Peer Review Series: Review #4 of 10:
In this NextD Journal series we are including this article that appeared in Harvard Business Review in 2015 as it seems to have, for better or for worse, set a tonality for other subsequent documents.
The purpose of this NextD Journal series is not to present unified views but rather to share the diversity of perspectives of Peer Reviewers, spanning theory and practice, philosophy and methodology, in order to provide an authentic window into this complex subject. You can can view the original article entitled "Design Thinking Comes of Age" here.
Peer Review Contributors: Mark Bradford, Jeanine Guido, Wolfgang Jonas, Sunil Malhotra, Rita Sue Siegel, GK VanPatter.
Observations:
Mark Bradford:
I was excited when I saw the title of Kolko’s article Design Thinking Comes of Age in the Harvard Business Review (2015) [HBR] … the phrase ‘comes of age’ was enticing! More specifically, I was keen to learn more about how businesses and organisations were embracing/applying a Design Thinking approach to build design-centric cultures. Overall, the article was a useful overview of the past decade for HBR readers (“academic, corporate, and individual managers” (Harvard Business Review, 2019, para. 2). However, if HBR’s aim is to “influence real-world change by maximizing the reach and impact of its essential offering – ideas” (para. 3) – such as design thinking – then the article is problematic on a number of levels.
Over the past decade a considerable amount of literature has been published on the term ‘design thinking’ and this has generated much interest in contexts beyond the traditional design domain. In their major study on the design thinking discourse, Johansson-Skoldberg, Woodilla and Cetinkaya (2013) identify five different discourses referring to design thinking and designerly thinking: as the creation of artefacts; as a reflexive practice; as a problem-solving activity; as a way of reasoning/making sense of things; and, as creation of meaning. Kimbell (2011) points out that there are three main design thinking approaches have emerged in the contemporary era: design thinking as a cognitive style, a theory of design, or as an organizational resource. She also argues that there is no clear definition of design thinking (I would have expected Kolko to have defined design thinking for HBR readers).
Furthermore, design thinking and the organisations who have heavily invested in this space in the contemporary era, may not be new to HBR readers. A quick search on the HBR website generated: 371 results on ‘IDEO’; 367 results on ‘Double Diamond’; 55 results on ‘Stanford d.school’; and, a massive 7928 results on ‘design thinking’! To avoid contributing to any confusion around design thinking, HBR editors should have require that Kolko acknowledge some of the key people/sources involved in design thinking historically (that have inspired and influenced his own creative practice), to transparently build on their historical work in a relevant and rigorous way for HBR readers. This is important so HBR readers don’t think Kolko is introducing design thinking as his “new” idea (I’m being pragmatic … the reality is that not everyone has heard of the notion of design thinking). I would expect at least a few references.
Kolko (2015) suggests that design thinking – “as a set of principles” – offers the “best tools” for creating and developing a responsive, flexible organizational culture” (p. 66). This sounds promising, but the article only skims the surface identifying only a few basic design thinking tools and techniques that don’t really do justice to the exciting range available to people depending on their context. Furthermore, while it’s interesting to read how large brand-name corporations and big strategy-consulting firms are adopting “design,” in my experience design thinking approaches are also increasingly being embraced by smaller businesses, organisations, and groups.
In the section ‘What Is a Design-Centric Culture?’ Kolko usefully identifies that “a design-centric culture transcends design as a role” (p. 67). Yes! This is crucial … although, I would have liked more detail about the ‘who’ and ‘how’ of designing within the contemporary design-centric culture? For Kolko, prototypes “may be digital, physical, or diagrammatic, but in all cases they are a way to communicate ideas” [and] “diagrams such as customer journey maps explore the problem space, prototypes explore the solution space” (p. 68). Interestingly, in my work context, we are increasingly open to using prototyping to generate understanding about people in the problem space (or, the first quarter of the Double Diamond model called the ‘Discovery Phase’ (Design Council, 2018)). Design thinking is flexible and exciting! It’s not a linear path. Indeed, IDEO maintain that “the elements of design thinking combine to form an iterative approach – one you can try out and adapt to suit your needs” (2017, para. 1).
