Making a difference: Design-driven intrapreneurship at the UN Refugee Agency | Intellect Skip to content
1981
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Journal of Design, Business & Society
  4. Volume 9, Issue 2
  5. Article
Sustainability & Design Research
  • ISSN: 2055-2106
  • E-ISSN: 2055-2114

Abstract

The UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR), a large, global organization, provides vital services and advocacy for millions of displaced persons around the world within a complex and unique mandate. To meet increasing demands in creative ways while fostering a culture of intrapreneurship, the organization has set up the Innovation Fellowship Programme, a learning initiative. This article examines how design may be used to foster intrapreneurship within large organizations. Through this single-case study we examine capabilities identified through mixed-methods within the context of an intrapreneurial process. Mapping abilities between individual vs. collective and exploration vs. exploitation dimensions enabled building a design-driven, stepwise intrapreneurial process model based on effectuation principles, recognizing the causation factors at play. Enabling structures and early, deep embeddedness of the design approaches, tools and methods have been found to enable success in developing intrapreneurial capabilities. Recognizing the importance of processes in applying design within organizations, this article maps out identified intrapreneurial capabilities to individual and collective orientations and the continuum between exploration and exploitation. Through a stepwise, design-driven process modelling, the article joins the competing logics and practices of effectuation and exploration of new opportunities with causation and the exploitation of existing resources, building on individual and collective capabilities and ambidexterity. Large, global and complex organizations have multiple challenges in suffusing design practices within their structure, capabilities and processes. While unleashing the potential of individual intrapreneurs is seen as important, the knowledge of how to create conducive structures, enable organizational processes and attend to individual capability build-up remains elusive, warranting attention. The article contributes to understanding how design can enable and enhance intrapreneurship in large global organizations through facilitating structures, developing intrapreneurial capabilities and modelling conducive processes.

© 2023 Intellect Ltd
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1386/dbs_00052_1
2023-10-09
2024-04-28
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Abrahamsson, P., Salo, O., Ronkainen, J. and Warsta, J. (2002), Agile Software Development Methods: Review and Analysis, VTT Publications 478, Espoo: VTT Publications, https://www.vttresearch.com/sites/default/files/pdf/publications/2002/P478.pdf. Accessed 12 September 2021.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Åmo, B. W. (2010), ‘Corporate entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship related to innovation behaviour among employees’, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Venturing, 2:2, pp. 144–58, https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEV.2010.034819.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Antoncic, B. and Hisrich, R. D. (2003), ‘Clarifying the intrapreneurship concept’, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 10:1, pp. 7–24, https://doi.org/10.1108/14626000310461187.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Bason, C. (2018), Leading Public Sector Innovation 2E: Co-creating for a Better Society, Cambridge: Policy Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Birkinshaw, J. and Gibson, C. (2004), ‘Building ambidexterity into an organization’, MIT Sloan Management Review, 45:4, pp. 47–55.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Birkinshaw, J. and Gupta, K. (2013), ‘Clarifying the distinctive contribution of ambidexterity to the field of organization studies’, Academy of Management Perspectives, 27:4, pp. 287–98, https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2012.0167.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Björklund, T., Maula, H., Soule, S. A. and Maula, J. (2020), ‘Integrating design into organizations: The coevolution of design capabilities’, California Management Review, 62:2, pp. 100–24, https://doi.org/10.1177/0008125619898245.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Blanka, C. (2019), ‘An individual-level perspective on intrapreneurship: A review and ways forward’, Review of Managerial Science, 13:5, pp. 919–61, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-018-0277-0.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Bowen, S., Durrant, A., Nissen, B., Bowers, J. and Wright, P. (2016), ‘The value of designers’ creative practice within complex collaborations’, Design Studies, 46, pp. 174–98, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2016.06.001.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Brown, T. (2008), ‘Design thinking’, Harvard Business Review, 6:86, pp. 1–10.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Brown, T. (2009), Change by Design: How Design Thinking Creates New Alternatives for Business and Society, New York: Collins Business.