Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttps://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rfdj20

The Design JournalAn International Journal for All Aspects of Design

ISSN: 1460-6925 (Print) 1756-3062 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rfdj20

Creating Customer-Centric Organizations: TheValue of Design Artefacts

Jacqueline Wechsler & Jochen Schweitzer

To cite this article: Jacqueline Wechsler & Jochen Schweitzer (2019) Creating Customer-Centric Organizations: The Value of Design Artefacts, The Design Journal, 22:4, 505-527, DOI:10.1080/14606925.2019.1614811

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2019.1614811

Published online: 10 Jun 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 36

View Crossmark data

Creating Customer-Centric Organizations:The Value ofDesign Artefacts

Jacqueline WechslerSticky Design Studio, Sydney, Australia

Jochen SchweitzerUniversity of Technology Sydney BusinessSchool, Sydney, Australia

ABSTRACT More organizations are adoptingcustomer-centric innovation practices to increasebusiness value; however, very little is known aboutthe factors driving customer-centric innovation or theconditions under which innovation succeeds.Similarly, very little is known about the role of designartefacts as inputs in customer-centric innovationprocesses or as instruments that support theorganizational change required for successful

TheDesignJo

urna

lDOI:10

.108

0/14

6069

25.201

9.16

1481

1505

THE DESIGN JOURNAL VOLUME 22, ISSUE 4PP 505–527

REPRINTS AVAILABLEDIRECTLY FROMTHE PUBLISHERS

PHOTOCOPYINGPERMITTED BYLICENSE ONLY

© 2019 INFORMA UKLIMITED, TRADING ASTAYLOR & FRANCISGROUP PRINTED INTHE UK

change. A practice-led case study was conducted toexamine the role of design artefacts and to demonstratehow they are flexible and persuasive tools that mediate thesocial and intertwined demands of customer-centricinnovation strategies. Five distinct roles of design artefactsare proposed and their value in contributing to innovationand organizational change are considered.

KEYWORDS: design artefacts; design methods; customer-centricity;organizational change

Introduction

+As a key strategic resource, the capacity to innovate hasbecome very important to commercial, non-commercial andgovernment organizations globally. Innovation advances peo-

ple’s wellbeing, their relationship with the environment, organizationalefficacy and profitability. Much can be achieved by adopting a cus-tomer-centric approach to innovation; however, many challenges stillremain (Bucolo, Wrigley, and Matthews 2012). Recent research hasshown that this approach involves many aspects and relationshipsincluding, for example, design processes (Dorst 2011) and designmindsets (Schweitzer, Groeger, and Sobel 2016). Yet, the absence oftheoretical support for customer-centricity within the broader manage-ment literature has led to ongoing debates in relation to the effects ofpractically adopting and successfully implementing this approach toinnovate products and services, organizational strategies (Clegg et al.2017), and culture and leadership (Schweitzer 2014). Further, very littleis known about the role of design artefacts in supporting an organiza-tion to be customer focused, or the changes that need to be imple-mented when such a strategy is adopted.

The existing literature discusses the effect design has on organi-zations in relation to their products, processes and strategies (e.g.Cooper, Junginger, and Lockwood 2011), as well as its contributionto innovation management and market-oriented thinking (e.g. Clegget al. 2017). However, the focus of this discourse is limited to theeffect of the design process as a whole or to the influence ofdesigned outputs (such as products, services and apps, amongothers), rather than specific design artefacts or the tools used withindesign processes and their consequent effect on market orientationand customer-centricity.

Adding to the complexity is that, to date, definitions of what arte-facts are have mostly been vague. Researchers widely agree thatartefacts are essential to ‘getting things done’ in organizations (KnorrCetina 1997; Orlikowski 2002); however, very little agreement existson how managers successfully use and produce design artefacts(both at the organizational and individual levels) when pursuing innov-ation or implementing change. We define design artefacts as visual

Jacqueline Wechsler and Jochen Schweitzer

TheDesignJo

urna

l506

artefacts used within innovation and design processes, and any vis-ual objects towards which and with which individuals act. Thisincludes only artefacts that have been created during the design pro-cess such as prototypes, journey maps and wire frames. It does notinclude artefacts that constitute a final product or service.

We conducted a single instrumental case study (Stake 1995) of aproject that sought to improve the ordering and activation servicesrelated to complex information technology and telecommunicationsproducts. For this, we adopted an ethnographic and practice-ledresearch approach and undertook an investigation of situated designpractices in a complex practice context (Mafe and Brown 2006). Ourcase study considered design artefacts in relation to their social con-texts to clarify their mediatory roles within customer-centric innovationprocesses and to highlight the potential of design artefacts to supportorganizational change.

First discussed are related readings about customer-centricity andorganizational change, design artefacts as boundary objects anddesigners’ roles as knowledge brokers. Materials and methods arealso explained, including details about the case. Next, five proposi-tions for artefacts’ supporting roles in customer-centricity are pre-sented in Sections 5 and 6.

BackgroundCustomer-centricity and Organizational ChangeHuman-centred innovation is based on ‘customer insights’ or theknowledge gained by interacting directly with consumers to under-stand their values and meaning-based needs (Beckman and Barry2007). In business practices, human-centred innovation is alsoreferred to as ‘customer-centred innovation’ or ‘customer-centricity’.Design professionals have long used ethnographic researchapproaches within design practice; however, more recently, innov-ation and management writers have also advocated for the adoptionof ethnographic approaches in relation to customer-centricity(Beckman and Barry 2007; Liedtka and Ogilvie 2011). Previousresearch has shown that design processes and artefacts are com-monly applied within the business context and that design practicesand tools add value to businesses (Leung et al. 2016; Veyzer and DeMozata 2005). Numerous studies focusing on customer-centricityhave also shown that the application of design tools and methods(e.g. ‘personas’, ‘prototyping’, ‘scenarios’ and ‘customer journeymaps’) are endemic in design practice (Hanington and Martin 2012).Indeed, these valuable methods provide deep insights into customerneeds and inform human-centred innovation processes (Manning,Bodine, and Bernoff 2012; Schrage 1993). Further, customer-centri-city is critical to gaining a competitive advantage in business(Galbraith 2005; Manning, Bodine, and Bernoff 2012).

However, in both the design and business literature, understandingsof how customer-centricity is enabled within organizations are limited

Creating Customer-Centric Organizations

TheDesignJo

urna

l507

(Johnston and Kong 2011). Many have also found it difficult to sustain acustomer focus over time because it is contrary to the way in whichthey work, especially as many organizations centre on efficiency andquantitative metrics. Adopting a customer-centric perspective requiresepistemological and attitudinal shifts (Dunne 2011). Thus, if customer-centred innovation is to be achieved, organizational transformation isalso required. This could include changes to culture, processes andstructure that are both challenging and time consuming. Recent studiesidentified some of the relationships between design (thinking) practicesand organizational change and culture (Buchanan 2015; Elsbach andStigliani 2018), but understandings of the role of design artefacts infacilitating changes towards customer-centricity remain limited.

