1. Design Thinking at SURFnet: An Inquiry into
Student Perspectives on Digital Learning
Environments
Corneel den Hartogh, 5876532
Supervisor: dr. A. C. Nusselder
Second Reader: dr. N. Brouwer-Zupancic
July 20th, 2015
MSc Information Sciences: Business Information Systems
University of Amsterdam, Faculty of Science

2. 2
Executive Summary
This thesis consists of an action research project in which a design thinking process is executed
at SURFnet. The topic of this design process is the future of digital learning environments and
special attention is given to the perspectives of students in this regard. The goals are to (i)
provide valuable insights regarding DLEs, (ii) evaluate the potential value of design thinking for
SURFnet and (iii) evaluate, on the basis of this case, the usability of design thinking concepts
and practices.
In the conceptual framework, it is established that there are ‘wicked problems’, that are,
due to their uniqueness and open-ended nature, not solvable by more traditional scientific
methods. Therefore, the iterative design thinking process is proposed. This process follows six
steps: understanding, observing, point-of-view, ideation, prototyping and testing. The wicked
problem in this thesis is the digital learning environment, a puzzle that will never be solved since
it is entwined with other (evolving) phenomena. In order to come up with viable temporary
(re)solutions, empathy and creative confidence are required.
After a literature review, observations of students, ideation with experts, developing of
scenarios and testing those in sessions with students, I suggest regarding DLEs foremost that a
digital environment could facilitate more personalised curricula and specific learning
environments per course that facilitate the development of the specific learning goals. Students
currently experience a lot of difficulties with interaction and collaboration, while they realise this
could, and should, lead to valuable learning experiences. In addition, more formative feedback
would be appreciated.
While the six step design thinking process, as executed in this thesis, might not be
useful for the on-going practices at SURFnet, based on observations and interviews, I conclude
that more interaction with and deep understanding of the (latent) needs of students is needed.
In addition, in order to become more creative, SURFnet could loosen the internal reporting
formats. This would provide space for more visualisation and experimentation and thus a more
innovative culture. Both elements (more empathy, more visual and material interactions) could
stimulate creative confidence, which could, indirectly, lead to more innovations.
Empathy and creative confidence are, based on this research, identified as the most
important aspects of design thinking for business purposes. The development and nurturing of
these skills could lead to a more innovative culture in office settings.

3. 3
Preface
“No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same
man.”
- Heraclitus, Greek philosopher
The quote above is particularly suited for action research, like the one I present in this thesis.
Instead of trying to be a neutral bystander, the goal is to develop oneself and improve the action
that one is participating in. This is inherently a complex, multi-layered and dynamic endeavour
(symbolised by the Rubik’s cube at the front page). However, this whole process took place in
the supporting environment of SURFnet, where Kirsten and Lianne offered me the possibility of
an internship. While I kept working in the support team part-time, there was always respect for
and interest in my thesis activities from my direct colleagues. And when I wanted to interview
employees regarding innovation and design thinking all who were asked, readily agreed. In
addition, from the university my supervisor André always responded quickly and clearly to my
questions and was in general very encouraging. I am grateful to the external interviewees and
student who participated in the brainstorm sessions as well. In the end, the research took a bit
longer than the prescribed three months, but this was - due the complexity - no surprise for
anyone involved.
Let me get back to Heraclitus, since he was not referring to action research with this
quote. The main point of his philosophy was, allegedly, that everything continuously changes. If
this is the case, and if change is continuing with an increasing pace - as contemporary
intellectuals argue - what does this mean for us as individuals, and members of organisations
and societies? Is it really possible and wise to focus on concrete, one-dimensional goals? Or
should we shift our attention to our attitude and assure that we remain open for the novel
developments in the ambiguous and uncertain world that flows around us? I think we should,
and I hope you will think so as well after reading my thesis.
Corneel den Hartogh
July 16, 2015, Utrecht

