In this conceptual paper, we propose how entrepreneurship as design unfolds in venture creation as future-making through three processes: design as practice, as action, and as the IDER activity model. We aim to give a better explanation of how venture creation is a process of embedded sets of imaginative, generative and transformative leaps of future-making. This model focuses on performing future-making through transforming between exploration to exploitation. We argue that this model can secure the collective future-making potential and consolidates entrepreneurship as design and entrepreneurship as practice research streams. Future-making emphasizes that the future is not a pre-determined entity nor solely a product of individual perception, but rather a dynamic construct shaped through collaborative, creative practices (Thompson and Bryne, 2022). Future-making, as described, relies on collaboration among practitioners to express and enact imagined scenarios. The reference to practice theory suggests that future-making is an active, ongoing process embedded in social practices (e.g. Bucciarelli, 1988). Design as a reflective practice embodies this view by being deeply rooted in the context of its application, continually adapting and evolving based on real-world social interactions and feedback. Future-making also requires strong generativity and new venture is a generative organization (Le Masson, 2023). New venture creation is not about problem solving and solution optimizing but navigating between different solution paths (or different paths to alternative futures). New venture creation is also about transformative aspect of realization where new knowledge is in action.@en

C-K theory is about design creativity & innovation. Operational theory is about optimization and efficiency. C-K theory is about the search for the new in the unknown. Operational theory is about squeezing out inefficiency in the known. C-K theory works best under low pressure whereas operational theory works best under high pressure. C-K theory provides a framework for an exploration of an unknown jungle whereas operational theory provides the procedures for traveling by public transport.
This paper addresses the challenging situation of applying design creativity within tightly organized operational processes. Processes are tightly woven organizational routines which resemble the parasympathetic system of our digestion that proceeds autonomously. How can we break in and make room for design creativity? From a situational perspective on C-K theory, we then look at the theory of organizational routines. What are they and how are they created? These thoughts form the prelude to an exploration of the possible inclusion forces of routines, the forces that keep people within the behavior of the routines. Along the lines of a Deweyan inquiry, we look for integration of these elements to ultimately arrive at a proposal for resolution. Not easy, but fundamental.@en

Design is increasingly seen as the key to solving all major (societal) problems and is used for this purpose on a multitude of topics. This poses a major danger if we fail to define the specific role of design within the whole of an innovation activity. We use the design of the development path of Boeing's 787 Dreamliner to make this role explicit and contextualize it within innovation. To this end, design will be embedded in a full-fledged innovation process that consists of four generic behaviors that range from initiating a process to develop something new to the realization of that new thing. This so-called IDER framework is used as a lens to discuss the consequences of Boeing's decision early this century. Boeing had decided to outsource the design, production and delivery of 70% of the airframe to 50 first-tier suppliers. This was in line with changes in supply and outsourcing at the time, but a drastic change for Boeing. The consequences of this design decision were dramatic: a time overrun of 80% and a budget overrun of approximately 400%. Boeing’s mistake was that they treated the new outsourcing strategy as a division of labor, while in essence this concerned a division of (design) cognition. By chosing for a transactional process of outsourcing, Boeing
overlooked a crucial internal relational process that has been present within the organization for decades: a collective design process that resulted in an integrated cognitive whole in the minds of 1000 or more Boeing employees that represents the new aircraft.@en