Design Artefacts as Boundary ObjectsDesign artefacts help to get things done. Previous research hasshown that material artefacts play important mediatory and enablingroles in organizational and inter-organizational innovation processes(Rafaeli and Vinai-Yavetz 2004b, 2006). The effects of different arte-facts (e.g. Gantt charts, texts and documents, visual representationsand drawings) have been analysed and proven useful in organiza-tional learning, knowledge and management (Hutchins 1995; Wenger1998, 2000) or as collaboration enablers (Perry and Sanderson1998; Star and Griesemer 1989), coordination devices (Henderson1991) and as socio-material objects that mediate the social andmaterial nature of work practices (Orlikowski 2002, 2006, 2007).However, previous studies have also largely focused on how materi-ality and artefacts support product development processes.

Among people, artefacts facilitate knowledge sharing and trans-formation, and play practical, political and persuasive roles (Kimble,Grenier, and Goglio-Primard 2010; Roth and McGinn 1998). The ideaof an ‘artefact as a boundary object’ explains both their different rolesand their implicit functions in social mediation. Notably, boundaryobjects refer to the brokering and boundary-spanning capabilities ofartefacts across functional domains within collaborative work (Star andGriesemer 1989). These objects create a shared language for individu-als and ably represent their knowledge, and can also provide one witha concrete means for specifying and learning about any differences,dependencies and what is new across a given (knowledge) boundary.Additionally, boundary objects facilitate the process by which individu-als transform the knowledge being used and apply what they know totransform existing problem-related knowledge (Carlile 2006).

Carlile (2002) outlines the two key tenets of boundary object arte-facts: (1) boundary objects are practical, as they enable a sharedmeans of representation and a specification of any differences at theboundary; and (2) boundary objects are political, as they facilitateknowledge transformation. Thus, if innovation requires boundaryspanning, the act of deciding which artefacts to share, with whomand when could be both a practical and political decision. Wenger

Jacqueline Wechsler and Jochen Schweitzer

TheDesignJo

urna

l508

(2000) conceptualized these decision acts as brokering or as proc-esses of translation, coordination and alignment between perspec-tives. Brokers move knowledge from one place to another and bringback news from the forefront.

Designers as Knowledge BrokersDesigners who create and employ artefacts can be considered‘knowledge brokers’ (Hargadon and Sutton 2000), who use bound-ary objects to broker customer-centric knowledge. Essentially, suchuse sees artefacts function as conscription devices (Henderson1999) to enlist participation in organizational settings. In the literatureWagner (2000) discussed the significant and persuasive roles of arte-facts in collaborative work. Similarly, artefacts are also critical to cus-tomer-centric innovation contexts in which they function to mediatesocial and political processes and collective actions.

Understandings of the enabling roles of artefacts in organizationalcontexts are well established; yet, gauging their functions in organiza-tions attempting to move towards customer-centricity remains limitedand vague. Thus, this case study sought to determine if and howdesign artefacts could be used to support the organizational changerequired in designing and delivering customer-centric products andservices. To answer these questions, we adopted a theoretical perspec-tive of design artefacts as boundary objects and acted from the under-standing that the designer is the knowledge broker in the context oforganizational change towards customer-centricity. We also examinedthe role of design artefacts as flexible tools that mediate the social andinterlinked demands of innovation initiatives in a specific organization.

Studying how designers (and non-designers) consider and usedesign artefacts will increase knowledge of the enabling and medi-atory roles of both design practices and artefacts in complex socialinnovation contexts (the very situation that countless organizationsare presently facing). The central objective of our research was togain a better understanding of how design artefacts function to facili-tate and motivate collective action, and to enable communicationand transformation.

Materials and MethodsA single in-depth case study was conducted to examine the role ofdesign artefacts and to understand whether and how they supportcustomer-centric innovation. The organization selected for reviewhad a confident strategic intention to pursue customer-centricity.This allowed us to undertake a deep analysis of the contextual fac-tors affecting the roles of a range of artefacts.

We also adopted a researcher-as-instrument (Robson 1995)approach. Within this approach, the researcher was the lead designerof the case project, and their relationships with those under investiga-tion were examined (MacDonald 1994). Multiple data collection

Creating Customer-Centric Organizations

TheDesignJo

urna

l509

methods and sources were employed, including participant observa-tion, qualitative interviews, document collection and the use of thickdescriptions (Geertz 1973). For example, participant observations andinterviews were conducted with artefact recipients and design practi-tioners in similar roles. Additional data sources included intranet andpublic website content, emails, field notes, physical artefacts, memo-randums and artefacts produced by other designers for other projects.

Sampling was opportunistic (Miles and Huberman 1994), which wasnot ideal. However, due to the covert nature of the study, it was the onlyapproach available. In the early phase, we had limited access to conductinterviews with diverse organizational members, most notably membersof the senior leadership team, providing insights based on a restrictedrepresentation of perspectives. To gain further valuable views, we alsoobtained additional perspectives from stakeholders at different levels ofseniority. At the end of the project we assumed an overt role, whichallowed us to conduct further interviews with the participants of the finalproject presentation, who had been invited to participate in the study.

Semi-structured interview guides and a detailed research protocol(Yin 2003) were used to conduct a total of 13 interviews over twoyears. The majority of interviews occurred within three months of thefinal delivery of the project results, but follow-up interviews were laterconducted with three participants some five to six months after.

The activities and contextual factors associated with the definedactivity systems (i.e. the individual, team, project and organizationalactivities and contextual factors) were considered during data collec-tion and analysis. Participants were asked to describe any challengesthey experienced when undertaking their work activities, whichenabled participants to explicate any contradictions located within thedifferent activity systems (Engestr€om 1999). Data were then collectedand iteratively analysed over an 18-month period that comprised threedistinct phases, each of which used different approaches.

A constructivist grounded theory approach was adopted for the dataanalysis (Mills, Bonner, and Francis 2006; Seaman 2008), as the studyrelied on predefined theoretical concepts. Different analytical procedureswere applied to each phase of the research, including concurrent col-lection and the coding and double coding of data (Krefting 1991).

The Case Study: Redesigning Online Order andActivation ProcessesThis case study was conducted at an Australian ASX-listed companywith over 40,000 employees. The company offers a broad range oftechnology products and services, and, two years before the projectcommenced, had appointed a chief executive officer who was com-mitted to building a customer-centric organization. The organizationwas commonly employing human-centred design approaches forproduct and service development and had several dedicated designteams. While this context created favourable conditions for designexperimentation, it also created a limitation for replicating the findings.

Jacqueline Wechsler and Jochen Schweitzer

TheDesignJo

urna

l510

The business strategy motivating this project was to improve theonline ordering capability of a specific group of business-to-businesscustomers who were responsible for selling products. The projectteam adopted a customer-centric approach to design new onlineordering and activation services, and the researcher was hired as a‘human-centred design lead’ to work with the internal user-experi-ence group for five months.

The objective of the user-experience design project was to delivera conceptual design including wire frames (i.e. blueprints or visualspecifications for online services) to improve online ordering. The pro-ject deliverable would support the development of a business casestudy so that a project team could be established and the solutionbrought to market.

The key sponsor of the project was the design director; however,there was an implied and strategic obligation to also connect withother stakeholders who would potentially fund and build the sug-gested solution. Given that the lead designer’s tenure at the com-pany was short, it was also important that the knowledge related tothis project was codified and transferred in an accessible way.

