Journal of Open Innovation:

Technology, Market, and Complexity

Article
From Design Thinking to Art Thinking with an Open
Innovation Perspective—A Case Study of How Art
Thinking Rescued a Cultural Institution in Dublin
Peter Robbins 1,2
1 School of Business, Dublin City University, Dublin 9, Ireland; [email protected]; Tel.: +353-1-7006500
2 Department of Design Innovation, Maynooth University, Co. Kildare, W23 F2K8, Ireland;
[email protected]; Tel.: +353-1-7083647




Received: 21 September 2018; Accepted: 13 November 2018; Published: 3 December 2018


Abstract: This article uses a contemporary and revelatory case study to explore the relationship
between three conversations in the innovation literature: Design Thinking, creativity in strategy,
and the emerging area of Art Thinking. Businesses are increasingly operating in a VUCA environment
where they need to design better experiences for their customers and better outcomes for their firm
and the Arts are no exception. Innovation, or more correctly, growth through innovation, is a top
priority for business and although there is no single, unifying blueprint for success at innovation,
Design Thinking is the process that is receiving most attention and getting most traction. We review
the literature on Design Thinking, showing how it teaches businesses to think with the creativity and
intuition of a designer to show a deep understanding of, and have empathy with, the user. However,
Design Thinking has limitations. By placing the consumer at the very heart of the innovation process,
Design Thinking can often lead to more incremental, rather than radical, ideas. Now there is a new
perspective emerging, Art Thinking, in which the objective is not to design a journey from the current
scenario, A, to an improved position, A+. Art Thinking requires the creation of an optimal position B,
and spends more time in the open-ended problem space, staking out possibilities and looking for
uncontested space. This paper offers a single case study of a national arts organisation in Dublin
facing an existential crisis, which used an Art Thinking approach successfully to give a much-needed
shot in the arm to its commercial innovation activities.

Keywords: Art Thinking; Design Thinking; creativity; innovation; strategy

1. Introduction
Recent literature suggests that if enduring and sustained attention for a topic is an indication
of its value, then Design Thinking merits considerable further scrutiny [1]. The motivation for this
paper is to add to the recent scholarship on Design Thinking, but also to contribute to the foundation
of an emerging dimension of Design Thinking: Art Thinking [2]. Promoters and critics differ in their
assessment of the value of the process [3] of Design Thinking and its user-centricity [4–6], which can
tend to anchor solutions in more prosaic and incremental territory. Art Thinking, by contrast, has the
capacity to liberate its practitioners from the user experience that characterises Design Thinking and
can thus offer more creative, radical and disruptive options [2].
In Dublin, we examine a case of the oldest, largest and most prestigious fine art gallery and
studio, where most of the country’s best-known and successful visual artists make, exhibit and sell
their art. Graphic Studio Dublin is primarily a printmaking studio, established by artists 60 years
ago. It has facilities for woodblock, lino-print, silkscreen, intaglio and carborundum etching spread
over four floors of a centrally located studio where the artists have access 24/7. However, two years

J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2018, 4, 57; doi:10.3390/joitmc4040057 www.mdpi.com/journal/joitmc

J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2018, 4, 57 2 of 18

ago, it found itself on the brink of bankruptcy, having borrowed heavily to invest in new facilities
during the period of Ireland’s economic collapse. Its loans were sold to a vulture-fund who were
about to foreclose in a move that would have seen a generation of Irish artists displaced. This was
compounded by the collapse of GSD’s twin engines of revenue: state funding and consumer demand
for fine art. A new board of directors was empanelled, and they introduced Art Thinking principles to
rescue the organisation from the brink of bankruptcy. They used an Art Thinking mindset and Design
Thinking tools to restore the fortunes of this venerable, artist-led institution and Graphic Studio Dublin
was saved.
This paper is structured as follows: it opens with a description of the turbulent commercial
operating environment that exists for most organisations and can be particularly acute for arts
organisations. These complex conditions require a managerial finesse, a blend of creative and scientific
thinking, which is present in Design Thinking. Hence, a literature review of Design Thinking follows.
Towards the end of the literature review, we discuss an emerging concept, Art Thinking, which offers
a more deliberate creative approach. There is a brief rationale included for the selection of a case study
and, in particular, an outlier one. In the following section, we introduce a revelatory case study of
a national arts organisation in Ireland whose finances were dangerously overstretched during the
recession, leading it to the brink of collapse. We describe how a combination of Art Thinking and
Design Thinking managed to rescue the organisation from the brink. There follows a section on
conclusions and recommendations.

2. Literature Review
This section will provide an overview of the literature on Design Thinking, within which its
history, its overarching principles and various tools will be identified. It will conclude with a review of
the slender volume of scholarly output on the concept of Art Thinking.
Volatility, Uncertainty, Complexity and Ambiguity, the acronym VUCA, was coined originally to
by the US military during the Gulf War to describe the conditions of the frontline [7]. Latterly, this is
the description given to the cut and thrust of the digital revolution [8]. The turbulence it describes
is increasingly being seen by business leaders as the ‘new normal’. Volatility indicates chaos where
reliable prediction is impossible and where change is regular and substantial [8]. Uncertainty refers
to the difficulty in interpreting coherent patterns in the change (Ibid). In uncertain environments,
the connections between cause and effect are understood, but the scale and timing of the changes
are not. By complexity is meant the complex ecosystem of moving parts in any market. It describes
iterations of simple patterns [9] combined in a labyrinth of overlaps and loops making it difficult to
decipher the signal from the noise [8]. Finally, ambiguity refers to our lack of capacity to read the
signals from markets or consumers with any clarity, certainty or accuracy. In a recent editorial about
design, Time Magazine, underlining the growth in importance of design, reported:

‘In this new era, smart corporate leaders are embracing the idea that design can be a crucial
differentiator. Only a decade ago, senior business executives tended to dismiss design as
a second-tier function—a matter of aesthetics or corporate image best left to the folks in
marketing or public relations. Today design is widely acknowledged as a C-suite concern
and a key element of corporate strategy.’ [10]

Fortune Magazine [11] reports that smart business leaders are embracing the idea that
design—channelling insight to delight and truly connect with customers and users can be a crucial
differentiator. Kimbell [12] notes that the term ‘Design Thinking’ has come to the fore among educators,
academics, managers and the design community as a way to distinguish between the technical, craft
skills of actual designers, and a way of approaching business or management problems that reproduces,
in a simplified way, the approach a designer might take. Businesses look at it as a way to balance the
natural tension between ‘explore and exploit’ [13], or as a plug-and-play creative process to kick-start
innovation [14].
J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2018, 4, 57 3 of 18

Evidence of the arrival of Design Thinking as the preferred approach for business to successfully
facilitate innovation is not hard to find. Design thinking is especially suited to VUCA conditions [7]
because it enhances organisational learning, improves organisational absorptive capacity and it
approaches these complex and ambiguous problems from the perspective of the customer. On
retail bookshelves, popular management books on Design Thinking, compete for space [14–17].
Prominent articles have also been appearing in top academic management journals, such as the
Academy of Management Journal (2015) and the Journal of Product Innovation Management (2015,
2018), as well as in management journals like the Economist and the Harvard Business Review, Business
Week, The Wall Street Journal and the New York Times [18]. However, the overwhelming evidence of
its success comes from all the companies who have adopted it. As Kolko [19] puts it, there is a shift
underway, one that puts design much closer to centre of the enterprise. Curedale [17] lists a selection
of these organisations which, inter alia, include: SAP, GE, Target, Pepsi, Whirlpool, Bayer, Mayo Clinic,
DHL, P&G, Philips, Airbnb, GSK, Nike, Airbus, Panasonic, Shell, Cisco, Unilever, JetBlue, Black &
Decker, IDEO, Intuit, Mattel, Bank of America and Microsoft.
Design Thinking has gained traction not just with the corporate sector but also with government
bodies. Kimbell [12] notes that:

‘In the UK, for example, the government-funded national Design Council, argues that
Design Thinking plays a key role in innovation (Design Council 2009). In Denmark,
a cross-ministerial innovation unit called MindLab combines design-centred thinking and
social science approaches to create new solutions for society.’

