=Astract=
In Project / Program / Portfolio Management it is crucial to come up with ideas for the best solution for the problem at hand. For an optimal outcome, this solution should consider all the relevant aspects.
This article will be an introduction to design thinking, which is a method that helps individuals and groups to efficiently develop with a solution that considers all relevant aspects.
The process is interactive and based on feedback from the target group to ensure a result that will meet the client's needs.
In project management, this can be used for planning the project optimally, in program management it can, for example, be used to optimise the running program and in portfolio management for e.g. optimised goal definition.
This method will be introduced by its development and relevance, followed by a comprehensive guide on its application and illustrative examples.

=Development and Relevance of the Method=

As Stefan Link describes in his Article <ref>https://medium.com/swlh/project-management-3-0-why-design-thinking-is-the-next-gen-5be78e509103</ref>, historicaly, Project management used the waterfall method. In that, a project is decided upon and planning only dedicated to the running of the project, not the design of the goals.
With the advance of computarization and mechanazation, projects were starting to get reviewed and steadily improved. The philosophy was an imporovement of and building on the waterfall method, in that it still started out with a set goal but then tried to match it better to real life.
Nowadays, with a society and industry which is highly computarized and mobile, a different approach has shown great success: Design Thinking. In Design Thinking, a segnificant planning effort is put into optimizing the project right from the beginning to all stakeholders needs. This fits our modern society perfectly, as with modern media everyone wants to be in the center of attention and expects a tailored experience - which design thinking is able to supply.

The PMI recognizes the relevance of design thinking too. In their Conference Paper<ref>https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/design-thinking-project-mind-mapping-6602</ref>, Turner & Croy write that many of the products we are surrounded by today "would not have been introduced without the process of design thinking". Historically, as mentioned above, Project Management was carried out without design - a momentous example is the Maginot Line, which was very successfull as a project to arm the french-german border section - but had some, in hindsight, rather obvious design flaws. On the other hand, throughout history, there were great designers like Leonardo DaVinci, who could have initiated great changes, but did not realise their inventions. So both project leadership without design and design without project leadership do not lead to successfull outcomes - their combination, however, does.

''some more link to articles:'' download:
<ref>DOI: 10.1002/pmj.21577</ref>
<ref>https://pmworldjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/pmwj47-Jun2016-Dijksterhuis-Silvius-design-thinking-approach-second-edition-1.pdf</ref>

So when some designers merged there companies to form the design- and innovation agency IDEO, their different approach to design was the secret to their success. Fist called 'interaction design', design thinking became popularized fast. IDEO who have also been offering Seminars on the topic since their foundation in 1991. The design teams within IDEO are teams of inventors from diverse backgrounds, who take up design projects from various kinds of industries; they research the goal or given problem, apply the method of design thinking - as described below - and develop an effective and on-the-point solution. The computer mouse we use today is one of their many successful inventions.
<ref>https://www.ideou.com/pages/design-thinking</ref>

Nowadays, Design Thinking is taught in numerous university courses as part of the management and communication curriculum.
Also, there are many companies who attribute their success to this method, like for example Airbnb, who after a reevaluation and redesign project hit the market big, after being just a small company, as the Project leader of their revival states in an interview <ref>https://www.forbes.com/sites/emilyjoffrion/2018/07/09/the-designer-who-changed-airbnbs-entire-strategy/</ref>.

Design Thinking is such a successful method because it is both easy to apply without much extra effort to the normal development process and is sure to yield at least helpful insights and at best a perfectly fitted solution.
By keeping close contact to the target group and seeking feedback during the development process, it ensures that the solution will be well fitted to the problem and reduces the risk associated with launching new ideas, product lines and conducting novel projects.
Applying design thinking also helps organisations learn faster, as solutions are innovative and change does not just happen in incremental steps. In Project management, this would be, for example, that means the project time can be cut shorter and in program management success can be achieved faster, as the optimal solutions will be found in one process instead of steady change and improvement.

