4.0 Literary Review
Chapter 4 of Remote Design Thinking
Design thinking in remote teams is a new field which combines two complex methods of working. This literary review focuses on design thinking and remote work as separate topics that are merged and discussed in Chapter 5.
4.1 Design thinking
The collapse of analytical thinking
In Western societies, problem solving has been traditionally influenced by
the sciences, which support an analytical way of thinking. Over the centuries, this linear way of finding solutions has been widely accepted and adopted in our educational systems, organisations and businesses (Cassim, 2013). Henri Bergson, a prominent French philosopher, claimed that humans have a natural tendency to simplify information and when faced with new knowledge, try to associate it with similar situations by applying the principle that ‘like produces like’ (Bergson, 1944 cited in Teal, 2010). In his essay, Teal (2010) illustrates linear thinking by comparing it to a tree which, with its colossal trunk and branches, represents an inflexible way of finding solutions: if one starts solving a problem at the bottom of the tree and fails to resolve it by the time they reach the tip of a branch, the thinking process must start over again.
As an alternative, he sustains the idea of thinking ‘rhizomatically’. The roots and shoots of a rhizome plant represent a complex network, comparable to the intricate web of systems and relations that make up our current society.
By solving problems in an analogous non-linear fashion, one can experiment and fail in the process but also move on with the learnings that have been acquired up to that point. Likewise, design thinking offers a dynamic and non-linear method for reaching innovative solutions.
What is design thinking?
The term design thinking appeared in 1987 when Peter Rowe, an urban designer and Harvard professor, published his book Design Thinking (Dorst, 2011; Kimbell, 2011). According to Rowe, designers rely on assumptions and facts when solving problems, and the solutions they create are shaped by their process (Kimbell, 2011).
Design thinking is a an elaborate concept that is still under development and is consequently described in many ways. To this day it lacks a universally accepted definition and requires further studying (Stewart, 2011). The design community has been criticised for failing to provide “clear and definite knowledge about design thinking (including a definition and a toolbox)” (Dorst, 2011).
Others maintain that it would be unrealistic to suggest a single definition since those who practice it have different approaches to design thinking; doing so would be “counterproductive for the academic development of the area” although it would be appreciated by many (Johansson-Sköldberg, Woodilla, Çetinkaya, 2013). This view lacks an explanation and contradicts the general notion that design thinking would benefit from further exploration, particularly in its terminology (Dorst, 2011). In her investigation on the topic, Kimbell (2011) indicates that the uncertainty around the term is shared not only by the public, but also by those who claim to use it.
Some definitions for design thinking are widely observed although not always acknowledged. Tim Brown, president and CEO of IDEO — today’s most influential design firm in design thinking (Cassim, 2013; Kimbell, 2011) — defines it as:
“a human-centered approach to innovation that draws from the designer’s toolkit to integrate the needs of people, the possibilities of technology, and the requirements for business success.” (IDEO, 2015)
Design as an enabler for change
Ever since digital technologies, communication and information networks have become intertwined with our social identity, culture and activities, there has been a need for individuals and organisations to become aware of the complex problems influencing these systems in order to cope with the changes that they involve (Stewart, 2011).
Up until the beginning of the 20th century, design traditionally included architecture, engineering, urban design, industrial design, and graphic design, which were born out of the technological transformations of the industrial revolution. Historically, designers were working to create images, objects and products and make ideas more attractive (Brown, 2008). Yet with the developments of information and technology, new fields of design have emerged in the form of interaction design, service design, and experience design which attempt to understand the relationships between systems and users and engage with different spheres of influence to bring about social change (Stewart, 2011). While the earlier design disciplines focused on material environments, designers gradually moved from designing objects to anticipating the future needs of stakeholders (Bjögvinsson, Hillgren, 2012). The more recent disciplines transformed design into an agent of change directed at solving intangible problems that involve systems, processes, organisations, interfaces, experiences and relationships (Stewart, 2011).
One of the main changes brought about was that designers had to learn how to collaborate with non-designers to solve problems. Design thinking is closely related to participatory design, a practice put forward in Scandinavia in the 1970s which introduced the idea that those who were affected by the design should be involved in the design process (Bjögvinsson, Hillgren, 2012). It therefore invited designers to collaborate with its end-users (Beacham, Shambaugh, 2011). In order to understand a user’s needs, designers had to rely on observing user’s behaviours by integrating ethnographic research in their design process. As a result, designers were able to generate insights which gave a more complete overview of the user experience and allowed them to imagine better future scenarios that challenged the status quo (Stewart, 2011). This human-centred approach to problem-solving, combined with a non-linear and iterative process, is at the core of design thinking (Brown, 2009) and is a key factor for enabling change and social innovation.