Ireland is also becoming a hotbed of Design Thinking as a consequence of hosting local operating
units and sometimes R&D centres for many of these companies. However, in case there could be
any doubt of the all-pervasive nature of Design Thinking, this was dispelled when Bank of Ireland,
the country’s oldest (230 years old) and, arguably, most conservative bank, hired a head of Design
Thinking in 2015. Equally, when the practice of project management, traditionally focused exclusively
on the ‘solution space’ declares they need to embrace Design Thinking’s approach, its capacity and
tools to clarify and elaborate on the ‘problem space’, you can tell things are changing [20].
Professional services have also joined the party with Accenture snapping up Fjord, a global
design agency, in 2013. PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PwC) acquired BGT, a digital creative consultancy
while Ernst & Young (EY) bought a design agency called Seren. In Ireland, Deloitte acquired Red
Planet, and internationally, they bought Doblin and Monitor, both design-driven, innovation agencies.
McKinsey bought Lunar, a design agency based in Silicon Valley, in 2015.

3. But, What Exactly is Design Thinking?

Liedtka [18] acknowledges that while a generally accepted definition of Design Thinking has yet
to emerge, all definitions share one or more common elements (see Box 1). Nigel Cross [21], one of the
key authors on the topic deliberately sets a very broad definition:
‘We all design when we plan for something new to happen, whether that might be a new version
of a recipe, a new arrangement of the living room furniture . . . The evidence from different cultures
around the world, and from designs created by children as well as by adults, suggests that everyone is
capable of designing. Therefore, Design Thinking is something inherent within human cognition: it is
a key part of what makes us human’.
Lockwood [22], a former President of the Design Management Institute, suggests Design
Thinking is:

‘a human-centred innovation process that emphasises observation, collaboration, fast

learning, visualisation of ideas, rapid concept prototyping and concurrent business analysis.’

Mootee’s [16] definition focuses more on the process and defines Design Thinking as:
J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2018, 4, 57 4 of 18

‘the search for a magical balance between business and art, structure and chaos, intuition
and logic, concept and execution, playfulness and formality and control and empowerment.’

Mintrom and Lieutjens [23], whose emphasis is on the policy arena, assert:

‘Design thinkers exhibit curiosity and empathy in their efforts to interpret how target
populations engage with their world. They deploy various investigative techniques that
have the potential to illuminate problems in new ways and indicate effective client focused
solutions.’

Like marketing, Design Thinking foregrounds the wants and needs of consumers, but Curedale [17]
notes that Design Thinking has moved past and is superior to marketing. Far from being merely a
tool of the marketing armoury, where it helped, through advertising and packaging, to make people
want things, it is now about designing things people actually want. What connects the definitions
is that Design Thinking is invariably user-centred and founded, ideally, on some actionable insight.
It is highly visual and relies on customer observation, developing thick, rich ethnographic portraits of
customer behaviour and trying to identify themes and patterns (unmet or under-served needs) from
the observations.
But unlike Marketing, Design Thinking assumes that the problem is ill-defined and focuses on
precision, insight and accuracy in defining the real problem. Box 1 below includes a summary of the
elements typically comprised in a design thinking approach. Specifically, the inclusion of customer,
consumer or ‘end-user’ perspectives in finessing the problem facilitates a better comprehension of the
issue and when this superior understanding is coupled with creativity then it is more likely that the
solution will be based on higher ground rather than common ground [24].
Design Thinking classifies consumers into discrete segments and develops individualised
personas for each segment, these are usually developed after an intensive period of observation,
watching what people do and listening to what they say [25]. The next step is to use brainstorming
techniques to generate novel, original and radical ideas for each segment. The generation of ideas
is an interdisciplinary group exercise; it brings in multiple viewpoints and multiple stakeholders
and challenges assumptions. Then ideas are prototyped as either simple, written or illustrated
concept-boards or as more refined artefacts. Then field experiments are designed to measure the
appeal of the ideas and to discover whether they might find traction with the target market [26].

Box 1. Conventional elements of a Design Thinking process or approach.

Problem Definition—one that accurately describes the problem the initiative is trying to resolve or, alternatively,
the opportunity it is attempting to exploit.
Insights and Empathy—an ability to ‘walk in the users’ shoes’ and to understand their pains and gains is vital
to being able to develop ideas likely to resonate with them. When the process uncovers genuine insights about
what people do, why they do it, and how their experience can be improved, this can lead to better design criteria,
and ultimately to great work.
Iterative Approach with a bias towards experiment and action—unlike traditional quantitative market research,
where a little information is gathered about a lot of people, Design Thinking thrives on the opposite. It builds an
intimate and vivid portrait of just a few people and tries ideas out with them. Designers do not follow a direct
route from problem to solution, but instead move to and fro between problem(s) and solution(s). For instance,
Cross indicates that ‘designing does not proceed in a sequence of stages that targets each one of the (partial)
problems initially identified or outlined. Instead, designing appears to proceed through an iterative form of
interplay between partial problems and their solutions’.
Abductive Reasoning—Dunne and Martin [27] refer to this as the logic of what might be whereas deductive
and inductive are the logic of what should be or what is. Abduction is more than just ‘backing a hunch’. It is an
approach in conventional problem solving when, according to [28] ‘we know both the value we wish to create,
and the ‘how’, a ‘working principle’ that will help achieve the value we aim for. What is missing is a ‘what’ (an
object, a service, a system), that will give definition to both the problem and the potential solution space within
which an answer can be sought.’ Abductive reasoning is a key part of Design Thinking [29,30].
 J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2018, 4, 57 5 of 18

This process is most often found using a visual observation example, in which a person makes hypotheses
or tries to explain some behaviour they’ve seen. It is very often also associated with the ‘flash of insight’ or
the ‘eureka moment’ in a discovery [30]. But Design Thinking does not rely solely on abductive reasoning, it
blends ‘a cyclic combination of abductive, deductive, and inductive reasoning processes’ (p. 42) [31]. Theory of
‘designerly ways of knowing’ emerged in the 1970s where the missing ‘third area’ of education was described as
the piece that, depending on your perspective, either links or divides the sciences and the humanities—design
thinking or thinking in ‘designerly’ ways [32].
An Ethnographic approach—deep, rich, vivid observations are deemed more likely to reveal actionable insights;
hence, Design Thinking favours close observation, often in the form of actual participant diaries, video diaries,
vlogs, photos, recordings where the emphasis is on capturing the customer behaviour at the key moments of
truth in a customer experience.
Brainstorming and Ideation—finesse mild and wild ideas about potential opportunities. These tools encourage
creative behaviours such as withholding judgment, avoiding debates and seeking higher-order thinking
by building on the ideas of others and leveraging the diversity of the team. Cross [21] noted that science
investigates existing forms but design initiates new forms, and it does this through brainstorming and other
creative techniques.
Prototyping Techniques—these facilitate, making abstract ideas tangible and easy to understand and comment
on by participants. Techniques include storyboarding, concept or mood boards, user scenarios, metaphor,
experience journey maps and simple graphic illustrations [15].
Co Creation—incorporates tools and methods that allow consumers or users engage in the design of future
product, service or experience ideas.
Learning Launch, Pilot and Field Experiments—are designed explicitly to test underlying assumptions in the
field. Ideally, these are done in controlled environments, and latterly, crowdfunding sites like Kickstarter and
Indiegogo have been very helpful in gauging likely future interest in proposed new ideas.

Liedtka [18] observes that none of these elements are new; individually, they can all be found
elsewhere in management theory and practice. Similarly, Mulgan [33] observed that Design Thinking
is ‘a synthesis of methods drawn from many fields that, when sewn together helpfully mitigate the
traditional limitations of their individual origins’. They conclude that when the elements are combined
in and end-to-end process or programme (see Figure 1), Design Thinking emerges as a distinctive and
valuable system of practice. Design Thinkers have to take what Dorst [34] calls a ‘double creative step’
by both designing new ideas or solutions and also testing and modifying them in parallel. This parallel
creation defines design thinkers as very separate from traditional managers who rely, predominantly,
on logical reasoning, data and analysis.
J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2018, 4, x FOR PEER REVIEW   6 of 19 

 
Figure 1. The Darden model of Design Thinking—an end to end sequence of tools [15]. 
Figure 1. The Darden model of Design Thinking—an end to end sequence of tools [15].

