Practicing Design Thinking in South Korea: Four Emergent Themes and Three Layers

(1) Design thinking

Design thinking encompasses multiple interpretations, commonly described as a mindset, structured process, or toolkit (Micheli et al., 2018). Despite definitional variations, most scholars agree on core principles including user empathy, iterative experimentation, interdisciplinary collaboration, and problem reframing (Auernhammer & Roth, 2021).

Its organizational appeal stems from promises of human-centered, effective innovation approaches.

Carlgren et al. (2016) developed one of the most influential practitioner-based frameworks, identifying five themes through interviews with European and American professionals: user focus (understanding user contexts and needs), problem framing (redefining challenges and questions), visualization (using visual tools for communication and thinking), experimentation (testing and learning through prototypes), and diversity (cross-functional collaboration). This framework has become a standard analytical lens for comparing design thinking implementations across contexts.

However, design thinking’s flexibility challenges rigid definitional boundaries. (2020) identified four organizational expressions—ideating, making, engaging, and criticizing—demonstrating application diversity based on strategic goals. This variability suggests design thinking functions more as an adaptable capability than a fixed methodology.

Indeed, despite the widespread adoption and institutionalization of design thinking frameworks in business education and corporate training, the move from academic theory to practical application has faced increasing scrutiny. Critics argue that its formalization risks oversimplification and detachment from the core principles of design practice. For example, Cross (2023) questions whether the recent, immense growth of design thinking in the business media has diluted its original meaning, suggesting that the popular emphasis on process models often fails to capture the complex, tacit knowledge inherent in true design ability. This critique supports the need to empirically study how practitioners operationalize design thinking and how they adapt it to satisfy corporate demands that often prioritize execution and measurable strategy over early-stage human-centered exploration.

Note that our research is primarily concerned with design thinking as a method and managerial practice (Design Thinking 2), focusing on how it is operationalized and institutionalized in large organizations. Therefore, the purely cognitive dimension (Design Thinking 1 or designerly ways of thinking), while foundational, is outside the core scope of this empirical study.

(2) Cultural and organizational adaptation

Recent scholars increasingly recognize design thinking as a “traveling idea” that undergoes translation and adaptation across cultural and organizational contexts (Johansson-Sköldberg et al., 2013). The practice theory perspective emphasizes examining how design thinking is accomplished in practice rather than focusing solely on theoretical definitions ((Mayer & Schwemmle, 2024).

Research on non-Western applications reveals significant variations. Chang et al. (2013) found Samsung’s design thinking emphasized analytical over intuitive approaches compared to Apple. Studies of LG’s corporate training programs demonstrate customization to align structured implementation goals (Bertao et al., 2022). These findings suggest design thinking integration with existing organizational cultures and structures in Asian contexts. For instance, previous research has examined how design thinking was first introduced in large corporations such as Samsung Electronics (Yoo & Kim, 2015). Other studies have reported that design thinking education is gaining popularity in countries like China and India (Beckman & Barry, 2007). However, these studies are largely descriptive, as they present illustrative cases rather than systematically analyzing how design thinking is implemented within organizations.

Organizational context significantly influences design thinking implementation. Roth et al. (2024) demonstrate that high-stakes, structured environments like aviation require adaptations extending beyond traditional creativity-based models. Meinel et al. (2020) show that integrating strategic thinking with design methods improves innovation outcomes, supporting the need for context-sensitive approaches.

(1) Objectives

While existing literature acknowledges cultural and organizational influences on design thinking practice, systematic examination of non-Western adaptations remains limited. Korean business organizations, with their unique combination of hierarchical structures, rapid innovation cycles, and execution focus, provide an ideal context for exploring these adaptations.

This study aims to: (1) empirically examine how Korean practitioners interpret and apply design thinking, (2) identify gaps in existing Western-centric frameworks, and (3) develop a more comprehensive understanding of design thinking as an organizational capability across cultural contexts. In addition to academic contributions, this study also aims to support business leaders and design managers seeking to embed design thinking more effectively within structured, performance-driven environments.

(2) Research approach

We employed qualitative thematic analysis to explore how Korean business professionals contextualize and enact design thinking in practice (Vaismoradi et al., 2013). This approach enables capturing nuanced practitioner insights while preserving the interpretive flexibility inherent in design thinking practice.

