Results

The experiment setup and results are extensively discussed in our yearly report which will soon be published at Springer Verlag.

To give you some idea, we want to discuss some crucial points already here:

Regarding our two major experimental issues – innovation and communication – the second may be commented with greater ease as the findings approximate prior expectations. In terms of communication problems, no difference between mono- versus multidisciplinary teams has been found. Yet, D-School teams consistently report less difficulties than untrained teams. Does D-School training enhance com- munication skills so that communication obstacles may be handled more easily? Potentially. In pondering this causal claim, it needs to be considered that D-School trained team members generally knew each other in advance as they had studied to- gether at the D-School. This familiarity yields an alternative explanation for reduced communication difficulties. Yet, quite a few of the untrained participants had known each other in advance as well. E. g., most monodisciplinary teams comprised stu- dents of software systems engineering who knew each other from regular courses. Thus, there is some reason to assume that D-School training helps people to develop effective communication strategies. Whether the training does indeed have a causal effect in that regard, and what elements of the D-School experience most powerfully enhance communication skills, are issues that would have to be addressed by further studies.

More demanding, and potentially more interesting is the issue of innovation. Why were D-School teams, and multidisciplinary D-School teams in particular, outperformed by teams with no D-School experience?

What we wish to pass back

Having been endowed with a number of considerations by the Design Thinking community, we focused on a few recurrent believes. Now that the experimental re- sults are in, our theory prototypes may be refined. In the dialogue between Design Thinkers and empirical reality, some hotspots have been identified that certainly span room for improvements. So, how can we sharpen our vocabulary? How can we refine our central believes so that they be ever more adapt to reality, ever more fruitful?