Academics and practitioners alike now coalesce around broad definitions of Design Thinking that
Academics and practitioners alike now coalesce around broad definitions of Design Thinking 
see it as a creative, iterative, hypothesis-driven process that is focused on both the problem and the
that see it as a creative, iterative, hypothesis‐driven process that is focused on both the problem and 
solution. Relying on abduction and experimentation, it balances the twin drivers of possibility and
the solution. Relying on abduction and experimentation, it balances the twin drivers of possibility 
and constraint and works best in situations of high complexity, ambiguity and uncertainty (in other 
words,  VUCA  environments).  It  has  to  navigate  between  customer  wants  and  needs,  client 
expectations, social circumstances, business models, opportunities in technology and contemporary 
aesthetic canons.  
While  some  designers  try  to  make  their  steps  explicit,  Cross  [21]  observes  that  others  are 
J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2018, 4, 57 6 of 18

constraint and works best in situations of high complexity, ambiguity and uncertainty (in other words,
VUCA environments). It has to navigate between customer wants and needs, client expectations, social
circumstances, business models, opportunities in technology and contemporary aesthetic canons.
While some designers try to make their steps explicit, Cross [21] observes that others are
deliberately, even wilfully, obscure when it comes to revealing the processes they use to arrive at great
designs. Philippe Starck suggested that his was a ‘magical’ process of epiphany and, similarly, Alessi
said ideas came to him in a ‘vision’. However, a recurring theme in design research is the role of
intuition [35], and it is the quality of this intuition that probably separates the best designers from the
rest. An additional characteristic commonly possessed by designers is a capacity to dwell in a problem
space where there can be an uncomfortable degree of ambiguity and apparently conflicting demands.
Design Thinking, on the other hand, has evolved to eliminate, or certainly reduce, both intuition and
ambiguity by providing a series of simple, stepwise templates that give users the comforting illusion
of control over the process. In design, the quest is first for options, rather than solutions, and this is not
always the case with Design Thinking.

3.1. The Way Designers Think

Davies and Talbot [36], in a series of interviews with designers, trying to understand what made
them more creative than other professions, discovered that they rely heavily on intuition for their ideas.
One of the interviewees, Jack Howe, an architect and designer, said ‘I believe in intuition. I think that
is the difference between a designer and an engineer’ [37]. Today, a similar observation can be made
about the difference between data-scientists and design thinkers. The latter use abductive thinking
or intuition while the former rely exclusively on data. Cross [21] suggests that the term intuition
is really a convenient shorthand for what really happens in Design Thinking which —as opposed
to inductive or deductive thinking—is abductive thinking. Deductive reasoning is the reasoning of
formal logic. It begins with a hypothesis, perhaps one such as: all swans are white. Then, some
fieldwork is designed to either prove or falsify that hypothesis. This is the dominant orthodoxy for
business analysis. This is the bread and butter of all MBA-trained executives. Inductive reasoning,
however, aims to build theory from data. Hence, it does not begin with any firm hypothesis; it begins
by observing how things actually are and then it builds theory accordingly. This is generally used in
more qualitative contexts, where the variable being studied is highly context-dependent, like corporate
innovation—how firms come up with winning ideas, for instance. Abductive reasoning is a blend of
the two types that employs intuition to stimulate divergent thinking and, ultimately to arrive at more
original ideas (see Box 1).
Quantitative, big data analytics are now synonymous with the digital business environment,
but prevalent use of data mining methods rely exclusively on observations about past behaviour and
are not necessarily a reliable guide to the future [7]. To thrive in the VUCA environment, businesses
are increasingly turning to more sophisticated and sensitive frameworks and structures to allow them
sense attractive market opportunities and seize them as they move more sharply into view [38].
Cross [21] offers a fascinating vignette in an attempt to deconstruct designers do. The case he
describes is Philippe Starck’s iconic design for a lemon squeezer. In the late 1980s, Philippe Starck was
already a celebrated designer of a wide range of different products. He was approached at that time
by Alessi. The Alessi company had begun to develop a new series of homeware or kitchen products
designed by famous designers, including kettles and coffee pots by architects Michael Graves and
Aldo Rossi and cutlery and condiment sets by industrial designers Ettore Sottsass and Roger Sapper.
They invited Starck to contribute to this prestigious series of new products and they suggested that
he work on designing a lemon squeezer. The story goes that Starck come to Alessi, outside Milan, to
discuss the project and, following the meeting, took a short vacation on the small island of Capraia,
just off the Tuscan coast.
While there, he dined in a pizza restaurant, called Il Corsaro (translated as the buccaneer or pirate).
He mused over the lemon squeezer project as he waited for his food to arrive—he had ordered the
Graves and Aldo Rossi and cutlery and condiment sets by industrial designers Ettore Sottsass and 
Roger Sapper. They invited Starck to contribute to this prestigious series of new products and they 
suggested that he work on designing a lemon squeezer. The story goes that Starck come to Alessi, 
outside Milan, to discuss the project and, following the meeting, took a short vacation on the small 
J.island of Capraia, just off the Tuscan coast. 
Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2018, 4, 57 7 of 18
While  there,  he  dined  in  a  pizza  restaurant,  called  Il  Corsaro  (translated  as  the  buccaneer  or 
pirate). He mused over the lemon squeezer project as he waited for his food to arrive—he had ordered 
squid. He began to sketch on the placemat in the restaurant and his first iterations (in the centre to the
the squid. He began to sketch on the placemat in the restaurant and his first iterations (in the centre 
right of Figure 2) reflected conventional squeezer designs; see Figure 2. However, as his food arrived,
to the right of Figure 2) reflected conventional squeezer designs; see Figure 2. However, as his food 
something else was triggered in his imagination and he began to create images of strange forms with
arrived, something else was triggered in his imagination and he began to create images of strange 
big bodies and long legs. Ultimately, in the bottom left of the placemat, he arrived at the blueprint for
forms with big bodies and long legs. Ultimately, in the bottom left of the placemat, he arrived at the 
what was to become one of the iconic designs of the 20th century.
blueprint for what was to become one of the iconic designs of the 20th century. 

 
Figure 2. Starck’s original design sketches for the Alessi lemon squeezer. 
Figure 2. Starck’s original design sketches for the Alessi lemon squeezer.

Lloyd
Lloyd and
and Snelders [39],
Snelders  in describing
[39],  the probable
in  describing  creative
the  probable  trajectory
creative  for thisfor 
trajectory  great design,
this  great suggest
design, 
suggest that the squid‐like concept was not a sudden flash of inspiration from out of the blue but that 
that the squid-like concept was not a sudden flash of inspiration from out of the blue but that it arose
it  arose 
from from 
a form of a  form  of 
analogy thatanalogy 
probably that  probably 
began began  unconsciously 
unconsciously but gradually but  gradually 
became became  more 
more deliberate. It is
the intersection of three forms of parallel thought. The first is the problem of how to squeeze a lemon,
the second involves creatively mining the possibilities offered by the shape of the squid and the third
draws on Starck’s interest and liking for science-fiction comic books in his youth and the unmistakable
resemblance to some shapes, possibly from HG Wells’ War of the Worlds.
However, as Design Thinking becomes more widespread, so its limitations become more evident.
One such limitation is that inherent in Design Thinking is its user-centric approach. It places users in the
centre of the process and gives them the dominant voice in the innovation dialogue. While customers
are the necessary ingredient for any successful business, they are rarely gifted with imagination or
penetrating insights about the future. They cannot anticipate unmet or unarticulated needs and they
are rarely the source for radical ideas. Design Thinking tends to anchor innovators in the incremental
and hence, while it is a great set of tools for businesses, it can constrain breakthrough thinking.
Another shortcoming concerns Design Thinking’s core discipline being design. However, design
has historically concerned itself with the design of objects, artefacts, products—physical things [40].
Famous designers are generally famous for designing in specific physical domains: Frank Gehry
designed wonderful buildings; Coco Chanel designed beautiful clothes; Jonny Ive designed
breathtaking phones and computers; Paul Rand designed memorable logos, while Ray and Charles
Eames designed stylish furniture. Hence, as design expands its operating remit into services, into
J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2018, 4, 57 8 of 18

experiences and even into strategy another problem can emerge. Brown and Martin [40] note that
when designers take a brief, an issue or a business opportunity and go away to work their magic on
the problem at hand, inevitably they return to the boardroom with their proposed solution and when
they do, one of four things often happen. This scenario increases in likelihood with the degree of
difference between the designer’s proposal and the current operating model. The more the proposal
deviates from the business-as-usual scenario, the more likely executives are to have this reaction:
‘(1) This does not address the problems I think are critical. (2) These aren’t the possibilities I would
have considered. (3) These aren’t the things I would have studied. (4) This is not an answer that is
compelling to me’ (Ibid.). As a consequence, winning commitment to the strategy tends to be the
exception rather than the rule, especially when the strategy represents a meaningful deviation from the
status quo ‘. Fortunately, the toolbox of Design Thinking has an approach to manage this disconnect.
Instead of making the proposed change look like a small number of big steps, they do the opposite
and by iteration and low-res prototypes, they make the change seem like a logical sequence of lots of
small, incremental steps.
In framing the relevance of this case study, it’s worth noting that Design Thinking’s association
with the tourism and arts sector is already established; cases include the future of hotels [41],
Indian artisanship [42], a cultural cluster in Dublin [43], and a wine region in Spain [44].

