International Journal of Engineering Education Vol. 32, No. 4, pp. 1704–1718, 2016 0949-149X/91 $3.00+0.

00
Printed in Great Britain # 2016 TEMPUS Publications.

An Overview of the Literature on Design Thinking:

Trends and Contributions*
ANDRE LEME FLEURY
Production Engineering Department, University of Sao Paulo, Brazil. E-mail: alfleury@usp.br

HENRIQUE STABILE
Faculty of Architecture and Urbanism, University of Sao Paulo, Brazil. E-mail: henristabile@gmail.com

MARLY M. CARVALHO
Production Engineering Department, University of Sao Paulo, Brazil. E-mail: marlymc@usp.br

This paper discusses the findings of a systematic review of the literature on Design Thinking from 1980 to 2014. A multi-
methods approach combining bibliometrics, content analysis and semantic analysis was applied. The findings indicate that
Design Thinking projects share a common set of phases; however, there is no consensus about the most relevant tools and
methods to be applied in each project phase. A definition of Design Thinking is proposed. Some Design Thinking
characteristics are highlighted: the centrality of the user in a human-centered approach; an iterative prototyping method;
exploring wicked and ill-structured problems; applying problem-solving concepts; the reasoning approach is divergent-
convergent thinking based on abductive logic; the use of visual techniques to explore ideas; and the importance of
interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary team collaboration.
Keywords: design thinking; designerly thinking; innovation process; systematic literature review

1. Introduction ques and bodies of knowledge are not yet consoli-

dated, generating confusion among practitioners
The continuous need to innovate in relevant mar- and researchers about its definitions and best prac-
kets requires new approaches for the development tices. It is still not clear what are the consolidated
of innovative products, services, and systems, pre- results obtained with the application of the Design
ferably combining knowledge, methods and tools Thinking approach in different organizational con-
from different areas of expertise. In the first half of texts, and the findings from empirical research have
the 20th Century, Design Thinking initiatives have to be systematized aiming to evidence the best
been related by designers in differentiating the practices for this particular Design approach,
Industrial Design from the Artistic Design, apply- both in quantitative and qualitative terms. There
ing objective and structured methods to support the is much to be done to systematize the findings from
creation process [1]. Design Thinking (DT) has been empirical research from different areas and consis-
traditionally applied to connect Design and Engi- tent Design Thinking implementation is still a
neering in educational environments and inside challenge for most companies [3]. Moreover, there
organizations [2–3]. are fuzzy frontiers between Design Thinking
Along the first decade of the 21st-century, Design approach and other Design methods and tools,
Thinking emerged as an approach that can promote leading to a relevant question: is there anything
radical and incremental innovation in companies significantly new in DT approach or is it a manage-
that look for innovative products and services. rial fad?
After the publication of Brown’s article [4] in Aiming to fill these research gaps, this paper
Harvard Business Review and the diffusion of the presents the outcomes of a systematic literature
first ‘‘Design Thinking Bodies of Knowledge’’, review on Design Thinking that explored the evolu-
research about Design Thinking grew significantly tion of concepts, approaches, initiatives and their
and the number of published papers in referenced contributions presented by the relevant literature
journals found in the Web of Knowledge database from 1980 to 2014. Research objectives include the
concerning the theme raised from 11 before 2000 to comprehension of the relevant conceptual defini-
more than 180 papers in 2014. Design Studies tions, the identification of the most influential
Journal published a special issue dedicated to authors, significant research initiatives and pub-
Design Thinking in 2013 [5]. lished papers, and the promotion of a common
Despite this growing interest from academia and understanding of the Design Thinking approach.
organizations, Design Thinking concepts, techni- The methodological approach combines three main

1704 * Accepted 21 March 2016.

An Overview of the Literature on Design Thinking: Trends and Contributions 1705

research methods: bibliometrics, content analysis initial sample to incorporate the most cited refer-
and semantic analysis. ences of the articles to the sample, including books
The paper is structured as follows. Section 2 and other types of documents.
presents the methodological approach applied. Sec-
tion 3 presents the systematic literature review 2.2 Data analysis
results based on the bibliometrics and network After the revision of the articles a data analysis was
analysis. Section 4 presents the results of the seman- conducted with the application of network analysis,
tic analysis and proposes a definition of Design semantics and content analysis. Three software
Thinking. Section 5 presents the results of the tools were used for the network analysis: Sitkis 2.0
content analysis. Finally, Section 6 presents the [10], Ucinet and NetDraw [11]. Four networks were
conclusions and contributions of the research. generated: keywords, article to references, co-cita-
tions and cross-citations. The content analysis was
2. Research methods conducted on all articles of the final sample. The
articles were organized using Mendeley software
Aligned with the research objectives, a Systematic and a Microsoft Access database containing the
Literature Review (SLR) was conducted, applying metadata generated by Sitkis software.
transparent and replicable procedures in search The content analysis was performed as suggested
procedures and data analysis, as suggested by the by [12], in three steps: coding, analysis of content
related literature [6–8]. The SLR can combine multi- (frequency counts and cross-tabulations) and inter-
methods such as the bibliometric analysis, meta- pretation of results. The semantic analysis was
analysis, semantic analysis and content analysis [6]. applied to analyze the Design Thinking definitions.
Considering the lack of empirical quantitative stu- A computer-aided approach was applied, using
dies in Design Thinking, statistic meta-analysis Semantic Knowledge software and Tropes soft-
method could not be applied. Thus, in this study, ware. Semantic Knowledge software was used to
the research approach combines three techniques: prepare a quantitative description of the main verbs,
bibliometrics, content analysis, and semantic ana- adjectives and nouns and to quantify the most
lysis. frequent relationships between words. Tropes soft-
2.1 Data collection ware was used to generate three graphical analyses:
area graph, actors graph and stars graph. To per-
The data collection phase was performed first in the form this semantic analysis, the researchers con-
ISI Web of Knowledge (Web of Science) database, ducted four group dynamics. Each dynamic used
updated until 2014. This database was selected visual display techniques, affinity diagram analysis,
because it includes all journals evaluated by Journal and Tropes Semantic Knowledge software support.
Citation Report (JCR), including journals pub- Finally, the third step, SLR synthesis, was con-
lished in other databases [6]. The initial search ducted to identify insights that emerged from the
resulted in a sample of 181 papers from the ISI two previous steps.
Web of Science database, covering the period
between 1980 and 2014. The search strings were
‘‘design think*’’ or ‘‘design-think*’’. The search 3. Results of bibliometrics and network
result was filtered considering only ‘‘article’’ in the analysis
parameter ‘‘document types’’ because these are
publications that went through the peer-review 3.1 Sample demographics
process. All articles were analyzed and evaluated The initial search of the ISI Web of Science database
in accordance with the scope of the research. The resulted in the identification of 181 articles. The first
criterion for the inclusion of additional publications article found in the database was published in 1980
was the number of citations in the initial sample. [13]. During the initial selection process, 42 articles
The searches started on October 2013 and were (24%) were excluded from the sample because they
updated in December 2014. were not aligned with the research core scope, such
After obtaining the initial sample the snowball as [14] whose research was about a doppler inter-
sampling based approach [9] was applied consider- ferometer and appeared in the search processes.
ing other databases and the articles’ references. The Applying the snowball method, 25 key references
Scopus database was analyzed considering the same were included in the sample because they were cited
search strings, filters and exclusion criteria. The by a significant part of the selected papers.
results obtained from this analysis evidenced a The final sample included articles published in
strong intersection of articles from the Scopus 100 different journals, however 77 journals only
database and the initial sample (84%). The snowball published one article on Design Thinking. The
method was also applied aiming to expand the primary journals, with more than 5 published
1706 Andre Leme Fleury et al.