As such, the project had four phases:

1. The Listening Phase: During this phase, the team set out to: (1)understand the current processes for ordering and activatingproducts, as experienced by internal staff and customers; (2) con-sider existing challenges with internal systems that may be com-mon to both staff and customer groups; (3) understand customerwork contexts and their dependent organizational processes; and(4) understand customer challenges and needs. The team used‘affinity diagramming’ to gain insights and prove that the currentordering systems and processes required improvement.

2. The Defining Phase: During this phase, the lead designer cre-ated artefacts for ‘design synthesis’, ‘meaning-making’ and‘reflection in action’. Specifically, the designer considered theinformation needs of different stakeholders and created distinctartefacts to satisfy specific information needs and preferences.

3. The Designing Phase: During this phase, team membersengaged in iterative sketching and conducted a workshop with10 business customers. Here, participants reviewed andrefined preliminary sketches for a web portal. The team thentransformed the designs into more detailed wire frames.

4. The Delivery Phase: During this phase, the project outcomeswere shared in a meeting with 40 internal stakeholders throughvideo and telephone conferences. The project deliverableswere subsequently hosted on a website that could beaccessed online during the meeting and afterwards.

Figure 1 shows the project’s design and research activities, andTable 1 provides an overview of each project phase, summarizes the

Creating Customer-Centric Organizations

TheDesignJo

urna

l511

activities completed in the project and describes the artefacts thatwere produced and socialized. Table 2 lists the project artefacts asthey were shared.

ResultsThe study found that the use of design artefacts in customer-centricinnovation activities leads to organizational change. Our results showthat design artefacts support social mediation and are critical in ena-bling and mediating change. In Sections 5.1 to 5.5, we explore fiveroles and propose their relationships with customer-centric innov-ation and organizational change in relation to the case study.

Proposition 1: Design Artefacts Function as CustomerEmpathy Enablers

Participants in the study agreed that adopting a customer-centricperspective was vital to company processes. However, like those inprevious studies (e.g. Galbraith 2005; Meyer and Schwager 2007;Shah et al. 2006), the participants in the present study did perceive

Table 1. Activities and artefacts delivered in different project phases.

Phase Activity Artefacts

Listening Stakeholderqualitative research

Research report

Defining Data synthesis andartefact creation

Opportunity maps PersonasCustomer journey mapsResearch videos Infographic

Designing Iterative sketching (wireframes) Co-design workshop

Function overview Wire framesUser stories Video prototypeFuture storyboard Quick wins

Delivery Communication of findingsand deliverables throughemail, and a presentation

PowerPoint presentation HTMLdeliverables site

Figure 1.Activities conducted by the design team during the project phases.

Jacqueline Wechsler and Jochen Schweitzer

TheDesignJo

urna

l512

Tab

le2.

Overview

ofprojec

tartefacts.

Artefac

tDescriptio

n

Res

earchrepo

rtTh

eresearch

repo

rtco

mmun

icated

theke

yinsigh

tsab

outtheus

ergrou

pmap

pedto

theasso

ciated

finding

san

dreco

mmen

datio

ns.

Insigh

tsco

mprised

broa

dge

neralizations

,an

dthefinding

sprov

ided

eviden

ceof

theinsigh

ts.Add

ition

alinform

ationwas

prov

ided

and

reco

mmen

datio

ns(e.g.su

ggestio

nsof

factorsto

chan

geor

enac

t)weremad

eto

addressbo

ththeinsigh

tsan

dfinding

s.Th

eartefactsfunc

tione

dto

docu

men

tthefinding

san

dsu

bstantiate

thede

sign

reco

mmen

datio

ns,while

thereco

mmen

datio

nswere

presen

tedin

aform

atco

mmon

totheorga

nizatio

n.Opp

ortunity

map

Visua

lmap

swereco

nstruc

tedto

unde

rstand

custom

erworkac

tivities,an

dinitial

freeh

andsketch

eswerelatertran

slated

into

design

edartefacts.

One

illustratesthecu

stom

ers’

activities

andtheothe

riden

tifieshigh

-levelc

apab

ilitiesto

supp

orttheseac

tivities,includ

inga

summaryof

thebe

nefitsto

theorga

nizatio

n.Initiallycrea

tedas

conc

eptual

toolsto

cons

ider

andsynthe

size

custom

erne

eds,

these

map

swereus

edto

docu

men

tan

dco

mmun

icatetheworkac

tivities

ofcu

stom

ersan

dto

iden

tifyop

portun

ities

forservice

improv

emen

t.Perso

naTh

reepe

rson

aswerecrea

tedto

reflect

threediffe

rent

custom

ertype

sba

sedon

thetype

(and

complexity)o

ftheprod

ucts

sold.Data

from

custom

erinterviewswereus

edto

guiderecruitm

entfortheco

-designworksho

p,while

person

aswereintend

edto

inform

future

design

workrelatin

gto

both

this

initiativean

dthesecu

stom

ers.

Cus

tomer

journe

ymap

sDatafro

mtheinternal

worksho

pan

dqu

alitativeinterviewsweretran

slated

into

custom

erjourne

ymap

s,includ

ingmap

sof

thetasks,

artefacts,

system

san

dtoolsus

ed.Cus

tomers’

need

s,pa

inpo

ints

andop

portun

ities

werethen

map

pedto

thediffe

rent

stag

esof

the

custom

erjourne

y.Th

reemap

srepresen

tingtheorde

ringan

dac

tivationproc

essesforthreedistinct

prod

ucts

commun

icated

the

complexity

oftheexistin

gproc

esses.

Thesemap

sprov

ided

afra

mew

orkfortheorga

nizatio

nto

reco

nsider

asso

ciated

proc

esses

andsystem

s.Infograp

hic

Theinfograp

hictran

slated

complex

quan

titativeda

tato

abroa

dau

dien

cegrou

pin

anac

cessible

way.Th

ispresen

tedthenu

mbe

rof

supp

ortca

llsmad

eto

thecu

stom

erca

llce

ntre,inform

ationab

outtheasso

ciated

revenu

ede

rived

bytheorga

nizatio

nin

relatio

nto

each

prod

uct,an

dthenu

mbe

rof

custom

ersby

state.

Theinfograp

hicpresen

tedstatisticsby

show

ingthat:(1)the

custom

ergrou

pco

ntrib

uted

asign

ifica

ntam

ount

ofrevenu

eto

theorga

nizatio

n;an

d(2)ifthe

orga

nizatio

nim

prov

edtheirorde

ringservices,theca

ll(Con

tinue

d)

Creating Customer-Centric Organizations

TheDesignJo

urna

l513

Tab

le2.

(Con

tinue

d).

centreswou

ldbe

comemoreefficient

andtheorga

nizatio

n’sne

trevenu

ewou

ldco

nseq

uentlyincrea

se.Th

isartefact

was

persua

sive,

asitillu

stratedthepo

tentialvalue

ofinvestingin

arevisedon

lineorde

ringservice.

