Systems, Design, and Entrepreneurial Thinking: Comparative Frameworks
Samir Patel1 and *Khanjan Mehta1
1
Humaintarian Engineering and Social Entrepreneurship (HESE) Program, The Pennsylvania
State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, USA
*Correspondence should be addressed to
Khanjan Mehta
Humanitarian Engineering and Social Entrepreneurship (HESE) Program
The Pennsylvania State University
213U Hammond Bldg, University Park, PA 16802
Phone: +1 814 863 4426
Email: khanjan@engr.psu.edu
Key words: Design Thinking, Systems Thinking, Entrepreneurial Thinking, Emergence
ABSTRACT
The philosophies of design thinking, entrepreneurial thinking and systems thinking have
widespread application in diverse fields. However, due to the inherently abstract rhetoric and
lack of commonly accepted frameworks, these philosophies are often considered buzzwords and
fads. This article deconstructs the rhetoric and literature from leaders of these three philosophies
and identifies their fundamental tenets. A conceptual framework that captures the differences and
convergences between design thinking, entrepreneurial thinking, and systems thinking is
presented. A series of four case studies derived from diverse settings like healthcare, agriculture
and social networks further illustrate these interconnections. The article argues that the emergent
integration of these philosophies, as captured in the fundamental tenets, presents the most
compelling opportunities for the practical application of these theoretical frameworks.
INTRODUCTION
In our increasingly interconnected global environment, firms have started to view change and
innovation as a necessity in order to survive in an intensely competitive business environment.
Firms in diverse fields from technology to healthcare to education foster innovation through a
variety of strategies that relate to the philosophies and praxis of design thinking, entrepreneurial
thinking, and systems thinking. Although these philosophies date back hundreds of years, there
has been a recent resurgence in their application. Many organizations and individuals have found
their ‘silver bullet’ by adopting one or more of these philosophies; however, others have
concluded that they are clichés and buzzwords in corporate environments.
Rather than thinking of these philosophies as buzzwords or picking one over another, we can
consider them as diverse conceptual frameworks, the essence and lessons from which can be
applied in a practical manner. Reflecting the spectrum of purely theoretical to extremely practical
ways in which they can be employed, design thinking, entrepreneurial thinking, and systems
thinking are simultaneously conceptualized as frameworks, philosophies, and methodologies. For
example, the design philosophies might yield us formulas or provide us with implicitly deliberate
and structured innovation processes that can be used in a practical manner. This structured
approach is a thinking process, and it is why we refer to design as design thinking,
entrepreneurship as entrepreneurial thinking, and systems as systems thinking. Although there is
substantial literature surrounding these methodologies, there has been a lack of standardization in
the rhetoric about how design thinking (Nussbaum, 2011), entrepreneurial thinking (Gelderen
and Masurel, 2012), and systems thinking (Boardman and Sauser, 2008) can actually be applied.
Recent work has aimed to connect design and systems thinking (Pourdehnad et al., 2011), but
there is no literature to date that connects all three methodologies. This article seeks to
deconstruct the essence of the three philosophies into core tenets that will effectively yield a
better understanding of each individual framework. After identifying the underlying tenets of
each framework, the article presents multiple case studies to illustrate how these tenets are
distinct yet interrelated. The ultimate goal is to convey how the concurrent application of these
frameworks can potentially yield integrative and emergent properties that inform and inspire
practical and innovative solutions.
THE FRAMEWORKS: DESIGN THINKING, SYSTEMS THINKING AND
ENTREPRENEURIAL THINKING
DESIGN THINKING
By its own nature, design thinking is a conceptual idea: say ‘design’ to people across a table, and
they tend to smile politely and think ‘fashion.’ Say ‘design thinking,’ and they stop smiling and
tend to lean away from you (Nussbaum, 2011). The origins of design thinking have dated back to
ancient Greece and Rome where innovators used design as a process to build temples and
artifacts for their constituents. During the 20th century, the complexities of developing
technologies that had the potential to transform the world caused academics and practitioners
alike to seek some structure for the design process. In today’s modern world, everything from the
clothing industry to the banking industry is affected by design in some way (Beckman and Barry,
2007). In this paper, we think of design thinking as a systematic, intelligent process that
designers employ to generate and evaluate concepts for devices, systems, or processes. Design
thinking is often characterized by the ability to tolerate ambiguity, maintain a big picture
mentality, and make decisive choices (Dym et al., 2005).
There is a lack of consensus amongst prominent champions of design thinking about its precise
definition and how the process should be implemented. Tim Brown, CEO and president of
IDEO, argues that design thinking is a ‘methodology that imbues the full spectrum of innovation
activities with a human-centered design ethos’ (Brown, 2008). That is, design thinking uses
systematic, thorough, and direct observations to match people’s needs with what is
technologically sustainable. Similarly, Jeanne Liedtka contrasts the role of design thinking with
the role of the scientific process stating that ‘most fundamental difference between [design and
science] is that design thinking deals primarily with what does not yet exist; while scientists deal
with explaining what is’. That is, scientists discover the laws that govern today's reality, while
designers work to try to invent a different future. Thus, while both methods of thinking are
hypothesis-driven, the design hypothesis differs from the scientific hypothesis (Liedtka, 2000).
Modern day design thinking has also taken a much more global tone: in our multidisciplinary
and multicultural environments, designers are critical to uncovering unexplored areas of
innovation. In this context, design thinking yields a methodology that all parties can embrace: the
framework becomes the glue that holds these kinds of communities together and makes them
successful (Kelley and VanPatter, 2005).
Since Thomas Edison’s application of design thinking in the development of the light bulb, the
methodology has been associated with the engineering and product development domain.
However, the modern day application of design thinking has expanded its scope to many sectors.
In business, Kraft foods used the philosophy of design thinking to restructure its supply chain
management operations for more efficient processing (Brown and Katz, 2009). On the other
hand, Procter & Gamble, Cirque du Soleil, and Research In Motion (RIM) are amongst a handful
of companies that apply design thinking as a source of inspiration to produce breakthrough
innovations (Martin, 2009a). In the healthcare industry, Kaiser Permanente, a large health care
provider, applied design thinking to improve the quality of patient care by re−examining how
their nurses manage shift changes and the impact it has on patients (Brown, 2008). On a larger
scale, design thinking in the United States is being implemented at many levels of the
educational system to create richer and more effective pedagogical environments (Carroll et al.,
2010).
While it is evident that design thinking is being implemented in many different contexts and
sectors, the question is what specific value does design thinking add? In other words, why is
design thinking important? As we evaluated case studies of design thinking, the question that
arose was whether these solutions emerged from design thinking or the interplay of design
thinking, entrepreneurial thinking, and systems thinking? From a theoretical perspective, design
thinking is a fundamental component of innovation. It narrows lofty and noble goals into what is
technically feasible and has a sustainable business strategy. Design thinking applies the ideas of
design as agents of change in order to convert need into demand (Brown and Katz, 2009). The
rigorous methodology of design thinking works as a mechanism to nurture future leaders, but
most importantly, design thinking brings creative techniques to the public for the greater good.
This great strength of design thinking is, paradoxically, its biggest fault (Nussbaum, 2011). Since
design thinking lacks a linear and incremental methodology like Six Sigma and other efficiencybased processes, it is difficult to take advantage of the benefits of design thinking.
SYSTEMS THINKING
Systems thinking emerged in the twentieth century through the critique of reductionism. The
basic idea behind reductionism is to break down various phenomena into their constituent parts
and to study the cause and effect relationships between those constituent parts. Thus, at its very
beginning, emergence and interrelatedness are at the core of systems thinking (Flood, 2010).
Systems thinking is a process of understanding interactions and influences between various
components in a system. It may also be defined as an approach to solve complex problems, by
addressing every issue as a component of a larger system, rather than an independent aspect with
non-related consequences (Ackoff and Addison, 2010). There is no uniform body of thinking
related to systems thinking; it is not any one thing, but a set of tools, habits, and practices that
help in mapping dynamic complexities. Systems thinking focuses on the cyclical cause and
effects, as opposed to the linear cause and effect relationships (Checkland and Checkland, 1999).