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Buchanan, R. (1992), ‘Wicked problems in design thinking’, Design Issues, 8:2, pp. 5–21, https://doi.org/10.2307/1511637.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Burström, T. and Wilson, T. L. (2015), ‘Intrapreneurial ambidexterity: A platform project, Swedish approach’, Management Research Review, 38:11, pp. 1172–90, https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-06-2014-0130.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Cannaerts, N., Segers, J. and Warsen, R. (2020), ‘Ambidexterity and public organizations: A configurational perspective’, Public Performance & Management Review, 43:3, pp. 688–712, https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2019.1676272.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Carayannis, E. G., Grigoroudis, E., Stamati, D. and Valvi, T. (2021), ‘Social business model innovation: A quadruple/quintuple helix-based social innovation ecosystem’, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 68:1, pp. 235–48.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Carlgren, L., Elmquist, M. and Rauth, I. (2016), ‘The challenges of using design thinking in industry: Experiences from five large firms’, Creativity and Innovation Management, 25:3, pp. 344–62, https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12176.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Chandler, G. N., DeTienne, D. R., McKelvie, A. and Mumford, T. V. (2011), ‘Causation and effectuation processes: A validation study’, Journal of Business Venturing, 26:3, pp. 375–90, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2009.10.006.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Creswell, J. W. and Poth, C. N. (2016), Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. The Design Council (2019), ‘What is the framework for innovation? Design Council’s evolved double diamond’, The Design Council, https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/news-opinion/what-framework-innovation-design-councils-evolved-double-diamond. Accessed 12 August 2021.
  20. den Ouden, E. (2012), Innovation Design, London: Springer.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Dew, N., Sarasathy, S., Read, S. and Wiltbank, R. (2009), ‘Affordable loss: Behavioral economic aspects of the plunge decision’, Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 3:2, pp. 105–26.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Dorst, K. (2011), ‘The core of “design thinking” and its application’, Design Studies, 32:6, pp. 521–32, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2011.07.006.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Dosi, C., Rosati, F. and Vignoli, M. (2018), ‘Measuring design thinking mindset’, in D. Marjanović, M. Štorga, S. Škec, N. Bojčetić and N. Pavković, International Design Conference – Design 2018, Dubrovnik, 21–24 May, Glasgow: The Design Society, pp. 1991–2002.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Drucker, P. (2014), Innovation and Entrepreneurship, New York: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Eisenhardt, K. M. and Graebner, M. E. (2007), ‘Building theory from cases’, Academy of Management Journal, 50:1, pp. 25–32.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Elhra (2021),  ‘Home page’, Elhra, https://www.elrha.org/. Accessed 22 December 2021.
  27. Garbuio, M., Dong, A., Lin, N., Tschang, T. and Lovallo, D. (2018), ‘Demystifying the genius of entrepreneurship: How design cognition can help create the next generation of entrepreneurs’, Academy of Management Learning & Education, 17:1, pp. 41–61.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Giacomin, J. (2014), ‘What is human centred design?’, The Design Journal, 17:4, pp. 606–23, https://doi.org/10.2752/175630614X14056185480186.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Guerrero, M. and Peña-Legazkue, I. (2013), ‘The effect of intrapreneurial experience on corporate venturing: Evidence from developed economies’, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 9:3, pp. 397–416.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Hassi, L. and Laakso, M. (2011), ‘Making sense of design thinking’, in T.-M. Karjalainen, M. Koria and M. Salimäki (eds), IDBM Papers, vol. 1, Espoo: Aalto University, pp. 50–63.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Heinze, K. L. and Weber, K. (2015), ‘Toward organizational pluralism: Institutional intrapreneurship in integrative medicine’, Organization Science, 27:1, pp. 157–72, https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2015.1028.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Helfat, C. E., Peteraf, M., Mitchell, W., Singh, H. and Finkelstein, S. (2009), Dynamic Capabilities: Understanding Strategic Change in Organizations, Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Hobday, M., Boddington, A. and Grantham, A. (2011), ‘An innovation perspective on design: Part 1’, Design Issues, 27:4, pp. 5–15, https://doi.org/10.1162/DESI_a_00101.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Hoyt, D. and Sutton, R. I. (2016), ‘What design thinking is doing for the San Francisco Opera’, Harvard Business Review, 3 June, https://hbr.org/2016/06/what-design-thinking-is-doing-for-the-san-francisco-opera. Accessed: 12 September 2021.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. IDEO.org (2021), ‘Designing for transformation’, IDEO.org, https://www.ideo.org/. Accessed 22 December 2021.
