Abstract
Design thinking has long been regarded as a key paradigm in design. However, in corporate practice, it often fails to be recognized as a concrete contribution to designers’ performance, revealing a persistent gap between academic theory and managerial implementation. This study investigates whether design thinking can serve as a performance indicator in organizational contexts, with a focus on the construction of evaluation systems, execution mechanisms, and the measurability of design outputs. Using a constructivist grounded theory approach, this study interviewed nine senior design managers from large Taiwanese corporations to collect practical perspectives. Based on 785 initial codes, the study identified 28 focused codes and five theoretical categories. In the corporate contexts observed, the work practices described by interviewed design managers exhibit a highly cross-disciplinary nature, further highlighting the intangible and processual characteristics of design activities. These qualities make design contributions difficult to quantify, often leading to the under valuation of design departments in performance systems, which in turn limits their access to resources and decision- making participation. To address this challenge, the study proposes a typology of design work— delivery-oriented, process-oriented, and influence-oriented—to help organizations recognize the diverse nature of design practice. Furthermore, it introduces the concept of whitening conversion, which translates qualitative and intangible design contributions into visible and communicable performance language within formal KPI frameworks. A Visibility-Influence quadrant model is also developed to identify institutional blind spots in the evaluation of intangible value, offering both theoretical and practical insights for improving design performance assessment in Asian corporate contexts.
Keywords
Design thinking; Design KPI; Design performance; Constructivist grounded theory
DOI
https://doi.org/10.21606/iasdr.2025.577
Citation
Lin, J., Chiu, T., Higo, A.,and Washi, Y.(2025) Is Design Thinking Considered a Design KPI? An Empirical Study of Large Taiwanese Corporations, in Chang, C.-Y., and Hsu, Y. (eds.), IASDR 2025: Design Next, 02-05 December, Taiwan. https://doi.org/10.21606/iasdr.2025.577
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
Conference Track
Track 5 - Design Thinking
Is Design Thinking Considered a Design KPI? An Empirical Study of Large Taiwanese Corporations
Design thinking has long been regarded as a key paradigm in design. However, in corporate practice, it often fails to be recognized as a concrete contribution to designers’ performance, revealing a persistent gap between academic theory and managerial implementation. This study investigates whether design thinking can serve as a performance indicator in organizational contexts, with a focus on the construction of evaluation systems, execution mechanisms, and the measurability of design outputs. Using a constructivist grounded theory approach, this study interviewed nine senior design managers from large Taiwanese corporations to collect practical perspectives. Based on 785 initial codes, the study identified 28 focused codes and five theoretical categories. In the corporate contexts observed, the work practices described by interviewed design managers exhibit a highly cross-disciplinary nature, further highlighting the intangible and processual characteristics of design activities. These qualities make design contributions difficult to quantify, often leading to the under valuation of design departments in performance systems, which in turn limits their access to resources and decision- making participation. To address this challenge, the study proposes a typology of design work— delivery-oriented, process-oriented, and influence-oriented—to help organizations recognize the diverse nature of design practice. Furthermore, it introduces the concept of whitening conversion, which translates qualitative and intangible design contributions into visible and communicable performance language within formal KPI frameworks. A Visibility-Influence quadrant model is also developed to identify institutional blind spots in the evaluation of intangible value, offering both theoretical and practical insights for improving design performance assessment in Asian corporate contexts.