Kolko states: “As industry giants such as IBM and GE realize that software is a fundamental part of their businesses, they are also recognizing the extraordinary levels of complexity they must manage. Design thinking is an essential tool for simplifying and humanizing. It can’t be extra; it needs to be a core competence” (p. 69). Design exemplars such as Apple, GE Software – while inspiring – require more contextualizing and further extrapolation for HBR readers. For example, you mention that “in November 2013 IBM opened a design studio in Austin, Texas – part of the company’s $100 million investment in building a massive design organization,” and IBM intended to hire 1,000 designers. Impressive! In the two years between 2013-2015 (when the article was published), how did IBM progress towards achieving that goal? To be honest, by the end of the article I was confused about whether the key message was about design thinking or businesses and organisations building design-centric cultures (integrating design thinking?).
I enjoyed reading how Kolko’s honest professional experiences informed the ‘Design Thinking Comes of Age’ article (2015). However, when something like design thinking is pitched as ‘coming of age,’ this means the approach/principles of design thinking have reached a stage of development at which people accept it as being important, valuable etc. From my perspective, I feel the article is interesting and offers a number of insights, but is a little too generic to be a usable resource around the subject of design thinking for HBR readers.
*See Mark Bradford Reference Links below.
Jeanine Guido:
I’ve read many articles about Design Thinking, what it is and what it is not, and I like the honesty that John Kolko brings to the concept of design thinking in this piece. As a trained designer with experience at a design consultancy, he brings up some very valid points about the value of design thinking and why businesses are embracing it.
“There’s a shift under way in large organizations, one that puts design much closer to the center of the enterprise. But the shift isn’t about aesthetics. It’s about applying the principles of design to the way people work.”
Although, most companies still associate design with tangible outcomes, it is true that the comment we used to hear “designers are the guys that make things pretty” is for the most part gone so I like the fact that John Kolko tries to take the conversation beyond the assumed function of design: products and services, by addressing the implication of design in “the way people work,” which is perhaps the biggest impact design is making and the least discussed aspect of it.
In his attempt to address it, John speaks about how to create design-centric cultures and he outlines 5 principles that everyone within an organization need to embrace:
Focus on users’ experiences, especially their emotional ones;
Create models to examine complex problems;
Use prototypes to explore potential solutions;
Tolerate failure;
Exhibit thoughtful restraint
I find that providing some sort of ‘evaluative criteria’ (in the form of principles) to help determine and/or assess a company’s ‘readiness’ for design is helpful as most companies trying to adopt design thinking do not know what to consider or the implications of it to their existing organizations and cultures. But he also makes another and perhaps even more important statement: “A design-centric culture transcends design as a role, imparting a set of principles to all people who help bring ideas to life.”
The role of design is not what’s important, what’s important are the skills associated with it. Design, as an applied creativity practice, is gaining traction in mainstream business because its universal principles (which John Kolko attributes them to design thinking) for solving problems are more suitable for the levels of societal complexity facing us today. I would argue that these principles have always been more suitable, it just happened that mass production methods, and other mid-to-late 20th century events, overtook society and the business world and relegated the process of invention to the R&D division or to outside shops, i.e. the ‘creatives.’
Further, by its own nature, design is a collaborative activity and in cultures based on individual achievement (like the US,) the concept of group collaboration can be threatening and highly disruptive. It is not just a matter of adopting 5 principles, it is a matter of changing behaviors at a massive scale so we can affect the system, the system being the modern company. Changing behaviors is really difficult; therein lies the biggest challenge AND the complexity when adopting design thinking.
John Kolko mentions in the article that, “This new approach [design thinking] is in large part a response to the increasing complexity of modern technology and modern business.”
Which is true, but the levels of complexity have more to do with the limitations of the systems we have created to support us. The scholar, Carlota Perez, has written extensively on the co-relation between technology and finance, and she points out that “throughout history, invention [technology] has driven long waves of change [i.e. such as the Industrial Revolution] but they are not economic cycles, but much wider systemic phenomenon where social and institutional factors play key roles in first resisting and then facilitating the unfolding of the potential of each technological revolution.”*
If the role of design is to help make sense of complexity as we interact with systems, like John Kolko states, we need to extend the conversation from level 1, the ‘end-users,’ to level 2, the ‘system’ so we are better equipped to address systemic challenges. The underlying behaviors ingrained within organizations are the main obstacle preventing people from shifting perspective.** To become a design-centric organization is not about being able to design better products and services that meet the end-user requirements, to be a design-centric organization means to embrace the underlying behavioral traits and skills that make us human.