articles are: Design Studies (11%), International stimuli on the problem-solving performance of the
Journal of Engineering Education (7%), Design sample, concluding that a richer visual stimuli
Issues (4%), Codesign International Journal of environment contributes to the development of
Cocreation in Design and the Arts (3%), and Inter- better Design solutions. Oxman [16] analyzed the
national Journal of Art Design Education (3%). impact of electronic tools such as CAD in the work
Most of the publications are classified in two of designers and concluded that in the first digital
areas: Engineering (42%) and Educational Research age of Design the most remarkable characteristic is
(20%). The geographic distribution includes 30 the understanding and accommodation of complex-
different countries, with an important hub in the ity in Design solutions. Maier and Fadel [17] pro-
United States of America (32%), primary in three pose an affordance-based theory to tackle Design
universities: Stanford University (6%), Carnegie problems considering the relations among users and
Mellon University (3%) and University of Califor- objects and among objects.
nia System (3%). Outside of USA, just two institu- Hey et al. [18] analyzed the use of metaphors and
tions have more than four articles: Technion Israel analogies as core activities for the Design process
Institute of Technology and the Delft University of and concluded that metaphors are used to map,
Technology. understand and analyze users’ reactions to a pro-
duct and therefore are applied in the initial devel-
3.2 Sample citation profile opment phases and analogies are used to link
The most cited article is Brown [4] followed by Design solution to the problems that originated it
Goldschmidt and Smolkov [15], Oxman [16], and, therefore, are used in the concept generation
Maier and Fadel [17], Hey et al. [18], Beckman phase. Beckman and Barry [19] analyzed a generic
and Barry [19], Barry and Rerup [20], Christiaans model for the innovation process considering
and Venselaar [21] and Oxman [22]. Considering the ‘‘abstract—concrete’’ and ‘‘analysis—synthesis’’
evolution of the number of citations by year the key perspectives and the resulting phases: observations
articles in the sample are shown in Fig. 1 (contexts), frameworks (insights), imperative
The most mentioned article is Brown’s 2008 (ideas) and solutions (experiences). The authors
Harvard Business Review [4]. For the IDEO CEO, also analyzed the effectiveness of the application
Design has been historically considered a less rele- of Design techniques in each identified phase.
vant phase in product development and designers Barry and Rerup [20] consider the area of orga-
had no important role in the conception of innova- nizational Design fairly new in terms of the applica-
tions. Brown highlights that in the 21st-century tion of Design principles and thinking and analyzes
Design Thinking is a fundamental approach how aesthetically sophisticated Design Thinking
because designer’s abilities and techniques can be from the arts might be applied in organizational
effectively applied to solve complex problems and to Design. Christiaans and Venselaar [21] analyzed the
develop innovative solutions that correspond to process of knowledge acquisition among novice
users’ wants and needs, that are technically viable Design students and the quality of their work and
and that can result in innovative organizational concluded that understanding the kind of knowl-
strategies. edge a designer needs during the Design process is
Goldschmidt and Smolkov [15] conducted an fundamental to problem-solving in general and
experiment based on three different physical envir- Design education in particular. Finally, Oxman
onments and analyzed the impact of the visual [22] developed a pedagogical framework called

Fig. 1. Top cited articles.

An Overview of the Literature on Design Thinking: Trends and Contributions 1707

Fig. 2. Keyword network.

‘‘Think-Maps’’ to model knowledge domains and approach that is particularly relevant for Engineer-
its relations during the Design process, resulting in ing Education.
structured representations of concepts and their In order to identify the key researchers in Design
relationships with other concepts. Thinking area, three networks were developed. The
article-to-references network is presented in Fig. 3.
3.3 Keywords network analysis After analyzing the article-to-reference network,
The keywords network analysis was performed the co-citation network and the cross-citation net-
based on references [10–12] and seven thematic work were developed (see Fig. 4 and 5).
clusters were identified: Design approaches, innova- The analysis of the identified references in the co-
tion, education, collaboration, sustainability and citation network makes possible an overview of the
performance (see Fig. 2). The ties in Fig. 2 show evolution of the theme Design Thinking during the
the keywords that have been mentioned together in last decades.
the sample, and the strength of the ties corresponds In its origins, Simon [23] analyzed ‘‘Ill-Structured
to the intensity of such relationship. The main Problems (ISP)’’, problems whose structure lacks
bridge between clusters occurs between Design definitions in some aspects, and discusses the differ-
approaches and Education. This highlights the ences between ISP and ‘‘Well Structured Problems’’
importance of Design Thinking as an educational (WSP), observing that in general the problems

Fig. 3. Article-to-references network (detailed references in: 1–5, 13, 15–22, 24–26, 28–47, 49–50, 52–81, 87–197).
1708 Andre Leme Fleury et al.

Fig. 4. Cross citation network (detailed references in: 1–5, 13, 15–22, 24–26, 28–47, 49–50, 52–81, 87–197).

proposed to problem solvers are best regarded as other forms of research. Schön and Wiggins [26]
ISPs. It is important to observe that solving ‘‘Ill- describe architectural Design as a process that
Structured Problems’’ is Design Thinking most consists of reflective observations from the practical
important objective. Schön [24] examined how five application of materials in a particular Design
professional categories tackle routine problems, experience and explores the kinds of seeing involved
observing that these professionals initially structure in designing. Simon [27] considers different perspec-
the problem, move towards the solution and analyze tives including economics, business, engineering,
the obtained results; the author concludes that the and psychology to characterize complex artificial
best professionals have tacit knowledge that cannot systems defined by their desired goals, purposes and
be externalized and apply this knowledge to achieve constraints. The author also observes that each
professional excellence. resulting system might be different because the
Design, according to Rowe [25], is the fundamen- Design process requires choices from the designer
tal investigation by which architects and planners that has to consider among different and apparently
perceive and conceive ideas of buildings and public appropriate alternatives.
spaces. Rowe’s book, Design Thinking, provides a Dorst and Cross [28] investigated how creativity
general picture of the Design that characterizes its happened in a Design project observing nine experi-
inherent qualities and that differentiates itself from enced industrial designers in a laboratory setting,

Fig. 5. Co-citation network (detailed references in: 1–5, 13, 15–22, 24–26, 28–47, 49–50, 52–81, 87–197).
An Overview of the Literature on Design Thinking: Trends and Contributions 1709

applying the ‘‘think-aloud’’ protocol and analyzing activities and difficult to teach because Design is a
the quality of the resulting Design concepts. The confusing term and each Design project is unique.
authors observed that creative Design is a result of The authors examine what knowledge, skills, attri-
the refinement of both the formulation of the butes and experiences are necessary to Design as an
problem and the ideas for its solution. Dym et al. expert considering the combined evolution of the
[29] characterized Design as the distinguishing formulation of the problem and the ideas for its
activity of engineering and consider that engineer- solution. Martin [33] considers that the Design
ing programs should form engineers who can design Thinking approach is imperative to companies
solutions to meet social needs. The authors con- aiming to innovate since it balances analytic mas-
ducted an experiment in the context of two courses tery and intuitive originality considering the knowl-
and concluded that because Design Thinking is a edge funnel proposed by the author.
complex process of investigation and learning and a
Problem Based Learning (PBL) approach is a more 4. Semantic analysis
effective way for students to learn Design because
they experience Design as active participants. An initial list of sixty-nine Design Thinking defini-
Dunne and Marting [30] analyzed the application tions was obtained from the semantic sample space
of Design approaches to tackle managerial pro- considered in this study. Fourteen definitions were
blems, concluding that management education removed because they represented generic Design
should provide tools for students to tackle manage- definitions, i.e., definitions that concern not only
ment problems in the same way designers approach Design Thinking, but that can be generalized to
Design problems, applying Design Thinking tech- any Design context (for example, ‘‘to consider a
niques to solve wicked problems. Cross [1] observed simplified view of the Design Thinking process in
that research in Design had no clear focus and general, the creative Design process can be
explored in his book three important issues con- described as a conversion process that starts with
cerning Design research: what level of detail must a the description of a goal and ends with the repre-
designer know, what part do designers play in the sentation of this goal in a form’’ [34]), Eight
Design process and what kind of creation should definitions were removed because they focus expli-
designers create. The author nominates this citly on the Design Thinking processes (for exam-
research as the ‘‘designerly ways of knowing’’. ple, ‘‘Design Thinking essentially consists of three
Brown [31] argues that in the first years of the processes-awareness, idea generation, and refine-
21st-century organizations and societies need new ment.’’ [2]). These proposed DT process definitions
approaches to promote innovation and to generate are analyzed separately in the content analysis (see
breakthrough ideas. The author considers Design Table 3). The final sample was composed of 47
Thinking as a human centered approach that can definitions.
deal with those issues since it combines designers’ After the core group of definitions was selected,
abilities to develop solutions that meet human needs semantic analysis was performed based on the
considering technical and economic constraints and frequency of occurrence (verbs, adjectives and
can be applied by people that are not designers. nouns, and the relation between them) (see Table 1).
Lawson and Dorst [32] consider Design as one of Figure 6 shows the area graph for Design Think-
the most complex and sophisticated professional ing definitions; the sphere is proportional to the

Table 1. Tropes statistics report

Word Frequency

Reference fields 1 (Main themes Cognition (understanding, assumption, reasoning) 35

ranked by frequency) Business (business, market, investment, firm, enterprise) 14
Creation (innovation, creation) 14
Language (dialogue, text, term) 12
Communication (discourse, communicating, information) 12
Education (scholars, pedagogy, learning, faculty) 10

Relations (Tightly connected) (design thinking > designer) 5

(design thinking > procedure) 4
(design thinking > discussion) 4
(similarity > innovation) 3
(design > activity) 3
(design thinking > design) 3
(design > part) 3
(way > problem) 3
(design thinking> human-centered) 3
(design > reasoning) 3
1710 Andre Leme Fleury et al.