Design thinking has risen to prominence over the past decade after the publication of Change by Design: How Design Thinking Transforms Organizations and Inspires Innovation by Tim Brown (Johansson-Sköldberg, Woodilla, Çetinkaya, 2013). However, despite being considered the dominant leader in design thinking, IDEO’s publications have been criticised for their lack of theoretical research to support their views (Cassim, 2013; Johansson-Sköldberg, Woodilla, Çetinkaya, 2013; Kimbell, 2011).
Design thinking in organisations
Today, design thinking has become a buzzword and is used not only by design firms but also in management and entrepreneurial businesses (Kimbell, 2011; Stewart, 2011). Some authors claim there are few academic articles associating design thinking in management and design and the existing literature has “no sustained development of the concept” (Johansson-Sköldberg, Woodilla, Çetinkaya, 2013). Paradoxically, the same authors compare several articles on the topic to explain how the concept developed in two very different fields.
Roger Martin, dean of the Rotman School of Management in Toronto and author of the book The Design of Business: Why Design Thinking is the Next Competitive Advantage (2009), is a main figure in bringing design thinking into the management sector to help organisations generate new concepts. In his view, design thinking turns problems into opportunities, hence giving businesses who use the process a competitive advantage. Yet he too, like Tim Brown, has been criticised for failing to justify his work on theoretical research (Kimbell, 2011).
The past years also witnessed a growth in the rise of schools and postgraduate courses that offer design thinking courses (Kimbell, 2011; Stewart, 2011). The most popular examples include the d.school in Stanford, California; its partner institution, the Hasso Plattner Institute of Design in Potsdam, Germany; Hyper Island with 6 schools and programmes worldwide; and IDEO U, IDEO’s online school. These educational institutions aim to transmit the mindset and methods of design thinking, empowering its students to create innovative ideas.
Design thinking advocates for multidisciplinary teams, encouraging people with different skills and backgrounds to collaborate.
By working together, participants can share tasks, resources and information to prioritise their work efficiently. Collaborative design improves the process by multiplying the alternative solutions since the problem will be tackled from different angles. Common knowledge and skills ensure that there is a shared understanding amongst team members, leading to design solutions of higher quality (Junpeng, Jing, Liu, 2012). Knowing how to represent one’s ideas by means of sketches and diagrams is an essential skill for teams to have during the design process (Cassim, 2013).
The design thinking process
Design thinking can be applied in many ways but all variations follow a similar structure of between three to six phases. Generally, the process begins when a brief is received from a client. The brief will contain a problem that is open to interpretation (Cassim, 2013).
- The first step is to frame the problem by understanding the context, identifying the stakeholders and defining the objective that needs to be achieved (Cassim, 2013). At this stage, the questioning remains internal to the team and does not involve the users.
- This is followed by the research phase in which the designers must dig deeper by investigating the context of the problem (analogous situations, current trends, environments) and the people that are affected by the issue, using ethnographic observation and user interviews. Brown (2009) explains the importance of empathy and intuition that is involved in this phase, which relies on the designers’ ability to recognise patterns in people’s testimonials and actions which will reveal new associations and ideas. Such insights lead to viable paths in the process by helping “people to articulate latent needs they may not even know they have” (Brown, 2009).
- Then the designers are ready to generate ideas and build onto each other’s concepts. Referred to as a ‘creative leap’ (Cross, 2006 cited in Cassim, 2013), this is intended to be the most creative part of the process because it encourages designers to open their minds to all possible solutions. It represents the first divergent phase of the Double Diamond Model used to illustrate the different stages of defining a problem and executing a solution. The four phases — Discover, Define, Develop, Deliver — represent a problem-solving cycle in which broad ideas are generated (divergent thinking) then developed in more detail (convergent thinking). The process is repeated twice, first to define the problem and then to find a solution (Design Council, 2015).
- Once many ideas have been generated, the designers will begin the converging phase, in which they will evaluate and choose a few ideas to focus on and explore further (Cassim, 2013). This decision-making process is also carried out collaboratively (Junpeng, Jing, Liu, 2012).
