the value of design led innovation in business. The presence of the CEO also added to the group’s excitement about the possibility for design led change. This workshop was certainly a key turning point of the engagement and improved the organisational ‘climate’ for innovation simply through the common language and unified understanding. Of course maintaining the momentum gained when back in the work environment was challenging and required varying strategies to be trialled on how to extend the conversation and create buy-in with the broader company.
10.5 Contribution to knowledge
The following table outlines gaps in the literature surrounding design led innovation in family owned firms as well as the corresponding contributions this research has made towards filling the gaps.
Literature Gap Research Contribution
More information is required to formulate a strategy targeted at successfully helping family owned businesses to utilise design as a central capability towards innovation.
This research was able to propose some strategies specific to new product development in a family owned business using design thinking as a central capability. The main strategy proposed focussed on aligning new product development with the broader company vision.
There is no research examining the specific framework of design led innovation and its application within a family owned
manufacturing SME.
This research has provided the foundations for more research into the impact and integration of design led innovation into family owned SME’s. The findings of this thesis will
contribute to the development of a formalised integration framework to aid the established theoretical framework.
There is currently limited
empirical information linking the effects of design thinking upon organisational factors including leadership, culture and
knowledge dissemination.
This research has demonstrated that through an embedded action research approach and the engagement of people using a design thinking approach – people can demonstrate altered behaviour towards decision-making and problem solving activities in their day-to-day roles. This would in turn suggest that over time,
this would affect the culture and modes of knowledge distribution.
The hypothesis developed to break down the main research aim and provide better focus and direction to the study area was as follows:
The ability for a family owned SME to sustain and implement design led innovation ultimately depends on the embedded core culture being able to internalise and adapt to the shift in thinking
Research question:
How can organisational barriers be overcome through an action research approach to increase a family owned SME's ability to implement change and sustain a design led approach?
Research sub-question:
Could family firms where decision makers are often long-term proponents of the dominant culture benefit from nurturing innovation from a bottom up approach rather than from top down approach?
Addressing the first research question, culture is defined as a ‘interpretative framework’ through which individuals make sense of their own behaviour’ (Scott and Lane, 2000). Applying this definition retrospectively and in regards to the research question, the findings would suggest that cultural barriers can be overcome within a family owned SME albeit on an individual level, in isolated instances. Participants exposed and engaged directly in the research were able to demonstrate a shift in thinking by critically assessing how their behaviour and decision making processes aligned with the broader company vision. Daily activities were impacted by design led innovation in that participants were motivated to ask ‘why?’ and ‘of what value?’ This in turn, altered behaviour to a small degree. Therefore, the researcher was able to affect the attitudes of individuals through a design led approach, which in
turn increased the organisation’s ability (as a whole) to implement change. Beyond the direct participants however, it was found that engagement was minimal and without conviction. Successful strategies used to promote engagement (particularly with direct participants) in design led innovation included:
• Working on small, attainable projects that demonstrate capability, instil trust and invite collaboration from employees. Tackling smaller projects was found to gain more traction and ‘buy-in’ (particularly in the early stages of embedded research) than taking a strategic business wide orientation with ambitious recommendations for large- scale change.
• Delivering design led innovation workshops in an external, neutral environment where employees can be free from the day-to-day expectations that naturally take precedent in the workplace.
• Demonstrate key techniques, tools and strategies that can be used with the customer to generate insights that are new to the firm. This further establishes the design catalyst’s legitimacy and capability. • Finding ways to ‘measure’ the performance of design led initiatives is
also a key strategy that helped participants to essentially manifest ‘soft assets’ into ‘hard assets’.
Sustaining commitment in the long term however, requires the complete embodiment of design led innovation at the heart of the firm culture. In family owned firms where long histories have created rich and embedded cultures, it cannot be expected that full transition to design led innovation can occur quickly.
Shifting focus to the sub-question, the results challenged the hypothesis that nurturing innovation from a bottom up approach rather than a top down approach could gain greater engagement through less cultural bureaucracy. Despite the research showing that employees who were lower in
organisational hierarchy (and often with less tenure in the firm) had strong predisposed acceptance of innovation and change, the centralisation of power from the top is too dominant to shift influence. Consequently, the integration of a design led approach hinges on the commitment (through a shift in thinking) not just of individuals, but also of key upper management stakeholders.
More specifically, it fundamentally relies on the active participation of the family leadership members. If these people aren’t engaged and visibly endorsing design led innovation, other employees may have a desire to act but also may not have the agency to do so. It is only through the intimate involvement of these key people that the barriers cited throughout this thesis can begin to be addressed and these people empowered to instil a design led culture. Strangely, this presents a paradoxical challenge for the design catalyst in simultaneously gaining trust (generally through following the archetypal procedures and culture) and instigating change (generally through challenging the archetypal procedures and culture).
Finally, sustaining a design led approach implies that change has been initiated and the foundations of design led innovation have been communicated, understood and valued. From this perspective, we believe that while cultural barriers can be overcome across the firm in isolated instances, any execution or implementation plan of design led innovation fundamentally relies on a cohesive and united commitment to change driven by the family.