As the method of design thinking includes as its first step the focus on the consumer/ target group, it ensures that the people who are actually affected are considered and their mindsets captured, to their needs can be catered for optimally. It makes it also possible to paint a realistic picture of the opportunities and possibilities based on thes people.
<ref>https://www.ideou.com/blogs/inspiration/what-is-design-thinking</ref>

=The Method=
The Process of design thinking is usually described as having five steps. Here, both a description of the steps and possible questions for inspiration in each step are given to ease the application of the method. This desciption shall be more general to be applicable to more situations; the examples further below will illustrate further, how Design Thinking can be applied in Project / Program / Portfolio Management

Design thinking can both e applied by a single person like a project manager, or by a team of people. For optimal creativeness and a well-rounded solution, a team is composed of people with various backgrounds, as they will be able to provide input from different viewpoints and will be able to contribute more aspects to the solution.

===1. Empathise===
The first step is to empathize with the target group. This means communicating with as many and as diverse as possible individuals from the target group / stakeholders and noting down their perception of the current situation, that is to be improved upon. It is important to note down all aspects of their comments in this phase and keep an open mind - and not only to set Xses on a short form, so that a holistic impression of the situation can be reached. If working in a group, the members should investigate individually to be able to contribute their individual impressions, which will further broaden the gathered information scope.

This will make the outcome actually cater to the target groups needs and not only to those that you decided to put on the form. If applicable, taking pictures might also help the further process.

Possible Questions:
* Which issues does the user experience with the product?
* In which situations do those issues arise?
* How does the user feel about the product? What are his/ her general thoughts about it?
* What functionality does the user wish for?
* Which situations is the product most used in/for?

===2. Define===
Next, the Data from the first step is analysed and the common issues are defined. If working in a group setting, a project wall would be recommendable, on which all impressions can be pinned on post-its and then be clustered as a mind-map to best represent all the issues in correlation with their importance and appearance frequency. From this overview, a project definition should be concieved, that states all the central issues that need to be adressed.

These conclusions of central issues should then, if possible, be validated by discussing them with the stakeholders. If they feel that not all issues were met or that the design group misinterpreted or misweighed some points, the reason for these needs to be investigated and if necessary, the first and second step will be executed again, taking care to examine a wider scope, improve the communication with the target group or rectify whatever reason led to the problems in the first attempt. It is highly important to get this definition right, as all further development will be based on this conclusion of central issues. As one of the main points in design thinking is it's optimizing ability due to it's focus on the target group, it is absolutely crutial to get a correct impression of the target groups needs, requests, abilities and whatever aspects are relevant to the project.

Possible Questions:

* Which issues were most commonly named?
* Which situations did those commonly arise in?
* Are there any situations the product was not designed for but is commonly used in?
* Have the users expressed a common need for a specific functionality?

===3. Generate Ideas===
Based on the Issues found in step 2, Ideas are developed and then discussed.

First, creativity should be left to roam freely and the more diverse the first ideas are, the better the outcome will be. It is best, to not focus on one specific idea at first and try to adapt that to all issues, but rather come up with several different solutions and solutions for some details, that might each not be sufficient to solve all problems, but will bring new aspects into consideration.

If working alone, it is best to start fresh in the morning, not right after having focussed on the issues in step two, but with a fresh mind, to come up with creative ideas. If a mind map was made, these could then be pinned to the issues they correlate best with; only after this, a solution to combine all aspects optimaly will be sought.

For a group, the same is recomended. Every member should brainstorm ideas towards any of the issues and either pin them to the issues mind map - or a new mind map could be made, to get an overview over all the ideas generated within the group. This brainstorming should be done individually and only after enough time has been given for everyone to think about all the aspects, should the group discuss the ideas brought forth. Focussing on the idea clusters produces through the issue-mind-map, everyone will present their ideas and the group will discuss the pros and cons and decide on some prefered solution. These are then brought together and an overall solution will be developed.

Possible Questions:

* How can user issues be addressed?
* How can the product be optimized for the most common usage situations?
* How can the functionalities desired by the users be met?
* Can the product be optimized to be applicable to more situations?
* Which other solutions to the issues have been found?
* Are there other radically different solutions we can come up with? Can they be combined?

===4. Prototype===
To validate the idea, a prototype is produced. In Product development, this would be an actual physical prototype, in project management, this would rather be the outline for the project plan - basically the first issue of the finished product is produced, whether it be a physical product, plan or program. The purpose of this is to be able to test and get reactions for the object, before putting to great an effort into finishing it.

Possible Questions:

* Which materials/ medium would be optimal?
* Which detail does the prototype need to incorporate to give a correct impression to the testers?
*Which aspects identify and define it in the eyes of the user, so that he wil get a correct impression?

