Connecting Design Thinking and Startup Ecosystems: An Innographic

This visual framework offers a conceptual link between the iterative processes of Design Thinking (DT) and the customer-driven methodologies embedded in Steve Blank’s Customer Development (CD) model. The intention is to situate startups not as isolated entities but as critical participants within broader, interconnected ecosystems. This narrative aims to clarify how such integrative approaches can foster adaptive innovation processes that align with stakeholder needs, market realities, and systemic complexity.

Conceptualizing the Startup Growth Pipeline

The Startup Growth Pipeline forms the centerpiece of this visual, mapping four phases: Discovery, Define, Develop, and Delivery. This approach underscores the importance of iterative progression and external validation. Within the context of DT, these stages provide a scaffold for ideation, experimentation, and market introduction, while Blank’s CD framework introduces a customer-centric validation process throughout each step.

Deconstructing the Four Phases

  1. Discovery emphasizes an investigative approach wherein startups actively identify and interrogate customer needs and market gaps. This aligns with the Customer Discovery stage in Blank’s methodology, ensuring that ventures are grounded in verifiable demand rather than assumed value. The success of the eco-packaging firm Notpla, which pivots on the viability of seaweed-derived packaging to replace single-use plastics, reflects the necessity of thorough discovery and demand validation.
  2. Define involves translating ambiguous or multifaceted challenges into clearly articulated opportunities for innovation. This phase transitions into Customer Validation, where solutions are rigorously tested against market expectations. Firms such as Tylko, specializing in customizable furniture solutions, exemplify the application of rapid iteration cycles to calibrate their product offerings through continuous customer engagement and feedback.
  3. Develop centers on refining and prototyping solutions through structured experimentation. Drawing upon Lean Startup methodologies, this stage underscores an evidence-based, “Build-Measure-Learn” cycle, prioritizing efficiency and adaptive learning. By embedding iterative loops, startups optimize their prototypes before committing to resource-intensive production.
  4. Delivery marks the transition from MVP to scalable product, encompassing aspects of market entry, company building, and stakeholder alignment. This phase aligns with Customer Creation and subsequent scaling efforts, demanding that firms navigate market complexities and ecosystem dynamics to achieve sustainable growth.

Expanding to an Ecosystem Perspective

Unlike isolated growth models, the framework broadens the lens to emphasize ecosystem dynamics—highlighting how startups engage with networks of collaborators, customers, competitors, and institutional stakeholders. This alignment resonates with Chesbrough’s Open Innovation model, illustrating how partnerships, co-creation, and knowledge exchange enhance innovation trajectories. Such a perspective challenges the view of startups as siloed actors and situates them within relational contexts that profoundly influence their developmental pathways.

Capabilities as Strategic Levers

The upper arches of the infographic denote critical capabilities—Curiosity, Resilience, Creativity, Openness, Collaboration, Authenticity, Adaptability, and Ambition—that influence how startups navigate their growth. These capabilities, informed by Simon Kavanagh’s learning arches, serve as strategic levers in responding to ecosystem complexities and emergent challenges. For example, resilience proved instrumental for firms like Amwell during the COVID-19 crisis, as they pivoted rapidly to meet surging telehealth demand. Such adaptive capacities are not merely desirable but essential for firms operating under conditions of uncertainty.

Evaluating Metrics: A Pragmatic View of Success

To anchor these conceptual pathways, four core metrics are introduced: Identified Needs, Validated Ideas, Prototype Iterations, and Product-Market Fit. These indicators serve as pragmatic measures of progress, offering tangible reference points for evaluating success at each pipeline stage. Drawing on McKinsey’s research into growth-driven innovation, the role of well-defined metrics in steering strategic decision-making cannot be overstated, particularly for nascent ventures facing resource constraints.

Bridging Established Frameworks

Subtle integrations of Osterwalder’s Business Model Canvas and Eric Ries’ Lean Startup methodology provide familiarity and operational context. While these frameworks have achieved broad adoption, the visual aims to foster a more comprehensive understanding of their utility within a dynamically shifting ecosystem context. By situating these methodologies within an overarching narrative, the infographic seeks to promote critical engagement with established tools while encouraging a broader systems-thinking approach.

