Systems, Design, and Entrepreneurial Thinking: Comparative Frameworks

alarminfamousInternet and Web Development

Nov 18, 2013 (3 years and 6 months ago)

104 views

Systems, D
esign,

and

Entrepreneur
ial
Thinking
:
Comparative Frameworks


Samir Patel
1

and *Khanjan Mehta
1


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

consid
ered
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 t
he

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
.
F
irms

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
, entrepreneu
rial
thinking
, and systems

thinking
.
Although these philosophies

date back hundreds of years
, there
has been a
recent

resurgence in their
application
.
Many o
rganizations 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 t
hinking of the
se 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 extreme
ly practical
ways in which they can be employed,
design thinking, entrepreneurial t
hinking, 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
process
es

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 i
s no literature to date that connects all three methodologies.
This
article

seeks t
o
deconstruct the essence
of
the

three phil
osophies into core tene
t
s

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
ENTREP
RENEURIAL THINKING



DESIGN THINKING


By its own nature, design thinking is
a

conceptual idea
:
s
ay ‘d
esign’ 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 fr
om 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 20
th

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, everythi
ng 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 d
esign
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 t
hinking is a

methodology that imbues the full spectrum of innovation
activities with a human
-
centered design ethos

(
Brown, 2008
)
.

That is, des
ign 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

wor
k to try to invent a different future
. Thus, while both methods of thinking are
hypothesis
-
driven, the design hypothesis differs from the s
cientific hypothesis
(
Liedtka, 2000
)
.

Modern day design thinking has also taken a much more global tone: i
n 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 b
ulb, 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 sec
tors.

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 R
esearch
I
n Motion (RI
M
)

are
amongst

a handful
of companies that apply

design thinking as a source of inspiration to pro
duce breakthr
ough
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 th
at design thinking is being implemented in many different contexts and
sector
s
, 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 emerge
d

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
lo
fty and noble goals into what is
technically feasible and has a sustainable business strategy.
Design thinking
applies

the ideas of
design as agent
s

of change
in order to convert
need into demand
(
Brown and
Katz, 2009
)
.

The
rigorous methodology of design thinking works as a mecha
nism to nurture future leaders, but
most importantly,
design thinking brings creative techniques to the public for
the
greater good
.

This great str
ength of design thinking is,

paradoxically
,

its biggest fault
(
Nussbaum, 2011
)
.
Since

design thinking lacks a linear and incremental methodology like Six Sigma and other efficie
ncy
-
based processes, it is
diff
icult 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 thei
r constit
uent parts
and to study

the cause and effect relationships between those constituent parts. Thus, at its very
beginning, e
mergence and interrelatedness a
re at the core of systems thinking

(
Flood, 2010
)
.

Systems thinking is a p
rocess 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 lar
ger system, rather than an independent aspect with
non
-
related consequences

(
Ackoff and Addison, 2010
)
.
There is no uniform body of thin
king
related to systems thinking;

it is
not any one thing, but a set of tools, habits
,

and practices that
help in mapping dynamic complexities
.
S
ystems thinking
focuses
on the cyclic
al

cause

and
effects, as opposed to
the
linear cause and effect relationships
(
Checkland and Checkland, 1999
)
.

Like de
sign thinking, syst
ems
thinking
is an inherently abstract concept

for most people
.
Interestingly enough, the human brain is essentially

wire
d


for systems thinking
. Humans can
think about relationships and communities
,

and we are incredibly good at examining those
relationships. For exa
mple, if you ask a 14 year old girl
to explain the complex system of
friendships and romantic relationships in her

social group, y
ou will

get an answer whose
complexity puts

many

six
-
figure stock analysts to shame.

However,
there is often the fear of
the
l
ogic of systems thinking get
ting

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 think
ing
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 a
n insecticide
, whereas the
systems thinking model would involve a
n integrated pest management

solution

that
inv
olves

controlling the insect eating the crops by introducing more o
f its predators into the area.
As
humans, we instinctively use systems thinking when looking at social relationship
s
, but this
methodology can be applied in other unique contexts.
From a pe
dagogical perspective
,
system
s

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 17
th

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,
entrepren
eurial 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 innovat
ive and creative ways.