Like design thinking, systems thinking is an inherently abstract concept for most people.
Interestingly enough, the human brain is essentially ‘wired’ for systems thinking. Humans can
think about relationships and communities, and we are incredibly good at examining those
relationships. For example, if you ask a 14 year old girl to explain the complex system of
friendships and romantic relationships in her social group, you will get an answer whose
complexity puts many six-figure stock analysts to shame. However, there is often the fear of the
logic of systems thinking getting lost during its transition into application. This disconnect
occurs because it is usually more difficult to apply systems thinking than to think in a linear
fashion. For example, in pest management, a linear model of thinking would lead one to assess
the problem by addressing the primary cause, insects. However, a systems thinking model in this
scenario would examine how the primary cause (insects) are interrelated to different subsystems
(other animals) and then would address the problem from that perspective (Aronson, 1996). In
this regard, the linear model would address the problem by using an insecticide, whereas the
systems thinking model would involve an integrated pest management solution that involves
controlling the insect eating the crops by introducing more of its predators into the area. As
humans, we instinctively use systems thinking when looking at social relationships, but this
methodology can be applied in other unique contexts. From a pedagogical perspective, systems
thinking is crucial for getting students to think ‘outside the box’. It is precisely for this reason
that a systems approach is essential in schools because some components of education cannot
sensibly be separated, as the reductionist approach assumes (Newhofer, 2003).
ENTREPRENEURIAL THINKING
Entrepreneurial thinking was born from the work of the French economist Richard Cantillion,
who in the 17th century was known for exercising acute business judgment in the face of
uncertainty. Nearly 100 years later, the English economist Adam Smith branched out the idea of
entrepreneurial thinking by defining an entrepreneur as one who ‘is frugal to accumulate capital
and is an agent of slow but steady progress’ (Casson, 2010). The core of Adam Smith’s
definition of an entrepreneur and entrepreneurial thinking still resonates today. At times,
entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial thinking seem to have mystical connotations. However,
entrepreneurial thinking is not magic and is not innately passed on. Entrepreneurial thinking is a
discipline and, like any discipline, it can be learned (Michaels, 2012). More than anything else,
entrepreneurial thinking is a mindset that emphasizes recognizing opportunity and learning to
capitalize on it. This methodology is not just a passing fad, and it does not lead to quick success.
It serves more as a guiding light as a company attempts to find its own unique path.
In most industries, nations, and markets, entrepreneurs challenge existing assumptions to
generate value in more innovative and creative ways. Organizations need to renew themselves in
order to sustain competitiveness. This can take such forms as championing innovative ideas,
providing necessary expertise, or institutionalizing the entrepreneurial activity within the
organization’s system and processes. At the core of entrepreneurial thinking is the application of
‘effectual reasoning’ as opposed to ‘causal reasoning’. Entrepreneurial thinkers are brilliant
improvisers and do not start with concrete goals, but instead they constantly assess how their
personal strengths and abilities can be applied to develop the goals presented in front of them
(Sarasvathy, 2001a, Sarasvathy, 2001b). Therefore, the entrepreneur’s ‘effectual reasoning’ lies
in having dynamic goals that may shift over time. In contrast, ‘causal reasoning’ relies on setting
a specific goal and then diligently working to find the best way to achieve it (Sobel and Kirkham,
2006). Effectual reasoning of entrepreneurial thinking manifests itself through discovery-driven
planning. The inherent uncertainty found in effectual reasoning lends itself to risk, and
discovery-driven planning is a practical tool that recognizes the differences between developing
a new venture and expanding a more conservative line of business (McGrath and MacMillan,
1995, McGrath and MacMillan, 2000).
From a cognitive perspective, what are the ideals that encompass the entrepreneurial mindset?
For the past 35 years, scholars have embraced the challenge of learning what the entrepreneurial
mindset represents (Comegys, 1976), but many limitations still exist in this field of research
(Grégoire et al., 2011). Current work is focused on delineating the metacognitive foundation
while analyzing the ‘higher-order’ cognitive strategies of entrepreneurs (Haynie et al., 2010).
However, further work is needed to understand the cognitive factors that predate entrepreneurial
action as opposed to the factors that proceed from the entrepreneurial-like actions (Grégoire et
al., 2011).
THE TENETS OF DESIGN THINKING, ENTREPRENEURIAL THINKING, AND
SYSTEMS THINKING
The philosophies of design thinking, systems thinking, and entrepreneurial thinking are
inherently theoretical. Such theoretical concepts are destined for failure if they cannot be
systematically applied. The past failures of these methodologies can be attributed to attempts to
simplify these inherently abstract concepts (Buchanan, 1992, Boardman and Sauser, 2008,
Nussbaum, 2011). This situation presents a conundrum for those seeking to apply design,
systems, and entrepreneurial thinking. Instead of attempting to simplify the concepts in this
paper, our approach is to identify underlying patterns and ideals that are representative of each
philosophy. To this end, we reviewed literature from leaders of these respective fields and aimed
to identify common values and themes across each discipline.
In our selection criteria for articles, we searched for seminal papers in each field that had a blend
of theory and practice. The volume of literature for design thinking, entrepreneurial thinking, and
systems thinking is too vast for a comprehensive literature review. Therefore, our inclusion
criteria limited articles and books from 1965 onward and gave preference to high impact
publications from well-known members of the field. Specifically, we focused on individuals who
evoked the basic principles of these frameworks and had a bent toward practicality. Furthermore,
within each discipline, we limited our bias by choosing publications that covered the application
of these frameworks in diverse sectors. For example, in our assessment of design thinking
literature, we reviewed articles related to the healthcare field (Brennan et al., 2009) as well as
transportation (Basch, 2002) to search for similarities.
In our evaluation of each individual publication, we parsed out generalized ideas about the
respective field evoked by the authors. Each individual article had its own unique list of tenets,
but as more literature was reviewed, recurring themes emerged from some of the underlying
tenets. After completion, any tenets present in more than half of the articles reviewed within each
framework were chosen for further analysis (Table 1).
Table 1: Tenets of Design Thinking, Entrepreneurial Thinking, and Systems Thinking
Framework (number of articles reviewed) Tenets (number of occurrences)
Design Thinking (47 articles)
Multidisciplinary (30), Human-centered (26),
Prototype-driven (26), and Ideation-based (25)
Entrepreneurial Thinking (25 articles)
Collaboration (20), Value Creation (18), Discoverydriven (17), and Resilience (16)
Systems Thinking (25 articles)
Interdependence (22), Differentiation (22),
Regulation (21), Abstraction (20), Multi-finality (20)
DESIGN THINKING
As design thinking has become a rapidly evolving area, our literature review covered the primary
sectors within the field to incorporate ideals from academics like Rolf Faste to practitioners like
Tim Brown. In total, we reviewed forty seven articles and determined the following common
tenets in the design thinking field: multidisciplinary, human-centered, prototype-driven, and
ideation-based (Table 2).
