Microfoundations of dynamic design capabilities: An empirical analysis of “excellent” Italian design firms

Abstract

This article investigates how managers of firms awarded for their design excellence build organizational-level design-related dynamic capabilities by selecting designers with specific individual capabilities and managing how and the extent to which users of the firms' products are actively involved in design activities.The following two types of dynamic capabilities were studied: user-centered design (UCD) and meaning innovation (MI). Data from a survey of managers of 106 Italian firms recognized for their products' "design excellence" during the 2011-2016 period were analyzed using a structural equation model (PLS-SEM).The results suggest that managers seeking to build dynamic UCD capabilities prefer designers with holistic thinking capabilities over those with ideation and envisioning capabilities and value user involvement throughout the design process. In contrast, managers seeking to build dynamic MI capabilities search for designers with holistic thinking and envisioning capabilities and avoid ideation capabilities. They also consider the value of involving users in the design process to be limited. This study is among the first to present the results of an empirical investigation of the microfoundations of dynamic design capabilities. Limitations of the research and prospects for future work are discussed. In particular, our findings point to the need for additional studies that further specify the routines and associated competencies that managers responsible for design employ to attract, nurture, integrate and exploit the micro-level capabilities required for UCD and MI. Given that some of these microfoundations were found to be differentially important, unimportant, or even detrimental to the development of either UCD or MI, an important remaining question is the extent to which, and how, a single firm can accommodate and effectively exploit both of these dynamic design capabilities.

Design thinking: Critical analysis and future evolution

“…Two papers included in the Special Issues rely on theories at the intersection of innovation and organization research fields: Cautela et al (2021) investigate the role of Dynamic Capabilities in achieving design excellence; Magistretti et al (2021a) propose framing and advancing Design Thinking as a Dynamic Capability for innovation rooted in lower‐level aspects, namely microfoundations. Cautela et al (2021) investigate two types of dynamic capabilities and their relationship with design excellence: user‐centered design (UCD) and meaning innovation (MI). The results suggest that managers seeking to build dynamic UCD capabilities prefer designers with holistic thinking capabilities over those with ideation and envisioning capabilities and value user involvement throughout the design process.…”

The perceived relevance of design thinking in achieving innovation goals: The individual microfoundations perspective

“…On the one hand, at the intermediate micro-level of analysis, the study unveils those different organizational composite factors (function or hierarchical level) influence the perceptions of an innovation approach, thus affecting the potential impact at the corporate level. Second, our study complements an emerging innovation management research stream (e.g Cautela et al, 2022;Dong et al, 2016;Magistretti, Ardito, & Messeni Petruzzelli, 2021). revealing that corporate design thinking behaviour tends to be explained at the microlevel of analysis.6 | CONCLUSIONS, LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCHAs highlighted, our study has different implications for design thinking theory and practice.…”

“…In addition to the role of design thinking in achieving different innovation goals, the literature has neglected the different managerial perceptions of this approach. Indeed, most studies have been conducted at the process or organizational level, and little is known of the individual perspectives of managers towards this approach (Cautela et al, 2022; Magistretti, Ardito, & Messeni Petruzzelli, 2021). As the literature defines the individual, process and structure dimensions as the microfoundations of a phenomenon (Felin et al, 2012), we adopt this lens to gain a deeper the understanding of design thinking in the innovation realm.…”

“…at the process or organizational level, and little is known of the individual perspectives of managers towards this approach (Cautela et al, 2022;Magistretti, Ardito, & Messeni Petruzzelli, 2021). As the literature defines the individual, process and structure dimensions as the microfoundations of a phenomenon (Felin et al, 2012), we adopt this lens to gain a deeper the understanding of design thinking in the innovation realm.…”

“…The relevance of studying perception is motivated by the fact that different academic articles (Felin et al, 2015;Shea & Hawn, 2019) have been proven that different individuals see and enact models differently due to their understanding of the context (Helfat & Peteraf, 2015), leveraging their backgrounds (Barney & Felin, 2013) and valuing their experiences (Tasselli et al, 2015). Thus, the first set of evidence on the relevance of adopting an individual perspective in design thinking is emerging (Cautela et al, 2022;Garbuio & Lin, 2021;Magistretti, Ardito, & Messeni Petruzzelli, 2021). Thus, more knowledge is needed on the different perceptions that managers at the individual levels have on design thinking as a practice.…”