Res

earchvide

osTw

oon

ean

daha

lfminuteresearch

vide

oswerecrea

tedon

thequ

alitativeresearch

unde

rtak

en.Eac

hvide

odisp

layedeigh

tto

10verbatim

quotes

from

vario

usstaffa

ndcu

stom

erresearch

participan

ts.Th

esevide

osso

ught

tocrea

teem

pathyforcu

stom

ersan

dsimplyan

dpe

rsua

sivelyco

mmun

icatetheissu

esco

nsum

ersen

coun

teredwhe

norde

ringprod

ucts.Th

evide

osrevealed

issu

eswith

thecu

rren

torde

ringproc

essesan

dwhich

toolswereon

erou

s.Fu

nctio

nov

erview

Thefunc

tionov

erview

prov

ided

abriefsu

mmaryof

thefunc

tions

forthereco

mmen

dedpo

rtal.Th

ismap

pedop

portun

ities

iden

tifiedin

theop

portun

itymap

san

dso

ught

toprov

idean

easilydige

stible

overview

oftheprop

osed

orga

nizatio

n’sserviceca

pabilities.

Wire

frames

Aserie

sof

anno

tatedwire

frames

werede

livered

asaPDFfileto

visu

allyco

mmun

icatethefeatures

ofthepo

rtal

rather

than

spec

ific

patterns

andinteractions

.Video

prototyp

eIn

thevide

oprototyp

e,aus

erca

lled‘Jan

ine’

talked

theau

dien

cethroug

han

anim

ationof

wire

frames,de

scrib

ingaprop

osed

system

interm

sof

itsbe

nefits.

Thesead

dressedman

yof

thepa

inpo

ints

expressedby

othe

rartefacts(e.g.thejourne

ymap

san

dpe

rson

as).

Thelead

design

erhe

ldthat

wire

frames

wereno

tea

silyac

cessible

tono

n-tech

nica

laud

ienc

es.Th

us,thevide

oprototyp

ewas

crea

tedto

presen

tthede

sign

sin

anac

cessible

way

that

was

approp

riate

toabroa

drang

eof

stak

eholde

rs.

Userstories

Agile

user

stories(e.g.‘Asacu

stom

erIc

anch

eckthestatus

ofan

orde

rso

that

Ican

arrang

eac

cess

fortech

nician

sinstallingne

twork

infra

structure’)w

eresetou

tin

anExcel

spread

shee

tto

correspo

ndwith

thefeatures

inthewire

frames.Th

eus

erstoriesso

ught

toco

mmun

icatethescop

eof

thede

sign

andrequ

iredtech

nica

linteg

ratio

nto

enab

lethede

velopm

entof

theprojec

tman

agem

entstaff.

Quick

wins

Inan

Excel

spread

shee

t,thequ

ickwins(i.e.

theac

tions

that

theorga

nizatio

nco

uldim

plem

entim

med

iatelyto

improv

etheexistin

gserviceforagrou

p)werelisted.

Every

quickwin

couldbe

exec

uted

immed

iatelyan

dwith

outfund

ing.

Future

storyb

oard

Twofuture

storyb

oards(dep

ictin

gthescen

ariosin

use)

show

edatrac

king

featurean

damob

ileorde

ringproc

essus

ingatablet.Th

ese

artefactsco

mmun

icateserviceco

ncep

tsin

relatio

nto

theirus

eco

ntext.

Jacqueline Wechsler and Jochen Schweitzer

TheDesignJo

urna

l514

the shift towards customer-centricity as challenging. Participants alsoreported that creating project artefacts (e.g. personas), rather thanwriting bullet point lists for PowerPoint presentations, gave the cus-tomer research a human voice and face, and communicated cus-tomers’ frustrations and needs in an accessible and engaging way.Personas were considered particularly instructive in communicatinginformation about customers’ behaviours as well as qualitative andbehavioural information from their perspectives.

When reviewing the videos created from customer interviews(another key artefact in the study), participants noted that they feltmore directly engaged with the artefacts and that unlike documents,which have to be read, it was impossible to scan videos. Videosevoked much more direct exposure to customer pain points.Notably, the use of first-person verbatim quotations facilitated cus-tomer empathy, while the visual artefacts motivated sharing betweenformal and informal social networks. Thus, evidence was found onthe effectiveness of design artefacts and their value in understandingcustomers and creating empathy. Additionally, participants notedthat such engaging visual formats would be useful in aiding culturalchange within the organization.

Other authors have considered how design artefacts can evokefeelings of empathy (e.g. Mattelm€aki 2008; Van Rijn et al. 2011).However, in the case study it was discovered that organizational out-comes required the collective participation of many people and thatempathy was not only valuable within the design team, but alsoaffected people involved in other projects. Due to their aestheticdimensions, design artefacts link with subjective emotions, empathy,intuition and judgement (Fulton Suri 2008; Rafaeli and Vilnai-Yavetz2004a). Participants in the study noted how the novel visual formatsof the artefacts motivated them to share information with their col-leagues. Their rich visual design addressed a number of issuesrelated to less engaging formats and encouraged feelings of cus-tomer empathy across broad organizational audiences.

Proposition 2: Design Artefacts Facilitate and ActivateCollaboration

Participants reported that collaborations among cross-functionalbusiness groups were critical to innovation processes. Indeed, par-ticipation in the project activities was mostly voluntary; however, thedesign artefacts further activated the involvement of non-designersin the company. Many participants noted that encouraging othercolleagues to contribute and their overall engagement with andadvocacy for the innovation initiatives were both critical andchallenging.

Artefacts, such as videos and presentations, were shared withmanagers from other areas to communicate issues related to poorcustomer experiences and to gain their support. Once completed,some artefacts stimulated the interest of several other stakeholders

Creating Customer-Centric Organizations

TheDesignJo

urna

l515

in the project and its outcomes, and this ultimately led to the devel-opment of more ideas and associated change processes.

Using the artefacts to activate collaboration and participation inthe innovation context of the project was critical. Motivated byhuman agency (Maidique 1980; Rogers 1995), team membersbecame agents who enacted change by interacting and networkingwithin and across the organization. Thus, it appears that by creatingempathy, artefacts encourage and activate collaboration.

Evidently, the artefacts mediated the dialogue between designersand other members of the organization by codifying and communi-cating knowledge. Visual artefacts (e.g. customer journey maps) pro-vided the bases for discussions about customer-centric changesbeyond the project context. For example, one process improvementspecialist stated that she would use artefacts within workshops as a‘springboard’ for conversations about improvements related to otherassociated processes.

Proposition 3: Design Artefacts Provide ReflectiveSense-making Frameworks

We observed that members of the project team used artefacts asreflective sense-making tools to understand, frame problems andcommunicate. Sense-making refers to the process by which individu-als or groups make sense of information. The artefacts (e.g. theopportunity maps or journey maps) created for this project assistednon-design staff members to understand and appreciate new mod-els of thinking about customers and the difficulties that customersface using the current products and services.

For example, the lead designer created opportunity maps andpersonas to help demonstrate customers’ work practices and toconceptualize how the organization could add value to these practi-ces for them, in turn. These artefacts were initially used to under-stand the context and needs of customers; however, they evolvedthroughout various consultations until they ultimately served as aframework for reflection and a synthesis of key customer tasks,needs and improvement opportunities. Thus, the artefacts becamestructures through which the design team could reflect and refinetheir understandings of the project. Similarly, the journey mapswere used to combine different data into one visual artefact overtime. This enabled the team to synthesize, consider, talk about andgain insights into the data, while the non-design staff memberscould better understand current user experiences andrelated systems.