Fig. 6. Area graph for Design Thinking definitions.

Fig. 7. Actor graph for Design Thinking definitions.

number of words it contains and the distances explore ideas [40, 51–52], the importance of inter-
between the central class and the other classes are disciplinary [53] and multidisciplinary team colla-
proportional to the number of relationships that boration [36, 41, 54].
connects the classes. Fig. 7 shows the actors graph in To establish a definition for Design Thinking the
which the concentration of relationships between research group conducted a workshop where panels
the main actors is on the top and the actant and presenting affinity diagrams of the definitions and
acted are illustrated in the left and right sides all the graphs generated using the Tropes software
respectively. (which was also available for online access) were
From the obtained sample of definitions some available. After considering the content and seman-
characteristics were highlighted frequently, how- tic analysis, the following definition for Design
ever not simultaneously. Ten definitions focus on Thinking is proposed:
the centrality of the user [19, 35–36], classifying
Design Thinking is a human-centered approach
Design Thinking as a human-centered approach
applied to wicked problem-solving that starts
[4, 35–40]. Seven articles connect Design Thinking
with the understanding of different users’ per-
with prototyping methods [39, 41–42], particularly
spectives. It involves multidisciplinary teamwork
as a rapid prototyping [38, 40] and iterative proto-
based on the balance between cooperation-con-
typing [43] approach. Five articles explored the
flict among different actors in a co-creation pro-
problem characteristics of Design Thinking initia-
cess, in which the conflict of ideas become the
tives such as wicked problems [43] and ill-structured
genesis for the establishment of innovative solu-
problems [44–45] and the focus on problem-solving
tions.
concepts and ideas [44–47], arguing that DT fits very
well with the nature of this kind of problems’ Johansson-Sköldberg et al. [55] differentiate the
resolution. The reasoning approach is explored in activities performed by designers and the activities
three definitions, highlighting divergent views [48] performed by non-designers and, based on Cross [1]
and the divergent-convergent thinking paradigm observations, propose two concepts, ‘‘Designerly
[49], as well as the abductive logic [50]. Other Thinking’’ and ‘‘Design Thinking’’. Fig. 8 explores
interesting issues that were explored in the semantic the continuum between these two concepts. From
sample space were the use of visual techniques to this continuum, it is possible to observe how the
An Overview of the Literature on Design Thinking: Trends and Contributions 1711

Fig. 8. Continuum from ‘‘Designerly Thinking’’ to ‘‘Design Thinking’’.

designer capabilities are incorporated into a multi- creation dynamics [3] and the main results obtained
disciplinary teamwork approach, moving from an in this project are reported by Takeda [2]. The
individual perspective into a multidisciplinary development of a therapeutic orthopedic device
teamwork co-creation process. for home use prescribed by orthopedic surgeons to
enhance and accelerate fracture repair is described
5. Applying design thinking in innovation by Ana et al. [56]. Finally, Desbarats [57] presents
development processes: The content examples of well-succeeded products that can be
analysis considered as representatives of their companies.
One important consideration about Design
The Design Thinking approach is considered a Thinking is that its application is specially focused
powerful approach for the development of disrup- on the development of innovations. The research
tive innovations inside companies and for corporate identified articles that explicitly characterized the
chains, bringing the customers point of view into the scope of the innovation development and the major-
center of the innovation process. However, the vast ity (81.6%) focused on breakthrough innovations; a
majority of the related experiences were developed minority (18.4%) mentioned incremental innova-
in academic contexts (127 identified articles, 93% of tions as its target. Results are summarized in
the sample). It is important to note that most of Table 2.
these articles relate punctual initiatives, conducted
in the context of academic courses, inside class-
rooms, applying Design Thinking tools and techni- 5.1 The emergence of Design Thinking Bodies of
ques and observing the obtained results. Knowledge
In the academic context results are analyzed In the year of 2008, Design Thinking consolidated
mainly based on qualitative evidence. Only 23 of its position as a relevant Design approach because
the analyzed articles applied some kind of quanti- of the publication of Brown’s article [4] and also
tative approach, usually using a simple quantitative because of the emergence of the first ‘‘Design
tool (e.g. reaction questionnaires). From the 127 Thinking Body of Knowledge’’, books that propose
academic focused articles only 16 related some kind consolidated sets of best practices for conducting
of financial support (13%), revealing that this kind Design Thinking projects. This research identified
of research is not a target for financial support and analyzed the best practices presented by 6
agencies. Bodies of Knowledge published since 2008:
It is important to note that only 5 articles relate ‘‘Design Thinking’’ [4]; ‘‘Bootcamp Bootleg’’ [82];
corporate experiences. The most relevant is Tim ‘‘Human Centered Design’’ [83]; ‘‘Design Think-
Brown’s Harvard Business Review article [4] that ing’’ [84]; ‘‘Design Thinking for Educators’’ [85] and
presents some brief corporate examples of Design ‘‘Playbook for Strategic Foresight and Innovation’’
Thinking applications. Fujitsu has fostered a pio- [86]. Considering the focus of innovation, all the
neer social program applying Design Thinking analyzed books characterize and consider break-
techniques to generate new ideas for products and through and incremental innovations. However, all
services, involving customer companies, local gov- the books highlight that Design Thinking is more
ernments, users, administrations and NPOs in co- effectively for designing breakthrough innovations.

Table 2. Tropes statistics report

Type of Innovation Number of References References

Breakthrough 31 [2–4, 15–16, 19–20, 37, 40–41, 51–52, 55–56, 58–67, 69–75]
Incremental 7 [50, 76–81]
1712 Andre Leme Fleury et al.

Table 3. Design Thinking phases according to BOKs

BOK Phases

Design Thinking [4] Inspiration, Ideation and Implementation

Bootcamp Bootleg [82] Empathize, Define, Ideate, Prototype and Test
Human Centered Design [83] Hear, Create and Deliver
Design Thinking for Educators [85] Discovery, Interpretation, Ideation, Experimentation, Evolution
Design Thinking [84] Immersion, Analysis and Synthesis, Ideation and Prototyping
Playbook for Strategic Foresight and Innovation [86] Knowledge, Comprehension, Application, Analysis, Synthesis, Evaluation

Table 4. Design Thinking phases synthesis according to the studied sample

Phase Number of References References

Immersion 9 [4, 19, 41, 44, 72, 87–90]

Ideation 18 [4, 17, 22, 37, 40–41, 51–53, 63, 75, 80–81, 91–95]
Prototyping 40 [2–4, 35, 37–43, 46, 50–52, 54, 60, 62–64, 66–67, 71–72, 74, 77–81, 87, 96–104]

Table 5. Design Thinking tools according to the studied sample

Number of
Citations Mentioned Tool

4 CAD
2 Perry Scheme
1 Annotation, ANOVA, Chat recorder, CompendiumDS, Computational algorithms, CoNEKTR model, D-MOSA,
Drawing board, Drawings, E-scape system, Ethnographic interviews, Experience maps, Informant diaries,
Intercepts, Interface elements, Kolb—Experiential Learning theory (ELT), Message board, MID—Measure of
Intellectual Development, MindDigger, Mind maps, Mintzberg strategy model, MOD—Measure of Designing,
Netnography, Neural networks modeling, Non-participant observation, OpenDesignStudio, OpenSimulator,
Pareto analysis, Participant observation, Post-it board, Project Space, Projection pursuit, PROMETHEE II,
Reliability checks, Reliability tables, Repertory grids, S-DTPM, Short annotation, Sketch board, Storyboards,
Student pages, TCTT, TeamMind, Text chat, TPACK, U101, Virtual ethnography, VIKOR, VW tools, Web Pad,
Wiki