(3) Data collection

Our dataset comprises 1,117 practitioner quotes collected from 18 design thinking lectures conducted between 2015-2021 as part of undergraduate courses at a Korean university. Guest speakers, all senior-level professionals (CEOs, executives, managers) from major Korean firms, delivered 90-120 minute presentations sharing their design thinking perspectives and applications.

The speakers were selected based on a purposive sampling strategy, specifically targeting senior professionals with 5+ years of demonstrable experience leading or managing significant design thinking initiatives within major Korean companies or consulting firms. Participating organizations included LG Electronics, Hyundai Motors, SK Telecom, Daum Kakao, and Line Friends, representing consulting, manufacturing, telecommunications, and social network services sectors. While the selection was purposive (targeting practitioners), the resulting diversity across 14 distinct sectors (as shown in Table 1) was a beneficial outcome. Students were required to document and submit lecture reflections within one week, providing our primary data source.

Table 1

Overview of speakers

This data collection offers three advantages: (a) captures design thinking discourse in natural professional language, (b) represents diverse organizational roles and industry perspectives, and (c) reveals practical adaptations beyond textbook applications.

(4) Lecture context

The course title was Design Management. Students are upper-level undergraduate business students. Main goal was connecting western design theory framework with the practical challenge of application in Korean corporations.

The lectures were not structured interviews. Speakers were given a broad instruction. Instruction was “please share your practical experience, including successes, challenges, and lessons learned in implementing design thinking within your team or organization.”

Because the data is from students who attended guest lectures, quotes are a retrospective, curated narrative. They mostly show the aspirational or successful use of design thinking for an audience of future business leader. We analyzed the prepared content of lectures only, not spontaneous questions from students.

While the method offered specific advantages (broad scope, access to high-level practitioners), we recognize the two following disadvantages inherent in using student lecture notes from a seminar setting. First, the seminar format is a public-facing setting where speakers are presenting on behalf of their organizations. As such, there is an inherent risk of self-serving or advocacy bias in the communication. Speakers may be inclined to over-emphasize successes or particularly positive aspects of Design Thinking (DT) adoption, while potentially downplaying challenges or mundane, less-illustrative operational details. This creates a potential gap between the stated adoption narrative and actual daily practice. Second, the reliance on student lecture notes rather than direct audio recording and transcription introduces a layer of selection bias. Students, as note-takers, naturally prioritize content that is highly salient, emphasized, or deemed important for academic purposes. This process can easily lead to the systematic omission of mundane or obvious details of implementation and less-emphasized context.

(5) Data analysis

Following established qualitative research protocols, quotes were anonymized and segmented into individual statements for analysis. We employed a hybrid deductive-inductive coding approach, initially applying Carlgren et al.’s (2016) framework before inductively identifying emergent themes. More specifically, we did a deductive coding using Carlgren et al.’s (2016) five existing themes (User Focus, Problem Framing, Visualization, Experimentation, and Diversity). Any quotes that did not fit these five themes were set aside. Next, we used an inductive approach to analyze the remaining quotes. This led to the discovery of four emergent themes: Market Opportunity, Strategic Positioning, Product Development, and Customer Engagement.

Each quote received dual classification: (1) thematic categorization using Carlgren’s five themes or emergent themes, and (2) level categorization as mindset, practice, or technique.

To categorize the quotes beyond thematic content, the second core part of our analysis was classifying all 1,117 quotes into one of three conceptual levels: mindset, practice, or technique. This framework was adopted from Carlgren et al. (2016), who noted the strong conceptual similarities between Design Thinking and Total Quality Management (TQM). Like design thinking, TQM was promoted as a holistic management approach when first introduced to industry.

The conceptualization for these three levels is based on Dean and Bowen (1994), which describes its core principles, practices, and techniques. Given its conceptual similarities to design thinking, we adopted its terminology to inform our framing. Dean and Bowen (1994) did not operationalize their dimensions for coding, but to ensure consistency across our four trained coders, we introduced three qualifying questions to facilitate the coding, exactly how Carlgren et al. (2016) adopted.

1. Mindset: Is this a general rule, a law, or a cornerstone? or Is this a way to describe how an individual thinks or is inclined to think? (If yes, the quote was included in the mindset category.)