4. 4
Table of Contents
Executive
Summary
2
Preface
3
Table
of
Contents
4
List
of
Figures
6
List
of
Tables
6
List
of
Abbreviations
6
1.
Introduction
7
2.
Case
Context
8
2.1
SURFnet
BV
8
2.2
OOM-­‐program
&
FPLO-­‐team
9
2.3
Preliminary
Conclusions
10
3.
Conceptual
Framework
11
3.1.
Why
Design
Thinking
11
3.2
Design
thinking
concepts
14
4.
Research
Methodology
21
4.1
Action
23
4.2
Qualitative
Data
Analysis
24
5.
Action
Process
25
5.1
Understand
25
5.1.1
IT
and
Education
25
5.1.2
Digital
World
26
5.1.3
Digital
Natives
and
Literacy
27
5.1.4
21th
century
skills
28
5.1.5
Outside
Higher
Education
29
5.2
Observe
30
5.2.1
Maagdenhuis
30
5.2.2
Individualization
and
Collaboration
31
5.2.3
Digital
Experiences
32
5.2.4
Lifelong
Learning
34
5.3
Point-­‐of-­‐View
35
5.4
Ideation
37
5.5
Prototyping
39
5.5.1
Universities
as
Learning
Communities
40
5.5.2
Universities
as
Personal
Learning
Facilitator
40
5.5.3
Universities
as
digitalised
Makerspaces
40

5. 5
5.5.4
Universities
as
Reflection
Spaces
41
5.6
Testing
41
6.
Results
45
6.1
Insights
regarding
DLEs
45
6.2
Design
Thinking
at
SURFnet
47
6.2.1
Findings
48
6.2.2
Recommendations
51
6.2.2.1
Less
written
formats,
more
visual
/
prototyping
in
reporting
52
6.2.2.2.
More
direct
interaction
with
end-­‐users
52
6.2.2.3
Online
network
for
interaction
with
end-­‐users
53
6.2.2.4
Less
tech-­‐oriented,
more
human-­‐centric
culture
53
6.2.3
Response
from
Organisation
54
6.3
Reflection
on
Design
Thinking
concepts
and
practices
55
7.
Conclusions
and
Discussion
57
7.1
Insights
regarding
DLEs
57
7.2
Design
Thinking
for
SURFnet
57
7.3
Reflections
on
Design
Thinking
58
7.4
Limitations
and
Further
Research
58
References
60
Appendix
A:
Maagdenhuis
Professors
(Understanding)
64
Appendix
B:
Presentation
of
early
phases
of
design
process
65
Appendix
C:
Interviews
with
Experts
(Ideation)
66
Appendix
D:
Scenarios
(Prototyping)
67
Appendix
E:
Student
Sessions
(Testing)
70
Appendix
F:
Interviews
within
SURF
about
Design
Thinking
72

6. 6
List of Figures
Figure 1. A simplified version of the the LCPM-model of SURFnet
Figure 2. Iterations through the problem and solution space
Figure 3. The Triad of Innovation
Figure 4. Innovation model based on technology
Figure 5. A sketch of Perception in Action
Figure 6. Action Research division between action and research
Figure 7. Types of action research
Figure 8. Design thinking process in six phases
Figure 9. 21th-century skills
Figure 10. Students learning simultaneously in collaboration, individually, face-to-face and
mediated by technology in one self-organised learning session at the university
Figure 11. Digital tools used within learning
Figure 12. TPACK model
Figure 13. Students brainwriting in response to the scenarios
Figure 14. Suggested model for a more flexible and personal learning environment
Figure 15. Scenario: Universities as Learning Communities
Figure 16. Scenario: Universities as Personalised Learning Facilitators
Figure 17. Scenario: Universities as Digitalised Makerspaces
Figure 18. Scenario: Universities as Reflection Spaces
Figure 19. Presentation: The student paper
List of Tables
Table 1. Characteristics of design thinking and traditional managers
Table 2. Users, needs and insights
Table 3. Illustrative quotes regarding administrative burden
Table 4. Illustrative quotes regarding lack of space for prototyping and visualisation
Table 5. Illustrative quotes regarding deep understanding
Table 6. Illustrative quotes regarding technocratic culture
List of Abbreviations
DLE Digital Learning Environment
FPLO FLexible en Persoonlijke Leeromgeving (Flexible and Personal Learning Environment)
HPID Hasso Plattner Institute of Design
LCPM LifeCycle Product Management
OOM Onderwijs op Maat (Tailored Education)
PLE Personal Learning Environment
PM Product Manager
TPM Technical Product Manager
CM Community Manager
ISO Interstedelijk Studenten Overleg
CtM Contract Manager