The Beginnings of an Art Thinking Movement

Whitaker [2] notes that Art Thinking shares several similarities with Design Thinking. They both
provide a framework and tools for facilitating the design of a new product or service. An important
distinction she draws is that ‘whereas a framework originating in product design starts with an external
brief—‘What is the best way to do this?’—Art Thinking emanates from the core of the individual and
asks, ‘Is this even possible?” Art Thinking spends much more time in the problem space: it is not
customer-centred; it is breakthrough-oriented.
Coles [45] notes that there has always been a rift between art and design in our culture. He notes
that purists on both sides are keen to maintain their disciplinary differences, while others believe that
design is a suitable bedfellow for art and that art should be more ‘gregarious’ and reach out beyond its
confines. Some see design merely as decorating art for human use and hence any such ‘decoration’
is undesirable. However, as early as 1859, Rushkin, showing little sympathy with this argument,
insisted that:

There is no existing higher order for art that is decorative. The best sculpture yet produced
has been the decoration of a temple front—the best painting, the decoration of a room. Get
rid, then, at once of any idea of Decorative art being a degraded or separate kind of art.

In his series of essays, The Shape of Things [46], the first essay is entirely devoted to the origin of
the word ‘design’. It stems from the Latin word signum meaning ‘sign’. Thus, etymologically, design
means to ‘de-sign’. So far from adding unnecessary decoration, it entails the removal of something:
a simplification. In the same essay, Flusser went on to elaborate on other words often used in the
same context—such as technology. The Greek word techne actually means ‘art’ and is a first cousin
of ‘tecton’, a carpenter. The basic idea here is that wood is a shapeless material to which the artist,
the technician, the carpenter gives some design and form.
Therefore, in derivation and etymology, the words technology, art and design are very closely
related. However, what Coles [45] calls ‘modern bourgeois culture of the mid-nineteenth century’ has
created a very sharp distinction between the world of art and that of technology. This has split the
culture and practice into two mutually exclusive branches: one scientific, data-driven and ‘hard’ and
the other intuitive, aesthetic and ‘soft’. This unfortunate split became irreversible with the rise the
machine bureaucracy organisation [47]. Yet, the only discipline capable of bridging these two disparate
worlds and of integrating them is design. In Flusser’s [46] view, design indicates the sweet spot where
J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2018, 4, 57 9 of 18

art and technology meet to produce new forms of culture, and so the role of design is crucial to the
vitality of the arts and similarly, the role of art is at the very heart of design.
Science and art are separate realms where one prizes data and the other aesthetics: it has long
been noted that gifted practitioners of the former and very often equally talented at the latter. Metz [48]
notes that Einstein played both the piano and violin: Max Planck composed songs and even a full opera.
He also played the piano, organ and cello. Roald Hoffmann, the Polish-American theoretical chemist
who won the 1981 Nobel Prize in Chemistry also published plays and poetry. Nobel Prize winner in
1906, Santiago Ramón y Cajal was a celebrated photographer and artist. Pomeroy’s research (2012)
suggests that Nobel laureates in the sciences are 17 times more likely than (the average scientist) to be
a painter, 12 times more likely to write poetry, and four times more likely to be a musician. Students of
Leonardo Da Vinci or Albrecht Dürer will not be surprised at this, as they were also scientists, as well
as being consummate artists. The link is thus long-established.
There is another dichotomy at work here, too, and that is the division between strategy and
creativity. Bilton and Cummings [49] assert that this, too, is a false dichotomy. Business leaders often
equate creativity (sometimes disparagingly) with novelty, spontaneity, like an unplanned eruption of
new and often random ideas. They see ‘creativity as unfettered, dynamic, borderline-crazy right-brain
thinking’ (p. 5). While strategy, on the other hand, is rational; it is solid, it is about systems, control
and accountability. On both sides, creativity and strategy are seen as extraordinary opposites of one
another rather than as integral to each other. For a strategy to be successful, it has to have an element
of creativity within it—otherwise it would be a predictable, paint-by-numbers plan which would not
offer any competitive advantage. In addition, for creativity to take root, for an idea to spread, it too
needs to be framed strategically, rationally, otherwise it would just pop, fizz and evaporate. Arthur
Koestler [50] similarly concludes that invention or discovery takes place through the combination of
different ideas and angles. He notes that the Latin verb ‘cogito’, to think, actually means to ‘shake
together’ which is the creative act of making connections between previously unrelated things. In the
business world, this is known as ‘kaleidoscope thinking’: the shaking together of known elements into
previously unconsidered combinations [51].
Fresh perspective to this debate was brought when business and management guru, Daniel Pink
said in a New York Times interview that the ‘Now the Master of Fine Arts, or MFA is the new MBA’.
Pink sees that much of the work of analytics and mathematics that is central to business can now be
done better and more easily by computers and it is now time, given that we now compete in a creative
economy, to allow the right brain take centre stage. Pink later converted this assertion into an HBR
article [52] in which he explained the reasons for the rise in demand for creative people coupled with
the oversupply with people with MBAs explains why the MFA is now the ‘hottest credential’ in the
world of business.
Amy Whitaker’s [2] book entitled Art Thinking is the first substantial effort to flesh out the notion
of Art Thinking. In it, she has some practical insights. She describes the root of the concept to be
Schumpeterian, insofar as capitalism is entirely predicated on change and the need for disruption and
reinvention to stimulate business growth. Schumpeter asserted that if firms keep doing the same thing,
eventually they go out of business. ‘Following patterns rather than inventing new ones will only get
you so far.’
Progress for any organisation demands that it be able to refresh its portfolio of market offerings,
allowing the old products and services give way to its new innovations. Schumpeter [53] referred to
this as creative destruction, where new ideas capsize and replace the old ones. Drucker [54] supported
this paradigm when he said that ‘innovation depends on organised abandonment’. Art Thinking is for
companies seeking this type of growth, possibly even transformational growth. ‘They can grow by
scaling up to the most efficient level of production. Or they can grow artistically by the alchemy of
invention.’ Whitaker [2] recognises that this can be challenging for business because:

‘Business prizes being able to put prices on things and to know their value ahead of time.
Yet, if you are inventing Point B, in any area of life—you can’t know the outcome at the
J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2018, 4, 57 10 of 18

moment you have to invest money, time and effort in the Point A world. This is the central
paradox of business: the core assumptions of economics—efficiency, productivity and
knowable value—work best when an organisation is at cruising altitude, but they will
not get the plane off the ground in the first place.’ (p. 8)
While Whitaker’s emerging theory of Art Thinking has yet to be empirically tested, there is one
mention of it in the literature: a 2016 conference presentation about the car brand Mazda [55] in which
the authors assert that Mazda believe ‘the car is art.’ They underpin this contention, from interviews
with 5 Mazda designers, by explaining that these artists try to express their emotions and beliefs in car
design. They would not compromise themselves by pandering explicitly to customer needs. In doing
this, they go beyond Design Thinking, which ‘tries to meet specific customer needs’, and they enter
the realm of car design motivated by Art Thinking.

3.2. Case Study Rationale

Yin [56] specifies three types of case study: exploratory, descriptive and explanatory; while
Stake [57] names two: intrinsic and instrumental. Yin considers case study to be better able to
rationalise the causal relationships in real-life events than empirical research strategies. Case study
methodology also has the capacity to vividly describe the situation under investigation, providing
important contextual detail. It allows issues to naturally come to the surface, and in situations where
the results or effects are indistinct, the case study methodology provides space to explore.
Art Thinking is a new and emerging concept in the innovation literature and one reason
conventionally provided for using a single case study design is that the single case can represent a
critical test of a significant theory [57]. It is too early in the development of Art Thinking to refer
to it as a significant theory, but nevertheless, the choice of this single case study is to provide some
confirmatory, should the data back it up, evidence of the promise of this new area of research. Another
reason for choosing this single case is that the author has privileged access to ‘a situation previously
inaccessible’ [58]. A third reason for choosing it is that there is longitudinal data available allowing
analysis at different points in time.