Table 2: Tenets of Design Thinking
Tenet
Multidisciplinary
(30/47)
Human-centered
(26/47)
Prototype-driven
(26/47)
Ideation-based
(25/47)
References
(Brown and Katz, 2009, Buxton, 2007, Cruickshank and Evans, 2012,
Guterman, 2009, Hayer and Burney, 2006, Hempel and McConnon,
2006, Lang, 1974, Lockwood, 2010, Martin, 2009b, May, 2009,
Meinel and Leifer, 2012, Merritt and Lavelle, 2005, Norman, 2009,
Nussbaum, 2005, Owen, 2006, Peters, 2003, Plattner et al., 2012,
Safian, 2005, Sato et al., 2010, Scanlon, 2007, Seidel et al., 2011,
Archer, 1974, Cross, 2011, Jones, 1981)
(Brown and Katz, 2009, Kelley and VanPatter, 2005, Lang, 1974,
Owen, 2006, Peters, 2003, Cruickshank and Evans, 2012, Downs,
2006, Hayer and Burney, 2006, Hempel and McConnon, 2006,
Liedtka, 2011, Liedtka and Ogilvie, 2012, Lockwood, 2010, Martin,
2009b, Norman, 2009, Nussbaum, 2005, Safian, 2005, Scanlon, 2007,
Weber, 2005, Jones, 1981, Lawson, 1997, Owen, 1998)
(Brennan et al., 2009, Burnette, 1974, Castellion, 2010, Downs, 2006,
Hayer and Burney, 2006, Hempel and McConnon, 2006, Kelley and
VanPatter, 2005, Lang, 1974, Liedtka, 2011, Liedtka and Ogilvie,
2012, Lockwood, 2010, Martin, 2009b, Meinel and Leifer, 2012,
Norman, 2009, Sato et al., 2010, Tufte and Guterman, 2009, Lawson,
1997, Owen, 1998, Rowe, 1987, Vries et al., 1993)
(Breen, 2005, Brown and Katz, 2009, Burnette, 1974, Castellion, 2010,
Cruickshank and Evans, 2012, Downs, 2006, Guterman, 2009, Lang,
1974, Liedtka, 2011, Lockwood, 2010, Martin, 2009b, Nussbaum,
2005, Safian, 2005, Tufte and Guterman, 2009, Weber, 2005, Cross,
2011, Lawson, 1997, Owen, 1998)
The core of design thinking is grounded on a human-centered approach to design. Many times
referred to as ‘people-centered’ (Sanders, 2008) or ‘customer-centered’ (Beyer and Holtzblatt,
1998, Holtzblatt et al., 2005), human-centered design uses the resources available to the designer
and applies them to meet the individual needs of the audience that is being addressed. A humancentered approach to design is inherently selfless: it is not about the company’s goals or how
one’s business is structured (Lockwood, 2010, Castellion, 2010). The main priority is helping the
customer achieve his or her goals. This human-centered approach can be delineated by focusing
on the generation of ideas, which is referred to as ideation. In design thinking, ideation delineates
the pathways of innovation. Whether it is analyzing cultural competency, governmental
regulations, or religious influences, ideation creates a process to separate and connect similar
ideas (Lang, 1974). Such a process can be symbiotic such that multiple ideas are combined,
using different elements of each to make a distinctive concept. Alternatively, it can be
serendipitous such that ideas are coincidentally developed without the intention of the creator.
From a quantitative standpoint, design thinking is also focused on efficiency (Liedtka, 2011).
Traditionally, bigger, faster, and more equated to ‘better’. In today’s era, efficient design that
optimizes rather than maximizes has become the gold standard. To achieve a high standard of
efficiency, design thinking relies on a prototype-driven process. In successive iterations, design
thinking analyzes costs, scalability, and reliability to find the best equilibrium. This equilibrium
refers to where one should reach for on the optimization-maximization spectrum after taking into
account secondary factors like costs, scalability, and reliability. Assessment and feedbackmechanisms amongst the iterations strengthen this prototype-driven process.
Lastly, design thinking is about people working collaboratively in multidisciplinary teams to
ensure a human-centered approach to design is achieved. Collaboration amongst engineers,
artists, scientists, business people, and a host of others is essential for success. In this regard, the
multidisciplinary approach allows a designer to tackle lingering issues from multiple
perspectives to better meet the needs of the customer, while maintaining an economically viable
enterprise (Plattner et al., 2012).
SYSTEMS THINKING
The philosophy of systems thinking is centered on relationships, and how they are formed,
broken up, and/or reorganized over time and space. In total, we reviewed twenty-five articles and
determined the following common tenets of systems thinking: interdependence, abstraction,
regulation, differentiation, and multi-finality (Table 3).
Table 3: Tenets of Systems Thinking
Tenet
References
Interdependence
(22/25)
(Heinich and Education and Training Consultants Co., 1968,
Goldstein, 2009, McIntyre-Mills, 2003, Basch, 2002, Silvern, 1975,
Salisbury, 1996, Weinberg and Weinberg, 1988, Daellenbach and
McNickle, 2005, Jackson, 1991a, Mingers, 2006, Flood, 2010, Haines,
2003, Haines, 2005, Jackson, 1991b, Boardman and Sauser, 2008,
Jackson, 2003, Mella, 2012, Gharajedaghi, 2006, Haines, 2000, Ackoff
et al., 2010, Richmond, 2000)
(Heinich and Education and Training Consultants Co., 1968, Stacey et
al., 2000, Goldstein, 2009, Basch, 2002, Silvern, 1975, Salisbury,
1996, Weinberg and Weinberg, 1988, Daellenbach and McNickle,
2005, Jackson, 1991a, Flood, 2010, Haines, 2003, Haines, 2005,
Clementson, 1988, Jackson, 1991b, Boardman and Sauser, 2008,
Mella, 2012, Gharajedaghi, 2006, Haines, 2000, Ackoff et al., 2010,
Checkland, 1981, Richmond, 2000)
(Heinich and Education and Training Consultants Co., 1968, Stacey et
al., 2000, Goldstein, 2009, McIntyre-Mills, 2003, Silvern, 1975,
Salisbury, 1996, Weinberg and Weinberg, 1988, Daellenbach and
McNickle, 2005, Jackson, 1991a, Mingers, 2006, Flood, 2010, Haines,
2003, Haines, 2005, Clementson, 1988, Jackson, 1991b, Boardman and
Sauser, 2008, Jackson, 2003, Mella, 2012, Haines, 2000, Checkland,
1981, Richmond, 2000)
(Heinich and Education and Training Consultants Co., 1968, Stacey et
al., 2000, Goldstein, 2009, McIntyre-Mills, 2003, Basch, 2002, Silvern,
1975, Salisbury, 1996, Weinberg and Weinberg, 1988, Daellenbach
and McNickle, 2005, Jackson, 1991a, Flood, 2010, Haines, 2003,
Haines, 2005, Clementson, 1988, Jackson, 1991b, Boardman and
Differentiation
(22/25)
Regulation
(21/25)
Abstraction
(20/25)
Sauser, 2008, Jackson, 2003, Mella, 2012, Haines, 2000, Checkland,
1981)
Multi-finality
(20/25)
(Heinich and Education and Training Consultants Co., 1968, McIntyreMills, 2003, Basch, 2002, Silvern, 1975, Salisbury, 1996, Weinberg
and Weinberg, 1988, Daellenbach and McNickle, 2005, Jackson,
1991a, Mingers, 2006, Haines, 2003, Haines, 2005, Clementson, 1988,
Jackson, 1991b, Jackson, 2003, Mella, 2012, Gharajedaghi, 2006,
Haines, 2000, Ackoff et al., 2010, Richmond, 2000)
A key tenet of systems thinking is interdependence, which states that parts of any whole cannot
exist and cannot be understood except in their relation to the whole. That is, the whole is greater
than the sum of its parts because the parts are interrelated and influence each other. The end
result is a new structure that exhibits emergence. Interdependence is the essence of systems
thinking: if components are only considered one by one, then the interdependence between
elements will be missed, resulting in ambiguity of whole system properties (White, 1995). To
fully understand these relationships, the system needs to be isolated from the surroundings.
Abstraction is the process of extracting the underlying essence of a concept, removing any
dependence on the real world objects, and generalizing it so that it has wider applications among
other abstract descriptions of equivalent phenomena. Although abstraction may seem to conflict
with interdependence, it is the process of abstraction that allows interdependence to occur. That
is, by understanding the value of the isolated system, the interdependent relationship of the
system to its surroundings can be more easily studied (Richmond, 2000).
To sustain these relationships, regulation is needed because it employs feedback to ensure that
the system is actually working (Stepler et al., 2010). The tenet of regulation yields homeostasis
within the general system that eventually results in conformity with the external rules or
principles (Flood, 2010, Cannon, 1932). On the other hand, to apply these changes, the
differentiation tenet of systems thinking becomes of paramount importance. The differentiation
process is a means of increasing the complexity of a system, since each subsystem can make
different connections with other subsystems. The increased complexity allows for more
variations within a system in order to respond to variations in the environment (Naustdalslid,
1977).