This article reports on a two-decade Deweyan Inquiry into suitable scientific elements to enrich existing engineering education with theory about innovation and entrepreneurship. Setting up a university-wide educational program to train the engineer of the future: educating the entrepreneurial engineer, is a specific part of this. Current social challenges require future-proof and integrated solutions and not just new technical solutions. The future engineer must therefore, in addition to his obvious technical competence, also be competent in the socio-interactive and organizational dimensions of technological innovation.
The overcrowded curricula forced us to see to what extent we could transfer parts of innovation and entrepreneurship theory within existing education and through their teachers. Great idea, but what should we tell them? Only learning some knowledge in the field of entrepreneurship and innovation was considered too simplistic. Transferring anything about stage gates, lean startups or business models makes little sense because much of this relatively superficial knowledge can also be found on the internet.
From a scientific-philosophical perspective, we realized that technological innovation and entrepreneurship are not actually integrated theoretical concepts. In other words, the conclusion is that no integrated theoretical perspective is available for our program of the entrepreneurial engineer. Actually, very surprising, because we have been doing this since the beginning of humanity.
Our answer is therefore a proposal for a new transdisciplinary scientific field that focuses on the inherent human activity of future making, here tentatively called the Delta Sciences. What we see as the integration of the division of scientific areas used in the Netherlands into Alpha (humanities), Beta (Natural) and Gamma (Social) sciences. We see pragmatism supplemented with theoretical frameworks from the intersubjective domain as well as the domain of logic as important elements for the basis of the Delta Sciences. A scientific field that is about how we as people build our own future together, hence future making.@en

The early stage of new venture creation is highly undetermined, is high in uncertainty and requires action to progress. These characteristics overlap with the definition of what makes a problematic situation a design problem. In order to improve education for students to deal with this type of problem, this chapter builds on the paradigm of ‘through’ education and the new venture creation approach. It proposes a new paradigm, ‘entrepreneurship education through design’ with a strong focus dealing with design problems via designerly behaviour. This chapter highlights the design theoretical basis of this paradigm and shows how the course setup can contribute for students to display designerly behaviour, reduce uncertainty and ultimately successfully incubate new ventures.

@en

This paper addresses the question how design for experience can be integrated into the product innovation practices of fast-moving consumer products, to increase impact and deliver additional (emotional) value to consumers. To achieve this, theories of the leading experts in the field have been reviewed, key principles of designing for experience have been identified and reflected on the product innovation practices as a case study on Henkel Consumer Brands, a global leading fast-moving consumer goods company. The key finding is that many small and diverse actions need be taken, which can be clustered in three themes: 1) actionable behavior, 2) organizational matters and 3) strategic approach. Starting with qualitative consumer insights is essential in designing prototypes that can be used to evaluate the user experience in addition to technical workability and market research data. This entails a new approach to early-stage prototyping, testing a minimum viable product experience (MVPX) in addition to minimum viable products (MVP). On the organizational side, there needs to be a true collapse of the roles of researchers and designers. The innovation target needs to shift from pain point relief to positive consumer experiences. Measuring emotions at scale will be necessary to quantify consumers’ willingness to pay for them. On the strategic side, design for experience needs to become a conceptual activity, changing the innovation currency from consumers’ money spent on functionality (product) or convenience (services) to consumers’ time and money spent on emotional well-being to make experiences a distinct economic offer.@en

In design research, the activities of design and research coalesce. It introduces thorny epistemological challenges and Dewey's pattern of inquiry is explored for its relevance for design research. First, a logical framework for design inquiry is developed that enables to reach warranted conclusions, retrospectively. Second, a temporal framework of activities is inferred, based on the experiences of two PhD candidates. These frameworks offer guidance to (1) develop transferable knowledge; (2) by oscillating between known theories and uncharted practices until new ideas arise; whereby (3) the value of these ideas is validated through experiments (action validity); and (4) with a community of inquiry (consensual validity). The knowledge produced stems from practice, is tested in practice and serves others in future inquiries.

@en

This paper contains a first step towards a holistic understanding of fundamental elements in startups. It develops the first version of a framework based on theory on startup failure and validated by analysing interviews. It sets out directions for further research on this topic as a PhD-project.

