ABN AMRO’s Innovation Department faces a persistent and structural challenge: despite many promising initiatives and a well-structured innovation funnel (DARE), not a single innovation has successfully transitioned into operational use within a Client Unit over the past five years. While ideas are developed and validated, implementation, referred to as "landing", consistently fails. This is not due to a lack of ideas or structure, but to the absence of a relational and human-centred vision towards the landing spot during the process.

This thesis identifies a critical blind spot: the role of Intermediate Users, such as Business Leads in the Client Units, who are expected to translate innovation into practice, but are rarely engaged as users in their own right. Without true two-way dialogues, mutual understanding, a sense of ownership, and trust, these key actors remain disconnected, and implementation stalls.

At the core of this issue is a lack of empathy. The research shows that while Human-Centered Design tools are widely used for end users, they are rarely applied to Intermediate Users. This gap in understanding creates a growing tension between those who design innovation and those who are expected to implement it.

To address this, the thesis proposes a new design direction: embedding a Layer of Empathy into the innovation process. Rather than replacing existing structures, this human-centred layer builds on familiar tools and reframes them around relational dynamics like motivation, collaboration, trust, and ownership. As an example of this approach, the concept “Block & Bond” introduces a simple but symbolic ritual to kick off collaboration, designed to make people feel seen, committed, and part of a shared innovation journey.

This project shows that implementation is not just about getting the process right, it is about getting the relationship right. When Intermediate Users are recognised, involved, and heard from the start, innovation has a far greater chance of truly landing. In doing so, ABN AMRO moves one step closer to turning bold ideas into lasting impact.

Design for our future // Banking for better, for generations to come.

This thesis explores the friction between strategic design and business contexts. This friction has been experienced by the author and later echoed by many other designers in interviews and conversations. While organizations increasingly recognize the need for creative approaches to tackle complex challenges, the integration of strategic design remains difficult in practice. To better understand this phenomenon, two research questions were posed: RQ 1: Why does strategic design often struggle to become integrated in organizations? And RQ 2: What can be done to make strategic design work within organizational realities?

To answer these questions, the thesis combined a literature review, a qualitative research approach, and a design intervention. The literature review revealed that strategic designers operates through a distinct reasoning style: the abduction-2 logic. This allows designers to reframe problems and navigate complex, ‘wicked’ problems. This way of thinking can expand the problem-solving arsenal of organizations. However, models such as the CK-theory and the IDER model highlight that innovation can not be embedded unless an organizational context itself evolves. This insight reframes the role of the strategic designer: not as someone who brings the innovation, but as the innovation itself.

The interviews revealed that designers often struggle to position themselves within rigid structures and face misconceptions about the nature and value of their work. Four recurring tensions were identified: rigidity vs. flexibility, misunderstood vs. recognized, evidence vs. intuition, and exclusive vs. inclusive. Each was linked to an underlying value, trust, respect, empathy, and equality, which form the foundation for successful collaboration between design and business.

Based on these insights, a design intervention was developed: an interactive workshop with provotypes, designed to trigger reflection and dialogue at a strategic level. The goal was not to transfer knowledge, but to create space for mutual understanding, reflection and reframing. Two validation sessions showed that the workshop evoked rich and reflective conversations, but also revealed a lack of shared understanding of strategic design. As a result, the concept was redesigned into a three-part workshop series: starting with building shared understanding, followed by reflection through provotypes, and ending with translating insights into action.

This thesis contributes to the field by repositioning the designer as an additional strategic force: the innovation itself. It also emphasizes the importance of organizational readiness. Practically, it offers a tool for strategic designers and business professionals to meet as equals. Ultimately, making strategic design work means looking beyond tools or roles, and focusing instead on openness, shared values, the co-creation new ways of working.