- The chosen ideas will go through prototyping and testing with users to obtain feedback and will be iterated on repeatedly until the optimum solution is reached. Prototypes should be made as simple and swiftly as possible in order to give people the basic idea of a concept. Brown (2009) suggests that “a successful prototype is not one that works flawlessly; it is one that teaches us something — about our objectives, our process, and ourselves.”
- Designers must keep in mind that learnings are gained by making mistakes, which explains why iterative cycles are crucial in order to reflect on the consequences of the changes made (Junpeng, Jing, Liu, 2012). The act of reflecting during the process (reflection-in-action) and at the end of the process (reflection-on-action) invites the team to evaluate the outcome of the final design and compare it to the initial expectations of the client and the designers. It also helps designers to readjust their focus during the process, judge the success of their solution and take responsibility for their actions (Cassim, 2013).
Will design thinking survive?
Due to its popularity and application across different industries, some authors have expressed their concern over whether design thinking is a momentary trend (Johansson-Sköldberg, Woodilla, Çetinkaya, 2013; Stewart, 2011). The concept has been discarded by some of the lead figures in design who describe it as a “failed experiment” (Nussbaum, 2011). Johansson et al. (2011) also express that creativity alone is not enough for managers and designers to apply design thinking because “a designer must also have the ability to know how to use the tools of design thinking.” While researching this subject, I realised academic articles rarely describe which tools to use and how to use them, and few efforts have been made to close this gap. One example is the Hyper Island Toolbox which provides design thinking methods and collaboration tools (Hyper Island Toolbox, 2015).
Designers and managers have also been criticised for assuming a position of power, since their decision-making will determine the future lives of many people (Marolin, 2007). The same author declares that a designer’s mission is to predict the future needs of society and fulfil these needs but that designers are currently not prepared for this role. However, if designers are considered to be the interpreters of cultural change there is perhaps a need for the design community to agree on a common definition and a toolkit which will enable designers to democratise design thinking and continue developing it as an approach to problem-solving.
4.2 Remote work
Remote working in teams
There are distinct terminologies for remote working, such as e-working, teleworking and telecommuting (Grant, Wallace, Spurgeon, 2013). When remote work is implemented by a team, it involves “a group of people working together to achieve a shared objective”, just like any other team (Pangil, Chan, 2014). Unlike traditional teams, remote teams rely significantly on technology to collaborate “across space, time, and organizational boundaries” (Pangil, Chan, 2014) meaning that they usually work from different locations and time zones (Klitmøller, Lauring, 2013). This study will use the term remote work to signify a professional activity that can be executed with the aid of technology by individuals or groups of people who are geographically dispersed.
“In this world, work is something people do, not a place they go.
It’s also a shift in fundamental thinking.” (Citrix, 2012)
A global trend in the workforce
The past two decades have witnessed advances in technology and consequently a change in working practices as more and more people break away from the long-established 9-to-5 jobs. Within many companies and industries, it is now possible to work flexible hours from multiple locations, such as homes, coffee shops, coworking spaces, transport hubs and hotel rooms (Grant, Wallace, Spurgeon, 2013; 4th Office, 2014). Work is no longer defined as something done ‘at the office’ — in fact, the office is now often viewed as place where meaningful work is difficult, if not impossible, to get done. As Fried and Hansson argue in their bestselling book, Remote: Office not required (2013), “offices have become interruption factories” where employees struggle to “get into the zone” for long stretches of uninterrupted time.
The lengthy hours of commute are known for making workers lose time and feel stressed (Fried, Hansson, 2013). At the same time, the majority of families now require both parents to work in order to financially provide for the care of their children or elderly relatives. This forces couples to arrange new ways of working in order to be available at home when needed (Hill, Ferris, Märtinson, 2003).
In 2012, a report on the future of work predicted the number of worldwide organisations that would implement flexible workstyles would rise from 24% in 2012 to 83% in 2014 (Citrix, 2012). Another research study conducted with 100 leaders of small tech startups and creative agencies in the UK revealed that 87% of leaders agreed that “everyone doesn’t need to be together all the time to work together”, while 67% of participants believed that virtual teams have enabled organisations to gain a competitive advantage (4th Office, 2012). As a response to the growing trend of employees demanding flexible working conditions, the UK government passed a law stating that “from 30 June 2014, every employee has the statutory right to request flexible working after 26 weeks employment service” (Acas, 2015). This right — previously only admitted to parents and carers — is now extended to all employees in the UK (4th Office, 2012). These figures and legislative actions represent a reality that will continue to influence the workforce of the future.