Proposition 4: Design Artefacts Play Persuasive RolesIn the present case study, artefacts assumed an implicit persua-

sive role. From executives to the frontline staff delivering the productsor services, and those involved with implementation to customers,every stakeholder needs to be engaged, informed or convinced insome way at some point. Herein, team members employed artefacts

Jacqueline Wechsler and Jochen Schweitzer

TheDesignJo

urna

l516

as persuasive tools. For example, some did so to encourage seniorexecutives to fund the project, while others used artefacts to supporttheir recommendations.

Additionally, team members found that the artefacts were veryeffective in communicating key issues and complex financial infor-mation. For example, the infographic clearly showed the financialbenefits related to funding the proposed platform, while the vid-eos provided evidence as to why the ordering service needed tobe improved. Wagner (2000) suggests use of a ‘persuasive arte-fact’; however, her observation is based on collaborative architec-tural work within a single community of practice. Conversely, inthis study it was observed that artefacts enable social mediationsbetween communities of practice across long-term innovationinitiatives.

This study also revealed how artefacts play political roles. Oneparticipant emphasized the importance of gaining support from the‘right’ stakeholders to progress a project and noted that the videoshad been very helpful in increasing the interests of stakeholders.

Proposition 5: Design Artefacts Effectively CommunicateCustomer-centric and Design Knowledge

The project participants used artefacts to effectively communicatea customer-centric perspective. For example, individuals showed vid-eos of customer interviews to executives, national sales staff and callcentre representatives to demonstrate customers’ perspectives inthe design phase. Both videos and personas were used to educatenew staff about central customer characteristics and needs. Further,even after the project had finished, members of the organization con-tinued to use the same artefacts to describe key customer attributes.Indeed, management theory supports the role of artefacts in organ-izational learning, which often rests upon social processes that aremediated by artefacts (Boreham and Morgan 2004; Weick andRoberts 1993).

The artefacts were also used tactically (to explain the ‘how’) andstrategically (to help individuals envision ‘what could be’). Forexample, a conceptual video prototype, which had been created toexplain the design concept to staff members with no or limited tech-nical knowledge, was later used to share a customer-centric visionto the organization. Thus, artefacts can function to motivate action,enable strategy (Eppler and Platts 2009; Spee and Jarzabkowski2009) and to bridge current and future states. Artefacts are alsooften used to share a future vision and to activate participation, col-laboration, advocacy and internal alignment because of their engag-ing visual forms. In the case study, the artefacts linked specificactions or outcomes to a broader strategic narrative.

When artefacts are shared voluntarily and discussed widely, theycan become mechanisms to express culture and enact change(Carlile 2006; Fiol and O’Conner 2006). For example, in this study

Creating Customer-Centric Organizations

TheDesignJo

urna

l517

participants recalled how they learned about the project ‘roadshow’ through formal and informal networks. This illustrates thesocial character of knowledge sharing and the value of social net-works in distributing knowledge within organizations (Dasgupta andGupta 2009; Hutchins 1995; Lave and Wenger 1991; Tsoukas1996). Artefacts can become symbols of a new customer-centricculture (Boreham and Morgan 2004) merely by being discussed.Thus, design artefacts appear to strengthen informal work relation-ships, organizational learning and cultural transformations towardscustomer-centricity.

Discussion and ConclusionWe argue that design artefacts have five significant and distinctsociopolitical and sociocultural roles. Specifically, it is contentedthat design artefacts: (1) act as customer empathy enablers; (2)function as collaboration facilitators and activators; (3) providereflective sense-making frameworks; (4) are persuasive tools; and(5) are design- and customer-centric knowledge communicators.

Customer empathy (1) encourages customer-centric judgements,behaviours and the advocacy required to implement innovativechanges, such as changes to processes and organizational struc-tures (Manning, Bodine, and Bernoff 2012). Empathy enables peopleto suspend judgement and comprehend paradigmatic differences,and further fosters more enlightened relationships and goodwill withinorganizations (Natale and Sora 2010). As a connectedness-organiz-ing mechanism, empathy can assist staff members to recognize theinterconnectedness and interrelationships between collective actions(Pavlovich and Krahnke 2012). Empathy also facilitates shared mean-ings that can create, sustain or change organizational cultures (Cookand Yanow 1993).

We also found that design artefacts can motivate customer-cen-tric collective actions by facilitating far-reaching empathy for custom-ers and enabling customer-centric judgements and behaviours.Design artefacts can shift thinking from matters of sheer usabilitytowards a deeper understanding of human dignity, thus, positivelyaffecting the thoughts and actions of individuals (Buchanan 2015) insupport of customer-centric collective outcomes.

As collaboration facilitators and activators (2), design artefactsalso transform understandings and actions by enabling people toidentify contradictions and uncertainties related to organizationalprocesses (Engestr€om 2001). Artefacts are not merely static know-ledge repositories (Carlile 2002); rather, they are dynamic and activetools. Individuals use artefacts of knowing (Ewenstein and Whyte2007) to exemplify, translate and contribute to their understandings.When mediated by artefacts, knowledge and activity as well as com-municative actions (Orlikowski 2002) transform and facilitate innov-ation (Dasgupta and Gupta 2009; du Plessis 2007; MacPherson,

Jacqueline Wechsler and Jochen Schweitzer

TheDesignJo

urna

l518

Jones, and Oakes 2006; Miettinen and Virkkunen 2005). Proposition2 describes the mediatory and enabling role of artefacts.

The value of visual practices in sense-making and synthesis (3) iswell established (Kolko 2010; Krippendorff 1989). Our results confirmprevious findings and that such practices enhance sense-making proc-esses by making the abstract more concrete, improving communica-tion and building knowledge, and enabling complex and non-tangibleconcepts to be understood (Michela and Floricel 2012; Oster 2009).The visual artefacts in this study aided sense-making, shifted mentalmodels and supported organizational change processes (Senge et al.2005). Further, sharing within and between organizational networks ledto collective sense-making (Orlikowski 2002). The design artefacts pro-vided cognitive frameworks to various actors, supported problem-fram-ing processes (Beckman and Barry 2007; Dorst 2011) and enabled theorganization to both identify and solve customer problems, and toinnovate. Thus, as suggested by Proposition 3, artefacts are valuable‘things-to-think-with’ (Brandt 2007).

As persuasive tools (4), brokering artefacts to stakeholders at dif-ferent times represents a political activity (Carlile 2002; Kimble,Grenier, and Goglio-Primard 2010). It has been suggested that polit-ics only play out during the final phases of a project (Carlile 2004);however, we found that politics and the management of social rela-tions were significant throughout the process. Thus, artefacts playimportant, persuasive and additional roles in the innovation, designand implementation phases of projects. Artefacts also affect projectadvocacy, project continuation, consensus building, knowledge shar-ing and organizational change processes. Evidently, persuasive arte-facts improve both product and service provision, supportingmanagerial processes, creating efficiency and facilitating financialeffects, in turn.