“A set of principles collectively known as design thinking—empathy with users, a discipline of prototyping, and tolerance for failure chief among them—is the best tool we have for creating those kinds of interactions and developing a responsive, flexible organizational culture.”
Empathy with users (putting ourselves in someone else’s shoes so we can be compassionate with ourselves and others) a discipline of prototyping (playing/making/imagination), and tolerance for failure (patience and acceptance) are all human skills that require self-awareness and training in order to develop them; skills that, sadly, have been zapped away by current corporate culture. Luckily, there are many effective tools, design thinking being one of them, that can be used to help revive and hone those skills. What design thinking brings forth that is ‘novel’ to mainstream business is the collaborative ‘making while thinking’ approach which, at the end of the day, is really the natural way by which humans solve problems.
As part of this design readiness approach, John Kolko points out the challenges organizations will have when adopting design:
“…design doesn’t solve all problems. It helps people and organizations cut through complexity. It’s great for innovation. It works extremely well for imagining the future. But it’s not the right set of tools for optimizing, streamlining, or otherwise operating a stable business.”
I appreciate that he is making a distinction of when and why design thinking is helpful as many organizations, in their race to adopt design thinking practices, do not fully comprehend the concept and much less the implications that it brings to the organization. He is right, design thinking is not the holy grail and it will not solve all problems, but it is useful in the early stages of the problem-solving process to understand, simplify, and align.
It is an upstream innovation method, so I appreciate that he is pointing out the obvious: Design tools are not the right set of tools for “optimizing, streamlining, or otherwise operating a stable business.” I have experienced how companies, and uninformed people for that matter, misuse these tools in an attempt to or as an excuse to streamline processes in the name of speed, which is a blatant contradiction; if you are inventing, you can’t possibly be streamlining.
Now the article is several years old, and since then, the adoption of design thinking has become more widespread, but I would say the article is still relevant and it provides good information. By now we have come to realize the limitations of design thinking for precisely the problems John Kolko mentions in his article: “Think about how much tougher it is to reinvent a health care delivery system than to design a shoe.” It is true, reinventing a health care delivery system requires a whole different set of skills, methods, criteria and experts for that matter, and design thinking may not be perhaps the most appropriate method to call upon; nonetheless, considering where most companies are today, he makes a good case for Design Thinking.
*See Jeanine Guido Reference Links below.
Wolfgang Jonas:
Jon Kolko presents an up-to-date and quite accurate description of Design Thinking, which is one of the repeatedly propagated mind shifts in management. He does this in a clear business perspective. This perspective requires, to a certain extent, the cultivation of certain blind spots. It means hiding essential areas of the overall system. It also means neglecting a truly human-, or even social-centered perspective.
The development towards the application of Design Thinking is described as a people-oriented reaction to almost “natural” changes, especially increasing external complexity. But it is, according to Kolko, also (even more?) a strategic instrument to create competitive advantages that should generate economic growth in supersaturated consumer societies. Rational planning is no longer sufficient, abductive reasoning means enduring ambiguity, embracing risk, and tolerating failure: “Leaders need to create a culture that allows people to take chances and move forward without a complete, logical understanding of a problem.”
Design should be aware that environments and contextual conditions are permanently changing. “Human-centeredness” proves to be a useful, but perhaps no longer sufficient catchword in the current context. My early tentative schema of design contexts / phases / situations (Jonas 1997) with three temporal phases manifests in several dimensions such as the relation of need, consumer-company relation, the function of design, the concept of problem, method, theory, etc. Regarding the relation of need between products and people:
- We had - and still have - a situation of linearity (need), with products more or less successfully solving problems related to (basic) needs.
- We had - and still have - a situation of circularity (need of need), with products promising to solve problems, to give status, meaning, happiness, etc. and - even more important - serving as catalysts in the accelerating production-consumption-cycle. This is about the economically motivated creation of new ways to satisfy a limited number of basic needs.
- And we are facing a situation of complexity (need of orientation), with contexts and environments that make sense or do not. Current futures studies validate this early claim and emphasize that the aim of futures studies is not to predict but to provide orientation in complex and dynamic environments.
Yet, designers are not really good in satisfying needs without drawing on the proven medium of material products. In Kolko´s text there is one tentative suggestion that could be interpreted accordingly, when he suggests to “exhibit thoughtful restraint”. This is something like the once chic “less is more” (Mies van der Rohe): “By removing features, a company offers customers a clear, simple experience.”