@en

The rise of shared global challenges has increased the importance of joint innovation efforts. UniversityIndustry Collaborations (UICs) represent an underexplored opportunity for multi-company initiatives. This article explores how universities can adapt their collaboration offerings toward industry partners so as to better facilitate innovation ecosystems. An empathic design approach was used to examine X!Delft’s ecosystem – part of the valorisation centre of the Delft University of Technology. This revealed one underlying emotional driver of industry partners for participation, namely a shared sense of ‘suspense’ regarding future (technological) developments. Hence, a framework was created to stimulate enduring engagement by cultivating effective suspense.@en

This video allows anybody to teach or practice designing for values in a financially and professionally responsible manner. Creative professionals focusing on designing for client and stakeholder values often struggle to transform their work into sustainable business models that are aligned with their professional identity. Exploiting the results and toolkit of the FuturA project, the video aims to facilitate students and professionals in uncovering, visualizing and reconciling conflicts between creating value and capturing value in their daily work. The tutorial and accompanying Project Value Modelling Blueprint can easily be incorporated into courses or be used by professionals to design and assess their business model for a creative project. @en

In Hong Kong of the year 2017, a new academic community convened to attend to pressing issues regarding design as source of innovation. The inaugural Academy for Design Innovation Management Conference (nee Design Management Academy) attended to a sense of urgency regarding the adoption of design capabilities within organisations as source of innovation. The title of the conference, Research perspectives on creative intersections was therefore pertinent, with papers exploring how design and designers were intersecting with new business challenges. Two years later in London (2019), rhetoric has notably shifted from matters of adoption to strengthening design capabilities within organisations, thereby enabling those organisations to unlock the possibilities and subsequent benefits of design. These possibilities include but are not limited to strategic and cultural renewal, design of new processes and meaningful engagement with hard-to-reach stakeholders.
To address the complex nature of today’s societal and economic problems, professional organisations now recognize that traditional tools and approaches may not provide the required solutions. To address complex challenges, many managers and business leaders have consciously turned to design approaches over the past decade, including both public and private sectors. To increase design capabilities, these organisations have established innovation labs with designers, have recruited designers in strategic positions, and/or have started building the design competence of existing staff through educational programs, often provided by design consultancies. Yet to date, describing the resultant impact of teaching. Individual design competencies on organisational design capabilities has proven elusive.@en

At Polytechnics design & engineering students are taught about state-of-the-art technical knowledge. Students become qualified engineers and learn to innovate artifacts related to their domain. Not taught is how to develop new engineering knowledge within a multidisciplinary context of stakeholders, companies and regulations. In short, students don't learn to innovate technology. What is taught today is the result of a technological innovation of yesterday. This is not sufficient for industry to innovatively deal with society's grand challenges. The paper describes a project that aims to educate all TU Delft graduate students in the verb of innovating technology, that is, the development of new technologies from inventions in the labs to full- fledged application in business. Such along three dimensions: technical, human and business. The educational portfolio consists of three modules in line with growth along Bloom's taxonomy and online materials on theoretical backbones. All modules apply the notion of technological innovation journeys (Tijo's). Tijo's are rich descriptions of the developmental journey of new technology and are based on inventions from the university's own labs. @en

We investigated how design concepts from design student teams entered a corporate setting and how these design concepts evolved in the process of adoption by the company. Our study is based on 20 longitudinal embedded case studies at a large food multinational company of which we analyzed 4 more thoroughly. Our findings highlight the role of social interactions during the process, and specifically how these social interactions influenced the further development of the design concept. Our findings suggest a need for more detailed studies of the social interactions during deliberations between the conceptual development of the Front End of Innovation (FEI) development and the New Product Development (NPD) process.@en

Technological innovation happens on a daily basis all around us. Yet, in our educational programs there is rarely any attention paid to what this is and how this unfolds over time in real life. This is not at all surprising, since there is not one unified and widely accepted body of knowledge on technological innovation that is grounded enough, meaning, knowledge based on research of technological innovation practice. The CDIO-framework is implicitly addressing innovation from the perspective of existing technological knowledge and therefore is not yet equipped enough for the purpose of tech-innovation. This paper therefore aims to initiate a discussion on what technological innovation is and how this could fit within the CDIO-framework. We will provide a definition of technological innovation based on innovation theoretical framework which reaches its readiness when practice is able to apply the new technology to design, engineer, build, maintain and dispose the objects that apply that particular technology. This lens will be used to analyze a well-documented case that reports on the development of a new structural aircraft material that is now widely used in the Airbus A380, hence a technological innovation. It will be shown in this paper that the research activities that support the development of the new technology, follow the logic of innovating as a generic and natural phenomenon. The paper ends by proposing a possible path to bring the subject of technological innovation within the confines of our educational curricula, without too much cutting on the subjects that we are teaching. Its base comes from the idea that what we are teaching today is the result of a technological innovation process of yesterday.@en