Conclusion: Reframing Innovation Pathways

The integration of Design Thinking, Customer Development, and systemic perspectives challenges the dominant narrative of linear innovation. By presenting startups as relational actors embedded in networks of mutual influence, this visual framework invites deeper exploration of how capabilities, metrics, and ecosystem interactions coalesce to shape entrepreneurial outcomes. For educators, practitioners, and innovation scholars, this conceptual alignment highlights a path toward a more integrated, reflective, and contextually grounded approach to innovation management.

For further inquiry or to discuss how these models can be applied within practical contexts or educational settings, feel free to reach out for more detailed conversations.

Regenerative Innovation Process Through Systems Thinking [Infographic]

Regenerative Innovation Process Through Systems Thinking [Infographic]

About a month ago, Kasper Benjamin Reimer Bjørkskov, posted a message on LinkedIn that contained an impressive methodology to look at regenerative systems thinking. The idea sparked my mind and I gave it a lot of thinking during the last few weeks. And, although I explicitly do acknolwedge the strength and simplicity of the model that was proposed, I believe from a theoretical perspective, it could be improved a bit. Let me first paraphrase the initial post and infographic:

🌍 Regenerative System Thinking:
Bridging the Gap Between Intent and Action 🌱

While technology is a powerful tool in our fight against the climate crisis, it alone can’t drive the change we need. We’ve done well in raising awareness about sustainability, but there’s a gap between understanding and action. It’s time to bridge that gap! To truly combat the climate crisis, we must intertwine the realms of technology, humanities, and social sciences. After all, the root of the crisis lies in human behavior. Only by altering our behaviors can we hope to find a solution. 🔗 By merging the insights from social and natural sciences, we can ensure that knowledge isn’t just acquired but acted upon. The current system often makes the effort seem greater than the reward, creating an intention-action gap. But through systemic design, we can offer a holistic understanding of societal and ecological needs. To Translate complex, real world challenges into solutions that creates positive social and  environmental impact, for all, we need regenerative system thinking.

Regenerative System Thinking. 6-step approach to Regenerative System Thinking:

1️⃣ Empathize & Observe:
1A: Empathize: Engage deeply with people to understand their perspectives and identify the barriers they face.
1B: Observe: Delve into the system’s intricacies to comprehend its functioning and dynamics.

2️⃣ Define & Explain:
2ADefine: Pinpoint the specific challenges and problems faced by individuals.
2B:Explain: Grasp and articulate how the system operates, shedding light on the root causes of the problems.

3️⃣ Ideate: Brainstorm innovative solutions that cater to both human needs and the planet’s well-being.

4️⃣ Design: Craft comprehensive strategies and solutions that serve both humanity and our environment.

5️⃣ Prototype: Develop tangible prototypes to test and refine ideas. Remember, action often brings clarity and deeper understanding.

6️⃣ Evaluate: Rigorously assess the impact of the solutions on both the system and its people, ensuring alignment with our regenerative goals.
Together, let’s turn understanding into impactful action. 🌟🌍 #RegenerativeThinking#ClimateActionNow

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/kasper-benjamin-reimer-bj%C3%B8rkskov-660a4899_regenerativethinking-climateactionnow-activity-7117382272009269248-2JEU?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop

Turning a social model into a hybrid model

  1. My primary feedback pertains to the model’s reliance on a 2P basis, whereas the literature suggests that a 3P basis might lead to more effective outcomes. The Triple P framework is often referred to as People, Planet, Profit, though the latter may be replaced by Progress to encompass a broader perspective on social innovation. Please refer to sources such as Dwivedi & Weerawardena (2018), McMullen & Warnick (2016), Weerawardena et al. (2021), and Saebi et al. (2019).
  2. Another change in perspective is that systems thinking should not be limited to the Planet aspect of innovation. To exclude consideration of people and progress from systems thinking, in my opinion, would not constitute true systems thinking. I believe that the combination of these two (or three) processes could be referred to as systems thinking. You can find further insights in sources like Spender et al. (2017), Shepherd et al. (2015), and Rossignoli et al. (2018).
  3. Lastly, the iteration of processes outlined in the initial model does not align with existing literature and practical execution of innovation. You can reference works such as Crossan & Apaydin (2010), Barney & Felin (2013), Miron-Spektor et al. (2018), Bryan et al. (2021), Gans et al. (2019), and Landry et al. (2002) for a more accurate representation of how innovation is typically executed.

