Perspective: Linking Design Thinking with Innovation Outcomes through Cognitive Bias Reduction
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Although DT promotes problem-solving and innovation, it does not inherently lead to improvement of creativity in integrated DT models.
“although DT promotes problem-solving and innovation, it does not inherently lead to the improvement of creativity in integrated DT models (Johansson-Sköldberg et al., 2013;Liedtka, 2015Liedtka, , 2018)).”
From A meta-analysis to explore the role of design thinking in enhancing creativity as learning outcomes in STEM education (2026) · cites this paper as Liedtka, 2015
Cites
Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias
Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1991) · Journal of Economic Perspectives · doi:10.1257/jep.5.1.193 · Cited by 5,019 · see citing works
Wicked Problems in Design Thinking
Buchanan, R. (1992) · Design Issues · doi:10.2307/1511637 · Cited by 3,539 · cited 5× · see citing works
“Buchanan (1992) situated design as a dialectic that took place at the intersection of constraint, contingency, and possibility. This convergence around the characteristics of the design process provides a theoretical foundation for describing the design-thinking process as advocated in business today: it is a hypothes…”
BackgroundInfluentialManagerial myopia: Self-serving biases in organizational planning.
Larwood, L., & Whittaker, W. (1977) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.62.2.194 · Cited by 490 · see citing works
Perceiver-induced constraint: Interpretations of self-generated reality.
Gilbert, D. T., & Jones, E. E. (1986) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.50.2.269 · Cited by 335 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Managing Co-creation Design: A Strategic Approach to Innovation
Frow, P., Nenonen, S., Payne, A., & Storbacka, K. (2015) · British Journal of Management · doi:10.1111/1467-8551.12087 · Cited by 518 · see citing works
Cevasco, K. E., Morrison Brown, R. E., Woldeselassie, R., & Kaplan, S. (2024) · Journal of Medical Systems · doi:10.1007/s10916-024-02059-x · Cited by 35 · see citing works
Muneer, S., Santhosh, M., Parangusan, H., & Bhadra, J. (2026) · International Journal of Technology and Design Education · doi:10.1007/s10798-025-10005-2 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
- 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