Benefits and challenges for employers
By providing more flexibility to employees, businesses can become more competitive and responsive to the marketplace (Pangil, Chan, 2014). There are various motivators for businesses to undertake such a shift:
- Reduce overhead costs
For small businesses, especially startup ventures, working with a remote network enables them to grow while saving money on office rent and utilities (4th Office, 2012). - Increase talent pool
Many companies are aware that talented people are located all over the world but not all of them are willing to change location for a job. Hiring remotely allows employers to recruit the best employees anywhere (4th Office, 2012; Hill, Ferris, Märtinson, 2003; Pangil, Chan, 2014). - Higher productivity
Remote workers tend to be more committed and deliver more work in quantity and quality (Hill, Ferris, Märtinson, 2003; Grant, Wallace, Spurgeon, 2013) despite leaders fearing they may be distracted from work if they are not in a typical office environment (Fried, Hansson, 2013). - Increase global workdays
A typical work day lasts 8 hours on average but colleagues collaborating on different time zones can allow companies to operate for 24 hours at the same cost, making their time more profitable (Pangil, Chan, 2014). - Improve the well-being of employees
By offering more flexibility, organisations help employees maintain a better work-life balance and reduce their responsibility for work-related health issues (Grant, Wallace, Spurgeon, 2013).
The main concern for businesses who decide to take the leap is finding the adequate structure which will provide flexibility but also improve productivity in the long term. In one study, setting clear goals was defined as being essential to ensure success. The same report stated that leaders also worry about finding the right team members, ensuring that they meet face-to-face and giving them the right tools to complete their projects effectively (4th Office, 2012). With the current issues surrounding online hacking in the last years, it was interesting to note that few sources mentioned companies concerned about data and information security.
Another study argued that although there was a rise in businesses recruiting remote workers, most organisations lacked the knowledge to create the structure that is so crucial for remote teams (Pangil, Chan, 2014). This belief is shared by other sources claiming that leaders face many challenges, such as:
- supporting, managing and supervising teams while lacking face-to-face encounters (Saafein, Shaykhian, 2014)
- knowing how and when to communicate formally and informally to foster strong remote collaboration and relationships (Grant, Wallace, Spurgeon, 2013)
- implementing self-regulation within team members, rather than top-down management, which is less appropriate for remote teams (Strategic Direction, 2013)
Failing to ensure that these fundamental steps are taken will cause many companies to abandon remote working.
“Many companies focus too much on technology and not enough on process. This is akin to trying to fix a sports team’s performance by buying better equipment.” (Graber, 2015)
Only one study contradicted the rest by supporting that there was no evidence of remote working having negative impacts on businesses (Hill, Ferris, Märtinson, 2003), thus implying that integrating virtual teams is a profitable investment for any business.
Impact on employees
Ample information exists on the effects of remote working for those who practice it. The main advantages are:
- Better work-life balance
Working remotely enables people to work from anywhere, at any time and on any device. With increased flexibility, workers can choose to spend their time more efficiently by increasing time for personal leisure activities, household chores or childcare (Hill, Ferris, Märtinson, 2003; Citrix, 2012; Grant, Wallace, Spurgeon, 2013). - Greater well-being
Flexibility and reduced commuting also reduce stress (Citrix, 2012; Pangil, Chan, 2014), hence improving stress-related health issues (Grant, Wallace, Spurgeon, 2013). - Higher job satisfaction
Remote workers — especially those working from home — reported that they were more motivated and satisfied with their jobs (Hill, Ferris, Märtinson, 2003; Grant, Wallace, Spurgeon, 2013). - Increase expertise
Due to the autonomous nature of remote work, team members acquire new competences such as self-motivation, self-confidence and better communication skills (Grant, Wallace, Spurgeon, 2013).
In spite of these benefits, researchers pointed out that remote working could also have a negative impact on employees and their families. Many remote workers tend to overwork or assume secondary jobs which consequently increase their stress levels. The boundaries between work and personal life are often blurred by workers who merge personal and professional tasks, especially while working long hours at the same device (Hill, Ferris, Märtinson, 2003; Grant, Wallace, Spurgeon, 2013). To prevent these problems, managers are recommended to communicate frequently with remote employees to check their stress levels (Grant, Wallace, Spurgeon, 2013).