Therefore, I’ve designed a new infographic that more closely resembles regenerative innovation processes using systems thinking. In the dynamic landscape of innovation, the pursuit of regenerative progress stands for merging sustainability, profit, and human-centric principles into viable offerings. In this innovative model, three distinct but interwoven processes unfold in parallel, converging at Step 3 to craft a regenerative future that harmonizes the planet, progress, and people. This model encapsulates the essence of responsible leadership, ambidextrous leadership, and creative leadership, each playing a pivotal role in shaping regenerative innovation.

  1. Responsible Leadership (Planet) requires innovators to study the root causes of environmental and societal challenges, recognizing that regeneration begins with a deep understanding of the issues at hand. At Step 3A, leaders collaboratively formulate design principles that embrace ecological and ethical considerations, creating a blueprint for responsible strategy. This strategy, implemented with meticulous care, ensures that regenerative innovation is continually measured and monitored for its impact on the planet.
  2. Ambidextrous Leadership (Progress/Profit) unfurls a visionary path through diligent market research, seeking opportunities where profit can be harmonized with regenerative principles. At Step 3B, innovators craft bold ideas that resonate with the sustainable future they aspire to create. Within this collaboration, a multilayered business model emerges, serving as a robust platform for regenerative innovation. The model provides the necessary scaffolding to launch regenerative solutions into the market successfully.
  3. Creative Leadership (People) places the human element at the heart of regenerative innovation. By knowing their customers intimately, innovators ensure that solutions are not only ecologically sound but also responsive to the needs, desires, and values of the people they serve. At Step 3C, creative leaders join forces with their counterparts in Ambidextrous Leadership, forging smart solutions that prioritize the well-being of both the planet and humanity. They craft prototypes that are not only effective but also user-friendly, culminating in an evaluation process that centers on the customer experience.

This three-pronged approach to regenerative innovation redefines the boundaries of progress, profit, and sustainability. The magic lies in the convergence of these three leadership paradigms at Step 3, where ideas, strategies, and solutions synergize to create a regenerative force greater than the sum of its parts. Together, they pave the way for a future where responsible, ambidextrous, and creative leaders collaborate to shape a world that is not only profitable but also harmoniously interwoven with the planet and its people.

Clarifying Design in Business Sciences: a Design Thinking Taxonomy

Clarifying Design in Business Sciences: a Design Thinking Taxonomy

This article is an extended book review of The Quest for Professionalism of George Romme, a 2016-published book by Oxford University Press. The book is a one-of-a-kind taking a much needed reflective approach to leadership and a critical note towards the level of professionalism that many of us are approaching the science of management and entrepreneurship with. His work is exceptional, because it integrates major scientific perspectives on management from a holistic point-of-view without getting too descriptive. The book chooses a slightly philosophical approach without getting too abstract. The book takes a slightly life-work approach without giving too much self-credit.

Read more
11 Paradoxes of Entrepreneurial Thinking: why entrepreneurship can hardly be taught

11 Paradoxes of Entrepreneurial Thinking: why entrepreneurship can hardly be taught

Introduction

Entrepreneurial thinking is described as one of the most relevant skills for the 21st-century workforce (Bacigalupo, Kampylis, Punie, & Brande, 2016). And for that reason it has become an integral criteria in many prescriptive regulations for (higher) education and in increasing numbers also explicitly and implicitly part of curricula (Saavedra & Opfer, 2012). As opposed to entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial thinking is not necessarily bound to entrepreneurs (to be); it is an essential skill for ‘strengthening human capital, employability and competitiveness’ (Bacigalupo et al., 2016).

Read more
Innovation Thinking Methods

Innovation Thinking Methods

A few weeks ago, a friend brought the book “Innovation Thinking Methods: disciplines of thought that can help you rethink industries and unlock 10x better solutions” from Osama A. Hashmi to my attention. I ordered it, read it and was impressed by the both the power and simplicity of the work.

The book is thin and comprehensible. In fact, it read like a weblog post enriched with interesting personal thoughts of the author and beautiful examples from his own perspective. What I most liked is the fact that it takes another approach then we’re used to see: the book is a random list of thinking methods that could be used when dealing with innovation as an entrepreneur. The list is not categorized, nor is there a structured process that guides you through the book, nor an analysis or an advice. And therefore it is mostly an inspirational book and a homage to disruptive, non-incremental or structured thinking; the fuzzy front-end of innovation. A non-methodological list of methods. Both an obeisance for the entrepreneurial-minded free-thinkers and experienced managers looking for a solution to create passion and change in an innovation team.

Read more