5.2 Design Thinking most important phases and Immersion is the less analyzed phase, consid-
The analysis of the previously mentioned Design ered only in 12% of the articles, as presented in
Thinking BOKs also revealed three major phases Table 4.
that should be considered in a Design Thinking It is possible to observe that among the analyzed
project: Immersion, Ideation, and Prototyping. articles, Brown [4] and Seidel and Fixson [41]
The Immersion phase initiates the application of explicitly mentions the three phases of the Design
Design Thinking, usually considering an Ill-Struc- Thinking approach that are considered in the 6
tured Problem [23] as a starting point and conduct- Bodies of Knowledge previously presented.
ing preliminary research to subsidize the creation
process; Ideation is the creative intermediary phase
for generating innovative solution concepts and 5.3 Design Thinking tools
Prototyping is the final phase of the Design Think- One important question concerning Design Think-
ing approach, when concepts are incorporated into ing is the relevance and importance of the techni-
concrete prototypes and customers are invited to ques and tools presented by articles and BOKs.
analyze its effectiveness, validate its concepts and However, the analysis of the sample looking for
propose improvements. The analyzed BOKs con- the most frequently mentioned techniques and tools
siders all these three phases but with small differ- revealed no significant pattern since only CAD and
ences, as presented in Table 3. Perry Scheme were mentioned more than once.
One significant difference concerning the ana- Other 51 tools were identified in the sample, but
lyzed articles and Bodies of Knowledge is that the these were mentioned only in one article. Analyzed
BOKs have special focus and provide more accu- articles present a significant number of different
rate details for the development of the initial phases tools, evidencing no standards or best practices, as
of the project, i.e., for the Immersion phase. How- presented in Table 5.
ever, the majority of the analyzed articles have The analyzed Bodies of Knowledge present few
special concern with the Prototype stage (61.2%) similarities among the suggested tools and the only
An Overview of the Literature on Design Thinking: Trends and Contributions 1713

Table 6. Design Thinking tools according to the studied BOKs

Body Of Knowledge Suggested Tools

Design Thinking [4] Sketch, Brainstorm, Insights, Storytelling, Creative Frameworks, Rapid Experimentation, Prototyping, Web
2.0 Networks and Portfolio of Innovation

Bootcamp Bootleg User camera study, Interviews, Extreme Users, Analogous Empathy, Story share-and-capture, Saturate and
[82] group, Empathy map, Journey map, Composite character profile, 2x2 matrix, Why-how laddering, Point-of-
view Madlib, Point-of-view Analogy, Critical reading checklist, Stoke, Bodystorming, Wizard of Oz
prototyping, Feedback capture grid, Storytelling

Human Centered PRISM, PRA, Mind Maps, Venn Diagram, Processual Map, Relational Map, 2x2 Matrix, P.O.I.N.T.
Design [83]

Design Thinking for Worksheet, Question Guide, Jorney Map, Venn Diagram, 2x2 Matrix, Relationship Map, Reality Check,
Educators [85] Storyboards, Role-playing, Models, Paper mockup

Design Thinking [84] Reframing, Exploratory Research, Desk Research, Interviews, Sensibility Notebooks, Generative Session, One
day in the life, Shadow, Insight cards, Affinity Diagrams, Conceptual Maps, Personas, Empathy Maps, User’s
Jorney, Blueprint, Ideas Menu, Positioning Matrix, Paper mockups, Models, Staging, Storyboards, Service
Prototype

Playbook for Context Map, Progression Curves, S-curves, Janus Cones, Cones of Uncertainty, Milieu studies, Generational
Strategic Foresight Arcs, Population analytics, Generational Research, Personas, Voice of the Customer, Need-finding,
and Innovation [86] Futuretelling, Storytelling, Experiential design, Role-playing, White Spots, Growth-share matrix, BCG matrix,
Blue Ocean Strategy, Paper mockups, Dark Horse, Change Path, Backcasting, Strategic Inflection Points,
Buddy Checks, Startup speed dating, VOICE stars, Crowd Clovers, Social Network Mapping, Weak Ties, CoIN
(Collaborative Innovation Network) Vision Statement, Start-up Elevator Pitches, Mission Statements,
DARPA Hard Test, Technology Readiness Scales, Pathfinders, Wayfinding

tool suggested in all BOKs is Storytelling, as Some other relevant characteristics included the use
observed in Table 6. of visual techniques to explore ideas and the impor-
tance of interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary
6. Conclusions team collaboration.
There are some limitations of this research, result-
In this research relevant articles and books concern- ing from the research methods applied, considering
ing Design Thinking were analyzed. This literature the bias in the sampling process and the analysis
was obtained from different epistemological areas, performed. The start searching point in ISI Web of
particularly Engineering and Design. The research Knowledge focusing on the indexed journal in JCR
evidenced a lack of standardization about DT as a proxy of quality can lead to miss relevant
phases, tools and definitions. Aiming to fill some articles, which was partially mitigated by the snow-
of these gaps the article analyzed and systematized ball method in article-to-reference networks. The
the literature on Design Thinking. To characterize period of analysis and the multimethod approach
this research area, the article identifies Design applied to this SLR also brings some bias in the
Thinking key phases, method and tools. Moreover, analysis, as the researchers bias in the content
a definition of Design Thinking is proposed. analysis of the articles. One of the topics for future
The findings reveal that the majority of the related research agenda that stood out of this SLR is the
experiences were conducted in academic contexts need of research papers in the companies, under-
(93%). Only 5 articles reported corporate experi- standing how Design Thinking has been incorpo-
ences. Most of the analyzed articles present quali- rated by firms in innovation and new product
tative researches. Only 23 of the analyzed articles development activities. Moreover, future research
applied some kind of quantitative approach. Just 16 agenda on Design Thinking highlights the impor-
articles reported some kind of financial support, tance of observing the results obtained with the
revealing that this kind of research is not a target for implementation of DT inside companies. Finally,
financial support agencies yet. it is important to identify the critical challenges
Some characteristics were frequently highlighted to implement DT in the organizations to expand
when defining DT: the centrality of the user in a from an educational experience for a managerial
human-centered approach; DT appears as an itera- practice.
tive prototyping method, exploring wicked and ill-
structured problems and applying problem-solving Acknowledgements—The authors gratefully acknowledge the
financial support of the Brazilian research funding agencies
concepts; the reasoning approach is the divergent- CNPq (National Council for Scientific and Technological Devel-
convergent thinking considering an abductive logic. opment).
1714 Andre Leme Fleury et al.