Organizations need to renew themselves in
order to sustain competitiveness.


This can take such forms as championing innova
tive ideas,
providing necessary
expertise, or

institutionalizing the entrepreneurial activity within the
organization’s system and process
es. At the core of entrepreneurial thinking is the application of

effectual reasoning


as opposed to

ca
u
s
al reasoning

.
Entrepreneurial thinkers
are brilliant
im
provisers and do

n
o
t start with concrete goals, but instead they constantly assess how their
personal strengths and abilities can be applied to develop the g
oals 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,

ca
u
s
al 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 itsel
f 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 conserv
ative line of business
(
McGrath and MacMillan,
199
5
,
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 w
hat 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 attem
pts to
simplify the
se

inherently abstract concepts
(
Buchanan, 1992
,
Boardman and Sauser, 2008
,
Nussbaum, 2011
)
. This situation presents a conu
ndrum for those
seeking

to apply design,
systems, and e
ntrepreneurial thinking. Instead of attempting to simplify the concepts
in this
paper, our approach is
to identify underlying patterns and ideals that are re
presentative of each
philosophy
. To this end
, we reviewed literature from
lead
ers 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 prac
tice. 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 19
65

onward

and gave preference to high
impact
publications from well
-
known members of the field. S
pecifically
, 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 healthc
are 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 occurrence
s
)


Design Thinking

(4
7

articles)

Multidisciplinary (
30
),

Human
-
centered

(2
6
)
,
Prototype
-
driven

(2
6
)
,

and

Ideat
ion
-
based

(2
5
)


Entrepreneurial Thinking

(25 articles)

Collaboration (20)
,
Value Creation

(18)
,
Discovery
-
driven (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 acad
emics 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
-
driv
en, and
ideation
-
based

(Table 2)
.

Table
2
: Tenets of Design Thinking


Tenet

References

Multidisciplinary


(30
/47
)

(
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., 2
012
,
Safian, 2005
,
Sato et al., 2010
,
Scanlon, 2007
,
Seidel et al., 2011
,
Archer, 1974
,
Cross, 2011
,
Jones, 1981
)

Human
-
centered

(2
6
/47
)

(
Brown and Katz, 2009
,
Kelley an
d 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
)

Prototype
-
driven

(2
6
/47
)

(
Brennan et al., 2009
,
Burnette, 1974
,
Castellion, 2010
,
Downs, 2006
,
Hayer and Burney, 2006
,
Hempel and McConnon, 2006
,
Kelley a
nd
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
)

Ideation
-
based

(25/47
)

(
Breen, 2005
,
Brown and Katz, 2009
,
Burnette,
1974
,
Castellion, 2010
,
Cruickshank and Evans, 2012
,
Downs, 2006
,
Guterman, 2009
,
Lang,
1974
,
Liedtka, 2011
,
Lock
wood, 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 d
esign

uses the resources available to the designer
and applies them to meet the individual needs of the audience that is being addressed.
A human
-
centered 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
regulation
s
,
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 withou
t 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

optimize
s

rather than maximize
s

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 factor
s like costs, scalability, and reliability.
A
ssessment
and feedback
-
mechanisms amongst the

iteratio
ns
strengthen

this prototype
-
driven process.

Lastly, design thinking is about people working collaboratively

in multi
disciplinary

teams to
ensure
a
human
-
centered approach to design is achieved.

Co
llaboration
among
st

engineers,
artists, scientists,
bus
iness 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
perspective
s

to better meet the needs of the customer
, while maintaining
an economically viable
enter
prise
(
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 ti
me 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,
200
3
,
Haines, 2005
,
Jackson, 1991b
,
Boardman and Sauser, 2008
,
Jackson, 2003
,
Mella, 2012
,
Gharajedaghi, 2006
,
Haines, 2000
,
Ackoff
et al., 2010
,
Richmond, 2000
)

Differentiation

(22/25)

(
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
)

Regulation

(21/25)

(
Heinich and Education and Training Consultants Co., 1968
,
Stacey et
al., 2000
,
Goldstein, 2009
,
McIntyre
-
Mills, 2003
,
Silvern, 1975
,
Salisbury, 1996
,
Weinberg and Weinber
g, 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
)