More important, global capitalism is unable to consider alternative, reductive concepts of de-growth. While heading towards Design 3.0 and 4.0 we have not really overcome or at least questioned Design 1.0 or 2.0. So, Design Thinking as presented is a euphemism that, under the flimsy guise of philanthropy (need of orientation), promotes the perpetuation of the need for need.
Design Thinking gives more and more the appearance of a label fraud, its character as actually antiquated fossil of neo-liberalism is hard to hide any more. The cheap statement that “Value propositions turn from promises of utility into promises of feeling.” seems strangely poor meanwhile. It becomes obvious that this seemingly new paradigm for innovation is in fact a strategy to prevent radical change. The largely contentless fetish “innovation” has to be kept alive. The outdated value-base of Design Thinking remains untouched. It is a strategy that aims at conserving the status quo for a while, ignoring the crisis of overconsumption, of global injustice, of foreseeable environmental disasters.
On the question whether this document contributes to the clarity or confusion around the topic of Design Thinking, I would say: It contributes to the clarification, because it exposes its character as an ideology, which preserves the untenable status quo.
*See Wolfgang Jonas Reference Links below.
Sunil Malhotra:
Using design and design thinking interchangeably, compounds the confusion around design thinking. In my design thinking sessions, I start with, “designers make bad design thinkers.” (This is for another discussion.)
The other problem I have is when people try to describe design thinking by breaking it down (analytical thinking) into its elements: using a reductionist mindset in describing design thinking, and pandering to business folks — indirectly claiming that “Design thinking is a tool you can use to get out of the muck and get ahead in the game,” seems like grabbing at straws. Label: Silver bullet
Giving design thinking the colour of problem solving instead of problem finding can only result in a codified process/methodology. That said, I am willing to cut Kolko slack seeing that this is a 2015 article; much has changed in the business landscape since, and COVID-19 has accelerated the need to understand design thinking as key in this exponential era.
A systemic view is needed to upgrade design thinking to its vital role in straddling 4IR (I hate the term) and leveraging accelerating technology convergences using a planet-first paradigm. Design thrives in chaos and can gain from disorder by its very character of being collaborative, interdisciplinary and creative.
In one sentence, design thinking (it’s a catchy oxymoron) is using current technology and making interactions “frictionless” in an eco-positive way. Design Thinking is less about design as a skill and more about the DNA that draws people to become designers. Design is first about being, and then about doing. Design thinking is when both come together.
As such Kolko’s definition of design thinking only needs an upgrade to be relevant in a post-pandemic world.
Rita Sue Siegel:
Kolko sets a stage for his discussion of Design thinking that does not mystify or confuse, in my opinion. Anyone can understand and connect to his description of design thinking. He writes: “I could list a dozen other types of complexity that businesses grapple with every day. But here’s what they all have in common: People need help making sense of them. Specifically, people need their interactions with technologies and other complex systems to be simple, intuitive, and pleasurable.”
The insertion of Shrage’s comment-”design is social, not personal,” is not helpful in this context, as Kolko is holding the reader’s hand up until this point with clear businesslike/descriptive language.
The quote of Tony Fadell is also not helpful-Whose gut is the feeling coming from? This could create a puzzle for most unenlightened CEO’s but it is better explained by Jack Dorsey, further along.
Kolko achieves more clarity than confusion, unique when writing about design thinking.
GK VanPatter:
The mixed up nature of this subject can give anyone, even seasoned veterans a headache! There are so many convulsions and convolutions in the subject “literature”, such as it is, that make sensemaking difficult.
There are probably 5 or 6 documents from this 2015 period that became important in terms of the public receiving clarity or confusion around the subject of Design Thinking, what it was, and where it was, in terms of development at that time. For better or for worse this high profile article that appeared in Harvard Business Review was one of those documents. It contains some good intention, considerable effort as well as a narrow, somewhat misinformed casting of the broad subject that was already activated and in play at that time.
Very similar to numerous documents by others that would subsequently follow, (seen in this NextD Journal Peer Review Series) this HBR article reflects the author’s personal operational knowledge, primarily from Design Arena 2 (product, service, experience creation) being earnestly extrapolated in an effort to create universal meaning for broader Design Thinking. It’s a musical score that is a bit of a frankensteinian opera. :-)
The largely missed opportunity for this HBR article is more or less stated in the opening: “The [Design Thinking] approach, once used primarily in product design, is now infusing corporate culture.” and “In large organizations, design is moving closer to the center of the enterprise.”