“Successful remote work is based on three core principles:
communication, coordination, and culture.” (Graber, 2015)
Communication in virtual teams
One of the most common themes in remote work is communication, described as the “ability to exchange information” (Graber, 2015). Technology has made it possible for teams to have verbal exchanges using videoconference tools. Despite these technologies, a major issue for many researchers is that the lack of physical face-to-face interaction may lead to a greater amount of conflicts and misunderstandings (Larsson, Törlind, Mabogunje, Milne, 2002; Ayoko, Konrad, Boyle, 2012; Pangil, Chan, 2014; Graber, 2015). Some studies sustain that face-to-face conversations enable people to pick up on non-verbal cues given by body language and facial expressions (Graber, 2015) and video calls may reduce information interpreted through non-verbal cues (Larsson, Törlind, Mabogunje, Milne, 2002; Bergström, Törlind, 2007; Klitmøller, Lauring, 2013; Pangil, Chan, 2014). Furthermore, team members may hide their reactions or reduce their emotions in chat messages, making it difficult for the rest of the team to understand how they feel (Ayoko, Konrad, Boyle, 2012).
Other reports indicate that interpersonal communication is important to share collective knowledge and creativity which are fundamental for innovation. Interpersonal communication involves informal interactions that occur unpredictably on a day-to-day basis which may induce team members to explore new concepts and build onto each other’s ideas. Much of this is lost when transferring conversations online since digital interfaces do not engage people in side-conversations naturally. In fact, side-conversations are considered to be disruptive, especially when virtual teams are brainstorming in a creative session. (Larsson, Törlind, Mabogunje, Milne, 2002; Bergström, Törlind, 2007).
Teams can also face difficulties if they do not know how to interpret silence in online conversations. Silence can be a sign that the other person is considering an idea, but it may also be caused by technology which can delay, distort or interrupt conversations, leading to a sense of frustration and reduced efficiency within a team (Pinjani, Palvia, 2013).
Tools for remote workers
The list below contains some of the main tools that I have come across during my research to communicate and coordinate work between location independent teams.
Organisation & project management
Instant messaging
Videoconferencing
Online collaboration & screen sharing
Sharing information
Time planning
Team activity & performance
Prototyping
Contracts & agreements
Billing
Social media management
Automation
Security
Processes > Tools:
coordination and collaboration
Tools can help remote teams with coordination, but it’s important for them to establish a common goal and for team leaders to create a process that will empower them to achieve it (Graber, 2015). Communicating, sharing knowledge and creating new ideas are important steps towards nurturing a team and achieving a shared objective. Due to the often multidisciplinary and multicultural backgrounds of their members, diversity is a common trait in distributed teams. Studies show that the information shared in remote teams is richer compared to homogeneous teams. A diversified group of people with different skills and experiences helps to cultivate creativity (Bergström, Törlind, 2007) and overcome conflicts and communication problems more easily (Pinjani, Palvia, 2013).
Teams need to create a structure that enables leaders to assist and evaluate team members on project management, self-development and their use of tools. Additionally, leaders need to handle emerging conflicts and team dynamics while ensuring that the entire team is regularly updated on the progress of projects. Coordinating such tasks and knowledge provides more clarity for the team and is essential for influencing performance (Lee-Kelley, Sankey, 2008; Pinjani, Palvia, 2013).
Distributed teams also have to find new ways to ideate and create collaboratively. At the time that Bergström and Törlind (2007) published their study, they demanded better collaborative tools and shared online surfaces because the existing technology was not advanced enough to fulfill the needs of designers. Meanwhile, current tools such as MURAL and RealtimeBoard provide virtual whiteboards that empower remote workers to share their concepts with the rest of their team and interact with them collectively.
Culture, trust and transparency
Culture can be defined as “the personality of a company — its mission, values, ethics, expectations, goals, and work environment” and can be better understood by getting to know the company’s communication, processes, expectations, and team building methods for personal growth (Baran, 2015). Graber considers culture essential for virtual teams to remain efficient in the long run. He believes that the first step towards building culture is to establish trust, which can be done by encouraging team members to get to know each other’s feelings and understand their lives outside the office. Although he admits that this can be uncomfortable in the beginning, he insists that personal connections “will lead to greater engagement and better performance” (Graber, 2015). Since remote workers rarely meet face-to-face, he suggests that going on team retreats for short periods of time may be a good way to create these type of social bonds.