Abstraction

(20/25)

(
Heinich and Education and Training
Consultants Co., 1968
,
Stacey et
al., 2000
,
Goldstein, 2009
,
McIntyre
-
Mills, 2003
,
Basch, 2002
,
Silvern,
1975
,
Salisbury, 1996
,
W
einberg and Weinberg, 1988
,
Daellenbach
and McNickle, 2005
,
Jackson, 1991a
,
Flood, 2010
,
Haines, 2003
,
Haines, 2005
,
Clementson, 1988
,
Jac
kson, 1991b
,
Boardman and
Sauser, 2008
,
Jackson, 2003
,
Mella, 2012
,
Haines, 2000
,
Checkland,
1981
)

Multi
-
finality

(20/25)

(
Heinich and Education and Training Consultants Co., 1968
,
McIntyre
-
Mills, 2003
,
Basch, 2002
,
Silvern, 1975
,
Salisbury, 1996
,
Weinberg
and Weinberg, 1988
,
Daellenb
ach 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 str
ucture 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 surr
ounding
s
.
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
.
A
lth
ough 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 sys
tem 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 i
mportance.
The differentiation
process is a means of increasing the complexit
y 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 variation
s

in the
environment

(
Naustdalslid,
1977
)
.

As per

systems thinking theory, achieving differentiation allows di
verse

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 multi
-
finality:
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


Wh
ile

systems thinking focus
es

on the relationships between different actors and inputs,
entrepreneurial thinking
is targeted on using creativity with
calculated

risk
to create
and
capitalize on
opportunities.
W
e
studied
twenty
-
five articles and determined the following
common tenets
of entrepreneurial thinking
: value creation, collaboration, resilience
,
and a
discove
ry
-
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., 201
1
,
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., 201
1
,
Grégoire et al.,
2011
,
Gelderen and Masurel, 2012
,
Michaels, 2012
)

Resilience


(16/25)

(
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
)

Discovery
-
driven

(17/25)

(
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
)


Entrepreneurial thinking is abo
ut
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: i
t 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.
E
ntrepreneurial thinking requires
careful attention to
existing
d
ynamic context
s
.
Bringing and managing the necessary capital
(human, financial, political, social, etc
.
) to
take advantage of available opportunities

is critical for
success.

A
n entrepreneur will
have

to interact and work with many
external

subsystems
,
ind
ividuals
,

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 plan
s

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
d
iscovery 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
convert
s

startup assumptions into knowledge that grounds the plan
ning

for a new initiative
.

HOW ARE DESIGN THINKING, ENTREPRENEURIAL THINKING, AND SYSTEMS
THINKING RELATED?


Thus far, design thinking, entrepreneurial thinking, and systems thinking h
ave been analyzed
independently
of

each

other. However, the tenets of these methodologies
have an

intrinsic
interconnectedn
ess that to date has not been defined.
T
he 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 thinki
ng

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 V
enn

diagram of design, entrepreneurial, and

systems thinking.
Without

p
redisposing them to our findings
, w
e 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
bia
sed them toward associating a particular tenet to a specific
philosophy/
methodology.
This

selec
tion 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
s
ystems 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.
W
e 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 thi
nking

are interrelated

because those conn
ections 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
ut
ilizing 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

conn
ect the ideas of design, entrepreneurial
, and systems thinking
by

analyzing

each methodology as
a whole and then

focus

on a tenet specific basis.

S
ystems thinking

is not an exact and quantifiable
framework but a
highly contextual and
perceptive

philosophy
.

E
ach application of systems thinking is different because each scenario
involves different
players, stakeholders, and situations
.
In this regard, system
s

thinking is v
ery
similar to design thinking

(
Liedtka, 2000
)
.
However, systems thinking also
analyzes

the
relationship from

the outside perspective inward
.

For example,
how is the ent
repreneur
interacting

with the government and how is the government
interacting
with
health care services
?
As a corollary, h
ow
do

the

health care services

relate to

employee effectiveness

and
finally

how
does
employee effectiveness

create value for the
entrepreneur?