MISSED OPPORTUNITY
That was true in 2015 and is certainly true today. Unfortunately that ambitious notion does not exactly materialize in the author’s descriptions. Certainly the ambition was there in 2015. After making various case-study like references related to product and experience creation, the article never quite connects to that opening (click-bait) ambition.
For the purposes of this review, a rough guess would be that 95% of the article text describes the various operational procedures of conventional product, service, experience creation with a couple of notable additions, (not lost on Humantific) such as need for increased sensemaking. Since the author is a former Scient colleague we were happy, but not surprised, to see at least that part.
In the article, the cultural aspect is described as need to understand, appreciate and adhere to the notion that this is what Design Thinking is (product, service, experience creation) tempered with a flash of surprisingly direct honesty that the authors narrow interpretation of Design Thinking process “doesn’t solve all problems.”
This is as close as the author gets to pointing out that it was already known in 2015 that regardless of what we might call such methodologies...product, service and experience design methods are geared to the solving of product, service and experience challenges and thus "cannot solve all problems." Repackaging those methods as Design Thinking did not change that. Being practice-based methodologists we refer to such methods as being assumption-boxed.
This never gets clearly stated in the HBR article. Instead the author detours into the more convenient, more palatable notion that the then current Design Thinking is "not the right set of tools for optimizing, streamlining, or otherwise operating a stable business." The truth is, it was well known in 2015 that many challenges exist in organizations and societies that are not related to product, service or experience creation not just optimizing and streamlining. The article author sidesteps that clarity.
TWO FORKS IN THE ROAD
In that paragraph the article shifts from journalism to marketing. There in that deflective skipping over a problem finding/identification opportunity for design education in particular was side-stepped and lost. It would not matter except unfortunately that sidestepping cascaded forward, affecting many subsequent documents.
In high contrast, an article that appeared two years earlier on March 7, 2013 in the Stanford Daily entitled "Why the d.School has it Limits" is more journalistic, less marketing in nature. It stated quote: "The way the method is currently taught, however, preordains the result." and "The answer to any [d.school] problem unfailingly is a product or a service." and "Some problems are indeed best solved with a product or a service. Yet other problems need systemic solutions (e.g. political action)."
That rather unsung Stanford Daily article stated the issues facing design / design thinking and its related education much more clearly that the high flying HBR article appearing two years later. Two forks in the road can be seen there: One challenge identification/acceptance oriented and the other marketing oriented.
A complicated mess to be sure. In the context of this review we might choose not to walk by that moment. That half-baked "cannot solve all problems" declaration had/has such significant implications it is worthy of a time out right here..:-)
If true, as it was declared in the 2013 Stanford Daily article, one might speculate on what that might mean? If it became recognized in the community as an actual problem condition what might some solution avenues look like? Some example solutions might be: 1. Stay in that limitations box of “cannot solve all problems”, 2. Redepict what the actual limitations are, 3. Acknowledge a need for methods redesign or 4. Pretend that no such limitations exist around such methods. Take a wild guess which options became most popular in design education going forward from the 2015 HBR article. Which became most popular in the practice arenas?
In terms of design-centric journalism the notion of “doesn’t solve all problems” was by far the most unusual. If truth be told here, it would be that the “doesn’t solve all problems” notion was most often omitted by other designerly writers, journalistic and otherwise going forward from 2015. That omission, even appearing at the level of various PhD dissertations, has played a huge part in the Design Thinking confusion story in the public realm and also in academia, as well as the story regarding the need, the urgency for methods evolution.
Adding additional layers of spin the HBR article author went on to even suggest in subsequent writings that Design Thinking as methodology, as product, service, experience creation is perfectly suited to so-called "wicked problems". By 2016 the big spin narrative around Design Thinking was fully activated in the marketplace. It does not take a rocket designer to draw a direct line between the big spin narrative and the stifled recognition of need for methods change in graduate design education.
Truth be told; the design communities, especially design education are still grappling with the consequences of the big spin narrative even today. Big spin was change avoidance that much of the graduate design education community fully embraced. It was an effect that disoriented many.
Ultimately this connects to a challenge that we recognize has been facing the design community for some time and that is that 95% of the combined academic and practice community seems to be focused on selling various versions of current state design and design thinking and only 5% are working on fixing, evolving and redesigning methods to better meet the challenges of rising complexity.