7. 7
1. Introduction
While most of us might still relate design to art, beauty and stylised objects the term has quite
recently obtained a different connotation. In 2005, the ‘Hasso Plattner Institute of Design’ (HPID)
was founded at Stanford University. This institute, informally known as the d.school, provides
courses and fellowships in design. In this programs scholars are not only educated in the
practicalities of design, but, more importantly, in ‘design thinking’. The concept of design
thinking has received widespread attention since 2009 with the publication of the canonical book
of Tim Brown, ‘Change by Design’. Design thinking should no longer be seen as the approach
of a creative happy few, but needed to spread, according to Brown (2009), to office blocks and
boardrooms.
While Brown illustrates his calling with guidelines and examples, the question remains
what design thinking in an office environment would actually consist of, and how to integrate this
in a meaningful manner into these areas. Accounting principles, objectivity and planning hold
strong positions in offices for a reason. In this regard, the acknowledgement of so-called
‘wicked’ problems, which are deemed to be inherently unsolvable by scientific methods, could
provide support for design thinking (Buchanan, 1992).
In order to evaluate the potential value of design thinking in office practice, I will conduct
action research at SURFnet, an organization that facilitates the IT infrastructure of the Dutch
higher education sector. In order to investigate the potential value and implementation of design
thinking I will become an active member of the program ‘Onderwijs op Maat’ (OOM, Tailored
Education) and, more specifically, the team ‘Flexibele en Persoonlijke Leeromgeving’ (FPLO,
Flexible and Personal Learning Environment). I will, in collaboration with the other team-
members, set up a design thinking process with regards to this project to identify the differences
between the current practices and design thinking. Via this action, I hope to (i) provide the
FPLO-team with valuable insights regarding DLEs, (ii) evaluate the potential value of design
thinking for SURFnet and (iii) evaluate, on the basis of this case, the usability of design thinking
concepts and practices.
After this (i) introduction, I will describe (ii) the case context, (iii) review literature on
design thinking, (iv) elaborate on my action research methodology, (v) describe and reflect upon
the launched design thinking process, (vi) present my results on the above mentioned levels,
and (vii) discuss my conclusions.

8. 8
2. Case Context
Within this section, I will give a description of the organisation where I will conduct my research
and the particular team. With regard to the organisation I will focus on their current innovational
practices. In my elaboration on the team, I will give special attention to development of the
perceived role of the digital learning environment (DLE).
2.1 SURFnet BV
This action research takes place at SURFnet BV, a company owned by the SURF association,
which is “the collaborative ICT organisation for Dutch higher education and research.”1
The
mission of SURFnet is to boost the processes of this sector “through the support, innovation and
development (...) of an advanced, reliable and interconnected ICT infrastructure.”2
In order to
achieve this mission SURFnet collaborates with users and suppliers in order to realise
“innovative ICT solutions”.3
Ideas for innovation are split into ‘demand-driven’ (‘vraag-gedreven’)
and ‘demand-inspired’ (‘vraag-geinspireerd’). These ideas then enter a version of well-known
LifeCycle Product Management (LCPM) model (see Figure 1 below).
Figure 1. A simplified version of the the LCPM-model of SURFnet
This process is structured to support and streamline the development of potential services. In a
presentation to the OOM-program, a representative from the management team explained that
the prescribed practices in the LCPM-model were already common practice within SURFnet.
However, SURFnet management aims to increase its income in order to remain stable in the
long-term. Therefore, management desires to improve its innovation performance through
business development. The goal of the explication of the LCPM-model is to ‘get better ideas’
according to management. In this regard, it is interesting, for our case in particular, that there is
no emphasis on ‘idea generation and collection’, which is present in innovation models in
literature (Deschamps et al., 1995; Thom, 1980). The Go / No-Go moments by the board require
1
https://www.surf.nl/en/about-surf/about-surf/index.html
2
https://www.surf.nl/en/about-surf/subsidiaries/surfnet/about-surfnet/mission-and-vision/index.html
3
https://www.surf.nl/en/about-surf/subsidiaries/surfnet/about-surfnet/approach/index.html