The system
s

thin
king 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
.
E
ntrepreneurial thinking, as expected, is focused from the lens of only the entrepreneur. This
frame of reference is then spread across differ
ent 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?

Entrepreneu
rial 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 entrepreneur
ial thinker attempts to

create
value


thro
ugh
innovation and risk
-
taking, he or she
applies

design thinking to create a process to follow
through on that risk
.
When
analyzing

the conne
ctions that are derived from entrepreneurial
thinking, design thinking

is the process for actually formin
g 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 tha
t 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, de
velopment of ideas, or products of
significant human value.
Moving outward from the center,

entrepreneurial thinking

translate
s

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 among
st

the
tenets

of the
se

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
: G
roup 1
: multi
-
disciplinary, collaboration, interdependence;

G
roup 2
: human
-
centered, resilience, abstraction;

G
roup
3
: ideation, value creation, multi
-
finality
; and
G
roup 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 System
s

Thinking

(ST)
.

CASE
1:
MULTIDISCIPLINARY
, COLLABORATION,

AND

INTERDEPENDENCE AT
THE MAYO CLINIC

Patient
examination rooms
at the Mayo Clinic have remained virtually unchange
d 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 (health
care 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%
consist
ed

of the

physical

exam. Their
research

resulted in
a
design for a

two
-
room suite: one

that

served as an examination room and an
other

that

served as a
conversation room.

In the actual development

of the new patient rooms
,
entrepreneurial thinking was the primary
c
oncern

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
. Theref
ore, the
princ
ipal

question from
this

perspective

wa
s
analyzing if
the

value created from th
e
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
entrepre
neurial think
ing process.
T
he 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 mor
e 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

rev
enue by not optimizing the number of
patients seen.


In this case, the

systems

approach satisfied the criteri
a needed in the entrepreneurial
process to
justify the design changes proposed.
To summarize,
design thinking revealed the current problem
with
the

examination rooms. E
ntrepreneurial 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 feas
ible

and in
-
harmony with the larger healthcare context
.

CASE 2:
HUMAN
-
CENTERED, RESILIENCE
, AND ABSTRACTION IN

THE
DESIGN
OF THE TREADLE PUMP
S

The human
-
centered aspect of design thinking is often the most important criteria in
addressing
development
al

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 human
-
centered approach,
Vijay
Kumar noted

that

in order to “create
innovations that h
ave a good fit
with users”, the
designer’s

focus needed

to shift “from products that people use, to what those
people do


their behaviors, activ
ities, needs, and motivations”
(
Kumar, 2009
)
.
Therefore, the
human
-
centered approach places p
eople 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 thin
king
perspective
. Design thinking
analyzed
the end
-
user

issue
s

described
above
,

but entrepreneurial thinking
determined

if

such a human
-
centered design
was

resilien
t

in
the marketplace. That is,

for environmental resilience,

entrepreneurial thinking
needed

to account
for the manufacturing and maintenance: what material
s

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, affordabilit
y, and durabil
ity has

to be considered.
The social resilience

of the treadle pumps
is

of paramount importance. T
he
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 s
ystems thinking in this scenario serve
d

as the glue connecting the core
of design thinking and inner shell of entrepreneurial thinking.
T
he abstraction o
f 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 human
s

(
saving time and energy by
pumping water)

can be defined at multiple levels.
In
itially, the treadle pump create
d

val
u
e for the
individual user by saving him or her time from gathering water from the traditional rope and
bucket systems.

T
he value
was

then passed onto the family and the community. The
se parties
now had

a more efficient

means to acquire water that will eventually lead to more efficient food
product
s
. On a macro level, the treadle pumps would positively affect the region, the agricultural
system, and the country.

M
ass
-
produced treadle pump
s

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 v
alue 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 pre
dicated 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 opp
ortunities, based
on design thinking

and act
ing

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 o
nline 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.

