Abstract:

The global pandemic caused by the SARS-CoV2 demanded the transformation of well-established forms of collaboration typically taking place in presence to digital and completely virtual formats, for example with regard to the recently emerging methods and practices of creativity and collaboration.

Corresponding transformations are not trivial, since these methods typically rely on collaboration, intensive social interaction, and proximity. Design Thinking (DT) is one example for an approach and methodology targeted to innovation and to the solution of „wicked“ problems (Brown, 2008), not only in the design of products, but also with respect to social contexts, which has become very popular in the last years. A core approaches to the virtualization of DT are rare up to now, often focusing on semi-virtual formats, where digital tools are being used in certain phases of collaboration, only (e.g., Redlich et al., 2018). Research on fully virtual formats has been rare so far (e.g., Redlich, 2019). Usability of collaboration tools was identified as major requirement to transfer DT in the digital domain. In addition, according to Redlich (2019), clearly recognizable inhibitions in comparison to analog DT were that the participants had a strong sense of time exhaustion, which occurred in comparison to analog DT.

Basically, the studies emphasize to conduct further experiments with DT and virtual DT, which also compare and analyze the performance and the results.
In the last months, we performed a number of completely virtual DT workshops with different groups of participants, consisting of project groups with stakeholders from industry, research, as well as students, in different areas. These workshops were accompanied by an analysis of the acceptance and satisfaction of participants, but also on the effectivity of applied methods and tools. Guiding research questions were: Which general methods of the DT approach can be transferred to a virtual context and how? What virtual tools may support the virtualization of these methods, and where are the restrictions? In, our research, a special focus was put on communication between participants and corresponding effects. In addition, it is our understanding that an analysis of possibilities on the virtualization of DT approach requires an in-depth analysis of the individual methods applied in the different phases of the DT process, each on the basis how to adapt it to the digital domain, or how to replace a corresponding by other elements better suited for virtualization.
The the full paper we will provide insights on how to successfully virtualize DT, to what extent it is possible to virtualize methods of DT, and how to adapt them appropriately to the specifics of the virtual domain. We will present results from user evaluations of DT workshops.

References:
[1] Brown, T. (2008). Design Thinking. Harvard Business Review. June.
[2] Conrad, K. (2000). Instructional Design for Web-based Training. HRD Press.
[3] Liedtka, J. (2017). Evaluating the Impact of Design Thinking in Action. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2017(1), 10264.
[4] Redlich, B., Dorawa, D., Siemon, D., & Lattemann, C. (2018). Towards semi-virtual design thinking-creativity in dispersed Multicultural and Multidisciplinary innovation project teams. In Proceedings of the 51st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 717-726).
[5] Redlich, M. (2019). Performing Design Thinking Virtually – A Socio-Cognitive View on Virtual Design Thinking.

Keywords:

Design Thinking, Virtual Design Thinking Workshops, Design Thinking Methods, Virtual Team Collaboration, Virtualization, Distance Learning.