This report explores the value of the design approach in policymaking, specifically applied to the policy brief "Straffen op Maat". The aim is to offer insights into the potential of an iterative, problem-driven methodology for addressing complex societal challenges, often referred to as wicked problems. I went through seven steps, each of which altered the perspective on the problem statement and influenced the concept. Below, I will briefly explain these steps, which correspond to the chapters in the report. 1. Reducing recidivism is a complex and persistent problem. The judiciary cannot fully focus on a single goal, partly because it must balance its four primary objectives, but also because it needs to remain cost-effective and account for the diverse expectations of society, which often conflict with measures aimed at reducing recidivism. With limited resources, the problem owner must cater to multiple stakeholders. As a result, solutions must be immediately appealing to all involved, complicating research into the problem space. 2. The paradox that is dominant in the problem is the demand for more maatwerk (greater time investment) in a system that is overloaded and therefore less capable of delivering it. This points to the need for a solution that can also simplify, structure the problems at hand. 3. By examining the immediate context, I arrived at the following reformulation: "A system that punishes too harshly creates a negative spiral." This perspective also opens opportunities for systemic change. "Too harshly" is defined here as stricter than what is scientifically ideal for minor offenses. A negative spiral arises because harsher punishments lead to higher recidivism rates, which in turn create public unrest and result in demands for even harsher punishments from society. 4. In the Field section, I investigated different stakeholders in the justice chain and how the system function. From this analysis the revision of the problem statement was: How can a judge deliver maatwerk if there is no direct feedback loop on previously delivered maatwerk? (How can this be aligned across a chain that includes numerous actors and organizations with varying ways of operating?) 5. The absence of a feedback loop prevents the system from learning from the maatwerk applied in sentencing recommendations. 6. which serves as the foundation for a solution concept. The constructed frame can be encapsulated in the following question: “What if we create a reflective conversation following punishment that fosters reflective learning for both parties? (delinquent and state)” How can punishment be evaluated on an equal footing, enabling both parties to gain meaningful insights from the evaluation? 7. I tested the frame with experts at the ministry, a concept was developed proposing two reflective conversations: one immediately following the punishment and another scheduled six months to a year later. Both conversations are conducted via phone, preceded by an explanatory WhatsApp message. These conversations are preferably facilitated by lived experience experts—individuals who bridge the gap between the system and its clients. Data collected from these conversations should be used to evaluate and refine current maatwerk solutions.

Within the Dutch Ministries, implementing agencies receive the request to execute specific policies. To do this, they often need a (technical) product/service/platform which enables them to fulfill their job. With new types of technology coming to the market, the implementing agencies explore these new options to see if and how they can add value to their organization and make, e.g., executing a policy easier or more reliable. Therefore, the implementing agencies engage themselves in innovation projects. DICTU supports the implementing agencies with IT solutions such that they can create the product/service/platform to execute the policy. Currently, the innovation process in this context runs across multiple organizations and several departments, and there is little consideration of the various stakeholders; there often is a delay, the final product does not always solve the initial problem, or it occurs that the final product is not (correctly) implemented in the organization. This dissection of the innovation process leaves it broken and unwholly. This graduation project aims to create a designerly interaction between DICTU and its client to positively influence and contribute to a more successful implementation of innovation. Through literature and field research, a schematic overview of the current innovation process is created in which the various stakeholders and interactions are displayed. The two most important findings are that the implementing agencies have little trust for DICTU and that there is no moment in the innovation process where all stakeholders come together.

From a design point of view, there is value in involving the different stakeholders throughout the project to create a good solution for an existing problem by synchronizing the various parties. For this purpose, the Zegiswijzer is created. It is a tool that helps structure an additional interaction on the interface between DICTU and their client to make a smooth transition between the different organizations to synchronize their languages. This is done in a workshop by (1) defining the problem and the relevant stakeholders and their connections and by stating the ambition (2) by defining success and illustrating the solution. The next step is to reflect (3) on the first two steps, is the problem definition still accurate? Does the proposed solution indeed solve the problem? Or is it necessary to reframe the problem and/or solution? After this reflection, the path (4) is defined to go from problem to solution and state the expected risks and needed resources. With this step, not only the start of the project and the go-live of the product are considered, but also the phase after the go-live. What is needed to implement the product? And how will the organization adopt the product? Then, a collaborative decision (5) on how to continue is made. Based on the combined perspectives of the stakeholders, a well-informed decision can be made on whether to accept the project, adjust it, or don’t accept the project.

The implementation and development of the Zegiswijzer is captured in a roadmap. A future is envisioned in which valuable products/services are created, developed, delivered, and implemented in the Ministry of EZK/LNV by organizing the projects around close inter- and intra-organizational collaboration to create a profound understanding of the context facilitated by DICTU makes use of the Zegiswijzer. This future is realized by first using the Zegiswijzer on the interface between DICTU and its client to challenge the status quo of silo working. Then, DICTU should proactively engage in activities to create a profound understanding of the client’s business and gain legitimacy and trust for their position. The last step is for DICTU to take the role of partner, which leads to the realization of the vision. Future research should investigate the effect of following this designerly interaction on the interface between DICTU and the client and the implications it has on the implementation.