As per systems thinking theory, achieving differentiation allows diverse stakeholders to achieve
different outcomes. These differentiated sub-systems are interdependent on each other, and
hence for the purpose of this paper, differentiation has been encompassed by the tenet of
interdependence. Differentiation, and the resulting interdependence, lead to the tenet of multifinality: attaining varied alternative objectives from the same inputs (Vonbertalanffy, 1950).
Therefore, multi-finality occurs when different subsystems and their interactions all meet their
own goals while the system as a whole meets its goals (Stepler et al., 2010).
ENTREPRENEURIAL THINKING
While systems thinking focuses on the relationships between different actors and inputs,
entrepreneurial thinking is targeted on using creativity with calculated risk to create and
capitalize on opportunities. We studied twenty-five articles and determined the following
common tenets of entrepreneurial thinking: value creation, collaboration, resilience, and a
discovery-driven process (Table 4).
Table 4: Tenets of Entrepreneurial Thinking
Tenet
References
Value creation
(18/25)
(Anyakoha, 2009, Bill et al., 2010, Brockhaus, 2001, Casson, 2010,
Gelderen and Masurel, 2012, Greenberg et al., 2011, Grégoire et al.,
2011, Harrison and Leitch, 2008, Haynie et al., 2010, Henry et al.,
2003, Jain et al., 1994, Kao, 2010, Kourilsky et al., 2007, McGrath and
MacMillan, 2000, Sarasvathy, 2001a, Sobel and Kirkham, 2006)
Collaboration
(20/25)
(Kent, 1990, Jain et al., 1994, McGrath and MacMillan, 2000,
Brockhaus, 2001, Sarasvathy, 2001b, O'Connor and Fiol, 2002, Turner,
2002, Henry et al., 2003, Dym et al., 2005, Mitchell, 2007, Harrison
and Leitch, 2008, Anyakoha, 2009, Casson, 2010, Haynie et al., 2010,
Kao, 2010, Buchanan, 2011, Greenberg et al., 2011, Grégoire et al.,
2011, Gelderen and Masurel, 2012, Michaels, 2012)
(Comegys, 1976, Jain et al., 1994, Brockhaus, 2001, Sarasvathy,
2001b, O'Connor and Fiol, 2002, Dym et al., 2005, Mitchell, 2007,
Harrison and Leitch, 2008, Anyakoha, 2009, Haynie et al., 2010, Kao,
2010, Buchanan, 2011, Greenberg et al., 2011, Gelderen and Masurel,
2012, Michaels, 2012, Arora et al., 2011)
(Comegys, 1976, Jain et al., 1994, McGrath and MacMillan, 2000,
Brockhaus, 2001, Sarasvathy, 2001a, Sarasvathy, 2001b, A.Timmons
and Spinelli, 2003, Elspeth McFadzean et al., 2005, Fillis and
Rentschler, 2005, Kourilsky et al., 2007, Mitchell, 2007, Harrison and
Leitch, 2008, Anyakoha, 2009, Haynie et al., 2010, Gelderen and
Masurel, 2012, Michaels, 2012)
Resilience
(16/25)
Discovery-driven
(17/25)
Entrepreneurial thinking is about value creation much more so than pure creativity. It emphasizes
discovering new opportunities and knowing how and when to capitalize on them. The how and
when of entrepreneurial thinking are critically important: it is not enough to simply have a good
idea; one must find the resources and drive not only to develop a plan of action but also
recognize market forces to determine the best time to proceed. Entrepreneurial thinking requires
careful attention to existing dynamic contexts. Bringing and managing the necessary capital
(human, financial, political, social, etc.) to take advantage of available opportunities is critical for
success. An entrepreneur will have to interact and work with many external subsystems,
individuals, and entities in order to survive the chaos that pervades early-stage ventures. In this
regard, radical collaboration and communication are essential to the entrepreneurial mindset.
From a different perspective, entrepreneurial thinking must rely heavily on the tenet of
resilience. An entrepreneur recognizes that, eventually, everyone will make a mistake and/or fail,
and the business context will evolve. Entrepreneurial thinking transcends serendipity and luck by
having deliberate plans of actions on how to address mistakes and failures. Because of this
resilience, entrepreneurial thinking is also a discovery-driven process that feeds on current
innovations to sustain future ideas. This process builds in a stepwise manner such that one
discovery propels opportunities for greater inventions and discoveries. At the start of a new
venture, discovery-driven planning acknowledges that little is known and much is assumed. It
then converts startup assumptions into knowledge that grounds the planning for a new initiative.
HOW ARE DESIGN THINKING, ENTREPRENEURIAL THINKING, AND SYSTEMS
THINKING RELATED?
Thus far, design thinking, entrepreneurial thinking, and systems thinking have been analyzed
independently of each other. However, the tenets of these methodologies have an intrinsic
interconnectedness that to date has not been defined. The subtle connections among design
thinking, entrepreneurial thinking, and systems thinking can vary drastically depending on which
specific article is reviewed. We presented our initial findings of the tenets of design,
entrepreneurial, and systems thinking at the annual meeting of the National Collegiate Inventors
and Innovators Alliance in San Francisco in March 2012. We created a poster with movable
tenets that were positioned on a Venn diagram of design, entrepreneurial, and systems thinking.
Without predisposing them to our findings, we asked members of the audience to identify which
of the three frameworks the tenets belonged to. Amongst the participants, there was no consensus
as to which tenets fit within which of the three frameworks. For example, some members
believed that ‘human-centered’—a tenet of design thinking—was more applicable to systems
thinking, while others believed that entrepreneurial thinking was inherently ‘human-centered’.
We presented our data to a diverse audience who were focused on technology innovation and
entrepreneurship, but specialized in many different fields. We quickly learned that the past
experiences of the audience biased them toward associating a particular tenet to a specific
philosophy/methodology. This selection bias was one of the primary limitations of our approach.
A similar analysis by others with unique theoretical or practical experiences could yield different
interpretations of the articles selected. That is, when viewing design, entrepreneurial, and
systems thinking from different perspectives, the core values of those philosophies could change
drastically. However, the primary intention of this work was not to necessarily disapprove those
assumptions. Instead, we wanted to provide a more comprehensive study that showed the core
tenets of design, entrepreneurial, and systems thinking across all disciplines. In this regard, we
specifically tried to limit our bias by choosing publications for review in disciplines that were
both familiar and unfamiliar. We then selected for tenets or themes that were explicitly
delineated within the publication to minimize any confirmation bias.
This ambiguity continues when attempting to determine which tenets of design thinking,
entrepreneurial thinking, and systems thinking are interrelated because those connections are
dependent upon the specific application. For example, a firm in the software industry that seeks
to advance code development may believe that the tenet of interdependence from systems
thinking and the tenet of multidisciplinary from design thinking are closely related. However, a
startup with a focus on alternative energy may believe the tenet of interdependence will involve
utilizing multiple sources of energy like solar, wind, sunflower oil, and diesel. This venture may
associate interdependence with being prototype-driven so that it can effectively develop a venue
for these energy sources. Both companies have different goals and also different views on how
interdependence from systems thinking is related to design thinking. Because of this inherent
complexity, we will initially connect the ideas of design, entrepreneurial, and systems thinking
by analyzing each methodology as a whole and then focus on a tenet specific basis.
Systems thinking is not an exact and quantifiable framework but a highly contextual and
perceptive philosophy. Each application of systems thinking is different because each scenario
involves different players, stakeholders, and situations. In this regard, systems thinking is very
similar to design thinking (Liedtka, 2000). However, systems thinking also analyzes the
relationship from the outside perspective inward. For example, how is the entrepreneur
interacting with the government and how is the government interacting with health care services?
As a corollary, how do the health care services relate to employee effectiveness and finally how
does employee effectiveness create value for the entrepreneur? The systems thinking process is a
web of interconnected concepts and entities.
On the other hand, entrepreneurial thinking analyzes the relationship from the inside perspective
outward. Every relationship has the entrepreneur on one side of the equation. It is the
entrepreneur connecting with the government, the health care services, and the employees.