===5. Test===
The last step in the design thinking process, before the actual finishing of the product starts, is the testing of the prototype. Depending on the situations, a selected group of the target group is presented with the prototype/ draft and their opinion asked. It is most important to not defend the product/ draft but to instead keep an open ear to all comments and questions the users have. If there are any issues like the user not understanding some functionality, meaning or process, this should not be seen as the testers inability but as an issue that needs to be fixed and a new prototype produced.

It is important to stay self-critical in this step and be open to all suggestions, as even though in step two the issues might have been understood correctly, the solution the person or team came up with might not be completely in the user's interest or some previously overlooked aspects might come up.

Possible Questions:

* How do the users feel about the new product?
* Is it applicable to all necessary situations?
* Do they have any suggestions?
* How accessible was the product to the users, did they need help or explanations? – revise those issues!

=Examples=
To better illustrate how the Method can be applied in Project, Program and Portfolio Management, some examples shall be given:

=References=
<references/>

Design Thinking

2019-03-03T08:27:21Z

Mercedes Hachmann: /* Development and Relevance of the Method */

Talk:Determining Measurement Methods in Earned Value Management

2019-02-25T22:07:20Z

Mercedes Hachmann:

==Feedback on Abstract:==

{|
|'''Text clarity & language'''|| The text is coherent.
|-
|'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''|| Great, however try to make it more concise. Keep up the good work!
|-
|'''Article purpose explanation'''|| Well elaborated.
|-
|'''Relevance to curriculum '''|| Very relevant.
|-
|'''References'''|| Ensure to add references whenever necessary.
|}

==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Yulisa Gutierrez''==
===Question 1 · TEXT===
'''Quality of the summary:'''

Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear?

What would you suggest to improve?

===Answer 1===
''I don't know if this helps, but whenever I was reading the summary/introduction, I had no idea what the article was a bout (due to ignorance), but once I read the introduction, I was able to comprehend the abstract a little better.''

===Question 2 · TEXT===
'''Structure and logic of the article:'''

Is the argument clear?

Is there a logical flow to the article?

Does one part build upon the other?

Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions?

What would you suggest to improve?

===Answer 2===
''It was very interesting. Very well put together and thought through.''

===Question 3 · TEXT===
'''Grammar and style:'''

Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors?

Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words?

What would you suggest to improve?

===Answer 3===
''Grammar was good, but I will say to be careful with comma splices and run-on-sentences. I would also stray away from the words you, me, us, and use "ones"''

===Question 4 · TEXT===
'''Figures and tables:'''

Are figures and tables clear?

Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way?

What would you suggest to improve?

===Answer 4===
''Tables and figures were pretty straight forward. No further recommendations''

===Question 5 · TEXT===
'''Interest and relevance:'''

Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance?

Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant?

What would you suggest to improve?

===Answer 5===
''This is a hard question to answer because I feel like it is a very elaborated article, but might stray away or confuse those who have no idea of the topic. So I guess it all depends on the target audience. But as this is a student assignment where you are you write an academic paper with strong arguments, it is very valid for you to assume previous exposure to the topic. Just something to think about... Maybe include more examples? ''

===Question 6 · TEXT===
'''Depth of treatment:'''

Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read?

Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search?

What would you suggest to improve?

===Answer 6===
''Most of my recommendation was listed above.'

===Question 7 · TEXT===
'''Annotated bibliography:'''

Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work?

Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article?

Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion?

What would you suggest to improve?

===Answer 7===
''No recommendations. Good as is.''

==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: ''Sandro Pina''==
===Question 1 · TEXT===
'''Quality of the summary:'''

Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear?

What would you suggest to improve?

===Answer 1===
''Answer here''

===Question 2 · TEXT===
'''Structure and logic of the article:'''

Is the argument clear?

Is there a logical flow to the article?

Does one part build upon the other?

Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions?

What would you suggest to improve?

===Answer 2===
''Answer here''

===Question 3 · TEXT===
'''Grammar and style:'''

Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors?

Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words?

What would you suggest to improve?

===Answer 3===
''Answer here''

===Question 4 · TEXT===
'''Figures and tables:'''

Are figures and tables clear?

Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way?

What would you suggest to improve?

===Answer 4===
''Answer here''

===Question 5 · TEXT===
'''Interest and relevance:'''

Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance?

Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant?

What would you suggest to improve?

===Answer 5===
''Answer here''

===Question 6 · TEXT===
'''Depth of treatment:'''

Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read?

Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search?

What would you suggest to improve?

===Answer 6===
''Answer here''

===Question 7 · TEXT===
'''Annotated bibliography:'''

Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work?

Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article?

Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion?

What would you suggest to improve?

===Answer 7===
''Answer here''
==Feedback 3 | Reviewer name: ''Durant Mangum''==
===Question 1 · TEXT===
'''Quality of the summary:'''

Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear?

What would you suggest to improve?

===Answer 1===
''I think the abstract could be more direct. But it I do know what the article will cover.''

===Question 2 · TEXT===
'''Structure and logic of the article:'''

Is the argument clear?

Is there a logical flow to the article?

Does one part build upon the other?

Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions?

What would you suggest to improve?

===Answer 2===
''The article was clear in the various tools that can be applied in project management in relation to EVM.''

===Question 3 · TEXT===
'''Grammar and style:'''

Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors?

Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words?

What would you suggest to improve?

===Answer 3===
''There are no major grammatical errors. Check your quotation marks though.''

===Question 4 · TEXT===
'''Figures and tables:'''

Are figures and tables clear?

Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way?

What would you suggest to improve?

===Answer 4===
''I liked the graphs a lot and I found them supportive of the text. ''

===Question 5 · TEXT===
'''Interest and relevance:'''

Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance?

Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant?

What would you suggest to improve?

===Answer 5===
''Yes, it is of high practical importance, and how a project manager can use it in real life. ''

===Question 6 · TEXT===
'''Depth of treatment:'''

Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read?

Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search?

What would you suggest to improve?

===Answer 6===
''The article is a nice conglomerate of a multitude of tools, so much better than a web search with tools all over the place. '

===Question 7 · TEXT===
'''Annotated bibliography:'''

Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work?

Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article?

Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion?

What would you suggest to improve?

===Answer 7===
''N/A. but the user knows to put one in. .''

==comment by mercedes hachmann==

looks very finished, great that you put in diagrams for illustration. good narrative and structure, good introduction to the topic

Talk:Crisis Management in Construction Projects

2019-02-25T22:02:08Z

Mercedes Hachmann:

==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Yulisa Gutierrez''==
===Question 1 · TEXT===
'''Quality of the summary:'''

Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear?

What would you suggest to improve?

===Answer 1===
''You could expand in depth a little more on your abstract. Also, the last sentence throws off the flow of your abstract. Maybe try saying something like "Aside from offering a brief background on crisis management, the main goal of this article is to cover the various tools project managers have to prevent crises in relations to cost overrun in construction projects, and the available tools to mitigate cost after crises.'"'

===Question 2 · TEXT===
'''Structure and logic of the article:'''

Is the argument clear?

Is there a logical flow to the article?

Does one part build upon the other?

Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions?

What would you suggest to improve?

===Answer 2===
''The structure is a little confusing due to the fact that it is not clearly shown what is a subcategory of what. Also, I feel like instead of just listing information, try to explain WHY its important to know that information, and how that info could alter or enhance the situation. Just a small tip''

===Question 3 · TEXT===
'''Grammar and style:'''

Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors?

Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words?

What would you suggest to improve?

===Answer 3===
''There are many small grammar mistakes such as miss-spelling, erroneously using "there, their, theyre, or there are". In the Theory section you forgot a period. Small things. Nothing too crazy.''

===Question 4 · TEXT===
'''Figures and tables:'''

Are figures and tables clear?

Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way?

What would you suggest to improve?

===Answer 4===
''No figures put up, but dont worry, I did the same haha. I dont know how to upload the pictures or figures onto the wiki article yet''

===Question 5 · TEXT===
'''Interest and relevance:'''

Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance?

Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant?

What would you suggest to improve?

===Answer 5===
''I feel like it was just a lot of information but not a lot of "tying together" to represent a full argument or idea. ''

===Question 6 · TEXT===
'''Depth of treatment:'''

Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read?

Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search?

What would you suggest to improve?

===Answer 6===
''Ive covered these questions above''

===Question 7 · TEXT===
'''Annotated bibliography:'''

Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work?

Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article?

Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion?

What would you suggest to improve?