Until a better balance evolves, the community is going to be stuck with creative marketing of existing conditions. Unfortunately that is not fair to a new generation of arriving students and has not really met the needs of the marketplace for at least a decade.
Years out from the appearance of the big spin narrative in HBR the community is just now beginning to finally acknowledge the disconnect between conventional Design / Design Thinking methods and diverse challenges of high complexity. The ongoing embrace and promotion of the big spin narrative significantly stifled and slowed community recognition of need for change and methodological forward motion.
CENTRAL ODDITY
Beyond all of that community dysfunction, a central oddity of the 2015 HBR article was that there was no reference to any part of the design community already working beyond the paradigm of product, service, creation that the author was so familiar with when the article was written. That was always a bit of a head scratcher. If the article was supposed to be about design industry knowledge around culture building why present such a foreshortened view?
It is no secret, within the industry that several of the documents from that time period were quite cliquey, reflecting not what was going on in the actual community, but rather what a small group of folks thought was going on among that small group of folks.
The defacto effect of that HBR article was to present a rather skewed picture, not only regarding the applicability of existing conventional design methods, but also regarding the state of culture building knowledge evolution in the industry. The HBR article reflected where the author was in 2015 and not where the design community was in terms of already working in the terrain of “Organizational Culture” beyond the assumptions of product, service, experience creation. Firms such as Second Road, S&Y Partners and Humantific were already operating in the realm of culture building far beyond that narrow paradigm.
The narrowly skewed perspective on where the community was regarding culture building also cascaded forward into many other subsequent documents on this subject.
Suffice it to say that as a musical score the HBR opera; "Design Thinking Comes of Age” is a rather bumpy ride, ending with an oddly distorted and foreshortened finale. At the end of the finale crescendo, 2259 words out, there was, for those in the community operating beyond that narrow picture in 2015, a profound sense of HUH?
Regarding the central question we are reviewing here in this series: From my perspective this HBR article was a 30/70 split...30% some intro clarity for absolute new comers and 70% adding confusion, often via the by-now well known big spin as well as by truncation, narrowing and omission.
*See GK VanPatter Reference Links below:
CLOSING:
As these reviews clearly embody, even within the community Design / Design Thinking is never in just one place at any given time.
Stay tuned for more NextD Journal Peer Reviews coming soon.
REFERENCE LINKS:
*Mark Bradford Reference Links:
Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked Problems in Design Thinking. Design Issues, 8, 5-21.
Cross, N. (2007). Designerly ways of knowing. Berlin ; London: Springer.
Design Council. (2018). The Design Process: What is the Double Diamond? Retrieved January 29 2019 from https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/news-opinion/design-process-what-double-diamond
Harvard Business Review. (2019). Company Overview. Retrieved January 29 2019 from https://hbr.org/corporate/about
IDEO. (2017). Design Thinking Approach. Retrieved January 31 2019 from https://www.ideou.com/pages/design-thinking
Johansson-Skoldberg, U., Woodilla, J., & Cetinkaya, M. (2013). Design Thinking: Past, Present and Possible Futures. Creativity and Innovation Management(2), 121-146.
Kimbell, L. (2011). Rethinking Design Thinking: Part I. Design and Culture, 3(3), 285-306.
Kolko, J. (2015). Design Thinking Comes of Age. Harvard Business Review, (September 2015), 66-71. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2015/09/design-thinking-comes-of-age
Krippendorff, K. (2006). The Semantic Turn: A New Foundation for Design. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor and Francis
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner : how professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books, Inc.
Simon, H. A. (1996). The sciences of the artificial (3 ed.). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
*Jeanine Guido Reference Links:
* Carlota Perez (2002). Technological Revolutions and Financial Capital: The Dynamics of Bubbles and Golden Ages. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc. Pp 225. http://www.carlotaperez.org/downloads/reviews/Mennis_review_newv2.pdf
** 2018 MIT Sloan Management Review and Deloitte Digital global research study
*Wolfgang Jonas Reference Links:
Jonas, W. (1997) Viable Structures and Generative Tools – an approach towards ´designing designing´. In: Proceedings of EAD conference, Stockholm, April 1997
*GK VanPatter Reference Links:
NextDesign Futures Library 2002-2021
Комментарии