Academic sources used in this study did not directly refer to ‘culture’, yet they mention trust as a decisive factor in a team’s ability to achieve effective processes and performance (Lee-Kelley, Sankey, 2008; Pinjani, Palvia, 2013; Pangil, Chan, 2014). Trust in virtual teams, defined as “the degree of reliance that individuals have on their remotely located team members taken collectively” (Pangil, Chan, 2014) can be strengthened by means of social communication and interactions related to team members’ personal lives (Pinjani, Palvia, 2013). Successful remote companies also opt for complete transparency to build trust within their teams. By being authentically open about their core values and by giving everyone access to the information about the company — such as salaries, pricing and revenue (Bauters, 2015) — team members can feel that they are part of a shared identity and that their contributions towards a common goal are meaningful.
On the other hand, researchers agree that building trust within virtual teams can be challenging since they rarely have opportunities to meet each other face-to-face. Different time zones complicate this further since it leads to asynchronous communication (Pangil and Chan, 2014). This can be overcome by communicating frequently, for example by answering messages instantly and giving regular updates to the rest of the team (Graber, 2015).
Finding the right environment
One of the major benefits of being a remote worker is the extensive choice of places to work from. According to a report (Citrix, 2012), when given the choice, people prefer working from home, other company workspaces or locations linked to client projects. Coffee shops have also gained in popularity and adapted themselves to be new working environments but coworking spaces have caused the biggest stir on a global scale. Coworking spaces are intended for anyone to work from, but also to meet, socialise and exchange ideas (Strategic Direction, 2013). They are community-based, affordable, convenient and usually environmentally-friendly locations that offer communal and adaptable places to work (Johns, Gratton, 2013). As a result, such spaces resolve the problem of remote workers feeling isolated when they work from home (Waber, Magnolfi, Lindsay, 2014).
Many coworking spaces have built a community held together by the common belief that people should have the freedom to lead a lifestyle based on their work and personal choices. They embody the idea of people coming together to collaborate and make connections beyond their immediate professional circle.
The rapid growth of these casual and innovative spaces has caused repercussions in businesses that are willing change the design of traditional offices into “a creative, inspiring and pleasurable environment” with flexible workspaces that offer the latest technology to encourage collaboration and attract employees into the office once again. However, traditional offices are predicted to reduce in numbers by almost a fifth by the end of 2020 (Citrix, 2012).
Future of work
Remote workers are building their own networks to support each other. An example of people living their ideal lifestyle are digital nomads, known as “professionals who are independent of specific locations, who use a Web-based toolkit of Skype, Google Docs and social media to work and collaborate from wherever, whenever” (Johanson, 2014). Many digital nomads work in creative fields as freelance writers, filmmakers, web developers and designers. Their name originates from the fact that most of them travel as they work, either back and forth from a regular home base or as long-term wanderers exploring unknown places, sometimes accompanied by their families (Johanson, 2014). The movement has seen a recent peak in 2014 after Pieter Levels — a designer, programmer, entrepreneur and digital nomad — set up the website NomadList to compare the best cities to work from based on the quality of life, cost of living, internet speed, climate and other features. Since then, he has expanded its online presence by launching other services, such as HashtagNomads, a Slack chat with over 2800 registered users; Remote|OK, a job board for nomad workers; and Startup Retreats, a platform for startups who plan to set up their teams while traveling and working (Levels.io, 2015). The past year has also witnessed the birth of other experiments: Hoffice, a new Swedish initiative that transforms people’s homes into coworking spaces (Peters, 2015) and Remote Year which will support 100 remote workers to travel and work together over the course of one year (Hullinger, 2014).
Although the movement is thriving, critics claim that taking advantage of living in cheaper locations while earning high salaries bears a hint of a colonialist lifestyle (Finley, 2014). Some nomads are aware of this form of exploitation and are attempting to find way to ways to work in more legal conditions (Levels.io, 2015). Yet few sources refer to this aspect or to the impact of their carbon footprint while travelling.