3.3. Details of the Case Study

Strategic initiatives in the Arts include bringing in strategic frameworks or strategic management
or generally importing approaches from the business world, often at the behest of senior managers,
of government funders or other stakeholders like Board directors. Hence, ‘strategy’ in the arts is
usually resented as something that is imposed from outside and something that needs to be tolerated
temporarily till the recession or existential crisis recedes and the organisations get back on their feet.
The story of the recent history of Graphic Studio Dublin is the story of a highly creative strategy
being applied to an Arts organisation with profound and positive effects; a story of how strategy
rescued a national arts organisation from the brink of closure and ruin and restored its place in the
visual arts ecosystem as well as restoring its fortunes. What makes it exceptional and, therefore,
revelatory, is that it deals with an organisation going through a crisis. However, in order to tell
the story, like all good research subjects, it needs a little context. This context requires a visit to
1960s Dublin. Ireland in the mid-twentieth century was delicately balanced between an economic
isolationism imposed both by the end of the second world war and by a political leader who favoured
self-sufficiency and protectionism, which turned into the twin drivers of economic stagnation for
almost a decade. On the other hand, and despite the economic stasis, the arts were seeing an expansion;
a cultural revival.
Several notable, even defining cultural initiatives took place in Ireland at this time in both
public and private spheres: the establishment of the Wexford Opera Festival, the Dolmen Press,
the Arts Council, the Dublin Theatre Festival, and the Irish Georgian Society. In terms of policy,
too, there was the launch of TK Whitaker’s 1958 Economic Development Plan (which was Ireland’s
blueprint out of self-imposed economic atrophy), the launch of Ireland’s first national television
J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2018, 4, 57 11 of 18

broadcasting service called Telefis Eireann, the publication of Design in Ireland by the Scandinavian
Design Group, and the opening of the Kilkenny Design Workshops in 1965. Ireland was also opening
up to international cultural influences. During the 1960s, the Beatles performed in Dublin, as did Ella
FitzGerald, The Rolling Stones, Oscar Peterson, Cliff Richard, Louis Armstrong and Bing Crosby.
One other remarkable development in Ireland occurred at this time: Shannon, the first new town
founded in Ireland since the 17th century, was established in 1963 and was based not around a harbour
or a fortress, nor a market (as all towns had been since Medieval times). Rather, it was located at an
airport. Shannon and the other institutions mentioned were all responding to significant gaps in the
cultural, educational and economic landscape in Ireland at that time.
However, while there was considerable change, the air was also heavy with continuity, certainly
in the Arts. The fact that the Arts Council had been overseen for over a decade by two priests
in succession, Monsignor Padraig de Brún (1959–1960) and Father Donal O’Sullivan (1960–1973),
now seems remarkable. There were nine board members of the Arts Council, and all were male, and
as the leadership was coming from the most conservative pillar of Irish society, the Church, it is hard
to imagine anything but the most conservative projects and initiatives getting financial support.
It was against this backdrop that in Ireland’s cultural district, often called ‘Baggotonia’—the
Georgian streets around Merrion Square and Baggot Street- that Graphic Studio Dublin (GSD) was
founded. It was created, by an eclectic set of founders (see Figure 3), for artists and it was led by artists.
GSD was Ireland’s first fine art print studio and for its first three decades, it struggled to survive,
sustained only by idealism and a grim determination to provide shared facilities so that talented artists
could make important art. The chronicler of the organisation, Brian Lalor, in his book, Ink Stained
Hands [59] makes an insightful observation about the early years:

Ink Stained Hands is the story of this triumph—over the absence of an informed critical
climate and the absence of a marketplace, over infighting, personal antagonisms and feuds,
over ideological differences and intransigence disguised as high principle and through a
web of official misunderstanding—it emerged half a century later, invigorated with idealism
and optimism intact and a lengthy inventory of artistic achievement to its credit. (p. XXIII)

The founders of the Graphic Studio were a group of five well-intentioned, hugely talented and
diverse characters, each with a distinct and established profile in the arts. Their backgrounds spanned
education, publishing, architecture, literary criticism and painting and printmaking. See Figure 3:

The Founders
Elizabeth Rivers Anne Yeats Liam Miller Patrick Hickey Leslie MacWeeney

1903–1964 1919–2001 1924–1987 1927–1998 1936

Born in England: studied at Daughter of WB Yeats: Lover of literature and theatre: Born in India and brought up in Brought up in Dublin in
the Royal Academy niece of painter Jack B Liam was an architect who England. Returned to art college wealthy medical and military
Yeats worked with Michael Scott in Italy at age 30. He lectured in family—with a governess.
and was a typographer and UCD on architecture and was, Entered NCAD at age 15,
publisher afterwards, head of painting in lying about her age. Prolific
NCAD and gifted painter and
printmaker, she now lives in
Boston and has been an
educator and art
administrator
A founder member who A competent painter Set up Dolmen Press, an The original master printer. Her involvement with GSD
taught night courses in wood but also experienced impact mainly for artists— Produced over 400 prints over 33 waned after she left to live in
engraving and woodcut. administrator managed the finances in GSD. years with GSD US in 1972
Designed the GSD logo The sponsor’s portfolio was
developed as a gift for the 75
initial subscribers/donors

‘GSD succeeded in its artistic aims but tended to falter philosophically because of a core weakness—it depended for its continued growth on the chance mix of individuals

to create a living culture. Sometimes this worked and sometimes it didn’t.’(p70)

Figure Founders
3. 3.
Figure Foundersof
ofGraphic StudioDublin
Graphic Studio Dublin1960.
1960.

Printmaking was also enjoying a resurgence in North America, in Britain, France, Russia and
Scandinavia and many new print studios were being set up, often with the assistance of generous
 Figure 3. Founders of Graphic Studio Dublin 1960. 
J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2018, 4, 57 12 of 18
Printmaking was also enjoying a resurgence in North America, in Britain, France, Russia and 
Scandinavia and many new print studios were being set up, often with the assistance of generous 
philanthropic
philanthropic  donations. Hence
donations.  GSDGSD 
Hence  can be seen
can  be asseen 
part of
as a part 
more of 
widespread pattern on international
a  more  widespread  pattern  on 
development in fine-art printmaking. Many of the world’s leading print studios were set up around
international development in fine‐art printmaking. Many of the world’s leading print studios were 
this
set time. In the US:
up  around  Pratt
this  Contemporary
time.  Graphic
In  the  US:  Pratt  Art Centre (1956),
Contemporary  Tamarind
Graphic  Lithography
Art  Centre  (1956), Workshop
Tamarind 
(1960), Crown Point Press (1962) and Hollanders Workshop (1964). England saw
Lithography Workshop (1960), Crown Point Press (1962) and Hollanders Workshop (1964). England  the establishment
ofsaw the establishment of the Curwen Press (1958) and Scotland, Edinburgh Printmakers (1967). The 
the Curwen Press (1958) and Scotland, Edinburgh Printmakers (1967). The seed funding of these
various establishments tells its own story. In the US, big businesses were more established, and
seed funding of these various establishments tells its own story. In the US, big businesses were more 
the germs of the concept destined to become corporate social responsibility were already visibly
established, and the germs of the concept destined to become corporate social responsibility were 
benefiting the arts.
already  visibly  Pratt-Contemporaries
benefiting  received a donation
the  arts.  Pratt‐Contemporaries  of $50,000
received  from theof 
a  donation  Rockefeller family,
$50,000  from  the 
while Tamarind received $135,000 from the Ford Motor Corporation. Figure 4 shows
Rockefeller family, while Tamarind received $135,000 from the Ford Motor Corporation.  Figure 4  some of the
printmaking techniques used in GSD.
shows some of the printmaking techniques used in GSD. 

Figure 4. A flavour of the work that takes place in the Graphic Studio Dublin. 
Figure 4. A flavour of the work that takes place in the Graphic Studio Dublin.

