Cited by 951Design Education and PracticeDecision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsBusiness Strategies and Innovation

Perspective: Linking Design Thinking with Innovation Outcomes through Cognitive Bias Reduction

Liedtka, Jeanne·2015·Journal of Product Innovation Management

Abstract

“Design thinking” has generated significant attention in the business press and has been heralded as a novel problem‐solving methodology well suited to the often‐cited challenges business organizations face in encouraging innovation and growth. Yet the specific mechanisms through which the use of design, approached as a thought process, might improve innovation outcomes have not received significant attention from business scholars. In particular, its utility has only rarely been linked to the academic literature on individual cognition and decision‐making. This perspective piece advocates addressing this omission by examining “design thinking” as a practice potentially valuable for improving innovation outcomes by helping decision‐makers reduce their individual level cognitive biases. In this essay, I first review the assumptions, principles, and key process tools associated with design thinking. I then establish its foundation in the decision‐making literature, drawing on an extensive body of research on cognitive biases and their impact. The essay concludes by advancing a set of propositions and research implications, aiming to demonstrate one particular path that future research might take in assessing the utility of design thinking as a method for improving organizational outcomes related to innovation. In doing so, it seeks to address the challenge of conducting academic research on a practice that is obviously popular in management circles but appears resistant to rigorous empirical inquiry because of the multifaceted nature of its “basket” of tools and processes and the complexity of measuring the outcomes it produces.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/jpim.12163

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Liedtka, J.
Affiliations
University of Virginia (US)
Corresponding author
Liedtka, Jeanne
Venue
Journal of Product Innovation Management
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-03-25
Volume
32
Issue
6
Pages
925-938
ISSN
  • 0737-6782 (ISSN-L)
  • 1540-5885
OpenAlex
W2171328963
Cited by
951
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 97 · 2025: 160 · 2024: 89 · 2023: 122 · 2022: 90 · 2021: 126 · 2020: 83 · 2019: 80 · 2018: 47 · 2017: 31 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 4
FWCI
22.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Product Innovation Management (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Design Education and Practice
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Business Strategies and Innovation
Keywords
design thinking, innovation outcomes, cognitive bias reduction, decision-making, individual cognition, organizational innovation, problem-solving approach

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review