  36. Klenner, N. F., Gemser, G. and Karpen, I. O. (2021), ‘Entrepreneurial ways of designing and designerly ways of entrepreneuring: Exploring the relationship between design thinking and effectuation theory’, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 39:1, pp. 66–94, https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12587.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Knapp, J., Zeratsky, J. and Kowitz, B. (2016), Sprint: How to Solve Big Problems and Test New Ideas in Just Five Days, London: Simon and Schuster.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Knight, E., Daymond, J. and Paroutis, S. (2020), ‘Design-led strategy: How to bring design thinking into the art of strategic management’, California Management Review, 62:2, pp. 30–52.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Kobarg, S., Wollersheim, J., Welpe, I. M. and Spörrle, M. (2017), ‘Individual ambidexterity and performance in the public sector: A multilevel analysis’, International Public Management Journal, 20:2, pp. 226–60, https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2015.1129379.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Liedtka, J. (2010), ‘Business strategy and design: Can this marriage be saved?’, Design Management Review, 21:2, pp. 6–11.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Liedtka, J. (2011), ‘Learning to use design thinking tools for successful innovation’, Strategy & Leadership, 39:5, pp. 13–9, https://doi.org/10.1108/10878571111161480.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Linna, P., Pekkola, S., Ukko, J. and Melkas, H. (2010), ‘Defining and measuring productivity in the public sector: Managerial perceptions’, International Journal of Public Sector Management, 23:5, pp. 479–99.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Lloyd, P. (2017), ‘From design methods to future-focused thinking: 50 years of design research’, Design Studies, 48, pp. A1–A8, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2016.12.004.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. March, J. G. (1991), ‘Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning’, Organization Science, 2:1, pp. 71–87.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Martin, R. (2009), The Design of Business Why Design Thinking Is the Next Competitive Advantage, Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Michlewski, K. (2008), ‘Uncovering design attitude: Inside the culture of designers’, Organization Studies, 29:3, pp. 373–92.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Miles, M. B. and Huberman, A. M. (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Neessen, P. C. M., Caniëls, M. C. J., Vos, B. and de Jong, J. P. (2019), ‘The intrapreneurial employee: Toward an integrated model of intrapreneurship and research agenda’, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 15:2, pp. 545–71.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Nesta (2021), ‘Humanitarian innovation’, Nesta, https://www.nesta.org.uk/search/?search=humanitarian+innovation+. Accessed 20 December 2021.
  50. Nielsen, S. L. and Christensen, P. R. (2014), ‘The wicked problem of design management: Perspectives from the field of entrepreneurship’, The Design Journal, 17:4, pp. 560–82, https://doi.org/10.2752/175630614X14056185480113.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Nielsen, S. L., Christensen, P. R. and Storvang, P. (2021), ‘Does design thinking benefit ambidextrous dynamics between SME managers’ entrepreneurial and administrative mindsets?’, The Design Journal, 24:5, pp. 683–703, https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2021.1959121.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Nussbaum, M. C. (2011), Creating Capabilities: The Human Development Approach, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. O’Reilly, C. A. and Tushman, M. L. (2013), ‘Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present, and future’, Academy of Management Perspectives, 27:4, pp. 324–38, https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2013.0025.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Palm, K. and Lilja, J. (2017), ‘Key enabling factors for organizational ambidexterity in the public sector’, International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 9:1, pp. 2–20, https://doi.org/10.1108/IJQSS-04-2016-0038.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Parker, S. C. (2011), ‘Intrapreneurship or entrepreneurship?’, Journal of Business Venturing, 26:1, pp. 19–34.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Pedersen, K. (2020), ‘What can open innovation be used for and how does it create value?’, Government Information Quarterly, 37:2, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2020.101459.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Pertusa-Ortega, E. M., Molina-Azorín, J. F., Tarí, J. J., Pereira-Moliner, J. and López-Gamero, M. D. (2021), ‘The microfoundations of organizational ambidexterity: A systematic review of individual ambidexterity through a multilevel framework’, BRQ Business Research Quarterly, 24:4, pp. 355–71, https://doi.org/10.1177/2340944420929711.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Pinchot, G. (1985), ‘Intrapreneuring: Why you don’t have to leave the corporation to become an entrepreneur. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign’s Academy for Entrepreneurial Leadership Historical Research Reference in Entrepreneurship’, SSRN, https://ssrn.com/abstract=1496196. Accessed 6 September 2021.