Entrepreneurial thinking, as expected, is focused from the lens of only the entrepreneur. This
frame of reference is then spread across different subsystems to see how the entrepreneur
connects with those entities. It is more of a hierarchal structure than the web of systems thinking.
With that said, where does design thinking fit within entrepreneurial thinking and systems
thinking? Entrepreneurial thinking is more of a process for what type of mindset an entrepreneur
should have, while design thinking is the mindset for how that entrepreneur can go about solving
potential problems. When an entrepreneurial thinker attempts to ‘create value’ through
innovation and risk-taking, he or she applies design thinking to create a process to follow
through on that risk. When analyzing the connections that are derived from entrepreneurial
thinking, design thinking is the process for actually forming those connections. That is, design
thinking is the process that helps to create those implicit connections, while entrepreneurial
thinking and systems thinking are used to delineate what those connections are and what their
significance is to the outside world.
With this perspective, we argue that entrepreneurial thinking and systems thinking are aligned as
concentric ideals with design thinking at the core (Figure 1). Design thinking represents the
creation of intrinsic value whether it is through invention, development of ideas, or products of
significant human value. Moving outward from the center, entrepreneurial thinking translates
these ideas into products of value. Finally, systems thinking is the comprehensive harmonization
of the entrepreneurial solution within a larger context and serves as the glue for the entire
framework. To illustrate these interconnections, we present four case studies that exhibit the
relationships amongst the tenets of these three frameworks. Each case provides a vignette that
connects a group of tenets from each methodology as aligned in Figure 1. The four groups of
tenets are: Group 1: multi-disciplinary, collaboration, interdependence; Group 2: humancentered, resilience, abstraction; Group 3: ideation, value creation, multi-finality; and Group 4:
regulation, discovery-driven, prototype-driven. These groupings represent just one of many
different combinations in which the tenets are interconnected and can be applied together.
Figure 1. Concentricity of Design Thinking (DT), Entrepreneurial Thinking (ET), and Systems
Thinking (ST).
CASE 1: MULTIDISCIPLINARY, COLLABORATION, AND INTERDEPENDENCE AT
THE MAYO CLINIC
Patient examination rooms at the Mayo Clinic have remained virtually unchanged over the past
century despite significant changes in the tools and technologies available to improve the
physician-patient relationship. In an effort to modernize exam rooms, the Mayo Clinic relied on
design thinking and employed a multidisciplinary team of doctors, nurses, patients, biomedical
engineers, and healthcare administrators to research the problem and devise appropriate solutions
(Spurrier, 2012). Here, the consumers (healthcare providers and patients) served as “creative
participants rather than passive recipients”—traits indicative of co-design in multidisciplinary
groups (Archer, 1974, Suri and Howard, 2006). The team discovered that 80% of the patient visit
was a conversation, and only 20% consisted of the physical exam. Their research resulted in a
design for a two-room suite: one that served as an examination room and another that served as a
conversation room.
In the actual development of the new patient rooms, entrepreneurial thinking was the primary
concern among the stakeholders, and collaboration among these same parties was essential to
translate the ideas created as a result of design thinking. Among other aspects, the group needed
to determine what was essential for the examination room and whether the expansion process
added a significant amount of value in the physician-patient relationship to justify the costs. The
proposed expansion would halve the number of total examination rooms available. Therefore, the
principal question from this perspective was analyzing if the value created from the new designs
justified the expected decrease in total examination rooms.
At the third level of development, systems thinking answered the questions that arose from the
entrepreneurial thinking process. The group needed to analyze the interdependence of the new
examination rooms to the physician-patient relationship. They found that outcome measures
improved for patients in these new suites: patients felt healthier due to the more collaborative
and conversational environment, while doctors were able to conduct more accurate physical
examinations due to the changes in the room arrangement.
Systemic assessment also revealed that decreasing the number of examination rooms needed to
be balanced with a more robust and efficient cleaning service that improved “bed turnaround”
time. Without these changes, the physician-patient experiences would be adversely affected from
the prolonged wait times, and the hospital would lose revenue by not optimizing the number of
patients seen.
In this case, the systems approach satisfied the criteria needed in the entrepreneurial process to
justify the design changes proposed. To summarize, design thinking revealed the current problem
with the examination rooms. Entrepreneurial thinking guided the group to visualize what an
optimized examination room would look like and how it could create value. Systems thinking
analyzed the implications of the new design to determine if the changes were feasible and inharmony with the larger healthcare context.
CASE 2: HUMAN-CENTERED, RESILIENCE, AND ABSTRACTION IN THE DESIGN
OF THE TREADLE PUMPS
The human-centered aspect of design thinking is often the most important criteria in addressing
developmental challenges in resource-constrained settings. If the design is not centered upon a
human problem, then the resulting products will be ineffective. In his analysis of the humancentered approach, Vijay Kumar noted that in order to “create innovations that have a good fit
with users”, the designer’s focus needed to shift “from products that people use, to what those
people do – their behaviors, activities, needs, and motivations” (Kumar, 2009). Therefore, the
human-centered approach places people at the center of the design process, rather than particular
design criteria. In this scenario, we analyze the development of treadle pumps as a form of a
human-powered irrigation system. In the design of the treadle pump, a human-centered approach
considered end-user issues like endurance, comfort, efficiency, and appropriateness (Malca et al.,
2005).
Aside from the day-to-day criteria, the resilience of the pumps needed to be considered from an
entrepreneurial thinking perspective. Design thinking analyzed the end-user issues described
above, but entrepreneurial thinking determined if such a human-centered design was resilient in
the marketplace. That is, for environmental resilience, entrepreneurial thinking needed to account
for the manufacturing and maintenance: what materials will be available in the local context, and
how can the manufacturing process be simplified and made more eco-friendly? In terms of
economic resilience, the ease of maintenance, affordability, and durability has to be considered.
The social resilience of the treadle pumps is of paramount importance. The community actually
accepting the device and integrating it into its cultural framework and mores is contingent upon
its design. For example, some treadle pump designs failed during implementation in parts of the
world because the sway of the operator’s hips, when using the pump, was considered too
provocative (Russel, 2004). For a treadle pump to be human-centered as defined by design
thinking, it must simultaneously fit into the local social context and be resilient from the
entrepreneurial perspective.
The abstraction tenet of systems thinking in this scenario served as the glue connecting the core
of design thinking and inner shell of entrepreneurial thinking. The abstraction of the treadle
pump, as a human-centered value-creating tool, was the recognition that humans live in a larger
hierarchical system and the initial value being created for humans (saving time and energy by
pumping water) can be defined at multiple levels. Initially, the treadle pump created value for the
individual user by saving him or her time from gathering water from the traditional rope and
bucket systems. The value was then passed onto the family and the community. These parties
now had a more efficient means to acquire water that will eventually lead to more efficient food
products. On a macro level, the treadle pumps would positively affect the region, the agricultural
system, and the country. Mass-produced treadle pumps enhance the supply chain for agricultural
products, thereby fostering food security and improving access to essential nutrition. Ultimately,
these gains translate back to the user in the form of enhanced human capital through education
and improved health. The value created by the treadle pumps can thus be assessed at different
levels of abstraction.
In this case, design thinking revealed what issues from the customer perspective were vital in the
design of the treadle pump. The entrepreneurial thinking expanded this customer perspective by
analyzing which ideas would be resilient and hence sustain in the local environment. Finally,
systems thinking determined the broader impact that a sustainable and human-centered treadle
pump could have on larger communities.
CASE 3: IDEATION, VALUE CREATION, AND MULTI-FINALITY IN ONLINE
SOCIAL NETWORK COMMUNITIES
The human-centered approach to design thinking is often followed by ideation to fulfill the
human-centered need. However, the usefulness of each of those ideas is predicated on the value
creation tenet of entrepreneurial thinking. That is, what ideas create the most value? In this
context, we define “value” with respect to the end-user, entrepreneur, or design team. The
emphasis of value creation is discovering new opportunities, based on design thinking and acting
on those opportunities at the right time in the right manner.
