, Kentaro Watanabe, Hiroyuki Umemura, and Akihiko Murai. 2023. “Design-
Thinking Skill Enhancement in Virtual Reality: A Literature Study.” Frontiers in
Virtual Reality 4:1–17. https://doi.org/10.3389/frvir.2023.1137293.
MacDonald, Jason B., and Mohammad Niamat Elahee. 2016. “Design Thinking in Online
Communities: Suggestions for Overcoming Crowdsourcing Issues.” International
Journal of Innovation and Learning 19 (3): 286–298.
https://doi.org/10.1504/IJIL.2016.075655.
Madson, Michael J. 2021. “Making Sense of Design Thinking: A Primer for Medical
Teachers.” Medical Teacher 43 (10): 1115–1121.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2021.1874327.
Magistretti, Stefano, Mattia Bianchi, Giulia Calabretta, Marina Candi, Claudio Dell’Era,
Ileana Stigliani, and Roberto Verganti. 2022. “Framing the Multifaceted Nature of
Design Thinking in Addressing Different Innovation Purposes.” Long Range
Planning 55 (5): 102163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2021.102163.
Magistretti, Stefano, Cristina Tu Anh Pham, and Claudio Dell’Era. 2021. “Enlightening the
Dynamic Capabilities of Design Thinking in Fostering Digital Transformation.”

Downloaded on Mon Jul 01 2024 at 06:15:17 UTC

Industrial Marketing Management 97:59–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.indmarman.2021.06.014.
Marín-Rodríguez, Nini Johana, Juan David González-Ruiz, and Sergio Botero. 2023. “A
Wavelet Analysis of the Dynamic Connectedness among Oil Prices, Green Bonds,
and CO2 Emissions.” Risks 11 (1): 15. https://doi.org/10.3390/risks11010015.
Martin, Roger L. 2009. The Design of Business: Why Design Thinking Is the Next Competitive
Advantage. Boston: Harvard Business Press.
Martin, Roger L. 2010. “Design Thinking: Achieving Insights via the ‘Knowledge Funnel.’ ”
Strategy & Leadership 38 (2): 37–41. https://doi.org/10.1108/10878571011029046.
Mortati, Marzia, Stefano Magistretti, Cabirio Cautela, and Claudio Dell’Era. 2023. “Data in
Design: How Big Data and Thick Data Inform Design Thinking Projects.”
Technovation 122:102688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2022.102688.
Mount, Matthew, Heather Round, and Tyrone S. Pitsis. 2020. “Design Thinking Inspired
Crowdsourcing: Toward a Generative Model of Complex Problem Solving.” California
Management Review 62 (3): 103–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/0008125620918626.
Nedergaard, Nicky, and Richard Gyrd-Jones. 2013. “Sustainable Brand-Based Innovation:
The Role of Corporate Brands in Driving Sustainable Innovation.” Journal of Brand
Management 20 (9): 762–778. https://doi.org/10.1057/bm.2013.16.
OECD/Eurostat. 2018. Oslo Manual 2018: Guidelines for Collecting, Reporting and Using Data
on Innovation. 4th ed. The Measurement of Scientific, Technological and Innovation
Activities. Paris: OECD Publishing; Luxembourg: Eurostat.
Osterwalder, Alexander, and Yves Pigneur. 2010. Business Model Generation: A Handbook for
Visionaries, Game Changers, and Challengers. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

105
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DESIGN MANAGEMENT AND PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

Page, Matthew J., Joanne E. McKenzie, Patrick M. Bossuyt, Isabelle Boutron, Tammy C.
Hoffmann, Cynthia D. Mulrow, Larissa Shamseer, et al. 2021. “The PRISMA 2020
Statement: An Updated Guideline for Reporting Systematic Reviews.” BMJ 372 (71):
1–9. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71.
Pieroni, Marina P. P., Tim C. McAloone, and Daniela C. A. Pigosso. 2019. “Business Model
Innovation for Circular Economy and Sustainability: A Review of Approaches.”
Journal of Cleaner Production 215:198–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2019.01.036.
Rabelo Florez, Roger Alberto. 2023. “Bacterias y hongos utilizados en la biodegradación de
hidrocarburos: Una Revisión de literatura y Análisis Bibliométrico [Bacteria and
Fungi Used in Hydrocarbon Biodegradation: A Literature Review and Bibliometric
Analysis.].” Revista EIA 20 (39): 1–35. https://doi.org/10.24050/reia.v20i39.1622.
Roberts, Jess P., Thomas R. Fisher, Matthew J. Trowbridge, and Christine Bent. 2016. “A
Design Thinking Framework for Healthcare Management and Innovation.”
Healthcare 4 (1): 11–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hjdsi.2015.12.002.
Robledo, Sebastian, Pedro Duque, and Andrés Mauricio Grisales Aguirre. 2023. “Word of