  59. Pinchot, G. and Pellman, R. (1999), Intrapreneuring in Action: A Handbook for Business Innovation, Oakland, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Presidential Innovation Fellows (2021), ‘Uniting innovators & federal leaders to improve government for every person in our country’, Presidential Innovation Fellows, https://presidentialinnovationfellows.gov/. Accessed 20 December 2021.
  61. Read, S., Dew, N., Sarasvathy, S. D., Song, M. and Wiltbank, R. (2009), ‘Marketing under uncertainty: The logic of an effectual approach’, Journal of Marketing, 73:3, pp. 1–18.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Reis, E. (2011), The Lean Startup, New York: Crown Business.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Rogers, E. M. (1995), Diffusion of Innovations, New York: Simon & Schuster.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Romme, A. G. L. and Reymen, I. M. M. J. (2018), ‘Entrepreneurship at the interface of design and science: Toward an inclusive framework’, Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 10, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbvi.2018.e00094.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Saarelainen, E., Zyadeh, D. and Ferrera, I. N. (2019), ‘Creating a culture of innovation in the humanitarian sector’, Stanford Social Innovation Review, 9 October, https://ssir.org/articles/entry/creating_a_culture_of_innovation_in_the_humanitarian_sector. Accessed 18 December 2021.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Sarasvathy, S. D. (2001), ‘Causation and effectuation: Toward a theoretical shift from economic inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency’, Academy of Management Review, 26:2, pp. 243–63.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Sarasvathy, S. D. (2008), ‘What makes entrepreneurs entrepreneurial?’, Darden Case No. UVA-ENT-0065, online first, https://ssrn.com/abstract=909038. Accessed 6 September 2021.
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Sarasvathy, S. D. and Dew, N. (2005), ‘New market creation through transformation’, Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 15:5, pp. 533–65.
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Sarasvathy, S. D., Dew, N., Read, S. and Wiltbank, R. (2008), ‘Designing organizations that design environments: Lessons from entrepreneurial expertise’, Organization Studies, 29:3, pp. 331–50.
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Schön, D. A. (2017), The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action, London: Taylor & Francis.
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Schweitzer, J., Groeger, L. and Sobel, L. (2016), ‘The design thinking mindset: An assessment of what we know and what we see in practice’, Journal of Design, Business & Society, 2:1, pp. 71–94, https://doi.org/10.1386/dbs.2.1.71_1.
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Selden, P. D. and Fletcher, D. E. (2019), ‘The tacit knowledge of entrepreneurial design: Interrelating theory, practice and prescription in entrepreneurship research’, Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 11, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbvi.2019.e00122.
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Sen, A. (1999), Development as Freedom, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Siggelkow, N. (2007), ‘Persuasion with case studies’, Academy of Management Journal, 50:1, pp. 20–24.
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Simon, H. (1996), The Sciences of the Artificial, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Smith, A. L. (2018), ‘How to catalyze sustainable action by cultivating innovation and collaboration’, UNHCR, https://www.unhcr.org/innovation/catalyze-sustainable-action-cultivating-innovation-collaboration/. Accessed 6 January 2021.
  77. Sørensen, J. B. and Stuart, T. E. (2000), ‘Aging, obsolescence, and organizational innovation’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 45:1, pp. 81–112.
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Spinelli, S. and Adams, R. J. (2016), New Venture Creation Entrepreneruship for the 21st Century, 10th ed., New York: McGraw Hill.