Finally, customer-centric knowledge, expressed through engagingand accessible design artefacts, provided the organization in thispaper with new and effective boundary objects, which allowed peo-ple to engage with, talk through and discuss customer-centricity.Thus, artefacts play enabling roles, act as change agents and sup-port innovation and transformation (5).

Overall, this study sought to explore the value of design artefactsin creating customer-centric organizations. It contributes to designeducation literature, discourse about innovation management, cus-tomer-centric organizational change, design practice and designeconomics. In turn, the potential value and roles of design artefactsoutside the bounds of singular design projects or isolated designprocesses have been demonstrated.

Limitations and Future ResearchIn this paper, the five distinct roles of artefacts were considered. Byvirtue of their rich, visual, novel and engaging formats, artefacts arelikely to be shared more easily in informal organizational

Creating Customer-Centric Organizations

TheDesignJo

urna

l519

arrangements (e.g. among cross-functional teams). Artefacts providean accessible and applicable way to communicate tacit needs andother customer-centric insights, and further inspire customer-centricbehaviours and stimulate cultural shifts in organizations. Thus, ourfindings generally showed the value of design artefacts in customer-centric organizational change. We also demonstrate how some spe-cific design artefacts supported the organization to deliver a moremarket-oriented offering, and enabled customer-centric awarenessamong diverse stakeholders, thus, facilitating efficiency and profitabil-ity. However, further empirical research is required to validate thepropositions developed in this paper and to determine the conditionsunder which design artefacts spur customer-centric organiza-tional change.

A limitation for this study was that the case organization had anestablished design practice and executive support for both cus-tomer-centric organizational change and design-driven innovation. Itwas only feasible to perform a single case study, preventing cross-comparison between cases. It would be instructive to undertakeassociated studies in other organizations to find more generalizableinsights about the role of artefacts in relation to customer-centricorganizational change within similar projects and contexts.

Our research raises a number of questions about the factors andcapabilities needed to transition to customer-centricity using designartefacts. Factors such as knowledge management capabilities,organizational culture and absorptive capacity (Cohen and Levinthal1990) could affect the ability of design artefacts to affect organiza-tional transformations. Additionally, artefacts need to be recognizedand promoted by leadership (Aftab 2013; Aftab, Young, andMacLarty 2013). Hence, executive support for the use of design arte-facts shows their widespread application and effects (Bailey 2012).

Organizations also need to develop the necessary capabilities touse design artefacts as mediatory and enabling tools. Notably, train-ing and participation in design processes can facilitate familiarity withcustomer-centric design artefacts (Junginger 2005). For example,this case study informed the creation of a pedagogical frameworkthat was designed to support the development of design artefacts(Wechsler 2017). It too revealed how the development of well-con-sidered design artefacts can provide professionals with an opportun-ity to adopt more strategic roles (Kimbell 2010).

Disclosure StatementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

ReferencesAftab, M. 2013. “Design as a Functional Leader: A Case Study to

Investigate the Role of Design as a Potential Leading Discipline inMultinational Organisations.” PhD diss., University of Northumbria.

Jacqueline Wechsler and Jochen Schweitzer

TheDesignJo

urna

l520

Aftab, M., R. Young, and E. MacLarty. 2013. “Design as a FunctionalLeader: A Case Study of Philips to Investigate the Potential ofDesign as a Leading Functional Discipline.” Paper presented atthe Crafting the Future: 10th European Academy of DesignConference, Gothenburg, April 17–19.

Bailey, S. G. 2012. “Embedding Service Design: The Long and theShort of It.” Proceedings of the 3rd Service Design and ServiceInnovation Conference, ServDes.2012, edited by P. J.Tossavainen, M. Harjula, and S. Holmlid, 31–42. Link€oping:Link€oping University Electronic Press.

Beckman, S., and M. Barry. 2007. “Innovation as a LearningProcess: Embedding Design Thinking.” California ManagementReview 50 (1): 25–56. doi:10.2307/41166415.

Boreham, N., and C. Morgan. 2004. “A Sociocultural Analysis ofOrganisational Learning.” Oxford Review of Education 30 (3):307–325. doi:10.1080/0305498042000260467.

Brandt, E. 2007. “How Tangible Mock-Ups Support DesignCollaboration.” Knowledge, Technology & Policy 20 (3): 179–192.doi:10.1007/s12130-007-9021-9.

Buchanan, R. 2015. “Worlds in the Making: Design, Management,and the Reform of Organizational Culture.” She Ji: Journal ofDesign, Economics, and Innovation 1 (1): 5–21. doi:10.1016/j.sheji.2015.09.003.

Bucolo, S., C. Wrigley, and J. Matthews. 2012. “Gaps inOrganizational Leadership: Linking Strategic and OperationalActivities through Design-Led Propositions.” Design ManagementJournal 7 (1): 18–28. doi:10.1111/j.1948-7177.2012.00030.x.

Carlile, P. R. 2002. “A Pragmatic View of Knowledge andBoundaries: Boundary Objects in New Product Development.”Organization Science 13 (4): 442–455. https://www.jstor.org/sta-ble/3085976 doi:10.1287/orsc.13.4.442.2953.

Carlile, P. R. 2004. “Transferring, Translating, and Transforming: AnIntegrative Framework for Managing Knowledge acrossBoundaries.” Organization Science 15 (5): 499–616. doi:10.1287/orsc.1040.0094.

Carlile, P. R. 2006. “Artifacts and Knowledge Negotiation AcrossDomains.” In Artifacts and Organizations: Beyond MereSymbolism, edited by A. Rafaeli and M. G. Pratt, 101–117.Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Clegg, S. R., J. Schweitzer, A. Whittle, and C. Pitelis. 2017. Strategy:Theory and Practice. 2nd ed. London: Sage.

Cohen, W. M., and D. A. Levinthal. 1990. “Absorptive Capacity: ANew Perspective on Learning and Innovation.” AdministrativeScience Quarterly 35 (1): 128–152. doi:10.2307/2393553.

Cook, S. D. N., and D. Yanow. 1993. “Culture and OrganizationalLearning.” Journal of Management Inquiry 2 (4): 373–390. doi:10.1177/105649269324010.

Creating Customer-Centric Organizations

TheDesignJo

urna

l521

Cooper, R., S. Junginger, and T. Lockwood. 2011. The Handbook ofDesign Management. Oxford: Berg.

Dasgupta, M., and R. K. Gupta. 2009. “Innovation in Organizations:A Review of the Role of Organizational Learning and KnowledgeManagement.” Global Business Review 10 (2): 203–224. doi:10.1177/097215090901000205.

Dorst, K. 2011. “The Core of ‘Design Thinking’ and Its Application.”Design Studies 32 (6): 521–532. doi:j.destud.2011.07.006. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2011.07.006.

Du Plessis, M. 2007. “The Role of Knowledge Management inInnovation.” Journal of Knowledge Management 11 (4): 20–29.doi:10.1108/13673270710762684.

Dunne, K. J. 2011. “From Vicious to Virtuous Cycle: Customer-focused Translation Quality Management Using ISO 9001Principles and Agile Methodologies.” In Translation and LocalizationProject Management: The Art of the Possible, edited by K. J.Dunne and E. S. Dunne, 153–188. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Elsbach, K. D., and I. Stigliani. 2018. “Design Thinking andOrganizational Culture: A Review and Framework for FutureResearch.” Journal of Management 44 (6): 2274–2306. doi:10.1177/0149206317744252.