28. K. Dorst and N. Cross, Creativity in the design process: co-

References evolution of problem-solution, Design Studies, 22(5), 2001,
pp. 425–437.
1. N. Cross, Designerly ways of knowing, Springer Science & 29. C. L. Dym, A. M. Agogino, O. Eris, D. D. Frey and L. J.
Business, Basel, 2007. Leifer, Engineering Design Thinking, Teaching and Learn-
2. K. Takeda, Design Thinking for Future Schools, Fujitsu ing, Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 2005, pp. 103–
Scientific & Technical Journal, 49(4), 2013, pp. 455–462. 120.
3. T. Hirano, A. Ishizuka and K. Sakaguchi, Innovation 30. D. Dunne and R. Martin, Design Thinking and How it will
Activities by Co-creation Process, Fujitsu Scientific & Tech- Change Management Education, Academy of Management
nical Journal, 49(4), 2013, pp. 391–396. Learning and Education, 5(4), 2006, pp. 512–523.
4. T. Brown, Design Thinking, Harvard Business Review, 31. T. Brown, Change by design: How design thinking trans-
86(6), 2008, pp. 1–10. forms organizations and inspires innovation, Harper Busi-
5. P. A. Rodgers, Articulating Design Thinking, Design Stu- ness, New York, 2009.
dies, 34(4), 2013, pp. 433–437. 32. B. Lawson and K. Dorst, Design expertise, Architectural
6. M. M. Carvalho, A. L. Fleury and A. P. Lopes, An overview Press, Abingdon, 2009.
of the literature on Technology Roadmapping (TRM): 33. R. L. Martin, The design of business: why design thinking is
Contributions and Trends. Technological Forecasting & the next competitive advantage, Harvard Business Press,
Social Change, 80(7), 2013, pp. 1418–1437. Boston, 2009
7. J. H. Littell, J. Corcoran and V. Pillai, Systematic reviews and 34. Y. Nagai and H. Noguchi, An experimental study on the
meta-analysis, Oxford University Press, New York, 2008. Design Thinking process started from difficult keywords:
8. D. Tranfield, D. Denyer and P. Smart, Towards a metho- modeling the thinking process of creative design, Journal of
dology for developing evidence informed management Engineering Design, 14(4), 2003, pp. 429–437.
knowledge by means of systematic review, British Journal 35. G. Goldschmidt and P. A. Rodgers, The design thinking
of Management, 14, 2003, pp. 207–222. approaches of three different groups of designers based on
9. A. Fink, How to sample in surveys, Sage Publications, self-reports, Design Studies, 34(4), 2013, pp. 454–471.
Thousand Oaks, 1995. 36. U. Araujo, Promoting ethical and environmental awareness
10. H. A. Schildt, Sitiks: Software for Bibliometric Data in vulnerable communities: a research action plan, Journal
Management and Analysis, Institute of Strategy and Inter- of Moral Education, 41(3), 2012, pp. 389–397.
national Business, 6(1), Helsinki, 2002. 37. A. Wells, The importance of design thinking for technolo-
11. S. Borgatti, M. Everett and L. Freeman, Ucinet for Win- gical literacy: a phenomenological perspective, Interna-
dows: Software for Social Network Analysis, Analytic tional Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(3),
Technologies, 2002. 2013, pp. 623–636.
12. V. J. Duriau, R. K. Reger and M. D. Pfarrer, A Content 38. C. Vetterli, W. Brenner, F. Uebernickel and C. Petrie, From
Analysis of the Content Analysis Literature in Organiza- Palaces to Yurts Why Requirements Engineering Needs
tion. Organizational Research Methods, 10(1), 2007, pp. 5– Design Thinking, IEEE Internet Computing, 17(2), 2013,
32. pp. 91–94.
13. M. Aldridge, New Design Thinking sets Roll Fomers 39. E. Bjogvinsson, P. Ehn and P. A. Hilgren, Design Things
Future, Metalworking Production, 124(3), 1980. and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design
14. C. K. Lee, G. Y. Wu, C. T. Teng, W. J. Wu, C. Tinglin, W. Challenges, Design Issues, 28(3), 2012, pp. 101–116.
H. Hsiao, H. C. Shih, J. S. Wang, S. C. Lin and C. C. Lin, A 40. A. Liem and E. Brangier, Innovation and design
high performance Doppler interferometer for advanced approaches within prospective ergonomics, Work: A Jour-
optical storage systems, Japanese Journal of Applied Phy- nal of Prevention Assessment & Rehabilitation, 41(1), 2012,
sics, 38(3B), 1999, pp. 1730–1741. pp. 5243–5250.
15. G. Goldschmidt and M. Smolkov, Variances in the impact 41. V. P. Seidel and S. K. Fixson, Adopting Design Thinking in
of visual stimuli on design problem solving performance, Novice Multidisciplinary Teams: The Application and
Design Studies, 27(5), 2006, pp. 549–569. Limits of Design Methods and Reflexive Practices, Journal
16. R. Oxman, Theory and design in the first digital age, Design of Product Innovation Management, 30(S1), 2013, pp. 19–33.
Studies, 27(3), 2006, pp. 229–265. 42. S. Agid, Worldmaking: Working through Theory/Practice
17. J. R. A. Maier and G. M. Fadel, Affordance based design: a in Design, Design and Culture, 4(1), 2012, pp. 27–54.
relational theory for design, Research in Engineering Design, 43. C. Tonkinwise, Design Studies—What Is it Good For?,
20(1), 2009, pp. 13–27. Design and Culture, 6(1), 2014, pp. 5–43.
18. J. Hey, J. Linsey, A. M. Agogino and K. L. Wood, 44. R. S. Adams, S. R. Daly, L, M. Mann and G. Dall’Alba,
Analogies and metaphors in creative design, International Being a professional: Three lenses into design thinking,
Journal of Engineering Education, 24(2), 2008, pp. 283–294. acting, and being, Design Studies, 32(6), 2011, pp. 588–607.
19. S. L. Beckman and M. Barry, Innovation as a learning 45. I. Ozkaya and O. Akin, Requirement-driven design: assis-
process: Embedding Design Thinking, California Manage- tance for information traceability in design computing,
ment Review, 50(1), 2007, pp. 25–56. Design Studies, 27(3), 2006, pp. 381–398.
20. D. Barry and C. Rerup, Going mobile: Aesthetic Design 46. R. Razzouk and V. Shute, What Is Design Thinking and
Considerations from Calder and the Constructivists, Orga- Why Is It Important?, Review of Educational Research,
nization Science, 17(2), 2006, pp. 262–276. 82(3), 2012, pp. 330–348.
21. H. Christiaans and K. Venselaar, Creativity in Design 47. V. Kokotovich, Problem analysis and thinking tools: an
Engineering and the Role of Knowledge: Modelling the empirical study of non-hierarchical mind mapping, Design
Expert, International Journal of Technology and Design Studies, 29(1), 2008, pp. 49–69.
Education, 15(3), 2005, pp. 217–236. 48. M. Avital and R. J. Boland, Managing as Designing with a
22. R. Oxman, Think-maps: Teaching Design Thinking in Positive Lens in M. Avital, R. J. Boland and D. L. Cooper-
Design Education, Design Studies, 25(1), 2004, pp. 63–91. rider (Eds), Designing Information and Organizations with a
23. H. A. Simon, The Structure of Ill-Structured Problems, Positive Lens, Advances in Appreciative Inquiry Series,
Artificial Intelligence, 4(3–4), 1973, pp. 181–201. Volume 2, Elsevier Science, Oxford, 2007.
24. D. A. Schön, The reflective practitioner: How professionals 49. O. Eris, Insisting on truth at the expense of conceptualiza-
think in action, Basic Books, New York, 1983. tion: Can engineering portfolios help?, International Journal
25. P. Rowe, Design Thinking, MIT Press, Cambridge, 1987. of Engineering Education, 22(3), 2006, pp. 551–559.
26. D. A. Schön and G. Wiggins, Kinds of Seeing and Their 50. D. W. de Guerre, D. Seguin, A. Pace and N. Burke, IDEA:
Functions in Designing, Design Studies, 13(2), 1992, pp. A Collaborative Organizational Design Process Integrating
135–156. Innovation, Design, Engagement, and Action, Systemic
27. H. A. Simon, The Sciences of the Artificial, MIT Press, Practice and Action Research, 26(3), 2013, pp. 257–279.
Cambridge, 1996. 51. G. O. Matheson, M. Klügl, L. Engebretsen, F. Bendiksen,
An Overview of the Literature on Design Thinking: Trends and Contributions 1715