Recently, the ideation paradigm for many businesses has moved from the company to the
consumer. Companies are supporting online ideation communities that create a platform for
customers to post ideas for improvements. As Nussbaum notes, this definition of ideation in
design thinking has evolved since its inception because now “people want to participate in the
design of their lives. They insist on being part of the conversation about their lives” (Nussbaum,
2007). For example, My Starbucks Idea allows community members to submit ideas on what
new products or improvements they desire from the coffee company. Other members then
electronically vote upon ideas they like, and the company acts on the most popular choices.
Similarly, the Dell Social Innovation Competition operates through an ideation-based
community to determine which social entrepreneurial projects to support.
This user-centered value creation also fostered additional value harmonized across larger
systems. In the Dell Social Innovation Competition, projects selected by the community brought
direct value to the winning project’s substituents. For example, the 2012 grand prizewinner,
Essmart Global, aimed to give rural retail shops owners in India access to high-quality
technologies that improved customer lives. From a multi-finality perspective of systems
thinking, this social venture yielded enormous tangible value to the retail shop owners,
individual customers, rural communities, and many more. Value was also generated for the
winners of the competition as well as the users who selected the winning project. Therefore, the
value created was distributed across the platform sponsors, the users who chose the projects, and
the project stakeholders.
In this case, design thinking searches for the best prospects of value creation through a
community driven ideation process. The entrepreneurial thinking process was intricately
intertwined with design thinking, as it was responsible for assessing the value of different ideas.
Finally, systems thinking expanded this assessment by first advocating, and then analyzing, the
value to all the stakeholders.
CASE 4: PROTOTYPE-DRIVEN, DISCOVERY-DRIVEN, REGULATION IN STARTUP
TELEMEDICINE SYSTEMS
The decision to scale and expand a business represents a significant risk that is exacerbated in
novel startup ventures. The interplay of design thinking, entrepreneurial thinking, and systems
thinking functions to minimize this risk. For example, in the Mashavu telemedicine venture in
Kenya, the scale up of the venture from a classroom idea into a full-scale social venture
proceeded in an iterative path by constantly analyzing costs, scalability, and reliability
(Fleishman et al., 2010). This prototyping involved “thinking with your hands” to quickly create
and evaluate models of a final project (Liedtka, 2000). During the design process, a key point
was harmonizing the desire to reach a broad audience against the need to stay sustainable. With
limited resources during the initial startup, Mashavu searched for an equilibrium that balanced
outreach with sustainability through a prototype-driven process. Typically, this involved
complex questions of scalability: which location to choose, what operating environment to
create, or what needs were addressable in particular areas.
To answer these questions, the discovery driven aspect of entrepreneurial thinking was applied.
Mashavu initiated multiple pilot tests of the telemedicine system to ascertain what operations
were effective, what locations had the greatest need, and what services were most valued. Both
the qualitative and quantitative data about the pilot ventures were crucial in refining the entire
system. This shotgun approach to data acquisition carried with it inherent risk, but such risk was
hedged through the prototype driven process: design thinking revealed the optimal strategies, and
entrepreneurial thinking evaluated each strategy to determine effectiveness and viability.
Systems thinking complemented the discovery-driven process by further regulating this risk.
Russell Ackoff initially described regulation in systems thinking as a closed-loop system with
feedback to ensure that the system was actually working, and this basic premise still stands today
(Pourdehnad et al., 2011, Ackoff, 1994). For example, a key question that emerged from
entrepreneurial thinking was recognizing when to expand a venture. The regulation component
of systems thinking necessitated that accountability mechanisms like daily updates on
productivity or receipt books for customer services were in place for each pilot. Further
regulations like charting operations, ethical codes, and patient experience evaluations were all
implemented to ensure stakeholders received appropriate services (Stepler et al., 2010).
Collectively, this data provided the necessary evidence to determine if an expansion was
successful. Regulation through data analysis connected the prototype-driven and discoverydriven process by validating the effectiveness and risks of each expansion strategy.
CONCLUSION
Design thinking, entrepreneurial thinking, and systems thinking have emerged as vehicles to
solve lingering problems in our society. However, due to their abstract rhetoric, these
methodologies have been less effective in producing tangible change. The deconstruction of
these frameworks into fundamental tenets will facilitate the practical application of these
methodologies. As shown through the case studies, the tenets of these frameworks build upon
each other, but they all provide a fundamentally unique perspective. Furthermore, the case
studies reveal that this integrated model is applicable in environments ranging from established
private corporations to novel startup companies. The conscious integration of the tenets of design
thinking, entrepreneurial thinking, and systems thinking is particularly powerful and can
accelerate the creation of sustainable value for diverse stakeholders in our globally
interconnected world.
REFERENCES
A.TIMMONS, J. & SPINELLI, S. 2003. New Venture Creation: Entrepreneurship for the 21st
Century, McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
ACKOFF, R. & ADDISON, H. 2010. Systems Thinking for Curious Managers, Triarchy Press.
ACKOFF, R. L. 1994. Systems thinking and thinking systems. System Dynamics Review, 10,
175-188.
ACKOFF, R. L., ADDISON, H. J. & CAREY, A. 2010. Systems thinking for curious managers :
with 40 new management f-laws, Axminster, Triarchy Press.
ANYAKOHA, E. U. 2009. New entrepreneurship education and wealth creation strategies :
practical tips for economic empowerment and survival, Nsukka, Nigeria, Great AP
Express Publishers Ltd.
ARCHER, L. B. 1974. Design awareness and planned creativity in industry = Connaissance du
design et la créativité planifiée dans l'industrie, Ottawa, Department of Industry, Trade
and Commerce and the Design Council of Great Britain.
ARONSON,
D.
1996.
Overview
of
Systems
Thinking.
Available:
http://www.edu365.cat/aulanet/comsoc/visions/documentos/overview_systemic.pdf.
ARORA, P., HAYNIE, J. M. & LAURENCE, G. A. 2011. Counterfactual Thinking and
Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy: The Moderating Role of Self-Esteem and Dispositional
Affect. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, no-no.
BASCH, M. D. 2002. Customer culture : how Fed Ex and other great companies put the
customer first every day, Upper Saddle River, NJ, Prentice Hall PTR.
BECKMAN, S. L. & BARRY, M. 2007. Innovation as a Learning Process: EMBEDDING
DESIGN THINKING. California Management Review, 50, 25-56.
BEYER, H. & HOLTZBLATT, K. 1998. Contextual design : defining customer-centered
systems, San Francisco, Calif., Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
BILL, F., BJERKE, B. R. & JOHANSSON, A. W. 2010. (De)mobilizing the entrepreneurship
discourse : exploring entrepreneurial thinking and action, Cheltenham, UK ;
Northampton, MA, Edward Elgar.
BOARDMAN, J. & SAUSER, B. 2008. Systems thinking : coping with 21st century problems,
Boca Raton, FL, CRC Press.
BREEN, B. 2005. The Business of Design. Fast Company.
BRENNAN, M. D., DUNCAN, A. K., ARMBRUSTER, R. R., MONTORI, V. M.,
FEYEREISN, W. L. & LARUSSO, N. F. 2009. The Application of Design Principles to
Innovate Clinical Care Delivery. Journal for Healthcare Quality, 31, 5-9.
BROCKHAUS, R. H. 2001. Entrepreneurship education : a global view, Aldershot ; Burlington,
USA, Ashgate.
BROWN, T. 2008. Design Thinking. Harvard Business Review, 84-92.
BROWN, T. & KATZ, B. 2009. Change by design : how design thinking transforms
organizations and inspires innovation, [New York], Harper Business.
BUCHANAN, L. 2011. How Great Entrepreneurs Think. Inc [Online]. Available:
http://www.inc.com/magazine/20110201/how-great-entrepreneurs-think.html.
BUCHANAN, R. 1992. Wicked Problems in Design Thinking. Design Issues, 8, 5-21.
BURNETTE, C. 1974. A Behavioral Approach to Basic Design Education. Journal of
Architectural Education (1947-1974), 28, 15-17.
BUXTON, W. 2007. Sketching user experience : getting the design right and the right design,
San Francisco, CA, Morgan Kaufmann.