===Answer 7===
''Citation is good''

==feedback 3 - mercedes hachmann==

the theory part looks somewhat fragmented. It should be ok, if you were planning on expanding the individual sections, otherwise I would recomend changing the layout. Also, the different header sizes look rather random and don't really help the structure as I think you intended - maybe use normal text in bold and italics instead of headers for the under points?

Talk:Emotional Intelligence as a tool for Project Managers

2019-02-25T21:53:51Z

Mercedes Hachmann:

The writing is good and easy to read and understand.

use <ref>put_your_reference_here</ref> for references and then just put <references/> under the references tab :)

(click on the edit tab to see the code for this)

Talk:Emotional Intelligence as a tool for Project Managers

2019-02-25T21:53:18Z

2019-02-15T13:35:30Z

Mercedes Hachmann: Created page with "'''Astract''' This article will be an introduction to the method of design thinking. This method will be introduced by its development and relevance, followed by a comprehensi..."

'''Astract'''
This article will be an introduction to the method of design thinking. This method will be introduced by its development and relevance, followed by a comprehensive guide on its application and illustrated by an example.
Design Thinking is a method to successfully develop products, ideas or solutions for a given problem. The process is interactive and based on feedback from the target group to ensure a result that will meet the consumer’s needs.
In project management, this can be applied in the initiation phase and for improvements of the ongoing project during its development phase. It can be the method used in a project to improve a companies output or consumer perception.

Development and history of the method
The Method was developed by the founders of the design- and innovation agency IDEO, who have also been offering Seminars on the topic since 1991. [1] Nowadays, it is taught in numerous university courses as part of the management and communication curriculum. Many companies attribute their success to this method, like Airbnb, as the Project leader of their revival states in an interview [2].
'''
Relevance of the Method'''
Reduces risk associated with launching new ideas
Helps organizations learn faster
Generates solutions that are innovative, not just incremental
Captures the mindsets and needs of people you’re crating for
Paints picture of the opportunities based on the needs of these people
[3]

'''The Method'''
The Process of design thinking is usually described as having five steps. Here, both a description of the steps and helpful questions to think about in each step are given to ease the application of the method.

1. Empathise
The first step is to empathize with the target group. This means communicating with as many and as diverse as possible individuals from the target group and noting down their perception of the current situation, that is to be approved upon. It is important to note down all aspects of their comments in this phase and keep an open mind - and not only to set Xses on a short form, so that a wholistic impression of the situation can be reached. This will make the outcome actually cater to the target groups needs and not only to those that you decided to put on the form. If applicable, taking pictures might also help the further process.
Possible Questions:
- Which issues does the user experience with the product?
- In which situations do those issues arise?
- How does the user feel about the product? What are his/ her general thoughts about it?
- What functionality does the user wish for?
- Which situations is the product most used in/for?

2. Define
Next, the Data from the first step is analysed and the common issues are defined.
These common issues should then, if possible, be validated by discussing them with representatives of the target group. If they feel that not all issues were met or that the design group
- Which issues where most commonly named?
- Which situations did those commonly arise in?
- Are there any situations the product was not design for but is commonly used in?
- Have the users expressed a common need for a specific functionality?

3. Generate Ideas
Based on the Issues found in step 2, Ideas are developed and their discussed.
- How can user issues be addressed?
- How can the product be optimized for the most common usage situations?
- How can the functionalities whished for by the users be met?
- Can the product be optimized to be applicable to more situations?
- Which other solutions to the issues have been found?
- Are there other radically different solutions we can come up with? Can they be combined?

4. Prototype
Develop the Idea into one or several working prototypes.
- Which materials would be optimal?
- Which detail does the prototype need to incorporate to give a correct impression to the testers?

5. Test
Hand out the prototypes to a selected group of target group to get their responses. It is most important to not defend the product, but keep an open ear to all comments and questions the users have. If there are any issues like the user not understanding some functionality, this needs to be fixed and a new prototype produced.
- How do the users feel about the new product?
- Is it applicable to all necessary situations?
- Do they have any suggestions?
- How accessible was the product to the users, did they need help or explanations? – revise those issues!

[1] https://www.ideou.com/pages/design-thinking
[2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/emilyjoffrion/2018/07/09/the-designer-who-changed-airbnbs-entire-strategy/
[3] https://www.ideou.com/blogs/inspiration/what-is-design-thinking
[4]