S. N. Blair, M. Börjesson, R. Budgett, W. Derman, U. priming and emptying, Lab on a Chip, 11(9), 2011, pp. 1596–
Erdener, J. P. A. Ioannidis, K. M. Khan, R. Martinez, W. 1602.
Van Mechelen, M. Mountjoy, R. E. Sallis, M. Schwellnus, 74. B. Wylant, Design Thinking and the experience of innova-
R. Shultz, T. Soligard, K. Steffen, C. J. Sundberg, R. Weiler tion, Design Issues, 24(2), 2008, pp. 3–14.
and A. Ljungqvist, Prevention and management of non- 75. P. G. Yock, T. J. Brinton and S. A. Zenios, Teaching
communicable disease: the IOC consensus statement, Lau- Biomedical Technology Innovation as a Discipline, Science
sanne 2013, British Journal of Sports Medicine, 47(16), 2013, Translational Medicine, 3(92), 2011, pp. 92–109.
pp. 1003–1011. 76. E. Y. L. Do and M. D. Gross, Thinking with diagrams in
52. G. J. Puccio, J. F. Cabra, J. M. Fox and H. Cahen, architectural design. Artificial Intelligence Review, 15(1),
Creativity on demand: Historical approaches and future 2001, pp. 135–149.
trends, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design Analy- 77. C. Eckert, I. Kelly and M. Stacey, Interactive generative
sis and Manufacturing, 24(2), 2010, pp. 153–159. systems for conceptual design: an empirical perspective, AI
53. G. Melles, I. de Vere and V. Misic, Socially responsible EDAM—Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design Ana-
design: thinking beyond the triple bottom line to socially lysis and Manufacturing, 13(4), 1999, pp. 303–320.
responsive and sustainable product design, CoDesign . . . 78. M. Hobday, A. Boddington and A. Grantham, Policies for
International Journal of Cocreation in Design and the Arts, design and policies for innovation: contrasting perspectives
7(3–4), 2011, pp. 143–154. and remaining challenges, Technovation, 32(5), 2012, pp.
54. R. E. West and I. Tateishi, Innovation 101: Promoting 272–281.
Undergraduate Innovation Through a Two-Day Boot 79. M. Leitner, G. Innella and F. Yauner, Different perceptions
Camp, Creativity Research Journal, 24(2–3), 2012, pp. of the design process in the context of DesignArt, Design
243–251. Studies, 34(4), 2013, pp. 494–513.
55. U. Johansson-Sköldberg, J. Woodilla and M. Çetinkaya, 80. C. Ma, S. Qin, H. Wang and G. Dai, Modeling sketching
Design Thinking: Past, Present and Possible Futures, primitives to support freehand drawing based on contexto
Creativity and Innovation Management, 22(2), 2013, pp. awareness, Computing and Informatics, 29(4), 2010, pp.
121–146. 585–600.
56. F. J. de Ana, K. A. Umstead and G. J. Phillips and C. P. 81. S. V. McLaren, Assessment is for learning: supporting
Conner, Value driven innovation in medical device design: a feedback, International Journal of Technology and Design
process for balancing stakeholder voices, Annals of Biome- Education, 22(2), 2012, pp. 227–245.
dical Engineering, 41(9), 2013, pp. 1811–1821 82. d.school. Bootcamp Bootleg. 2008. Available at:
57. G. Desbarats, Usability: form that says function, Industrial <http://dschool. stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/
Management & Data Systems, 95(5), 1995, pp. 3–6. 03/METHODCARDS2010v6.pdf>. Accessed February
58. P. Christian, 6-D, a process framework for the design & 21th 2016.
development of web-based systems, Proceedings of the 83. IDEO, Human Centered Design, 2011, 2nd Edition.
ASIST Annual Meeting, 38, 2001, pp. 472–480. 84. M. Vianna, Y. Vianna, I. Adler, B. Lucena and B. Russo,
59. J. P. Chupin, Judgement by design: Towards a model for Design Thinking, MJV Press, Rio de Janeiro, 2011
studying and improving the competition process in archi- 85. IDEO, Design thinking for educators, 2012, Version 2
tecture and urban design, Scandinavian Journal of Manage- 86. T. Carleton, W. Cockayne and A. Tahvanainen, Playbook
ment, 27(1), 2011, pp. 173–184. for Strategic Foresight and Innovation, Tekes, 2013.
60. L. De Couvreur and R. Goossens, Design for (every)one: 87. S. M. Fairburn, Designing Transformations: Schools of
co-creation as a bridge between universal design and excellence, Acta Astronautica, 69(11–12), 2011, pp. 1132–
rehabilitation engineering, Codesign: International Journal 1142.
of Cocreation in Design and the Arts, 7(2), 2011, pp. 107–121 88. S. Lee, Evaluating Serviceability of Healthcare Services-
61. O. C. Duarte, R. Lulham and L. Kaidor, Co-designing out capes: Service Design Perspective, International Journal of
crime, Codesign: International Journal of Cocreation in Design, 5(2), 2011, pp. 61–71.
Design and the Arts, 7(3–4), 2011, pp. 155–168. 89. B. Paton and K. Dorst, Briefing and reframing: A situated
62. L. Kimbell, Rethinking Design Thinking: Part I, Design and practice, Design Studies, 32(6), 2011, pp. 573–587.
Culture, 3(3), 2011, pp. 285–306. 90. R. Teal, Developing a (Non-linear) Practice of Design
63. L. Kimbell, Rethinking Design Thinking: Part II, Design Thinking, International Journal of Art & Design Education,
and Culture, 4(2), 2012, pp. 129–148. 29(3), 2010, pp. 294–302.
64. M. Lande and L. Leifer, Difficulties Student Engineers Face 91. J. Bosch and P. M. Bosch-Sijtsema, Introducing agile
Designing the Future, International Journal of Engineering customer-centered development in a legacy software pro-
Education, 26(2), 2010, pp. 271–277. duct line, Software: Practice & Experience, 41(8), 2011, pp.
65. A. M. Madni, Elegant systems design: Creative fusion of 871–882.
simplicity and power, Systems Engineering, 15(3), 2012, pp. 92. C. Carmel-Gilfilen, Uncovering Pathways of Design Think-
347–354. ing and Learning: Inquiry on Intellectual Development and
66. R. L. Martin, The Innovation Catalysts, Harvard Business Learning Style Preferences, Journal of Interior Design,
Review, 89(6), 2011, pp. 82–87 37(3), 2012, pp. 47–66.
67. J. M. Mathews, Using a studio-based pedagogy to engage 93. M. Carroll, S. Goldman, L. Britos, J. Koh, A. Royalty and
students in the design of mobile-based media, English M. Hornstein, Destination, Imagination and the Fires
Teaching-Practice and Critique, 9(1), 2010, pp. 87–102. Within: Design Thinking in a Middle School Classroom,
68. P. Micheli, J. Jaina, K. Goffin, F. Lemke and R. Verganti, International Journal of Art & Design Education, 29(1), 2010,
Perceptions of Industrial Design: The ‘‘Means’’ and the pp. 37–53.
‘‘Ends’’, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29(5), 94. A. Venkatesh, T. Digerfeldt-Mansson, F. F. Brunei and S.
2012, pp. 687–704. Chen, Design orientation: a grounded theory analysis of
69. V. Singh and N. Gu, Towards an integrated generative design thinking and action, Marketing Theory, 12(3), 2012,
design framework, Design Studies, 33(2), 2012, pp. 185–207. pp. 289–309.
70. C. Tan and Y. L. Wong, Promoting Spiritual Ideals 95. Q. Zuo, W. Leonard and E. E. MaloneBeach, Integrating
Through Design Thinking in Public Schools, International performance-based design in beginning interior design
Journal of Childrens Spirituality, 17(1), 2012, pp. 25–37. education: an interactive dialog between the built environ-
71. C. Tonkinwise, A taste for Practices: Unrepressing Style in ment and its context, Design Studies, 31(3), 2010, pp. 268–
Design Thinking, Design Studies, 32(6), 2011, pp. 533–545. 287.
72. S. Vosinakis and P. Koutsabasis, Interaction design studio 96. S. L. Beckman and M. Barry, Teaching Students Problem
learning in virtual worlds, Virtual Reality, 17(1), 2013, pp. Framing Skills with a Storytelling Metaphor, International
59–75. Journal of Engineering Education, 28(2), 2012, pp. 364–373.
73. P. Vulto, S. Podszun, P. Meyer, C. Hermann, A. Manz and 97. D. Snoonian and D. Cuff, Digital pedagogy: An essay,
G. A. Urban, Phaseguides: a paradigm shift in microfluidic Architectural Record, 189(9), 2001, pp. 200 +.
1716 Andre Leme Fleury et al.