Th
is 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 p
rizewinner,
Essmart Global, aimed

to give rural retail shops owners in India access to high
-
qu
ality
technologies that improved
customer lives.
From a
multi
-
finality perspective of systems
thinking, this social venture yielded

enormous
tangible
valu
e 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 creat
ed

was
distributed
across

the
platform sponsor
s
, the users who chose the project
s, 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 intr
icately
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
-
DR
IVEN, 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 sys
tems
thinking function
s

to minimize

this risk
. For example, in the Mashavu telemedicine
venture in
Kenya
, t
he
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 resour
ces during the initial startup, Mashavu searched for an equilibrium that balanced
outreach with sustainability through a prototype
-
driven process.
T
ypically, this
involved
complex

questions
of scalability
:
which locatio
n to choose
,

what operating environment
to
create,

or what
needs were

addressable

in particular
areas
.

To
answer

these questions, the discovery
driven asp
ect 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 refin
ing the entire
system
.

This shotgun appr
oach to dat
a acquisition carried

with it inherent risk, but such risk
was

hedged through
the prototype driven process:
design thinking

revealed
the optimal strategies
,

and
entrepreneu
rial thinking evaluated each strategy

to determine
effectiveness and viability.

Syst
ems 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 t
hat
emerged from
entrepreneurial thinking

was

recognizing when to expand a

venture
.
The regulation component
of systems thinking necessitated

that a
ccountability mechanism
s

li
k
e daily updates on
productivity

or
receipt books for customer services

were in place for each pilot
.
Fu
rther
regulations

like charting

operations
,
ethical codes
, and patient experience evaluations

were all
implemented to ensure stakeholders received appropriate services
(
Stepler et al., 2010
)
.
Collectively, t
his data provided

the necessary

evidence to determine if an expansion was
su
ccessful.

Regulation through

data

analysis

connected

the prototype
-
driven and discovery
-
driven process by
validating the effectiveness and risks of each expansion strategy.

CONCLUSION


D
esign th
inking, 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 th
e 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 in
tegrated model is applicable in environments ranging from established
private corporations to novel startup companies.
T
he

conscious
integration
of

the tenets of
design
thinking, entrepreneurial thinking, and systems thinking
is particularly powerful

and
c
an
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 curio
us 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.


Ottawa, Department of Industry, Trade
and Commerce and the Design Council of Great Britain.

ARONSON, D. 1
996. 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 desi
gn : 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 ;
Nor
thampton, 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, A
shgate.

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. W
icked 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 Wh
at 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 methodol
ogy : 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. ‘Cogni
tive 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 framew
orks: 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 ENGIN
EERING 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 ach
ieve 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 Entrepreneuri
al 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 Actio
n 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., Berrett
-
Koehler Publishers.

GRÉGOIRE, D. A., CORBETT, A. C. & MCMULLEN, J. S. 2011. The Cognitive Perspective
in Entrepreneurship: An Ag
enda 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 Thi
nking 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,, Educati
on 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 criti
cal 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
S
ussex ; 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. 198
1.
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. D
esign 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 yout
h : 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 desi
gn.
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 T
hinking.
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 m
ind : 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 Ess
entials 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.

NEWHO
FER, 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 Desig
n?
Business Week.

NUSSBAUM, B. 2011.
Design Thinking Is A Failed Experiment. So What's Next?
[Online]. New
York: Fast Company's Co.Design. Available:
h
ttp://www.fastcodesign.com/1663558/design
-
thinking
-
is
-
a
-
failed
-
experiment
-
so
-
whats
-
next

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 disrup
tive age],
London, Dorling
Kindersley.

PLATTNER, H., MEINEL, C. & LEIFER, L. 2012.
Design Thinking Research: Studying Co
-
Creation in Practice (Understanding Innovation)
, Springer.

POURDEHNAD, J., WEXLER, E. R. & WILSON, D. V. 2011. Systems & Design Thinkin
g: 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
,

1
3
-
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 Developmen
t 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 importan
ce 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 b
abies: 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, See
ing 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. SCIE
NTIFIC 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 princip
les 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 wit
hin the
Humanitarian Engineering and Social
Entrepreneurship

program on the Mashavu and iSPACES venture
s

in East Africa.


Khanjan Mehta

is the D
irector 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, c
oncepts, 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 wit
hin the Humanitarian Engineering
and Social Entrepreneurship program at Penn State University for their assistance in this project.