Remote working is a complex way of working, but dispersed teams consider that the challenges they face are not unique to their situation. Research shows that as teams become more familiar with working remotely, most difficulties they predicted as critical for performance are not as critical as they initially believed — with the exception of building trust without direct face-to-face communication (Lee-Kelley, Sankey, 2008). Overall, most experts agree that technology must be improved to bridge the gaps affecting virtual communication. If this can be achieved, then remote work could reach greater heights and success for everyone involved.
References
4th Office (2014). Why Business Leaders Are Crying Out for a 4th Office. [pdf] 4th Office. Available at: https://www.4thoffice.com/web/sites/default/files/4th%20Office%20feature.pdf [Accessed: 11 February, 2015]
Ayoko O.B., Konrad A.M., Boyle M.V. (2012) Online work: Managing conflict and emotions for performance in virtual teams. European Management Journal, 30, pp. 156–174
Baran T. (2014) Working Remotely: Company Culture Beyond the Office Walls. [Online] Available at: http://www.legalproductivity.com/practice-management/working-remotely-company-culture/ [Accessed: 19 April, 2015]
Bauters F. (2015) How To Build a Transparent Company the Buffer Way. [Online] Available at: https://zapier.com/blog/buffer-transparency/ [Accessed: 19 April, 2015]
Beacham C., Shambaugh N. (2011) Contemporary Uses of Design Thinking Across Society, Work and the Individual. Design Principles and Practices: An International Journal, 5(5), pp. 337–348
Bergson H. (1944) Creative Evolution. New York: Random House
Bergström M., Törlind P. (2007) Examining creative collaboration in distributed and co-located design teams. In: ICED’07, International Conference on Engineering Design. Paris, France, 28–31 August, 2007
Bjögvinsson E., Ehn P., and Hillgren P-A. (2012) Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges. Design Issues, 28(3), pp. 101–116
Brown T. (2008) Design Thinking [Online] Available at: https://hbr.org/2008/06/design-thinking [Accessed: 11 April, 2015]
Brown T. (2009) Change by Design: How Thinking Transforms Organizations and Inspires Innovation. New York: Harper Business
Cassim F. (2013) Hands On, Hearts On, Minds On: Design Thinking within an Education Context. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 32(2), pp. 190–202
Citrix (2012) Workplace of the Future: a global market research report. [pdf] Citrix. Available at: http://www.citrix.com/content/dam/citrix/en_us/documents/products-solutions/workplace-of-the-future-a-global-market-research-report.pdf [Accessed: 6 April, 2015]
Cross N. (2006) Designerly Ways of Knowing. London: Springer-Verlag
Dorst K. (2011) The core of ‘design thinking’ and its application. Design Studies, 32(6), pp. 521–532
Finley K. (2014) This Guy Is Launching 12 Startups In 12 Months. [Online] Available at: http://www.wired.com/2014/08/12-startups-in-12-months/ [Accessed: 21 April, 2015]
Fried J., Hansson D.H. (2013) Remote: Office Not Required. UK: Vermilion
Graber S. (2015) Why Remote Work Thrives in Some Companies and Fails in Others. [Online] Available at: https://hbr.org/2015/03/why-remote-work-thrives-in-some-companies-and-fails-in-others [Accessed: 12 April, 2015]
Grant C.A., Wallace L.M., Spurgeon P.C. (2013) An exploration of the psychological factors affecting remote e-worker’s job effectiveness, well-being and work-life balance. Employee Relations, 35(5), pp. 527–546
Hill E.J., Ferris M., Märtinson V. (2003) Does it matter where you work? A comparison of how three work venues (traditional office, virtual office, and home office influence aspects of work and personal/family life. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 63, pp. 220–241
Hullinger J. (2014) Want To Work While Traveling The World For A Year? This Startup Might Be Able To Help. [Online] Available at: http://www.fastcompany.com/3035909/the-future-of-work/want-to-work-while-traveling-the-world-for-a-year-this-startup-might-be-a [Accessed: April 21, 2015]
Johanson M. (2014) For Digital Nomads, Work Is No Longer A Place And Life Is One Big Adventure. [Online] Available at: http://www.ibtimes.com/digital-nomads-work-no-longer-place-life-one-big-adventure-1563396 [Accessed: April 21, 2015]
Johansson-Sköldberg U., Woodilla J., Çetinkaya M. (2013). Design Thinking: Past, Present and Possible Futures. Creativity and Innovation Management, 22(2), pp. 121–146
Johns T., Gratton L. (2013) The Third Wave of Virtual Work. [Online] Available at: https://hbr.org/2013/01/the-third-wave-of-virtual-work/ [Accessed: 16 April, 2015]
Junpeng D., Jing S., Liu J. (2012) Creating Shared Design Thinking Process For Collaborative Design. Journal of Network and Computer Applications 35(1), pp. 111–120
Kimbell L. (2011) Rethinking Design Thinking: Part I. Design and Culture, 3(3), pp. 129–148
Klitmøller A., Lauring J. (2013) When global virtual teams share knowledge: Media richness, cultural difference and language commonality. Journal of World Business, 48, pp. 398–406
Larsson A., Törlind P., Mabogunje A., Milne A. (2002) Distributed design teams: embedded one-on-one conversations in one-to-many. In: DRS 2002, Common Ground: Design Research Society International Conference. London, UK, 5–7 September, 2002. London: Durling D. & Shackleton J.
