In this report a collection of experiences at Total Design is presented while looking through a lens of Organizational Designing. The concept of looking through a view-master is used as metaphor for the purpose of this report. To highlight this Organizational Designing, two main questions had to be answered; How can we look at Organizational Designing? Where do we see Organizational Designing at TD and in this project? To recognize Organizational Designing within the ways of working, some existing literature is used to set up its first attributes. By the use of design perspectives like the action-centered perspective (Schön, 1983), a Human Centered Design perspective (Junginger, 2005) and the four orders of design (Buchanan, 2019) we start to make an effort on what Organizational Designing is. Then a view on the complexity of organizations (Norman & Stappers, 2015) and their ‘wicked’ problems (Buchanan, 1992) is given to see on what entity this design process works. This literature overview is closed with some things Organizational Designers encounter and work with, such as the need for ‘satisficing’ (Simon, 1969), the incremental strategy of ‘muddling through’ (Lindblom, 1979), improvisation (Weick, 2017) and designing ‘interventions’ (Stacey et al., 2000). To capture the ways of working at TD various ethnographic methods were used (Hammersley & Atkinson, 2007), such as observation, participation and the use of field notes and ‘thick descriptions’ (Geertz, 1973). Throughout the report examples of these thick descriptions are presented to illustrate the point of view of me as a user of the organization TD. Together with these examples, different frames on how TD as an organization can be viewed are showed to emphasize how complex the definition of what an organization is, can be. The captured experiences are categorized into three areas where Organizational Designing can be seen. The first area is at the interface between TD and its clients, where the design inquiry in projects the collaboration with the use of online tools and the integration of different design disciplines led to organizational impact at the clients side. The second area highlights the organizational designing within TD itself, where observations triggered the process of incremental changes in interaction of the standup, and the evolution of the agency call. As well as how the hourly billing creates tension between the freedom of creativity and the need for having a financially healthy agency. The third and last area the design interventions of this project are discussed. Here, methods of reflection and the use of archetypes challenge the way TD could think about themselves. And reflection-in-action lead to shifting the purpose of a given workshop while doing. In the end we conclude with an overview of how organizational designing at TD can be seen. As well as a discussion on the fact that organizational designing can be seen in other design disciplines, since the design of an organization deals with problems that require integration of problems of communication, construction and interaction. This is why we can see organizational designing on different moments at TD, since they integrate various design disciplines to create organizational impact at their clients.

The value of customer relationships appears to be a hot topic at the moment as companies need to move from competition to collaboration, or how I will largely refer to: from transactional to relational. However, the value which current customer relationships generate is far from the claimed collaboration. For many years, transactional relationships kept companies in a stable comfort zone with easy cash flow, measurements and ongoing linear chain processes. However, they need to survive, but large corporates might find difficulties in acquiring new approaches to their relationships but start recognizing that their internal operations may be the key reason (Junginger, 2017). Looking at my personal motivation towards interactions and relationships between people, I see customer relationships not as on the interaction between companies but people. Although the word “customer” is largely used along with the thesis because of the Philips terminology, a relationship between people from different companies - a partnership, should equalise both sides of individuals as partners. Removing the roles of customer and provider helps to step out of the unwanted transactional approach. The same happens with customer-centricity. Although customer centricity seems to be the saving boat, companies struggle to apply it. Because it is not the company itself that needs to be customer centric, but the employees. To overcome the transactional approach of Account Management, Philips needs to understand that there are external factors to account managers that influence the behaviour of these and consequently, the outcomes of the customer interaction. Incentivisation on new deals and commercial education takes a big role within the context but this project will focus on the education side - training. Companies deliver education to their employees so that they perform under the assumed company strategy. In the case of Philips aiming to improve customer relationships, the organisation provides training to its account managers to sell better. This project aimed to develop a solution space to reframe the approach, knowledge and behaviour gaps in the dialogues between Philips Account Managers and Philips customers - hospitals.

For technology firms like Barco, radical innovation a way to escape intense competition, but also crucial for long-term survival as they provide the foundations on which future generations of products are created (McDermott & O’Connor, 2002; Sandberg & Aarikk-Stenroos, 2014). However, a required mature radical innovation capability in the front end of the process was lacking (O’Connor & DeMartino, 2006). Therefore, they have to change their internal processes and organisational routines that are regarded as the building blocks for this organisational capability (Junginger, 2008; Salvato & Rerup, 2011). Understanding organisational change is one of the great endeavours of many researchers and management consultants in the field of organisation design. A way to understand organisational change is by looking at organisational routines (Becker, 2005). Organisational routines are important to organisational change, but easier to study (Feldman & Pentland, 2003). However, an understanding how routines are designed or come to life is still a key question in the field of organisation design (Howard-Grenvile, 2005; Wegener et al., 2019). The approach of many managers and consultants of carefully designing PowerPoints and checklists while hoping for routines to change is a mistake (Pentland & Feldman, 2008). This leads to the following research question: How to design an organisational routine that develops a radical innovation capability within a technology firm?To answer this question and to provide organisation designers or organisational researchers empirical insights on how to design a routine in a performative way I developed and executed a routine design strategy. This strategy is based on existing routine design literature (Pentland & Feldman, 2008) and the double diamond approach (Design Council, 2005).This study shows that using a routine design strategy consisting of three interdependent phases are critical to routine design. First, emphasize with routine actors, conduct activities to discover and define the challenges and needs the actors face in their patterns of action. Second, lock in desired performance, prototype in collaboration with the routine actors the desired performances and lock them in a physical artefact. Third, build the ostensive, perform the designed performances in design experiments within a reflective and experimental space to practice the routine in safe but realistic boundaries.

