Page 41 - DP-2-1

Design+ Legitimizing design thinking in companies

challenge (Section 3.5.4. titled “Workshop with Team differences and similarities between Team Alpha and Team
Beta” for further details). Beta regarding the conducted workshops. The use of this
approach allowed for an objective analysis of participants’
3.3. Methods perceptions, contributing to a deeper understanding of the

The current study employed a quasi-experimental factors influencing team performance and collaboration
approach to investigate and compare two distinct teams: within the organizational context.
Team Alpha and Team Beta. Both teams are part of the 
same commercial team unit within the organization and 3.4. ideaChef tool
are led by the same team leader. The central focus of this ideaChef is a service design method and tool that

approach was to analyze the differences and similarities integrates creative problem-solving, DT, and gamification
between the two teams regarding the outcomes of the elements. In response to a specific challenge, teams use

conducted workshops. To achieve the study’s objectives, ideaChef to convert ideas into actionable solutions,
the following methodological steps were implemented: such as projects or prototypes. Based on past experiences,

(i) Team selection and contextualization: Team Alpha ideaChef fosters the development of closer relationships,
and Team Beta were selected as the units of analysis promotes relaxation, enhances team bonding, encourages
due to their relevance within the organization. Both informal idea-sharing, and stimulates adaptability by
teams belong to the same group of commercial pushing participants outside of their comfort zones. In
managers and share the same team leader, providing addition, it increases motivation and productivity among
a controlled environment for comparison. employees. ideaChef is a board game that incorporates

(ii) Survey development: A structured and validated game components to engage teams in developing product
survey was developed to gather relevant information or service concepts. It has been utilized in both academic
on team members’ perceptions of the conducted and business innovation initiatives. While the tool can
workshops. The survey scales were carefully chosen accommodate up to six participants, a minimum of three is
to align with the research objectives, especially given required. The necessary equipment for generating a selected
the absence of suitable existing measures for one of the concept for a challenge includes a playboard, two sets of
hypotheses. question cards, play points and tokens, individual boards,
(iii) Workshop execution and data collection: A series of menu cards for each player, personalized sticky notes,
workshops were conducted over a specified period for dice, a pen, and a timer. This tool was selected for this
43
both teams, with each session following a structured study because, unlike traditional design methods involving
work activity. At the end of each workshop, team sticky notes, it offers a more enjoyable, stimulating, and
members were asked to complete the survey. This structured ideation process. It enables teams to tackle
approach ensured data collection immediately following innovation challenges through game dynamics, such as
the workshop, minimizing potential memory biases. debating, voting on contributions, and combining or
(iv) Quantitative analysis: The data collected through the refining the most consensual components of the product
surveys were analyzed using appropriate statistical or service development process.
techniques. The quantitative analysis focused on 3.5. Data collection
comparing responses between the two teams,
identifying trends, and assessing significant differences The following sections provide detailed descriptions and
in participants’ perceptions. Statistical tools and observations of the experiments conducted.
correlation analyses were applied as necessary.
(v) Interpretation of results: Emerging patterns and 3.5.1. Preliminary DT workshop with both teams
significant differences in the data were interpreted in Both Team Alpha and Team Beta participated in an initial
the context of the research objectives. conventional theoretical company training session titled
(vi) Discussion and conclusions: The results were Creative Processes and DT, which lasted for 2 days. On the
discussed in relation to relevant literature and the first day, several participants arrived late, causing the rest
research objectives. Conclusions were drawn from of the team to work on computers, read emails, take phone
the quantitative evidence, highlighting the study’s calls, and attend meetings while waiting for everyone to
contributions to understanding team dynamics and arrive. Despite these delays, once the facilitator left the
offering insights for the development of effective room, team members expressed their dissatisfaction with
leadership and management strategies. the length and timing of the training.
By employing a quantitative approach, this study The facilitator, who has been delivering this theoretical
aimed to generate empirically grounded insights into the training for over 20 years, is well-experienced in the

Volume 2 Issue 1 (2025) 7 doi: 10.36922/dp.4292