Lee-Kelley L., Sankey T. (2008) Global virtual teams for value creation and project success: A case study. International Journal of Project Management, 26, pp. 51–62
Marolin V. (2007). Design, the Future and the Human Spirit. Design Issues, 23(3), pp. 4–15
Martin R. (2009) The Design of Business: Why Design Thinking is the Next Competitive Advantage. Cambridge MA: Harvard Business Press
Nussbaum B. (2011) Design Thinking is a Failed Experiment. So What’s Next? [Online] Available at: http://www.fastcodesign.com/1663558/design-thinking-is-a-failed-experiment-so-whats-next [Accessed: 12 April, 2015]
Pangil F., Chan J.M. (2014) The mediating effect of knowledge sharing on the relationship between trust and virtual team effectiveness, Journal of Knowledge Management, 18(1), pp. 92–106
Peters A. (2015) Hoffice Turns Your Apartment Into A Free — And Incredibly Productive — Coworking Space. [Online] Available at: http://www.fastcoexist.com/3041322/hoffice-turns-your-apartment-into-a-free-and-incredibly-productive-coworking-space [Accessed: 22 April, 2015]
Pinjani P., Palvia P. (2013) Trust and knowledge sharing in diverse global virtual teams. Information and Management, 50, pp. 144–153
Saafein O., Shaykhian G.A. (2014) Factors affecting virtual team performance in telecommunication support environment. Telematics and Informatics, 31, pp. 459–462
Stewart S. (2011) Interpreting design thinking. Design Studies, 32(6), pp. 515–520
Strategic Direction (2013) The end of flexible working?: Has Yahoo!’s Marissa Mayer sounded the death knell for remote working? Strategic Direction, 29(6), pp. 15–17
Teal R. (2010) Developing a (Non-linear) Practice of Design Thinking. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 29.3, pp. 294–302
Waber B., Magnolfi J., Lindsay G. (2014) Workspaces That Move People [Online] Available at: https://hbr.org/2014/10/workspaces-that-move-people [Accessed: 20 April, 2015]
Websites
Acas (2015). The right to request flexible working. [Online] Available at: http://www.acas.org.uk/flexibleworking [Accessed: 19 April, 2015]
Design Council (2015) The Design Process: What is the Double Diamond? [Online] Available at: http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/news-opinion/design-process-what-double-diamond [Accessed: 1 May, 2015]
d.school (2015) The Bootcamp Bootleg [Online] Available at: http://dschool.stanford.edu/use-our-methods/ [Accessed: 14 April, 2015]
Hoffice (2015) Hoffice. [Online] Available at: http://hoffice.nu/en/ [Accessed: 22 April, 2015]
Hyper Island Toolbox (2015) Hyper Island Toolbox. [Online] Available at: http://toolbox.hyperisland.com/ [Accessed: 6 March, 2015]
IDEO (2015) IDEO. [Online] Available at: http://www.ideo.com/ [Accessed: 13 April, 2015]
Levels.io (2015) Levels.io. [Online] Available at: https://levels.io/ [Accessed: 21 April, 2015]
NomadList (2015) NomadList. [Online] Available at: https://nomadlist.com/ [Accessed: 21 April, 2015]
Remote Year (2015) Remote Year. [Online] Available at: http://www.remoteyear.com/ [Accessed: 21 April, 2015]