9. 9
a filled template of Business Model 0.5, 0.7 or 1.0 and an advice of middle management, while
the ‘tools for inspiration’ are SWOT Analysis, Porter’s Five Forces, Scenarios and User
Personas. While these tools seem suited for the development of an already conceived idea, this
model does not provide space, let alone stimulation, for free expression and reconfiguration of
ideas.
In addition, since January 1, 2015, SURFnet has moved into a new building with the
SURF association and SURFmarket with the aim to create synergy within the whole of SURF
and its subsidiaries. This collaboration could enhance the potential of SURF to create new ideas
since it enables novel combinations of methods, concepts and perspectives. With regards to
new services, it might be interesting if those were conceived and developed in collaboration
between these different entities. Such initiatives would organically support further collaboration.
Therefore, we can conclude SURFnet would benefit from a better facilitation of the idea
generation process in order to gain better ideas. In addition, it this facilitation could include other
entities of SURF this would be beneficial.
2.2 OOM-program & FPLO-team
The OOM-program is a novel ‘innovation program’ within SURFnet. Due to a reorganisation the
department has moved from the SURF association to SURFnet since January 1, 2015. The aim
of the program is to facilitate higher education institutes in their processes of educational
innovation with IT. Within the six teams of this program, common themes are change
management, (data) security, legal issues, and technological requirements. The program tries to
facilitate the development of these processes through knowledge sharing and development.
This is done in the form of booklets, special interest group meetings, workshops and funding of
experiments (among other things). Due the diversity of activities, every member is involved in
several projects at the same time.
While SURFnet has a strong reputation regarding technological innovation, it remains a
subsidiary beneath an association with members (the educational institutes). Innovations
developed at SURFnet need to be useful and implementable for them. In addition, actual
innovations are in general implementations of novel technology at educational institutes. This
means that careful, structured planning is required. The program itself has a four-year
‘controlling document’ and yearly ‘activity plans’ per team. Finally, due to increasing budget
constraints in the public sector, employees of SURFnet experience that they have less time for
creative thinking and experimentation. Therefore, simply becoming ‘more innovative’ in the

10. 10
sense of developing novel technological tools and concepts is not a goal of SURFnet. However,
effective methods that deliver relevant innovations for end-users in the higher educational sector
are welcome.
The FPLO-team consists of core-members from the OOM-program complemented by
two unofficial representatives from higher educational institutes, a member of SURFmarket who
develops a pilot with regard to e-study books and a member of the supportive staff.
The team supports foremost IT and educational technology staff at universities. Those are the
individuals that come to the above-mentioned special interest group meetings that SURFnet
organises and contribute to the knowledge sharing booklets. SURFnet tries to support them in
their effort to reach others within their institution (teachers on the one hand and higher
administration on the other hand) as well. This is necessary since DLEs are complex issues. In
2013, SURFnet presented a booklet and workshops regarding the ‘extended’ DLE, suggesting
DLEs are moving from central comprehensive applications towards a “combination of services,
some of them from inside and others from outside the institution” (SURFnet, 2013). Due to this
technological complexity and diverse services, DLEs are also socially complex issues within
institutions. In this regard, we can say that the subject of this team is becoming increasingly
‘wicked’ (Rittel and Webber, 1973, more on this in subsection 3.1). While the team name is
partly composed by ‘flexible’ and ‘personal’, these terms are not strictly defined. In cooperation
with the educational institutes, SURFnet wants to find out what these concepts mean in a higher
education context. In this complex environment, it is for team members difficult to gauge the
experiences and needs of students. However, these students do form the vast majority of end-
users. My research aims to help in this regard.
2.3 Preliminary Conclusions
In conclusion, we can say that we have a case at an organisation that intends to improve its
idea generation and innovation processes. In this regard, there is an emphasis on collaboration
with other SURF entities and higher education institutes. In addition, within our particular team
the challenge has become increasingly complex since DLEs are no longer considered a
technical, peripheral issue for education. It is increasingly brought to the center as a topic where
learning, IT and educational vision come into realisation. Since it is currently lacking, the input of
students would be in particular interesting for the FPLO-team.