2. Practice: Is this a principle put into action in a specific, recurrent, or systematic way? (If yes, it was categorized as practice.)

3. Technique: Is this a description of how to carry out a specific, implementable tool, method, or step-by-step procedure? (If yes, it was categorized as technique.)

Four trained coders, including two graduate students and two undergraduates with design and marketing coursework, conducted the analysis. All coders first read the entire transcript. They trained on a sample of 50 quotes until they achieved a common understanding of the nine themes and the three levels. We pilot coded a random sample of 50 quotes independently. Inter-coder reliability was 85% (40 out of 50 quotes). We had meetings to resolve all disagreements (mostly between Practice and Technique) and adjust the definitions slightly, especially for the emergent themes. Discrepancies were resolved through structured consensus discussions among all coders. After refinement, the coders continued with the remaining quotes. When differences arose, they were resolved through consensus meetings with the lead author. This process ensured the stability of our theme and level classification.

Manual coding ensured attention to meaning and context while preventing oversight of novel insights. Complete coding documentation is available upon request to ensure transparency and reproducibility.

(1) Overall distribution

Of 1,117 total quotes, 628 (56.2%) aligned with Carlgren et al.’s existing themes, confirming their continued relevance in Korean business contexts. However, 489 quotes (43.8%) could not be categorized using the established framework, revealing significant gaps in current theoretical models. The balance between established and emergent themes (56% vs. 44%) suggests a blend of global design thinking principles and locally adapted organizational practices.

Inductive analysis of unmatched quotes identified four emergent themes: Market Opportunity (155 quotes), Strategic Positioning (185 quotes), Product Development (92 quotes), and Customer Engagement (57 quotes). These themes demonstrate how Korean practitioners extend design thinking boundaries to encompass strategic and operational dimensions.

(2) Existing themes

1. User Focus (200 quotes, 17.9%): Speakers emphasized understanding user contexts through observation, field visits, and empathetic engagement. This reflects a belief that insights come from the field not from assumptions. One speaker said:

In India, a team made an effort to understand consumers, saw their circumstances with their own eyes, empathized with them, and revised the design, ultimately capturing the hearts of Indians. [Quote ID: 124]

However, Korean practitioners frequently integrated business viability considerations:

Until now, in most Korean companies, the CEO has decided the brand direction. The brand image defined in this way is one that only the management likes, but does not resonate with customers at all. [Quote ID: 388]

2. Problem Framing (93 quotes, 8.3%): Speakers often described how design thinking helps them reframe the initial challenge. Instead of starting with a fixed task, they used design thinking to ask new questions, treating it as a creative and analytical activity. One speaker noted:

How important it is to accurately recognize what the fundamental problem is. [Quote ID: 122]

3. Visualization (30 quotes, 2.7%): Some quotes described how visual tools like sketches and diagrams help teams think clearly, communicate better, and build shared understanding. One example:

Wireframe - At this stage, it is important to express the details as precisely as possible so that designers can properly understand the product planner’s vision. [Quote ID: 763]

4. Experimentation (43 quotes, 3.8%): Speakers mentioned the importance of testing and learning through mock-ups and user feedback to reduce risk and improve ideas. One statement was:

We must quickly launch our ideas and thoughts into the market, evaluate them, and make decisions. [Quote ID: 715]

5. Diversity (262 quotes, 23.5%): As the most frequently mentioned theme, speakers predominantly framed it as cross-functional process management rather than creative collaboration:

Teamwork between relevant departments must be activated, and assistance must be given and received. No matter how outstanding the design capabilities are, if the capabilities of related departments such as marketing and production are lacking or if smooth cooperation is not supported, it is difficult to guarantee the success of a new product development project. [Quote ID: 181]

Many quotes emphasized collaboration across roles and departments to align different goals and perspectives. One speaker said:

You mentioned that when people belong to their respective fields, they tend to focus only on their own area, narrowing their perspective. Recently, for this reason, teams are being formed with members from different fields to gain a holistic view of consumers. [Quote ID: 550]

Table 2

Number of quotes for existing themes

Table 3

Coding structure of existing themes(Number of speakers / Number of quotes)

(3) Emergent themes

A total of 489 quotes (43.8%) could not be aligned with the Carlgren framework. These quotes were coded inductively and grouped into four emergent themes: Market Opportunity, Strategic Positioning, Product Development, and Customer Engagement. These emergent themes reveal how Korean practitioners extend design thinking to fit their business processes.