Downloaded on Mon Jul 01 2024 at 06:15:17 UTC

Mouth Marketing: A Scientometric Analysis.” Journal of Scientific Research 11 (3):
436–446. https://doi.org/10.5530/jscires.11.3.47.
Robledo, Sebastian, John Eider Vasquez, Néstor Darío Duque-Méndez, and Veronica Duque-
Uribe. 2022. “Networking as an Entrepreneurial Marketing Tool: The Link between
Effectuation and Word of Mouth.” Journal of Research in Marketing and
Entrepreneurship 25 (2): 270–285. https://doi.org/10.1108/JRME-08-2020-0112.
Robledo, Sebastian, Martha Zuluaga, Luis-Alexander Valencia-Hernandez, Oscar Arbelaez-
Echeverri, Pedro Duque, and Juan-David Alzate-Cardona. 2022. “Tree of Science
with Scopus: A Shiny Application.” Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship
100:1–7. https://doi.org/10.29173/istl2698.
Sameti, Ardalan, Scott Koslow, and Arash Mashhady. 2022. “Are Product Design Researchers
and Practitioners on the Same Page? The Way Professional Product Designers View
Creative Design.” Journal of Product & Brand Management 31 (6): 951–970.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-07-2021-3560.
Schwarz, Jan Oliver, Bernhard Wach, and René Rohrbeck. 2023. “How to Anchor Design
Thinking in the Future: Empirical Evidence on the Usage of Strategic Foresight in
Design Thinking Projects.” Futures 149:103137. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.futures.2023.103137.
Seidel, Victor P., Tucker J. Marion, and Sebastian K. Fixson. 2020. “Innovating How to Learn
Design Thinking, Making, and Innovation: Incorporating Multiple Modes in
Teaching the Innovation Process.” INFORMS Transactions on Education 20 (2): 73–
84. https://doi.org/10.1287/ited.2019.0220.

106
 HERNÁNDEZ ET AL.: DESIGN THINKING RESEARCH FOR BUSINESS INNOVATION

Selvalakshmi, M., Vidya Suresh, and Mythili Kolluru. 2021. “Pedagogy Innovation for
Management Graduates: Application of Design Thinking.” International Journal of
Innovation Science 14 (3/4): 659–674. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJIS-10-2020-0188.
Shapira, Hila, Adela Ketchie, and Meret Nehe. 2017. “The Integration of Design Thinking
and Strategic Sustainable Development.” Journal of Cleaner Production 140:277–287.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.10.092.
Solodikhina, Аnna, and Мaria Solodikhina. 2022. “Developing an Innovator’s Thinking in
Engineering Education.” Education and Information Technologies 27 (2): 2569–2584.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10709-7.
Verganti, Roberto. 2009. Design-Driven Innovation: Changing the Rules of Competition by
Radically Innovating What Things Mean. Boston: Harvard Business Press.
Wiesche, Manuel, Falk Uebernickel, Eric Byler, Juan Pablo Garcia-Cifuentes, Kevin Kelly,
Trinity College Dublin, Sushi Suzuki, et al. 2018. “Teaching Innovation in
Interdisciplinary Environments: Toward a Design Thinking Syllabus.” Presented at
the Proceedings of the 2018 AIS SIGED International Conference on Information
Systems Education and Research, San Francisco, December 12–14, 2018.

Downloaded on Mon Jul 01 2024 at 06:15:17 UTC

https://aisel.aisnet.org/siged2018/13/.
Wright, Natalie, and Cara Wrigley. 2019. “Broadening Design-Led Education Horizons:
Conceptual Insights and Future Research Directions.” International Journal of Technology
and Design Education 29 (1): 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-017-9429-9.
Zuluaga, Martha, Sebastian Robledo, Oscar Arbelaez-Echeverri, German A. Osorio-Zuluaga,
and Nestor Duque-Méndez. 2022. “Tree of Science—ToS: A Web-Based Tool for
Scientific Literature Recommendation—Search Less, Research More!” Issues in
Science and Technology Librarianship 100:1–10. https://doi.org/10.29173/istl2696.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Jose A. Hernández Ramírez: Professor of Innovation and Entrepreneurship,

MacondoLab–Center for Business Growth and Innovation, Universidad Simón Bolívar,
Cúcuta, Norte de Santander, Colombia
Corresponding Author’s Email: [email protected]

Magda Zarela Sepúlveda Angarita: Associate Professor, Department of

Administrative Sciences, Universidad Francisco de Paula Santander, Cúcuta, Norte de
Santander, Colombia
Email: [email protected]

Marlen Fonseca Vigoya: Full Professor, Department of Administrative Sciences,

Universidad Francisco de Paula Santander, Cúcuta, Norte de Santander, Colombia
Email: [email protected]

107
 © 2024. This work is licensed under
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (the
“License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and
conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the
terms of the License.