Engestr€om, Y. 1999. “Activity Theory and Individual and SocialTransformation.” In Perspectives on Activity Theory, edited by Y.Engestr€om, R. Miettinen, and R.-L. Punam€aki, 19–38. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Engestr€om, Y. 2001. “Expansive Learning at Work: Toward anActivity Theoretical Reconceptualization.” Journal of Educationand Work 14 (1): 133–156. doi:10.1080/13639080020028747.

Eppler, M. J., and K. W. Platts. 2009. “Visual Strategizing: TheSystematic Use of Visualization in the Strategic-Planning Process.”Long Range Planning 42 (1): 42–74. doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2008.11.005.

Ewenstein, B., and J. K. Whyte. 2007. “Visual Representations as‘Artefacts of Knowing.” Building Research and Information 35 (1):81–89. doi:10.1080/09613210600950377.

Fiol, M., and E. J. O’Connor. 2006. “Stuff Matters: Artifacts, SocialIdentity, and Legitimacy in the US Medical Profession.” In Artifactsand Organizations: Beyond Mere Symbolism, edited by A. Rafaeliand M. G. Pratt, 241–257. Mahwah: Erlbaum.

Fulton Suri, J. 2008. “Informing Our Intuition: Design Research forRadical Innovation.” Rotman Magazine, Winter: 52–57.

Galbraith, J. R. 2005. Designing the Customer-Centric Organization:A Guide to Strategy, Structure and Process. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Geertz, C. 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: BasicBooks.

Hanington, B., and B. Martin. 2012. Universal Methods of Design: 100Ways to Research Complex Problems, Develop Innovative Ideas,and Design Effective Solutions. Beverly: Rockport Publishers.

Jacqueline Wechsler and Jochen Schweitzer

TheDesignJo

urna

l522

Hargadon A., and R. I. Sutton. 2000. “Building an InnovationFactory.” Harvard Business Review 78 (3): 157–166. https://hbr.org/2000/05/building-an-innovation-factory-2

Henderson, K. 1991. “Flexible Sketches and Inflexible Data Bases:Visual Communication, Conscription Devices, and BoundaryObjects in Design Engineering.” Science, Technology, & HumanValues 16 (4): 448–473. doi:10.1177/016224399101600402.

Henderson, K. 1999. On Line and on Paper: Visual Representations,Visual Culture and Computer Graphics in Design Engineering.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Hutchins, E. 1995. Cognition in the Wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Johnston, R., and X. Kong. 2011. “The Customer Experience: A Road-

Map for Improvement.” Managing Service Quality: An InternationalJournal 21 (1): 5–24. doi:10.1108/09604521111100225.

Junginger, S. 2005. “A Different Role for Human-Centered DesignWithin the Organization.” Paper presented at the Proceedings ofthe 6th Annual Conference of the European Academy of Design,Bremen, March.

Kimbell, L. 2010. “From User-Centred Design to Designing forService.” Paper presented at Design Management Conference,London, September 8.

Kimble, C., C. Grenier, and K. Goglio-Primard. 2010. “Innovation andKnowledge Sharing across Professional Boundaries: PoliticalInterplay between Boundary Objects and Brokers.” InternationalJournal of Information Management 30 (5): 437–444. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2010.02.002.

Knorr Cetina, K. 1997. “Sociality with Objects: Social Relations inPostsocial Knowledge Societies.” Theory, Culture and Society 14(4): 1–30. doi:10.1177/026327697014004001.

Kolko, J. 2010. “Abductive Thinking and Sensemaking: The Driversof Design Synthesis.” Design Issues 26 (1): 15–28. doi:10.1162/desi.2010.26.1.15.

Krefting, L. 1991. “Rigor in Qualitative Research: The Assessment ofTrustworthiness.” American Journal of Occupational Therapy 45(3): 214–222. doi:10.5014/ajot.45.3.214.

Krippendorff, K. 1989. “On the Essential Contexts of Artifacts or onthe Proposition That “Design Is Making Sense (of Things)”.”Design Issues 5 (2): 9–39. doi:10.2307/1511512.

Lave, J., and E. Wenger. 1991. Situated Learning: LegitimatePeripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Leung, L., N. Nikolova, J. Schweitzer, T. Golsby-Smith, T. Whybrow,and K. Jurd. 2016. The View from the Top—2016 InnovationReport: A Conversation with Chairs and CEOs of 20þ MajorCorporations on the State of Innovation in Australia. Sydney:University of Technology Sydney.

Liedtka, J., and T. Ogilvie. 2011. Designing for Growth: A DesignThinking Tool Kit for Managers. New York: Columbia UniversityPress.

Creating Customer-Centric Organizations

TheDesignJo

urna

l523

MacDonald, S. 1994. Professional Academic Writing in theHumanities and Social Sciences. Illinois: Southern IllinoisUniversity Press.

Macpherson, A., O. Jones, and H. Oakes. 2006. “MediatingArtefacts, Boundary Objects and the Social Construction ofKnowledge.” Paper presented at the First InternationalConference on Organizational Learning, Knowledge andCapabilities, OLKC 1, University of Warwick, March 20–22.

Mafe, D. J., and A. R. Brown. 2006. “Emergent Matters: Reflectionson Collaborative Practice-led Research.” Paper presented at theSpeculation and Innovation Conference, Brisbane., QueenslandUniversity of Technology, April.

Maidique, M. 1980. “Entrepreneurs, Champions and TechnologicalInnovation.” Sloan Management Review 21 (2): 59–76. http://ezproxy.lib.uts.edu.au/login?url¼https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.lib.uts.edu.au/docview/206796839?accountid¼17095

Manning, H., K. Bodine, and J. Bernoff. 2012. Outside in: The Powerof Putting Customers at the Center of Your Business. New York:Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Mattelm€aki, T. 2008. “Probing for Co-Exploring.” CoDesign 4 (1):65–78. doi:10.1080/15710880701875027.

Meyer, C., and A. Schwager. 2007. “Understanding CustomerExperience.” Harvard Business Review 85 (2): 116–126. https://hbr.org/2007/02/understanding-customer-experience

Michela, J., and S. Floricel. 2012. “Collaboration for Innovationthrough Knowledge Representation.” Paper presented at the XXIIIISPIM Conference—Action for Innovation: Innovating fromExperience, Barcelona, June 17–20.

Miettinen, R., and J. Virkkunen. 2005. “Epistemic Objects, Artefactsand Organizational Change.” Organization 12 (3): 437–456. doi:10.1177/1350508405051279.

Miles, M. B., and A. M. Huberman. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis.2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mills, J., A. Bonner, and K. Francis. 2006. “The Development ofConstructivist Grounded Theory.” International Journal of QualitativeMethods 5 (1): 25–35. doi:10.1177/160940690600500103.

Natale, S., and S. Sora. 2010. “Ethics in Strategic Thinking: BusinessProcesses and the Global Market Collapse.” Journal of BusinessEthics 94 (3): 309–316. doi:10.1007/s10551-009-0270-2.