CANNON, W. B. 1932. The wisdom of the body, New York,, W.W. Norton & Company.
CARROLL, M., GOLDMAN, S., BRITOS, L., KOH, J., ROYALTY, A. & HORNSTEIN, M.
2010. Destination, Imagination and the Fires Within: Design Thinking in a Middle
School Classroom. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 29, 37-53.
CASSON, M. 2010. A history of entrepreneurship – By Robert F. Hébert and Albert N. Link.
The Economic History Review, 63, 1205-1206.
CASTELLION, G. 2010. The Design of Business: Why Design Thinking Is the Next
Competitive Advantage by Roger Martin and Design-Driven Innovation: Changing the
Rules of Competition by Radically Innovating What Things Mean by Roberto Verganti.
Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27, 931-935.
CHECKLAND, P. 1981. Systems thinking, systems practice, Chichester Sussex ; New York, J.
Wiley.
CHECKLAND, P. & CHECKLAND, P. S. T. S. P. 1999. Soft systems methodology : a 30-year
retrospective ; and, Systems thinking, systems practice, Chichester, John Wiley.
CLEMENTSON, T. 1988. Strategy and uncertainty : a practical guide to systems thinking, New
York, Gordon and Breach Science Publishers.
COMEGYS, C. 1976. ‘Cognitive dissonance and entrepreneurial behavior’. Journal of small
business management, 14, 1-6.
CROSS, N. 2011. Design thinking : understanding how designers think and work, Oxford ; New
York, Berg.
CRUICKSHANK, L. & EVANS, M. 2012. Designing creative frameworks: design thinking as
an engine for new facilitation approaches. International Journal of Arts and Technology,
5, 73-85.
DAELLENBACH, H. G. & MCNICKLE, D. C. 2005. Management science : decision making
through systems thinking, New York, Palgrave Macmillan.
DOWNS, C. 2006. Pioneering Service Design. International Service Design northumbria.
Newcastle: Corante.
DYM, C. L., AGOGINO, A. M., ERIS, O., FREY, D. D. & LEIFER, L. J. 2005. Engineering
Design Thinking, Teaching, and Learning JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION,
94, 103-120.
ELSPETH MCFADZEAN, ANDREW O'LOUGHLIN & SHAW, E. 2005. Corporate
entrepreneurship and innovation part 1: the missing link. European Journal of Innovation
Management, 8.
FILLIS, I. & RENTSCHLER, R. 2005. Using creativity to achieve an entrepreneurial future for
arts marketing. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 10,
275-287.
FLEISHMAN, A., WITTIG, J., MILNES, J., BAXTER, A., MOREAU, J. & MEHTA, K. 2010.
Validation Process for a Social Entrepreneurial Venture in Tanzania: A Case Study.
International Journal for Service Learning in Engineering: Humanitarian Engineering
and Social Entrepreneurship, 5.
FLOOD, R. 2010. The Relationship of ‘Systems Thinking’ to Action Research. Systemic
Practice and Action Research, 23, 269-284.
GELDEREN, M. V. & MASUREL, E. 2012. Entrepreneurship in context, New York, NY,
Routledge.
GHARAJEDAGHI, J. 2006. Systems thinking : managing chaos and complexity : a platform for
designing business architecture, Amsterdam ; Boston, Elsevier.
GOLDSTEIN, J. A. 2009. Complexity science and social entrepreneurship : adding social value
through systems thinking, Litchfield Park, AZ, ISCE Pub.
GREENBERG, D., MCKONE-SWEET, K., WILSON, H. J. & BABSON CENTER FOR
ENTREPRENEURIAL STUDIES. 2011. The new entrepreneurial leader : developing
leaders who shape social and economic opportunity, San Francisco, Calif., BerrettKoehler Publishers.
GRÉGOIRE, D. A., CORBETT, A. C. & MCMULLEN, J. S. 2011. The Cognitive Perspective
in Entrepreneurship: An Agenda for Future Research. Journal of Management Studies,
48, 1443-1477.
GUTERMAN, J. 2009. How to Become a Better Manager. MIT Sloan Management Review.
HAINES, S. G. 2000. The systems thinking approach to strategic planning and management,
Boca Raton, Fla., St. Lucie Press.
HAINES, S. G. 2003. Strategic and systems thinking : beyond the learning orgzanization, San
Diego, DE, Systems Thinking Press.
HAINES, S. G. 2005. Strategic thinking for leaders : the systems thinking approach, San Diego,
CA, Systems Thinking Press.
HARRISON, R. T. & LEITCH, C. 2008. Entrepreneurial learning : conceptual frameworks and
applications, London ; New York, Routledge.
HAYER, T. & BURNEY, D. 2006. Intro to design thinking. Red Hat.
HAYNIE, J. M., SHEPHERD, D., MOSAKOWSKI, E. & EARLEY, P. C. 2010. A situated
metacognitive model of the entrepreneurial mindset. Journal of Business Venturing, 25,
217-229.
HEINICH, R. & EDUCATION AND TRAINING CONSULTANTS CO. 1968. Application of
systems thinking to instruction, Los Angeles,, Education and Training Consultants.
HEMPEL, J. & MCCONNON, A. 2006. The Talen Hunt. Businessweek. Bloomberg.
HENRY, C., HILL, F. & LEITCH, C. 2003. Entrepreneurship education and training / Colette
Henry, Frances Hill, and Claire Leitch, Aldershot, Hants, England ; Burlington, Vt.,
Ashgate.
HOLTZBLATT, K., WENDELL, J. B. & WOOD, S. 2005. Rapid contextual design : a how-to
guide to key techniques for user-centered design, San Francisco, Elsevier/Morgan
Kaufmann.
JACKSON, M. C. 1991a. The origins and nature of critical systems thinking. Systemic Practice
and Action Research, 4, 131-149.
JACKSON, M. C. 1991b. Systems methodology for the management sciences, New York,
Plenum Press.
JACKSON, M. C. 2003. Systems thinking : creative holism for managers, Chichester, West
Sussex ; Hoboken, N.J., John Wiley & Sons.
JAIN, G. R., GUPTA, D. & ENTREPREURSHIP DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE OF INDIA.
1994. New initiatives in entrepreneurship education and training, Ahmedabad,
Entrepreneurship Development Institute of India.
JONES, J. C. 1981. Design methods : seeds of human futures, New York ; Chichester Eng., J.
Wiley.
KAO, R. W. Y. 2010. Sustainable economy : corporate, social and environmental responsibility,
Singapore ; Hackensack, NJ, World Scientific.
KELLEY, D. & VANPATTER, G. 2005. Design as Glue: Understanding the Stanford D. School.
NextD Journal.
KENT, C. A. 1990. Entrepreneurship education : current developments, future directions, New
York, Quorum Books.
KOURILSKY, M. L., WALSTAD, W. B. & THOMAS, A. 2007. The entrepreneur in youth : an
untapped resource for economic growth, social entrepreneurship, and education,
Cheltenham, UK ; Northampton, MA, Edward Elgar.
KUMAR, V. 2009. A process for practicing design innovation. Journal of Business Strategy, 30,
91 - 100.
LANG, J. T. 1974. Designing for human behavior: architecture and the behavioral sciences,
Stroudsburg, Pa.,, Dowden.
LAWSON, B. 1997. How designers think : the design process demystified, Oxford ; Boston,
Architectural Press.
LIEDTKA, J. 2000. In defense of strategy as design. California management review, 3, 3-30.
LIEDTKA, J. 2011. Learning to use design thinking tools for successful innovation. Strategy &
Leadership, 39, 13 - 19.
LIEDTKA, J. & OGILVIE, T. 2012. Helping Business Managers Discover Their Appetite for
Design Thinking. Design Management Review, 23, 6-13.
LOCKWOOD, T. 2010. Design thinking : integrating innovation, customer experience and
brand value, New York, NY, Allworth Press.
MALCA, J., PEREIRA, C., GASPER, M. C. & VENTURA, F. Low Cost Water Pumping
Systems for Developing Countries. Istituto Agronomico Mediterraneo di Bari, 2005
Bari.