6. Market Opportunity (155 quotes, 13.9%) involves environmental scanning for trends, user pain points, and competitive gaps before formal user research begins. This theme emphasizes systematic opportunity identification:

Based on business plans and current market research, predict trends in customer needs, competitors, and products over the next 5 to 10 years. [Quote ID: 166]

7. Strategic Positioning (185 quotes, 16.6%) focuses on aligning design efforts with business objectives, defining scope, and ensuring internal alignment. This theme positions design thinking as a strategic management tool:

It is important to emphasize that design management should be considered a priority at the corporate level, rather than just a part of strategy. [Quote ID: 291]

8. Product Development (92 quotes, 8.2%) addresses design integration with production constraints, scheduling, and cross-functional coordination. This theme embeds design thinking within operational logistics:

Reviewing the product’s quality and packaging, and following up on the mass production process [Quote ID: 912]

9. Customer Engagement (57 quotes, 5.1%) extends design thinking beyond product launch to include feedback collection, relationship building, and continuous improvement:

Responsibility for post-launch consumer feedback (VOC; Voice of Customer: user reviews, etc.) is also required, which is often overlooked. [Quote ID: 724]

Taken together, these new themes not only highlight the expanded boundaries of design thinking in Korean firms but also point to deeper layers of organizational functioning. To further explore how these themes operate in practice, we now analyze their distribution across three conceptual levels: mindset, practice, and technique.

Table 4

Number of quotes for emergent themes

Table 5

Coding structure of emergent themes(Number of speakers / Number of quotes)

(4) Multi-level analysis: Mindsets, practices, and techniques

Cross-cutting analysis reveals design thinking operating across three levels: mindsets (186 quotes, 16.7%), practices (588 quotes, 52.6%), and techniques (257 quotes, 23.0%). This distribution suggests practitioners predominantly engage with design thinking as organizational practice rather than abstract mindset or specific technique. For instance, Diversity was overwhelmingly described as a process (116 quotes), emphasizing cross-functional teamwork. Speakers stated:

In theory, the process flows smoothly, but in practice, each step involves continuous feedback from many people and sometimes conflicts. [Quote ID: 1020]

This integrated thinking across multiple fields and proactive attitude are the starting point for providing a better user experience. [Quote ID: 723]

User Focus was also predominantly expressed as a process (e.g., 103 quotes). This reflects a core belief in grounding ideation in real-world context, as one speaker noted:

If the product is not commonly encountered in daily life, we must visit the site and conduct as many interviews as possible. [Quote ID: 928]

Category patterns differ for emergent themes, suggesting different themes serve different organizational functions. In particular, Strategic Positioning and Product Development emphasize techniques rather than practices. For instance, as the most prominent and a crucial new theme, Strategic Positioning was often described as a technique (e.g., 84 out of 185 quotes), focused on internal alignment. This suggests design thinking is used as a tool for strategic management, not just creative problem-solving. For example:

A unique product does not simply mean a product that has not been available in the market before, but one that delivers new value to consumers through our brand’s unique selling proposition (USP). [Quote ID: 445]

There is a need for companies to establish a design strategy that maintains consistency and integrates design within a single company. [Quote ID: 1043]

However, like the patterns observed in existing themes, Market Opportunity was dominantly framed as a practice (e.g., 130 of 155 quotes), involving a constant scanning of the environment. Speakers explained:

It is true that I want to create a good design. However, it must be acceptable to consumers. [Quote ID: 953]

Since consumers are not experts, it is important to make things simple. It is also important for consumers to understand. [Quote ID: 1096]

(1) Extending existing framework

Our findings confirm Carlgren et al.’s (2016) themes remain relevant across cultural contexts while simultaneously revealing significant framework limitations. The emergence of four new themes demonstrates practitioner-driven expansion of design thinking boundaries. These emergent themes align with recent calls for context-sensitive models. Mayer and Schwemmle (2024) argue design thinking functions differently across organizational contexts, while Roth et al. (2023) show high-stakes environments require adaptations beyond traditional creativity models. Our findings provide empirical validation of these theoretical arguments through practitioner language analysis.