However, raising money, especially for the Arts, in the cash-strapped Ireland of the 1960s, was a
However, raising money, especially for the Arts, in the cash‐strapped Ireland of the 1960s, was 
far trickier proposition. The Irish Export Board came forward with £120 and, while this was derisory
a far trickier proposition. The Irish Export Board came forward with £120 and, while this was derisory 
when compared to US funding, in Ireland’s low-wage and even lower-expectation economy, it was able
when compared to US funding, in Ireland’s low‐wage and even lower‐expectation economy, it was 
toable to go a long way. However, one of the early successes of GSD was an imaginative business model 
go a long way. However, one of the early successes of GSD was an imaginative business model they
developed through
they  developed  which generous
through which  individual sponsors
generous individual  were encouraged
sponsors  to maketo 
were  encouraged  a modest annual
make a modest 
contribution in return for which they would receive as a gift a small portfolio of prints. This ‘sponsors’
annual contribution in return for which they would receive as a gift a small portfolio of prints. This 
portfolio’ idea
‘sponsors’  still persists
portfolio’  idea tostill 
this persists 
day, someto 50 years
this  later.
day,  GSD
some  became
50  years  alater. 
thriving,
GSD successful,
became  a dynamic
thriving, 
artistic
successful,  dynamic  artistic  community  recognised  by  the  Arts  Council  as  part  of  the  visual and
community recognised by the Arts Council as part of the visual arts landscape in Ireland arts 
recognised
landscape by in artists as and 
Ireland  a commune where
recognised  by inexperienced and veteran
artists  as  a  commune  printmakers;
where  where and 
inexperienced  master and
veteran 
pupil could work side by side.
printmakers; where master and pupil could work side by side. 
Fast-forward, then, almost 50 years later. In 2007, experiencing growing pains and needing
additional space to accommodate new equipment and to offer new, emerging printmaking techniques
such as silk-screen, GSD now had its own CEO, its own Studio Director (a master-printmaker) and
it had acquired its own gallery as a sales channel for artist members to both exhibit and sell their
work. It decided to purchase new premises (see Figure 5) during the property boom in Ireland:
a four-storey former granary close to the heart of the city on the northside of Dublin. To make the
purchase, the organisation borrowed heavily. It had not owned premises before this one, it had been
renting for the first 50 years, and the Board thought it was time to get a place they could consider
home and call their own.
While the idea might have been laudable, the timing was catastrophic. It coincided with Ireland’s
first ever property ‘bust’, where property prices went into freefall, precipitating the deepest and longest
recession in Ireland’s history. The value of the property plummeted and the Board of GSD managed
to negotiate a temporary ‘interest only’ payment arrangement on the property mortgage. However,
the bank that owned the mortgage quickly sold it to a hard-nosed US vulture-fund who wanted to
foreclose on the premises and to cast the artists out on the street. This would have left a generation of
Irish printmakers without a place to work and without the facilities to make their art. The problems
with the unsustainable mortgage were compounded by the fact that art purchases are among the first
discretionary spends to get cut during a recession. People buy less art when their earnings are reduced,
and hence, just when the organisation needed to show healthier revenues, its sales were drying up.
 Fast‐forward,  then,  almost  50  years later.  In  2007,  experiencing  growing  pains  and  needing
additional space  to  accommodate new  equipment and  to  offer  new,  emerging  printmaking 
techniques  such  as  silk‐screen,  GSD  now  had  its own  CEO,  its own  Studio Director  (a  master‐
J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2018, 4, 57own gallery as a sales channel for artist members to both exhibit 
printmaker) and it had acquired its 13 of 18
and sell their work. It decided to purchase new premises (see Figure 5) during the property boom in 
Ireland: a four‐storey former granary close to the heart of the city on the northside of Dublin. To make 
This is where the VUCA environment loomed
the purchase, the organisation borrowed threateningly
heavily. over the enterprise, with few reasons for
It had not owned premises before this one, it had 
optimism and every avenue for revenue generation apparently drying up.
been renting for the first 50 years, and the Board thought it was time to get a place they could consider

Figure 5. The four‐storey converted granary, new printmaking studio for GSD. 
Figure 5. The four-storey converted granary, new printmaking studio for GSD.

While the idea might have been laudable,
Innovation the timing was catastrophic. It coincided with Ireland’s
in cultural organisations is considered generally to fall into one of four broad
first ever 
typologies property  ‘bust’,  where  property  prices  went  into freefall,  precipitating the  deepest  and 
[60,61]:
longest recession in Ireland’s history. The value of the property plummeted and the Board of GSD 
(1) Marketing Communications (i.e., the use of digital strategies, specifically targeting key segments
managed to negotiate a temporary ‘interest only’ payment arrangement on the property mortgage. 
more directly with better, sharper, more personalised propositions).
However, the bank that owned the mortgage quickly sold it to a hard‐nosed US vulture‐fund who 
(2)wanted to foreclose on the premises and to cast the artists
Delivering the cultural experience in different or unconventional venues—like Shakespeare in a 
out on the street. This would have left
Kew Gardens, for instance, or theatre in high street pubs.
generation of Irish printmakers without a place to work and without the facilities to make their art.
(3)The problems with the unsustainable mortgage were compounded by the fact that art purchases are 
New Cultural Content—perhaps adding comedy with art or blending two or more art forms and
extending
among both
the first into a new realm. to get cut during a recession. People buy less art when their 
discretionary spends
(4)earnings
Operational Excellence—using
are reduced, conventional management practices and
and hence, just when the organisation needed applying them to running
to show healthier revenues, its
the arts organisation and/or its events.
sales were drying up. This is where the VUCA environment loomed threateningly over the enterprise,
with few reasons for optimism and every avenue for revenue generation apparently drying up. 
However, sometimes, these conventional approaches to innovation are unlikely to deliver the sort
Innovation in cultural organisations is considered generally to fall into one of four broad typologies 
of turnaround performance that was needed in this VUCA environment.
[60,61]:  
A new Board of directors was empanelled in GSD to take up this daunting challenge and this
(1) Marketing Communications (i.e., the use of digital strategies, specifically targeting key segments
is where the Art Thinking strategy took root. To save costs, the services of the CEO were dispensed
more directly with better, sharper, more personalised propositions). 
with. The Board has nine members, of which the majority (5) are artists and the rest are volunteers,
(2) Delivering
generally the cultural experience
those interested in different or unconventional
in Art from the professions. venues—like Shakespeare
In this instance, there is a chairman, a director in 
Kew Gardens, for instance, or theatre in high street pubs. 
of marketing and strategy (the author), a head of Legal (a bank property lawyer), and a head of finance
(a (3) New Cultural
chartered Content—perhaps
accountant adding comedy with art or blending two or more art forms and 
in a large practice). The challenge for the new board was to restore GSD’s
financesextending both
to the extent tointo a new realm.  
which it could afford to service the full payments on a mortgage—a reduced
mortgage from the one originally taken out. This meant not only getting the business back into a
healthier shape, it also required that the mortgage be renegotiated with, ideally, some debt forgiveness.
The situation was so dire that the Board really had to embrace the principles of Art Thinking: it did
not seem to them as if it would be enough to plot a route from current position A to an incrementally
J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2018, 4, 57 14 of 18