MARTIN, R. L. 2009a. The design of business : why design thinking is the next competitive
advantage, Boston, Mass., Harvard Business Press.
MARTIN, R. L. 2009b. The opposable mind : winning through integrative thinking, Boston,
Mass., Harvard Business School Press.
MAY, M. E. 2009. Elegance By Design: The Art of Less. MIT Sloan Management Review.
MCGRATH, R. G. & MACMILLAN, I. C. 1995. Discovery-Driven Planning. Harvard Business
Review, 10.
MCGRATH, R. G. & MACMILLAN, I. C. 2000. The entrepreneurial mindset : strategies for
continuously creating opportunity in an age of uncertainty, Boston, Mass., Harvard
Business School Press.
MCINTYRE-MILLS, J. J. 2003. Critical systemic praxis for social and environmental justice :
participatory policy design and governance for a global age, New York, Kluwer
Academic/Plenum Publishers.
MEINEL, C. & LEIFER, L. 2012. Design Thinking Research. In: PLATTNER, H., MEINEL, C.
& LEIFER, L. (eds.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
MELLA, P. 2012. Systems thinking : intelligence in action, New York, Springer.
MERRITT, J. & LAVELLE, L. 2005. Tomorrow's B-School? It Might Be A D-School.
Businessweek Bloomberg.
MICHAELS, C. 2012. The 4 Essentials of Entrepreneurial Thinking: What Successful People
Didn't Learn in School, Greenleaf Book Group Press.
MINGERS, J. 2006. Realising systems thinking : knowledge and action in management science,
New York, NY, Springer.
MITCHELL, G. R. 2007. Instill the entrepreneurial mindset. Research-Technology Management,
50, 11-13.
NAUSTDALSLID, J. 1977. A Multi-Level Approach to the Study of Center-Periphery Systems
and Socio-Economic Change. Journal of Peace Research, 14, 19.
NEWHOFER, F. 2003. Systems Thinking in Education. FORUM, 45, 75-77.
NORMAN, D. A. 2009. Designing Waits That Work. MIT Sloan Management Review.
NUSSBAUM, B. 2005. The Empathy Economy. Businessweek. Bloomsberg.
NUSSBAUM, B. 2007. Are Designers The Enemy Of Design? Business Week.
NUSSBAUM, B. 2011. Design Thinking Is A Failed Experiment. So What's Next? [Online]. New
York:
Fast
Company's
Co.Design.
Available:
http://www.fastcodesign.com/1663558/design-thinking-is-a-failed-experiment-so-whatsnext 2011].
O'CONNOR, E. J. & FIOL, C. M. 2002. Reclaiming your future : entrepreneurial thinking in
health care, Tampa, Fla., American College of Physician Executives.
OWEN, C. 1998. Design Research: Building the Knowledge Base. Design Studies, 19, 9-20.
OWEN, C. L. 2006. Design Thinking: Driving Innovation. The Business Process Management
Institute [Online].
PETERS, T. J. 2003. Re-imagine! : [business excellence in a disruptive age], London, Dorling
Kindersley.
PLATTNER, H., MEINEL, C. & LEIFER, L. 2012. Design Thinking Research: Studying CoCreation in Practice (Understanding Innovation), Springer.
POURDEHNAD, J., WEXLER, E. R. & WILSON, D. V. 2011. Systems & Design Thinking: A
Conceptual Framework for Their Integration. International Society for the Systems
Sciences. Hull, UK.
RICHMOND, B. 2000. The "thinking" in systems thinking, Waltham, MA, Pegasus
Communications.
ROWE, P. G. 1987. Design thinking, Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press.
RUSSEL, R. 2004. Pumping Prosperity. Stanford Social Innovation Review. Stanford, CA:
Standard Graduate School of Business.
SAFIAN, R. 2005. The Power of Design. Fast Company.
SALISBURY, D. F. 1996. Five technologies for educational change : systems thinking, systems
design, quality science, change managament, instructional technology, Englewood Cliffs,
N.J., Educational Technology Publications.
SANDERS, L. 2008. ON MODELING: An evolving map of design practice and design research.
interactions, 15, 13-17.
SARASVATHY, S. D. 2001a. Causation and Effectuation: Toward a Theoretical Shift from
Economic Inevitability to Entrepreneurial Contingency. The Academy of Management
Review, 26, 243-263.
SARASVATHY, S. D. 2001b. EFFECTUAL REASONING IN ENTREPRENEURIAL
DECISION MAKING: EXISTENCE AND BOUNDS. Academy of Management
Proceedings, 1, 1-7.
SATO, S., LUCENTE, S., MEYER, D. & MRAZEK, D. 2010. Design Thinking to Make
Organization Change and Development More Responsive. Design Management Review,
21, 44-52.
SCANLON, J. 2007. Pushing the Boundaries of Design. Businessweek. Bloomberg.
SEIDEL, V. P., FIXSON, S. K. & PARK, B. 2011. Applying “ design thinking ” in novice
multidisciplinary teams : The importance of reflexivity. International Product
Development Management Conference. Manchester.
SILVERN, L. C. 1975. The evolution of systems thinking in education, Los Angeles, Education
and Training Consultants.
SOBEL, D. M. & KIRKHAM, N. Z. 2006. Blickets and babies: The development of causal
reasoning in toddlers and infants. Developmental Psychology;Developmental Psychology,
42, 1103-1115.
SPURRIER, B. 2012. Design Thinking [Online]. Mayo Clinic Center For Innovation. Available:
http://www.mayo.edu/center-for-innovation/what-we-do/design-thinking.
STACEY, R. D., GRIFFIN, D. & SHAW, P. 2000. Complexity and management : fad or radical
challenge to systems thinking?, London ; New York, Routledge.
STEPLER, R., GARGUILO, S., MEHTA, K. & BILEN, S. 2010. Applying systems thinking for
realizing the mission of technology-based social ventures in Africa. ASEE Annual
Conference. Louisville, KY.
SURI, J. & HOWARD, S. 2006. Going Deeper, Seeing Further: Enhancing Ethnographic
Interpretations to
Reveal More Meaningful Opportunities for Design. Journal of Advertising Research, 46, 246.
TUFTE, E. R. & GUTERMAN, J. 2009. How Facts Change Everything. MIT Sloan Management
Review.
TURNER, C. 2002. Paths to succeed : developing your entrepreneurial thinking, New York,
Texere.
VONBERTALANFFY, L. 1950. The Theory of Open Systems in Physics and Biology. Science,
111, 23-29.
VRIES, M. D., CROSS, N., GRANT, D. P. & NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY
ORGANIZATION. SCIENTIFIC AFFAIRS DIVISION. 1993. Design methodology and
relationships with science, Dordrecht ; Boston, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
WEBER, J. 2005. A SPARC for Medical Innovation. Businessweek. Bloomsberg.
WEINBERG, G. M. & WEINBERG, D. 1988. General principles of systems design, New York,
NY, Dorset House.
WHITE, D. 1995. Application of systems thinking to risk management: a review of the literature.
Management Decision, 33, 35-45.
BIOGRAPHIES
Samir Patel is a medical student at Weill Cornell Medical College of Cornell University. He
received his Bachelor’s degree in Biology and Economics from The Pennsylvania State
University. His interests focus on how social entrepreneurship can be applied to the developing
world. His experience includes working within the Humanitarian Engineering and Social
Entrepreneurship program on the Mashavu and iSPACES ventures in East Africa.
Khanjan Mehta is the Director for the Humanitarian Engineering and Social Entrepreneurship at
Penn State University. His professional interests include innovative system integration, high-tech
entrepreneurship and international social entrepreneurship. Khanjan loves connecting concepts,
people, computers and devices. A basic philosophy behind his work is the convergence of
disciplines, concepts, cultures, and countries to create a freer, friendlier, fairer and more
sustainable planet. He has led social ventures in Kenya, Tanzania, India, China and other
countries.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to thank members of the iSPACES venture within the Humanitarian Engineering
and Social Entrepreneurship program at Penn State University for their assistance in this project.