In the five existing themes, Diversity is the most prominent theme, with 262 total quotes (23.45% of all data). This prominence should not be interpreted as Korean companies being naturally diverse. Instead, we interpret this as a critical necessity for design thinking adoption in a highly hierarchical and siloed organizational culture. In the traditional Korean corporate structure (Chaebol), cross-functional collaboration is extremely difficult due to strong departmental boundaries and strict top-down decision-making. Consequently, practitioners must constantly advocate and instruct on the need for diverse teams and perspectives, making this theme the most frequently discussed cultural obstacle to design thinking success.

In a context where coordination across teams is crucial, design thinking is not always about generating breakthrough ideas; it is about improving collaboration and managing uncertainty. Design thinking in Korea is not an isolated design function but a language used to structure internal communication, align decisions, and reduce organizational friction.

Importantly, the emergence of these themes was not an artifact of open-ended coding but the outcome of a rigorous hybrid approach combining deductive alignment with inductive emergence, supported by intercoder reliability and consensus-building.

(2) Cultural and organizational context

Our study shows that Korean practitioners adapt design thinking significantly, extending it beyond the typical Western, human-centered framework into a more integrated strategic and operational management tool. This adaptation is not random. It is strongly influenced by the distinct features of the Korean corporate environment. The appearance and high frequency of the four emergent themes demonstrate design thinking’s cultural assimilation into the three Korean contexts.

Firstly, the Korean business philosophy is famous for rapid execution, often known as “ppalli-ppalli.” In this culture, design thinking is not treated as a slow, reflective practice, but as an engine for faster and more decisive action. This cultural demand explains the high quotes in Product Development and Market Opportunity. Practitioners are under high pressure to turn design insights into tangible, profitable products very quickly. The emphasis is on velocity and market viability, showing that design thinking must serve immediate business outcomes to be accepted in this fast environment.

Secondly, most large Korean firms are part of “Chaebol” or large, family-controlled industrial conglomerates or similar hierarchical organizations. Before any resource is deployed, Strategic Positioning (185 quotes, the largest emergent theme) becomes a critical step. Practitioners must use design thinking concepts to align the project with top-down corporate goals and secure necessary organizational approvals. This theme acts as a gatekeeper technique, where design thinking methods are employed to convince senior management, making it a powerful internal political tool before the creative work can even start. The design process is used to legitimize the business case, not just explore user needs.

Thirdly, the emergent themes show that Korean professionals see design thinking not just as a discovery process (like Carlgren’s initial themes) but as a process that controls the full product lifecycle. Product Development is necessary because the design team must coordinate smoothly with mass production and engineering, which are very strong departments in Korean manufacturing. Also, the presence of Customer Engagement emphasizes a long-term relationship view. They manage customer feedback loops after product release to ensure market longevity.

This strong link suggests that the emergent themes are a direct result of design thinking being operationalized and strategized to meet the specific demands of a competitive, hierarchical, and execution-focused Korean corporate world. This theoretical finding contributes importantly to cross-cultural design theory.

A critical contribution of this study is that it shows how design thinking is not confined to ideation or prototyping. In our data, practitioners use design thinking at the beginning of the process (Market Opportunity and Strategic Positioning), in the middle (Problem Development), and at the end (Customer Engagement). The finding that Strategic Positioning emerged as the most prominent new theme (185 quotes) highlights a crucial preparatory phase absent from traditional frameworks. This suggests Korean practitioners begin design thinking with strategic alignment rather than user empathy, reflecting organizational priorities and structural requirements.

Korean practitioners’ emphasis on strategic alignment and operational integration reflects local business environment characteristics: fast development cycles, hierarchical structures, and engineering-driven cultures. In this context, design thinking addresses coordination and execution challenges rather than idea generation alone. They are using design thinking as a practice for building the consensus needed for high-speed execution. In other words, Korean practitioners use design thinking language to structure internal communication, align decisions, and reduce organizational friction.