98. F. J. de Ana, K. A. Umstead, G. J. Phillips and C. P. Conner, 118. A. Burdick and H. Willis, Digital learning, digital scholar-
Value Driven Innovation in Medical Device Design: A ship and design thinking, Design Studies, 32(6), 2011, pp.
Process for Balancing Stakeholder Voices, Annals of Biome- 546–556.
dical Engineering, 41(9), 2013, pp. 1811–1821. 119. B. Wylant, Design Thinking and the Question of Moder-
99. J. Y. Lee, G. W. Rhee and H. Park, AR/RP-based tangible nity, Design Journal, 13(2), 2010, pp. 217–231.
interactions for collaborative design evaluation of digital 120. T. Carleton, L. Leifer, Stanford’s ME310 Course as an
products, International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Evolution of Engineering Design. In: Proceedings of the
Technology, 45(7), 2009, pp. 649–665. 19th CIRP Design Conference—Competitive Design, Cra-
100. P. Lloyd, Embedded creativity: teaching design thinking via nield University, 2009, pp. 547.
distance education, International Journal of Technology and 121. D. F. Botha, Rethinking the knowledge bearing capacity of
Design Education, 23(3), 2013, pp. 749–765. e-Business systems, South African Journal of Business
101. E. Manzini and F. Rizzo, Small projects/large changes: Management, 38(1), 2007, pp. 37–43.
Participatory design as an open participated process, Code- 122. L. Carlgren, Identifying latent needs: towards a competence
sign: International Journal of Cocreation in Design and the perspective on attractive quality creation, Total Quality
Arts, 7(3–4), 2011, pp. 199–215. Management and Business Excellence, 24(11–12), 2013, pp.
102. S. B. Poulsen and U. Thogersen, Embodied design thinking: 1347–1363.
a phenomenological perspective, Codesign: International 123. C. Carmel-Gifilen and M. Portillo, Where what’s in
Journal of Cocreation in Design and the Arts, 7(1), 2011, common mediates disciplinary diversity in design students:
pp. 29–44. A shared pathway of intellectual development, Design
103. C. C. Tsai, C. S. Chai, K. S. Wong, B. H. Y. Hong and S. C. Studies, 33(3), 2012, pp. 237–261.
Tan, Positioning Design Epistemology and its Applications 124. C. Carmel-Gilfilen and M. Portillo, Developmental trajec-
in Education Technology, Educational Technology & tories in design thinking: an examination of criteria, Design
Society, 16(2), 2013, pp. 81–90. Studies, 31(1), 2010, pp. 74–91.
104. C. J. Walthall, S. Devanathan, L. G. Kisselburgh, K. 125. W. Watson, Designed to cure: the clinician-led development
Ramani, E. D. Hirleman and M. C. Yang, Evaluating of England’s regional secure units, Journal of Forensic
Wikis as a Communicative Medium for Collaboration Psychiatry, 9(3), 1998, pp. 519–531.
Within Colocated and Distributed Engineering Design 126. A. Senturer and C. Istek, Discourse as representation of
Teams, Journal of Mechanical Design, 133(7), 2011, design thinking and beyond: considering the tripod of
07100101-07100111 architecture—media, education, and practice, Journal of
105. K. Al-Sayed, R. C. Dalton and C. Hölscher, Discursive Art & Design Education, 19(1), 2000, pp. 72–85.
design thinking: The role of explicit knowledge in creative 127. E. Çil and O. Pakdil, Design instructor’s perspective on the
architectural design reasoning, Artificial Intelligence for role of computers in architectural education: A case study,
Engineering Design Analysis and Manufacturing, 24(2), Metu Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, 24(2), 2007, pp.
2010, pp. 211–230. 123–136.
K. Wallick, Generative Processes: Thick Drawing, Interna- 128. P. Ciuccarelli, Mind the graph: from visualization to
tional Journal of Art & Design Education, 31(1), 2012, pp. collaborative network constructions, Leonardo, 47(3),
19–29. 2014, pp. 268–269.
106. K. Alexiou, T. Zamenopoulos, J. H. Johnson and S. J. 129. A. Z. Khan, H. Vandevyvere and K. Allackerc, Design for
Gilbert, Exploring the neurological basis of design cogni- the Ecological Age Rethinking the Role of Sustainability in
tion using brain imaging: some preliminary results, Design Architectural Education, Journal of Architectural Educa-
Studies, 30(6), 2009, pp. 623–647. tion, 67(2), 2013, pp. 175–185.
107. M. Behm, J. Culvenor and G. Dixon, Development of safe 130. M. J. Clayton and J. C. Kunz, Rapid conceptual design
design thinking among engineering students, Safety evaluation using a virtual product model, Engineering
Science, 63, 2014, 1–7. Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 9(4), 1996, pp. 439–
108. L. Athens, Design for social sustainability, Design for social 451.
sustainability at Seattle’s Central Library, Journal of Green 131. L. L. Kirkland, W. M. Parham and S. M. Pastores,
Building, 2(1), 2007, pp. 3–21. Approaching hospital administration about adopting cool-
109. M. W. Tracey, A. Hutchinson and T. Q. Grzebyk, Instruc- ing technologies, Critical Care Medicine, 37(7), 2009, S290–
tional designers as reflective practitioners: developing pro- S294.
fessional identity through reflection, Educational 132. J. Korn, Domain-independent design theory, Journal of
Technology Research and Development, 62(3), 2014, pp. Engineering Design, 7(3), 1996, pp. 293–311.
315–334. 133. F. Cassim, Hands On, Hearts On, Minds On: Design
110. S. Ahmed and B. T. Christensen, An in Situ Study of Thinking within an Education Context, International Jour-
Analogical Reasoning in Novice and Experienced Design nal of Art & Design Education, 32(2), 2013, pp. 190–202.
Engineers, Journal of Mechanical Design, 131(11), 2009, pp. 134. M. Bower, Redesigning a Web-Conferencing Environment
111004–111013 to Scaffold Computing Students’ Creative Design Pro-
111. A. M. Andrew, Internet freedom, Kybernetes, 39(7), 2010, cesses, Educational Technology & Society, 14(1), 2011, pp.
pp. 1097–1099. 27–42.
112. B. Bender, Task design and task analysis for empirical 135. R. Coackley, Briefing: The challenges of climate-critical
studies into design activity, Journal of Engineering Design, design, Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers—
14(4), 2003, pp. 399–408. Municipal Engineer, 164(2), 2011, pp. 65–66.
113. M. Biddulph, Urban design, regeneration and the entrepre- 136. K. C. Wu, S. M. Huang and K. C. Mao, Design information
neurial city, Progress in Planning, 76(2), 2011, pp. 63–103. seeking for architects, using memory accessibility and
114. G. Stin, Introduction to shape grammars, Environment and diagnosis, Journal of Architectural and Planning Research,
planning B: Planning and Design, 7, 1980, pp. 343e351. 23(1), 2006, pp. 60–76.
115. R. Buchanan, D. Doordan and V. Margolin, Introduction, 137. R. Bousbaci, ‘‘Models of Man’’ in design thinking: The
Design Issues, 17(4), 2007, pp. 1–2. ‘‘Bounded Rationality’’ Episode, Design Issues, 24(4), 2008,
116. I. Stigliani and D. Ravasi, Organizing thoughts and con- pp. 38–52.
necting brains: material practices and the transition from 138. R. D. Coyne, Objectivity and the design process, Environ-
individual to group-level sensemaking, Academy of Man- ment and Planning B-Planning & Design, 18(3), 1991, pp.
agement Journal, 55(5), 2012, pp. 1232–1259. 361–371.
117. A. A. Boni, L. R. Weingart and S. Evenson, Innovation in 139. G. T. Jun, C. Morrison and P. J. Clarkson, Articulating
an Academic Setting: Designing and Leading a Business current service development practices: a qualitative analysis
Through Market-Focused, Interdisciplinary Teams, Acad- of eleven mental health projects, BMC Health Services
emy of Management Learning & Education, 8(3), 2009, pp. Research, 14(20), 2014, pp. 1–12
407–417. 140. J. Du, S. Jing and J. Liu, Creating shared design thinking
An Overview of the Literature on Design Thinking: Trends and Contributions 1717