Companies and organisations are increasingly exposed to a market environment full of turbulence and disruption. Perry (2017), for instance, shows that only 60 companies were present in the Fortune 500 in 1955 as well as in 2017, meaning that 88% of the companies from 1955 went bankrupt, merged with (or were overtaken by) other firms or were not able to meet the Fortune 500 revenue threshold anymore. It can be stated that many companies have not been able to adapt or to take advantage of changing market situations as they fail to scout and invest in new areas of growth or keep applying existing business models to new market segments (Anthony et al.,2016; Zook, 2014)
Lately, design has received increased attention from companies that want to anticipate on market turbulence. Design is seen as a way to overcome creative destruction, helping companies to maintain their competitiveness in the marketplace. From multiple accounts, design and design thinking are seen to add value to businesses, organisations, (innovation) processes, products and services. However, the fact that the added value of design and design thinking is mainly described by anecdotal cases of businesses and organisations that successfully make use of design and design thinking seems to ignore the process that precedes the situation whereby design is fully operationalised in and adds value to innovation processes.
It is therefore that this research project is executed with the aim of exploring the implications of design when being embedded in a company’s innovation process. Based on current collaborations between the Delft University of Technology’s IDE faculty and various businesses, three companies have been found suitable for examination in the context of this research project. As a result, three cases can be described
through conducting empirical research, whereby further insights into these cases are provided through conducting two rounds of interviews.
The data derived during this research project show that a design project is seen to be initiated by a non-design project brief, that design is positioned in the Fuzzy Front End of innovation processes and that design is employed in a separated type of department. It also becomes clear that an emerging disconnection emerges between the design output and the innovation process that is already put in place. It is found that this disconnection can be traced back to a barrier that is positioned within the higher ranks of companies as well as a barrier is perceived in the way companies have set-up their organisational structure relative to the design output.
It is concluded that design should become an ‘implemented reality’ and it should be incorporated into the ‘thought processes of a company’s organisational structure’ when companies want to successfully make use of design with the aim of arriving at outcomes other than their current innovation processes are producing. Therefore, companies should adapt, revise and/or redesign each aspect of their innovation process that is either preceding or coming after the embedded design element in order to fully facilitate an innovation cycle.

The need for companies to innovate continuously has never been greater, due to the complex and dynamic conditions in which they compete today (Gumusluoglu & Ilsev, 2009; Tellis et. al., 2009). The ones who need to innovate, are the employees of an organization. However, to properly innovate, the employees need to understand and be engaged with the vision and know how to apply strategy in daily practices. Yet, this is exactly what is missing. Most employees currently don’t have a clear idea of what their company’s vision and strategy entails (Kaplan & Norton, 2005): research shows that only 8.7 percent of employees rated their knowledge of the company’s strategy above moderate, although they would like to know more about it (Alexander, 1994).
This led to the following research question to explore in collaboration with P2 Strategy (an innovation consultancy): “How to enable P2S to get their clients’ employees to better understand, be motivated about, and apply the client’s vision and strategy into their daily work?”

As an answer to this question, the Visual Storytelling toolkit has been developed. The toolkit consists of tool suggestions on cards. These cards can be used by P2S to set up a tailor made workshop for a specific client, as well as staying involved with the client over a longer period of time. Visualization, materialization and storytelling are applied throughout the toolkit. The toolkit cards are divided into five steps that need to be completed by the participants (employees) during a workshop in order to reach the goal of engaged employees that can innovate in line with the vision. The five steps are:
1. Valuemapper: participants individually retrieve personal values as preparation of the workshop.
2. Vision Sharer: the vision and value shift are shared with the participants in an engaging way.
3. Connector: the retrieved personal values are explicitly linked to the vision(‘s values).
4. Content Stormer: the participants playfully explore ideas to implement strategy.
5. Reflectioner: participants keep the vision on top of mind and reflect (with others) on the progress over a long period of time.

The graduation enhance the understanding of the actual use of strategy tools in both innovation consultancies and their client’s organizations. Furthermore, this study enhances our understanding of how to incorporate design in strategy activities, and that there are interesting opportunities for design (visual storytelling) in the organization field regarding routine change and engaging employees. The findings of this graduation suggest that innovation consultancies need to change their own routines, before being able to change routines of their clients - and that design, and specifically visual storytelling, is a way to do that.