Those emergent themes, in particular, Strategic Positioning and Market Opportunity, resonate strongly with Dell’Era et al.’s (2020) categorization of design thinking as involving making, engaging, and criticizing, demonstrating its versatility across different organizational functions. Similarly, Meinel et al. (2020) highlight that integrating strategic thinking with design methods leads to significantly improved innovation outcomes, aligning with our observation of strategic alignment as a critical component of design thinking in Korea.

(3) Design thinking as layered system

We proposed that design thinking manifests at three distinct levels: mindset, practice, and technique. This separation is not just for coding purpose. It reflects the organizational challenge of institutionalizing design thinking in a complex setting. The distinction between the three levels must be very clear, as confusion between mindset and practice is common in design literature. Our model maintains this separation.

Mindset is the deepest level. It represents the underlying belief, value, or fundamental attitude that design work. Quotes coded here were about how one thinks or views the world. Practice is the middle level. It refers to a systematic, recurrent behavior, habit, or managerial routine that applies the mindset. It is about what one consistently does. Technique is the surface level. It is a specific, implementable tool, method, or step-by-step procedure used to achieve a goal. It is about how one does a specific task.

Our multi-level analysis supports conceptualizing design thinking as a layered system where mindsets, practices, and techniques represent different expression levels rather than competing definitions. This perspective resolves longstanding definitional debates by positioning design thinking as a multi-dimensional capability.

Different professionals engage with relevant layers based on their roles: strategists may focus on reframing mindsets, engineers on prototyping techniques, and project managers on coordination practices. This adaptability explains design thinking’s broad organizational appeal while maintaining coherent theoretical foundations. For instance, in one participating firm, the UX team led early prototyping (technique), the strategy team used design thinking for aligning launch goals (practice), and executive sponsors used it as a framing tool to build consensus across business units (mindset).

The layered model has practical implications for corporate training. Organizations can assess and enhance design thinking capabilities across multiple levels, customizing initiatives to emphasize strategic alignment early and continuous customer engagement throughout product lifecycles.

Note that mindsets, which make up the smallest proportion of quotes (16.7%), are the preconditions for effective design thinking. Its low frequency suggests it is the hardest thing to change in a structured Korean environment. The quotes categorized as Mindset focused mostly on aspects like humility, willingness to fail, and learning. These are not just internal feelings. They are essential to overcome the hierarchy and fear of failure often present in large Korean corporations. Without a collective mindset shift towards tolerance for experimentation, no Technique or Practice can be successfully adopted. So, the Mindset layer is important because it is the necessary foundation for the operationalization (practices and techniques) of design thinking we observed.

Table 6

Quantitative distribution of quotes by layer and theme(N=1,117)

(4) Implcations for theory and practice

This finding is important for both theory and practice. Many design thinking models begin with empathy or user research. In our study, many practitioners begin with market opportunity and strategic alignment. They describe how design thinking helps them define goals, coordinate across teams, and link user needs to internal business objectives. This supports the argument that design thinking is not only a creative method but also a management capability (Johansson-Sköldberg et al., 2013). It also challenges the step-by-step structure found in some frameworks. For example, the d.school model presents design thinking as a five-step cycle (empathize, define, ideate, prototype, test). While useful for education, this model does not reflect how practitioners in large companies approach the process. Instead of following a fixed sequence, they adapt design thinking to fit different tasks, phases, and organizational structures. This study extends design thinking theory by providing empirical evidence of cultural adaptation and boundary expansion. The four emergent themes offer conceptual building blocks for developing more comprehensive, culturally-sensitive frameworks. The layered model provides theoretical architecture for understanding design thinking’s multi-dimensional nature.

Design thinking curricula should integrate business strategy components alongside creativity and prototyping. Educational programs should explicitly address strategic alignment, opportunity scanning, and product lifecycle management to prepare students for organizational implementation challenges.

Companies can utilize our findings to develop more comprehensive design thinking initiatives. The emergent themes suggest implementation strategies emphasizing early strategic positioning and continuous customer engagement. The layered model enables assessment and development across multiple capability levels. In particular, this layered perspective also helps explain why different teams experience design thinking differently. A marketing planner may focus on storytelling and brand alignment. A UX designer may emphasize prototyping and user feedback. A strategy leader may see design thinking as a way to bring clarity and consensus. These are not contradictions. They are examples of how design thinking adapts to different roles and responsibilities.