process for collaborative design, Journal of Network and Thinking Support: Information Systems Versus Reasoning,
Computer Applications, 35(1), 2012, pp. 111–120. Design Issues, 29(2), 2013, pp. 42–59.
141. K. Dorst, The core of ’design thinking’ and its application, 164. M. F. Li, Fostering design culture through cultivating the
Design Studies, 32(6), 2011, pp. 521–532. user-designers’ design thinking and systems thinking, Sys-
142. O. Akin, Architects’ reasoning with structures and func- temic Practice and Action Research, 15(5), 2002, pp. 385–
tions, Environment and Planning B-Planning & Design, 410.
20(3), 1993, pp. 273–294. 165. S. Papantonopoulos, How system designers think: a study
143. J. Farrer, Smart Dust: Sci-Fi Applications Enabled by of design thinking in human factors engineering, Ergo-
Synthetic Fiber and Textiles Technology, Textile: the nomics, 47(14), 2004, pp. 1528–1548.
Journal of Cloth & Culture, 8(3), 2010, pp. 342–347. 166. I. Jelic, M. N. Pavlovic and M. D. Kotsovost, A study of
144. F. Yisiong, G. Yicong, M. Zeyu and T. Jianrong, Assembly dowel action in reinforced concrete beams, Magazine of
model and design thinking: a study of assembly scheme Concrete Research, 51(2), 1999, pp. 131–141.
based on gene model, Assembly Automation, 33(3), 2013, pp. 167. M. F. Li, Transforming adult learning through critical
272–281. design inquiry, Systemic Practice and Action Research,
145. O. Akin, Psychology of architectural design, Pion, London, 21(5), 2008, pp. 339–358.
1987 168. G. E. Okudan, H. Thevenot, Y. Zhang and M. Schuurman,
146. Y. X. Feng, Y. C. Gao, X. Song and J. R. Tan, Equilibrium Cultures and systems of thought: a preliminary investiga-
Design Based on Design Thinking Solving: An Integrated tion on implications for the design process and its artifacts,
Multicriteria Decision-Making Methodology, Advances in International Journal of Engineering Education, 24(2), 2008,
Mechanical Engineering, 5(0), 2013, pp. 1–8 pp. 295–303.
147. H. Hofmann, C. Busse, C. Bode, M. Henke, Sustainability- 169. M. Cheung, Design Thinking in Healthcare: Innovative
Related Supply Chain Risks: Conceptualization and Man- Product Development through the iNPD Process, Design
agement, Business Strategy and the Environment, 23(3), Journal, 15(3), 2012, pp. 299–324.
2014, pp. 160–172. 170. E. Moretti, Century of the Child: Growing by Design——
148. M. W. Hsu, T. Y. Lo, K. C. Liang, W. K. Lin and W. H. 1900–2000, History of Education & Childrens Literature,
Yang, Exploring the Impact of Surrounding Factors on 7(2), 2012, pp. 579–582.
Design Imagination, International Journal of Engineering 171. M. Morozumi, Y. Shimokawa and R. Homma, Schematic
Education, 30(2), 2014, pp. 319–325. design system for flexible and multi-aspect design thinking,
149. J. T. Kevern, Green Building and Sustainable Infrastruc- Automation in Construction, 11(2), 2002, pp. 147–159.
ture: Sustainability Education for Civil Engineers, Journal 172. C. D. Norman, J. Charnaw-Burger, A. L. Yip, S. Saad and
of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, C. Lombardo, Designing health innovation networks using
137(2), 2011, pp. 107–112. complexity science and systems thinking: the CoNEKTR
150. L. Jankovic, An Emergence-based Approach to Designing, model, Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 16(5),
Design Journal, 15(3), 2012, pp. 325–346. 2010, pp. 1016–1023.
151. B. Çolakoglu and T. Yazar, An innovative design education 173. L. Norros, Developing human factors/ergonomics as a
approach: computational design teaching for architecture, design discipline, Applied Ergonomics, 45(1), 2014, pp. 61–
Metu Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, 24(2), 2007, pp. 71.
159–168. 174. T. Page, Integrating Mobile Device Applications into
152. Y. Huang, Investigating the cognitive behavior of generat- Designers’ Workflow, Studies in Informatics and Control,
ing idea sketches through neural network systems, Design 22(2), 2013, pp. 195–204.
Studies, 29(1), 2008, pp. 70–92. 175. D. L. Roberts and R. Palmer, Developing a visceral market
153. C. K. Lee, W. J. Wu, P. Z. Chang, L. S. Huang and L. S. Lee, learning capability for new product development, Interna-
System perspective of electromechanical devices develop- tional Journal of Market Research, 54(2), 2012, pp. 199–
ment of the NEMS/MEMS group at National Taiwan 220.
University, IEICE Transactions on Electronics, E86C(6), 176. M. Leerberg, V. Riisberg and J. Boutrup, Design responsi-
2003, pp. 979–987. bility and sustainable design as reflective practice: an
154. Y. Kali, P. Goodyear and L. Markauskaiteb, Researching educational challenge, Sustainable Development, 18(5),
design practices and design cognition: contexts, experiences 2010, pp. 306–317.
and pedagogical knowledge-in-pieces, Learning Media and 177. M. N. Ozturk and E. E. Turkkan, The design studio as
Technology, 36(2), 2011, pp. 129–149. teaching/learning medium—A process-based approach,
155. V. K. Viswanathan and J. S. Linsey, Physical Models and International Journal of Art & Design Education, 25(1),
Design Thinking: A Study of Functionality, Novelty and 2006, pp. 96–104.
Variety of Ideas, Journal of Mechanical Design, 134(9), 178. R. J. Cole, A. Oliver and J. Robinson, Regenerative design,
2012, pp. 1–13 socio-ecological systems and co-evolution, Building
156. P. Hall, Disorderly Reasoning in Information Design, Research and Information, 41(2), 2013, pp. 237–247.
Journal of the American Society for Information Science 179. D. J. Pons, A. D. Pons, A. M. Pons and A. J. Pons, Wave-
and Technology, 60(9), 2009, pp. 1877–1882. particle duality: a conceptual solution from the cordus
157. A. Dong, M. Kleinsmann and R. Valkenburg, Affect-in- conjecture, Physics Essays, 25(1), 2012, pp. 132–140.
cognition through the language of appraisals, Design Stu- 180. S. M. G. Puente, M. van Eijck and W. M. G. Jochems,
dies, 30(2), 2009, pp. 138–153. Empirical Validation of Characteristics of Design-Based
158. K. W. Lau, Creativity Training in Higher Design Educa- Learning in Higher Education, International Journal of
tion, Design Journal, 12(2), 2009, pp. 153–169. Engineering Education, 29(2), 2013, pp. 491–503.
159. T. Leinonen and E. Durall, Design Thinking and Colla- 181. G. Royston, Operational Research for the Real World: big
borative Learning, Comunicar, 42(21), 2014, pp. 107–116. questions from a small island, Journal of the Operational
160. N. Lesko, Conceptions of Youth and Children in the Research Society, 64(6), 2013, pp. 793–804.
Theory into Practice Archive, Theory into Practice, 52(1), 182. O. Caliskan, Design thinking in urbanism: Learning from
2013, pp. 22–30. the designers, Urban Design International, 17(4), 2012, pp.
161. B. Li, W. F. Li and Y. Zhang, Study on Modeling of 272–296.
Container Terminal Logistics System Using Agent- 183. T. Taura, E. Yamamoto, M. Y. N. Fasiha, M. Goka, F.
Based Computing and Knowledge Discovery, International Mukai, Y. Nagai and H. Nakashima Constructive simula-
Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks, 5(1), 2009, pp. 36– tion of creative concept generation process in design: a
36. research method for difficult-to-observe design-thinking
162. J. H. Bay, Towards a fourth ecology: Social and Environ- processes, Journal of Engineering Design, 23(4), 2012, pp.
mental Sustainability with Architecture and Urban Design, 297–321.
Journal of Green Building, 5(4), 2010, pp. 176–197. 184. J. H. Liu and X. J. Hu, A reuse oriented representation
163. P. Pauwels, R. De Meyer and J. V. Campenhout, Design model for capturing and formalizing the evolving design
1718 Andre Leme Fleury et al.

rationale, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design 192. R. Steinbeck, Building Creative Competence in Globally
Analysis and Manufacturing, 27(4), 2013, pp. 401–413. Distributed Courses through Design Thinking, Comunicar,
185. W. Stiver, Sustainable Design in a Second Year Engineering 37(19), 2011, pp. 27–34.
Design Course, International Journal of Engineering Educa- 193. J. D. Wareham, X. Busquets and R. D. Austin, Creative,
tion, 26(2), 2010, pp. 378–383. convergent, and social: Prospects for mobile computing,
186. C. Cole-Colander, Designing the customer experience, Journal of Information Technology, 24(2), 2009, pp. 139–
Building Research and Information, 31(5), 2003, pp. 357– 143.
366. 194. L. D. McNair, M. C. Paretti and A. Kakar, Case study of
187. L. Y. Tokman and R. Yamacli, Reality-based design studio prior knowledge: expectations and identity constructions in
in architectural education, Journal of Architectural and interdisciplinary, cross-cultural virtual collaboration,
Planning Research, 24(3), 2007, pp. 245–269. International Journal of Engineering Education, 24(2),
188. Z. Wang, W. P. He, D. H. Zhang and S. H. Yu, Creative 2008, pp. 386–399.
design research of product appearance based on human- 195. Z. Wei, Y. X. Feng, X. Wang, Z. Sun and Y. Sun, Design
machine interaction and interface, Journal of Materials Thinking and Cloud Manufacturing: A Study of Cloud
Processing Technology, 129(1–3), 2002, pp. 545–550. Model Sharing Platform Based on Separated Data Log,
189. C. C. Tsai and C. S. Chai, The ‘‘third’’-order barrier for Advances in Mechanical Engineering, 5, 2013, pp. 44–50.
technology-integration instruction: Implications for tea- 196. J. Borgford-Parnell, K. Deibel and C. J. Atman, From
cher education, Australasian Journal of Educational Tech- Engineering Design Research to Engineering Pedagogy:
nology, 28(6), 2012, pp. 1057–1060. Bringing Research Results Directly to the Students, Inter-
190. J. Wang, The Importance of Aristotle to Design Thinking, national Journal of Engineering Education, 26(4), 2010, pp.
Design Issues, 29(2), 2013, pp. 4–15. 748–759.
191. S. Waks, E. Trotskovsky, N. Sabag and O. Hazzan, 197. G. Farmer, Re-contextualising design: three ways of practi-
Engineering Thinking: The Experts’ Perspective, Interna- cing sustainable architecture, Architectural Research Quar-
tional Journal of Engineering Education, 27(4), 2011, pp. terly, 17(2), 2013, pp. 106–120.
838–851.

André Leme Fleury is an assistant professor at University of São Paulo in Brazil (USP), working in the courses of
Production Engineering, Polytechnic School, and Design, Faculty of Architecture and Urbanism, since 2008. Graduated,
master and PhD in Production Engineering at USP. Research themes include Design Thinking, Startups and Technology
Management.

Henrique Stabile: architect, designer and researcher at FAB LAB SP, GP_ADMD and Devir groups at the University of
Sao Paulo since 2012. He holds a Master of Design and Architecture degree from the Faculty of Architecture and
Urbanism of the University of Sao Paulo.

Marly M. Carvalho is an associate professor at USP, of Production Engineering department, since 1992. She is the
coordinator of Project Management Lab. (http://www.pro.poli.usp.br/lgp). She holds Production engineering degree at
University of São Paulo, M.Sc. and PhD in the same area at Federal University of Santa Catarina, and post doc at
Polytechnic of Milan. She has published 12 books and a number of articles within the same areas.