     [Google Scholar]
  79. Steel, G. D., Rinne, T. and Fairweather, J. (2011), ‘Personality, nations, and innovation: Relationships between personality traits and national innovation scores’, Cross-Cultural Research, 46:1, pp. 3–30, https://doi.org/10.1177/1069397111409124.
     [Google Scholar]
  80. Stewart, F. (2013), ‘Capabilities and human development: Beyond the individual – the critical role of social institutions and social competencies’, UNDP-HDRO Occasional Papers No. 2013/03, Oxford: University of Oxford, https://ssrn.com/abstract=2344469. Accessed 5 April 2021.
     [Google Scholar]
  81. Subra, R., Koria, M., Timonen, O., Neema, S. and Launiala, A. (2017), ‘Building student change agent capabilities: Case UniWASH in Uganda’, in S. Bastien and H. Holmarsdottir (eds), Youth as Architects of Social Change: Global Efforts to Advance Youth-Driven Innovation, Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66275-6_8.
     [Google Scholar]
  82. Tashakkori, A. and Creswell, J. W. (2007), ‘The new era of mixed methods’, Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1:1, pp. 3–7.
     [Google Scholar]
  83. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997), ‘Dynamic capabilities and strategic management’, Strategic Management Journal, 18:7, pp. 509–33.
     [Google Scholar]
  84. Thompson, V. A. (1965), ‘Bureaucracy and innovation’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 10:1, pp. 1–20.
     [Google Scholar]
  85. Trueman, M. and Jobber, D. (1998), ‘Competing through design’, Long Range Planning, 31:4, pp. 594–605.
     [Google Scholar]
  86. Tschimmel, K. (2012), ‘Design thinking as an effective toolkit for innovation’, in ISPIM Conference Proceedings, Seoul, Korea, 9–12 December, Manchester: The International Society for Professional Innovation Management (ISPIM), pp. 1–20.
     [Google Scholar]
  87. UNHCR (2016), ‘Building the creative confidence of young refugees’, UNHCR, https://www.unhcr.org/innovation/building-the-creative-capacity-of-refugee-youth/. Accessed 6 January 2021.
  88. UNHCR (2020a), ‘Innovation fellow profile: Keiko Odashiro’, UNHCR, https://www.unhcr.org/innovation/ifellow-profile-keiko-odashiro/. Accessed 6 January 2021.
  89. UNHCR (2020b), ‘The fellowship impact report impact’, internal working paper (unpublished), Geneva: UNHCR.
     [Google Scholar]
  90. UNHCR (2021a), ‘Figures at a glance’, UNHCR, https://www.unhcr.org/figures-at-a-glance.html. Accessed 1 January 2021.
  91. UNHCR (2021b), ‘Testing new strategies to stop the spread of prejudice’, UNHCR, https://medium.com/unhcr-innovation-service/testing-new-strategies-to-stop-the-spread-of-prejudice-ed2332ce2a60. Accessed 22 December 2021.
  92. Verganti, R. (2009), DesignDriven Innovation: Changing the Rules of Competition by Radically Innovating What Thinks Mean, Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  93. Wrigley, C. and Straker, K. (2017), ‘Design thinking pedagogy: The educational design ladder’, Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 54:4, pp. 374–85, https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2015.1108214.
     [Google Scholar]
  94. Yin, R. K. (2013), ‘Validity and generalization in future case study evaluations’, Evaluation, 19:3, pp. 321–32, https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389013497081.
     [Google Scholar]
  95. Zheng, D.-L. (2018), ‘Design thinking is ambidextrous’, Management Decision, 56:4, pp. 736–56, https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-04-2017-0295.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1386/dbs_00052_1
Loading
Making a difference: Design-driven intrapreneurship at the UN Refugee Agency
Journal of Design, Business & Society 9, 171 (2023); https://doi.org/10.1386/dbs_00052_1
/content/journals/10.1386/dbs_00052_1
/content/journals/10.1386/dbs_00052_1
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Article
Keyword(s): ambidexterity; capabilities; design innovation; global organizations; humanitarian work; intrapreneurship

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a success
Invalid data
An error occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error