better position of A+. The Board just had to start with inventing a vision of what a desirable point
B might look like in terms of revenues, audience numbers and costs. The Board decided to get all
the artists on board to co-create a new, commercial strategy to pull the organisation back from the
edge. Several artists (roughly 12) attended a Strategy Day in which a strategic North Star and set of
guiding principles for the organisation were developed and several key effort priorities were agreed.
The North Star was the organisation’s guiding purpose and the effort priorities represented the key
deliverables underpinning it. After that, the entire membership was invited to a brainstorming session
which was run in a world-cafe format; roughly 40 members attended, which represented around 75%
of members. The delegates were given a briefing on Art Thinking and given problem statements, such
as: wouldn’t it be great if . . . , or how might we . . . ? Each table had to work through the effort priorities
and give them some dimensions and suggest revenue generating projects that, while being imaginative
enough to be exciting needed to be capable of being actually implemented. The brainstorming session
was professionally facilitated by a consultant.
Inviting artists into the business planning process was also an unconventional (and courageous)
step as artists invariably have a strong vision and point of view and they rarely pander to an audience’s
tastes; rather they like to explore new territories and bring the audience on the journey with them.
Nevertheless, this artist collaboration yielded a large amount of good and useable concepts, which
the Board started to implement straight away. Many were great sales ideas. One prompted a themed
J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2018, 4, x FOR PEER REVIEW   15 of 19 
artist-led and very profitable promotion called 100 by 100, in which 100 members produced one piece
(an
was etching or print)prestigious 
a  high‐ticket,  which had and to beprofitable 
inspired by something in
programme,  Ireland’s
putting  National
original  Botanical
art  into  Gardens,
the  homes  of 
and they each
hundreds  made 100 business 
of  well‐paid  prints of executives.  themed7 the
it. This was Figure  Botanicals,
shows  as Dublin’s Botanical
the  classification  Gardens
and  the  range  of 
allowed the show to be exhibited there during their busy season, thus providing GSD
innovation activity that was undertaken at this time for the organisation. A lot of the activity focused  not only with a
new audience for original art but with a new exhibition venue.
on  bringing  the  work  to  the  attention  of  new  and  different  audiences,  especially  people  to  whom 
Another initiative was the selection of a street graffiti artist (Dublin’s equivalent of Banksy) to
printmaking was relatively unknown. A counter‐intuitive feature of this case is that when threatened 
come and make a series of prints in GSD (see Figure 6). This was a groundbreaking partnership, the
with the harsh financial crisis, rather than drawing in their horns: cutting costs and commissioning 
artist, Maser, was well known for urban street art, and was an iconic figure in the youth market with a
less work, the Board chose to do the opposite.  They elected to take a different approach, to ignore 
cult bleak 
the  following on social
reality  media. To
and,  instead,  to get Masera todifferent 
imagine  make a series of fine-art
and  better  prints
reality  was quite a coup for
for  the organisation.  the
  They 
studio, and the prints he produced sold so well and so fast that they broke
began with plotting a strategic ‘north star’ and navigated towards this desired outcome.  all prior records.

 
Figure 6. A sample fine art print by street artist Maser—leading to record sales in GSD. 
Figure 6. A sample fine art print by street artist Maser—leading to record sales in GSD.
began with plotting a strategic ‘north star’ and navigated towards this desired outcome. 

J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2018, 4, 57 15 of 18

Others were that some of the artists’ larger works were showcased in pop-up retail stores in some
of Dublin’s busiest shopping thoroughfares, such as the Powerscourt Townhouse Shopping Centre.
New markets, new spaces and new audiences were being opened up through this strategy, and the
sales were really feeling a dramatic lift. In searching to open up new and larger markets for Irish
printmaking, the sponsor’s portfolio was revived, and sales were made to institutional buyers like
Yale University, Oxford University and in Ireland to the National Gallery and Trinity College.
The organisation also strengthened its Business to Arts partnerships and forged a deal with one
of Ireland’s biggest law firms to produce an original piece of art to go to their 750 best clients. This was
a high-ticket, prestigious and profitable programme, putting original art into the homes of hundreds
of well-paid business executives. Figure 7 shows the classification and the range of innovation activity
that was undertaken at this time for the organisation. A lot of the activity focused on bringing the work
to the attention of new and different audiences, especially people to whom printmaking was relatively
unknown. A counter-intuitive feature of this case is that when threatened with the harsh financial
crisis, rather than drawing in their horns: cutting costs and commissioning less work, the Board chose
to do the opposite. They elected to take a different approach, to ignore the bleak reality and, instead, to
imagine a different and better reality for the organisation. They began with   plotting a strategic ‘north
Figure 6. A sample fine art print by street artist Maser—leading to record sales in GSD. 
star’ and navigated towards this desired outcome.

 
Figure 7. Classification of the Art Thinking projects developed and delivered by the Board.
Figure 7. Classification of the Art Thinking projects developed and delivered by the Board. 
4. Conclusions
The circumstances surrounding Graphic Studio Dublin did conform to the VUCA conditions.
The future was uncertain; the twin engines of revenue were in freefall and the organisation faced an
existential threat. Through this creative combination of developing new markets; developing better,
more targeted marketing; getting new exhibition spaces; forging new partnerships, stretching across
conventional disciplinary boundaries, little by little, the sales grew by over 100%. In addition, while all
this activity was going on, the chairman was renegotiating down the debt with the vulture fund to
the degree that they shaved off some of the outstanding balance because they could see GSD really
pulling out all the stops to get the organisation back on its feet.
This is a valuable and possibly revelatory case of using Art Thinking in the Arts. Using Whitaker’s [2]
approach, there was:

- Clear designation of roles

- Placement of milestones or wayposts
J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2018, 4, 57 16 of 18

- ‘Sprint’ scheduling of work over a relatively short period of time

- Flexible facilitation from the Board rather than close management

Had GSD used Design Thinking to try to resolve its problems, it would have merely amplified
its marketing effort and put the customer at the heart of the strategy and finessed their needs in an
attempt to find some promising route to an underserved or unmet need. The range of experiments that
were tried using this approach wouldn’t have been as broad. It would have concentrated on doing
what we do already, only better. A Design Thinking campaign would have used observation to focus
on the GSD customer-journey. It would have honed in on pinch points in that customer experience
map—such as the access or opening times of the gallery or the user experience of the website and
started there—‘doing what we do already, only doing it better’. Thus, design thinking alone would
not have produced the dramatic results made necessary by the crisis facing the organisation.
Laissez faire management, or a more facilitative style of management was key to the success
of this project. Whitaker [2] uses the metaphor of baking a soufflé in the oven. Of course, the chef
is tempted to open the oven door and see how the soufflé is doing, but the mere act of observation
causes the soufflé to collapse. Although there is a strong temptation to constantly check in on things
to see how they’re going, there are periods of time when management is better advised to resist that
impulse. In managing this process, the quest of the Board was primarily for imaginative options and
not for finished solutions and in this was several ideas were prototyped, tested and either canned
or implemented.
Art Thinking is also more comfortable with the ambiguity inherent in the idea that the future
is unknowable [61] for if it were otherwise an innovation would, in principle be already known and
would have occurred in the present and not in the future. Popper [62] also notes that science is
different and, in ways, much more straightforward. A scientist engaged in a piece of research, perhaps
in physics, can attack their problem directly. They can go straight to the heart of the matter: to the heart,
that is, of an organized structure. For a structure of scientific doctrines is already in existence; and with
it, a generally accepted problem-situation. But, real world innovation problems do not generally have
this helpful clarity about them.
This is the heartland of Art Thinking: when the boundaries are fuzzy and the outcomes uncertain.
Madsbjerg [63] issues a passionate cry for humanistic, liberal arts thinking, believing like many others
that over-reliance on data and algorithms creates enormous risks for employees, business and society.
What all the data fails to capture, he says, is the critical nuances of culture and context that ultimately
drive behaviour and lead the way to enduring innovation.
In summary, Art Thinking, with its focus on options, not outcomes; on possibilities, not certainty,
was the ideal way to approach the very grave problems threatening the very existence of a core pillar
in the Irish visual arts ecosystem. Art Thinking allowed the organisation not simply to plot a path from
Point A to a more desirable Point B, but to collaboratively imagine or invent the ideal destination and
to put in field a sufficient number of imaginative initiatives to get there. It seems highly appropriate to
pilot Art Thinking in the visual arts and according to this case-study—it really does have something
worthwhile to offer.

Funding: This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflict of interest.

References
1. Micheli, P.; Perks, H.; Beverland, M.B. Elevating Design in the Organization. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2018,
35, 629–651. [CrossRef]
2. Whitaker, A. Art Thinking—How to Carve Out Creative Space in a World of Schedules, Budgets and Bosses, 1st ed.;
Harper Collins: New York, NY, USA, 2016.
3. Jen, N. Design Thinking is Bullshit; Homepage of Time Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 2017.
J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2018, 4, 57 17 of 18