Orlikowski, W. J. 2002. “Knowing in Practice: Enacting a CollectiveCapability in Distributed Organizing.” Organization Science 13 (3):249–273. doi:10.1287/orsc.13.3.249.2776.

Orlikowski, W. J. 2006. “Material Knowing: The Scaffolding ofHuman Knowledgeability.” European Journal of InformationSystems 15 (5): 460–466. doi:10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000639.

Orlikowski, W. J. 2007. “Sociomaterial Practices: ExploringTechnology at Work.” Organization Studies 28 (9): 1435–1448.doi:10.1177/0170840607081138.

Jacqueline Wechsler and Jochen Schweitzer

TheDesignJo

urna

l524

Oster, G. 2009. “Recasting Corporate Use of Prototypes.” Review ofInternational Comparative Management 10 (2): 218–228. http://www.rmci.ase.ro/no10vol2/Vol10_No2_Article2.pdf

Pavlovich, K., and K. Krahnke. 2012. “Empathy, Connectedness andOrganisation.” Journal of Business Ethics 105 (1): 131–137. doi:10.1007/s10551-011-0961-3.

Perry, M., and D. Sanderson. 1998. “Coordinating Joint DesignWork: The Role of Communication and Artefacts.” Design Studies19 (3): 273–288. doi:10.1016/S0142-694X(98)00008-8.

Rafaeli, A., and I. Vilnai-Yavetz. 2004a. “Emotion as a Connection ofPhysical Artifacts and Organizations.” Organization Science 15 (6):671–686. https://www.jstor.org/stable/30034769 doi:10.1287/orsc.1040.0083.

Rafaeli, A., and I. Vilnai-Yavetz. 2004b. “Instrumentality, Aestheticsand Symbolism of Physical Artifacts as Triggers of Emotions.”Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science 5 (1): 91–112. doi:10.1080/1463922031000086735.

Rafaeli, A., and I. Vilnai-Yavetz. 2006. “Managing Artifacts to AvoidArtifact Myopia.” In Artifacts and Organizations: Beyond MereSymbolism, edited by A. Rafaeli and M. G. Pratt, 9–22. Mahwah:Erlbaum.

Robson, C. 1995. Real World Research: A Resource for SocialScientists and Practitioner–Researchers. Oxford: Blackwell.

Rogers, E. M. 1995. Diffusion of Innovations. 4th ed. New York: TheFree Press.

Roth, W.-M., and M. K. McGinn. 1998. “Inscriptions: Toward aTheory of Representing as Social Practice.” Review of EducationalResearch 68 (1): 35–59. doi:10.3102/00346543068001035.

Schrage, M. 1993. “The Culture(s) of Prototyping.” DesignManagement Journal (Former Series) 4 (1): 55–65. doi:10.1111/j.1948-7169.1993.tb00128.x.

Schweitzer, J. 2014. “Leadership and Innovation Capability Developmentin Strategic Alliances.” Leadership & Organization DevelopmentJournal 35 (5): 442–469. doi:10.1108/LODJ-01-12-0001.

Schweitzer, J., L. Groeger, and L. Sobel. 2016. “The DesignThinking Mindset: An Assessment of What We Know and WhatWe See in Practice.” Journal of Design, Business and Society 2(1): 71–94. doi:10.1386/dbs.2.1.71_1.

Seaman, J. 2008. “Adopting a Grounded Theory Approach toCultural-Historical Research: Conflicting Methodologies orComplementary Methods?” International Journal of QualitativeMethods 7 (1): 1–17. doi:10.1177/160940690800700101.

Senge, Peter, C., Otto Scharmer, J. Jaworski, and B. S. Flowers.2005. Presence: Exploring Profound Change in People,Organizations and Society. London: Nicholas Brealey.

Shah, D., R. T. Rust, A. Parasuraman, R. Staelin, and G. S. Day.2006. “The Path to Customer Centricity.” Journal of ServiceResearch 9 (2): 113–124. doi:10.1177/1094670506294666.

Creating Customer-Centric Organizations

TheDesignJo

urna

l525

Spee, A. P., and P. Jarzabkowski. 2009. “Strategy Tools asBoundary Objects.” Strategic Organization 7 (2): 223–232. doi:10.1177/1476127009102674.

Stake, R. E. 1995. The Art of Case Study Research. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Star, S. L., and J. R. Griesemer. 1989. “Institutional Ecology,‘Translations’ and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals inBerkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39.” Social Studiesof Science 19 (3): 387–420. doi:10.1177/030631289019003001.

Tsoukas, H. 1996. “The Firm as a Distributed Knowledge System: AConstructionist Approach.” Strategic Management Journal 17(S2): 11–25. doi:10.1002/smj.4250171104.

van Rijn, H., F. Sleeswijk Visser, P. J. Stappers, and A. D. €Ozakar.2011. “Achieving Empathy with Users: The Effects of DifferentSources of Information.” CoDesign 7 (2): 65–77. doi:10.1080/15710882.2011.609889.

Veyzer, R., and B. B. De Mozata. 2005. “The Impact of User-OrientatedDesign on New Product Development: An Examination of FundamentalRelationship.” Journal of Product Innovation Management 22 (2):128–143. doi:10.1111/j.0737-6782.2005.00110.x.

Wagner, I. 2000. “Persuasive Artefacts in Architectural Design andPlanning.” In Collaborative Design, edited by S. A. R. Scrivener,L. J. Ball, and A. Woodcock, 379–389. London: Springer.

Wechsler, J., 2017. “Scaffolding Innovation with Design Artefactsthat Enable Others to Do their Work.” In Visual Tools forDeveloping Cross-Disciplinary Collaboration, Innovation andEntrepreneurship Capacity, edited by S. Griffith, K. Carruthers,and M. Bliemel, 197–222. Champaign: Common Ground.

Weick, K. E., and K. H. Roberts. 1993. “Collective Mind inOrganizations: Heedful Interrelating on Flight Decks.” AdministrativeScience Quarterly 38 (3): 357–381. doi:10.2307/2393372.

Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, andIdentity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wenger, E. 2000. “Communities of Practice and Social LearningSystems.” Organization 7 (2): 225–246. doi:10.1177/135050840072002.

Yin, R. 2003. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 3rd ed.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

BiographiesJacqueline (Jax) Wechsler is Director of Sticky Design Studio, a bou-tique human-centred design agency based in Sydney, Australia.Primarily consulting within the NGO and public sectors, she is inter-ested in the change enabling role of design artefacts within complexsocial change contexts. She holds a Masters in Design (UTS).

Jochen Schweitzer is Associate Professor and Director ofEntrepreneurship at the University of Technology Sydney. His work

Jacqueline Wechsler and Jochen Schweitzer

TheDesignJo

urna

l526

focuses on issues of strategy, entrepreneurship and innovation witha special interest in design thinking and emerging technologies.Jochen was Visiting Scholar at Hasso Plattner Institute School ofDesign Thinking at Stanford University and Potsdam University.

Address for CorrespondenceJacqueline Wechsler Sticky Design Studio, Sydney, Australia http://stickydesignstudio.com.au Tel: þ61 (0)403895497Email: jax@stickydesignstudio.com.au

Creating Customer-Centric Organizations

TheDesignJo

urna

l527