This paper connects design creativity to engineering activities as means for smooth implementation of creative concepts. It applies C-K design theory and the IDER-innovation model as lenses to investigate three case studies. The results point to engineering activities as operators to transform the undecidable concepts in the C-space to objects with a logical status in the K-space. Engineering (E) knowledge as validated objects in the K-space supports the transformation process. If existing E-knowledge is sufficient, then this resembles single loop learning. If concepts in the C-space are too different from earlier concepts, then new E-knowledge needs to be developed which resembles double loop learning. The research for developing new E-knowledge unfolds in a similar fashion. Tentative theoretical insights in the C-space are 'engineered' by validated research methods from the K-space. Further research needs to address the complexity of real-life socio-interactive situations. The paper shows that the engineering act in a heterogeneous manner is at least of equal importance for innovation as the creative design act.@en

Managing disruptive innovation and exploitative innovation simultaneously seems to be a serious challenge since both activities require a different mindset and approach. Current methods, such as the Stage-Gate method, seem to favor exploitative innovation above explorative innovation resulting in the need to create better understanding on disruptive innovation and how to organize it in parallel to exploitative innovation. The field of design sciences seems to offer an interesting perspective regarding this issue. This paper reports on an exploratory study in which 8 teams of MSc design students hosted within the incumbents R&D department (FMCG) bring and demonstrate the value of design thinking in the early stages of NPD. Findings suggests that 1) design students are able to initiate awareness of what design can do; 2) student design teams are able to deliver promising and disruptive product-market combinations and associated prototypes; 3) the NPD-process of the students seems to reflect a full prototype run of the companies stage gate process, be it by passing the respective gates in a qualitative manner as opposed to the existing quantitative criteria. The prototype, the supporting reasoning and the fact that NPD employees have been witnessing its development seems to enable its acceptance for further development. In the next stage we will build on these fledgling findings by means of an action research project. @en

This paper explores the social dimension of collaborative design from the perspective of Schön's reflective practice. An in-depth video protocol study was performed on the reflective practice in an experienced design team. It looks, in particular, at reframing: the process to find a new productive frame for subsequent activities. Reframing processes are amplified in a social context, requiring considerable time and effort on the part of design teams. Reframing has distinctive features that set it apart from other steps of reflective practice. Two iterative stages are discerned: sensemaking, to reconstruct prior operating frames; and future framing, to design a frame for future activities. Surprises incite reframing, and we argue that surprises are a source for team learning and innovation.

@en

In health care, the design, development and commercialization of innovative products is often found frustrating due to the slow inefficient and difficult nature of its systems. One part of this problem is the fact that health systems are highly regulated complex systems that include various stakeholders and unique challenges. Nevertheless, designers and other innovators are
often unaware of these unique features of health systems. It is important that designers and managers are able to understand the system, anticipate challenges and account for them in their work.

We therefore aim to establish and evaluate an overarching conceptual model, which can delineate both the systems of health care innovation process and the relevant stakeholders in these systems. This paper reviews the application and potential benefits of one of the promising models called Multilevel Design Model (MDM) by employing an expert-participatory testing on multiple cases in documented clinical reports (n=8). The evaluation of the MDM model followed by further adaptations and changes to the model itself, as well as to the accompanying user guidelines. With some adjustments, the MDM was able to visualize and explain the systems of the health care innovation process in a systematic and shared manner usable for health product designers, innovators and health organizations. We propose the adjusted MDM model for further use in the design and development of health care innovations in order to avoid the typical stagnation of product dissemination after implementation.@en