4. Price, R.; Wrigley, C. Design and a Deep Customer Insight Approach to Innovation; Taylor & Francis Ltd.:
Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2016.
5. Waerder, B.; Stinnes, S.; Erdenberger, O. Design thinking as driver for innovation in the chemical industry.
J. Bus. Chem. 2017, 14, 41–50.
6. Stola, K. User experience and design thinking as a global trend in healthcare. J. Med. Sci. 2018, 87, 32–37.
7. Cousins, B. Design Thinking: Organizational Learning in Vuca Environments. Acad. Strat. Manag. J. 2018,
17, 1–18.
8. Bennett, N.; Lemoine, G.J. What VUCA Really Means for You. Harvard Bus. Rev. 2014, 92, 27.
9. Bartscht, J. Why systems must explore the unknown to survive in VUCA environments. Kybernetes 2015,
44, 253–270. [CrossRef]
10. Chandler, C. The Meaning of Design is up for Debate and That’s a Good Thing. Time Magazine, 1 March 2018.
11. Chandler, C.; Fry, E.; Gallagher, L.; Kowitt, B.; Lev-Ram, M.; Nusca, A.; O’Keefe, B.; Tetzeli, R.; Yong, D.
Fortune-Business by Design. Fortune Magazine, 22 December 2017.
12. Kimbell, L. Questions for: Lucy Kimbell. Rotman Management. 2009, pp. 86–88. Available online: http:
//www.lucykimbell.com/stuff/Practicedesignthinking.pdf (accessed on 2 December 2018).
13. Martin, R. The Design of Business: Why Design Thinking Is the Next Competitive Advantage; Harvard Business
School Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2009; p. 1.
14. Brown, T. Design Thinking. Harvard Bus. Rev. 2008, 86, 84–92.
15. Liedtka, J.; Ogilvie, T. Designing for Growth: A Design Thinking Tool Kit for Managers, 1st ed.; Columbia
Business School Publishing: Portland, OR, USA, 2011.
16. Mootee, I. Design Thinking for Strategic Innovation, 1st ed.; Wyley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2013.
17. Curedale, R. Design Thinking: Process and Methods Manual, 1st ed.; Design Community College Inc.: Topanga,
CA, USA, 2016.
18. Liedtka, J. Perspective: Linking Design Thinking with Innovation Outcomes through Cognitive Bias
Reduction. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2015, 32, 925–938. [CrossRef]
19. Kolko, J. Design Thinking Comes of Age. Harvard Bus. Rev. 2015, 93, 66–69.
20. Dijksterhuis, E.; Silvius, G. The design thinking Approach to Projects. J. Mod. Proj. Manag. 2017, 4, 32–41.
21. Cross, N. Design Thinking, 1st ed.; Bloomsbury Academic: London, UK, 2011.
22. Lockwood, T. Design Thinking: Integrating Innovation Customer Experience and Brand Value; Allworth Press:
New York, NY, USA, 2010.
23. Mintrom, M.; Luetjens, J. Design Thinking in Policymaking Processes: Opportunities and Challenges. Aust. J.
Public Adm. 2016, 75, 391–402. [CrossRef]
24. Chambers, C.; Scaffidi, C. Utility and accuracy of smell-driven performance analysis for end-user
programmers. J. Vis. Lang. Comput. 2015, 26, 1–14. [CrossRef]
25. Brown, T.; Katz, B. Change by Design. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2011, 28, 381–383. [CrossRef]
26. Liedtka, J. Why Design Thinking Works. Harvard Bus. Rev. 2018, 96, 72–79.
27. Dunne, D.; Martin, R. Design thinking and how it will change management education. Acad. Manag.
Learn. Educ. 2006, 5, 514–523. [CrossRef]
28. Dorst, K. The core of ‘design thinking’ and its application. Des. Stud. 2011, 32, 521–532. [CrossRef]
29. Kolko, J. Abductive Thinking and Sensemaking: The Drivers of Design Synthesis. Des. Issues 2010, 26, 15–28.
[CrossRef]
30. Dong, A.; Lovallo, D.; Mounarath, R. The effect of abductive reasoning on concept selection decisions.
Des. Stud. 2015, 37, 37–58. [CrossRef]
31. Pauwels, P.; De Meyer, R.; Van Campenhout, J. Design Thinking Support: Information Systems Versus
Reasoning. Des. Issues 2013, 29, 42–59. [CrossRef]
32. Cross, N. Designerly Ways of Knowing, 1st ed.; Springer: London, UK, 2006.
33. Mulgan, G. What’s Posterity Ever Done for Me? On Strategy in Government. Public Policy Res. 2008,
15, 168–176. [CrossRef]
34. Dorst, K. Design Problems and Design Paradoxes. Des. Issues 2006, 22, 4–17. [CrossRef]
35. Rowe, P.G. Design Thinking, 7th ed.; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1998.
36. Davies, R.; Talbot, R.J. Experiencing ideas: Identity, insight and the imago. Design Stud. 1987, 8, 17–25.
[CrossRef]
37. Cross, N. Engineering Design Methods: Strategies for Product Design, 4th ed.; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 2008.
J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2018, 4, 57 18 of 18

38. Augier, M.; Teece, D.J. Strategy as Evolution with Design: The Foundations of Dynamic Capabilities and the
Role of Managers in the Economic System. Organ. Stud. 2008, 29, 1187–1208. [CrossRef]
39. Lloyd, P.; Snelders, D. What was Philippe Starck thinking of? Des. Stud. 2003, 24, 237–253. [CrossRef]
40. Brown, T.; Martin, R. Design for Action. Harvard Bus. Rev. 2015, 93, 58–63. [CrossRef]
41. Lub, X.; Rijnders, R.; Nino-Caceres, N.; Bosman, J. The future of hotels: The Lifestyle Hub. A design-thinking
approach for developing future hospitality concepts. J. Vacat. Mark. 2011, 22, 17. [CrossRef]
42. Botnick, K.; Raja, I. Subtle Technology: The Design Innovation of Indian Artisanship. Des. Issues 2011,
27, 43–55. [CrossRef]
43. Robbins, P.; Devitt, F. Collaboration, creativity and entrepreneurship in tourism: A case study of how design
thinking created a cultural cluster in Dublin. Int. J. Entrep. Innov. Manag. 2017, 21, 185–211.
44. Montserrat, C.; Oscar, M.M.; Ricard, V.R. Innovation in the Management of Interorganizational Oenologic
Tourism Projects. the Case of Pla De Bages Wine Area (Barcelona, Spain). In Project Management
Development—Practice & Perspectives; University of Latvia: Riga, Latvia, 2017; pp. 40–47.
45. Coles, A. On Art’s Romance with Design. Des. Issues 2005, 21, 17–24. [CrossRef]
46. Flusser, V. The Shape of Things, A Philosophy of Design; Reaktion Books: London, UK, 1999.
47. Mintzberg, H. The Structure of Organisations, 1st ed.; Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1979.
48. Metz, S. Science and the Arts. Sci. Teach. 2016, 83, 6.
49. Bilton, C.; Cummings, S. Creative Strategy: Reconnecting Business and Innovation, 1st ed.; John WIley & Sons
Ltd.: London, UK, 2010.
50. Koestler, A. The act of Creation; Hutchinson: London, UK, 1964.
51. Kanter, R.M. Kaleidoscope Thinking in Management 21C, Someday We’ll All Manage This Way, 1st ed.;
Chowdhury, S., Ed.; Financial Times Prentice Hall: New York, NY, USA, 2000; pp. 250–261.
52. Bell, K. The MFA Is the New MBA. In Harvard Business Review Digital Articles; Harvard Business Publishing:
Brighton, MA, USA, 2008.
53. Schumpeter, J.A. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, 1st ed.; Allen and Unwin: London, UK, 2002.
54. Drucker, P.F. The Discipline of Innovation. Harvard Bus. Rev. 1942, 80, 95–103. [CrossRef]
55. Nobeoka, K.; Kimura, M. Art Thinking beyond design thinking Mazda design: Car as art. In Proceedings
of the PICMET 2016—Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology:
Technology Management for Social Innovation, Honolulu, HI, USA, 4–8 September 2016; p. 2499.
56. Yin, R. Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 2nd ed.; Sage Publishing: Beverly Hills, CA, USA, 1994.
57. Stake, R.E. The Art of Case Study Research; Sage Publications: London, UK, 1995.
58. Yin, R. Case Study Research, Design & Methods, 4th ed.; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2009.
59. Lalor, B. Ink Stained Hands: Graphic Studio Dublin and the Origins of Fine Art Printmaking in Ireland; Lilliput
Press: Dublin, Ireland, 2011.
60. Bakhshi, H.; Throsby, D. Culture of Innovation: An Economic Analysis of Innovation in Arts and Cultural
Organisations; NESTA: London, UK, 2010.
61. Camarero, C.; Garrido, M.; Vicente, E. Does it pay off for museums to foster creativity? The complementary
effect of innovative visitor experiences. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2018, 1–15. [CrossRef]
62. Popper, K. The Open Universe, 1st ed.; Hutchinson: London, UK, 1988.
63. Madsbjerg, C. Sensemaking—The Power of Humanities in the Age of the Algorithm, 1st ed.; Little Brown Book
Group: London, UK, 2017.

© 2018 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).