11. 11
3. Conceptual Framework
The aforementioned research question that emerged from the case should be embedded into a
conceptual context. Firstly, what is actually a ‘wicked’ problem and why should design thinking
practices be beneficial in this regard and, secondly, what are the particular characteristics of
such a process? Thirdly, I will draw preliminary conclusions.
Firstly, the ideas behind the practice of design thinking must be enlightened in order to
be able to devise a design process that suits our case. Secondly, our case is demarcated
through the requirement that the solution should be provided through a digital learning
environment. Therefore, we need to elaborate on DLEs in order to be able to see the
possibilities. Thirdly, I would like to shortly discuss literature about students and what is
expected from them with regard to 21th-century skills and digital literacy. Finally, I will draw
preliminary conclusions.
3.1. Why Design Thinking
In order to explain design thinking it seems best to provide a short insight into the concepts and
ideas regarding design in relation to science.
Time Concepts
1920 ‘De Stijl’ - “The spirit is opposed to animal spontaneity. In order to construct a
new object we need a method, that is to say, an objective system.”
1960 Design Science Revolution – “Science, technology, and rationalism to
overcome the human and environmental problems. A teachable doctrine about
the design process.”
1970 Backlash – “It had to be acknowledged that there had been a lack of success
in the application of "scientific" methods to everyday design practice.
Furthermore, “fundamental issues as wicked problems were raised.”
1980 /
1990
Design Methodology – “Growing in engineering and industrial design, although
limited evidence of success.”
Table 1. Schematic history of design in relation to science, adapted from Cross (2002)
Whereas earlier methods to design were more rigid, in front of the background of eclectic 60’s
the design world drove away from strict, scientific methodology towards a diverse, loose
approach to design. Cross (2002) makes, at this point, a distinction between ‘Science of Design’

12. 12
which is the scientific study of this approach in connection to particular practices and theory and
the ‘Design Discipline’. The latter refers to the practice of designers on its own terms. This fits
well with the work of Brown and the term design thinking. In this research, I will execute design
thinking within an action research strategy. The action itself is a pilot of ‘Design Discipline’ at
SURFnet, while the research, this thesis, adds to the literature of the field of ‘Science of Design’.
As stated above, the movement towards a less rigid approach to design arose partly due
the fundamental issue of ‘wicked problems’. Rittel and Webber (1973) hold that problems, in
real life, are, in contrast to scientific problems, often wicked. Rittel and Webber (1973, italics as
in the original) define ten characteristics of these wicked problems:
1. Wicked problems have no definitive formulation, but every formulation of a
wicked problem corresponds to the formulation of a solution.
2. Wicked problems have no stopping rules.
3. Solutions to wicked problems cannot be true or false, only good or bad.
4. In solving wicked problems there is no exhaustive list of admissible operations.
5. For every wicked problem there is always more than one possible explanation,
with explanations depending on the Weltanschauung of the designer.
6. Every wicked problem is a symptom of another, "higher level," problem.
7. No formulation and solution of a wicked problem has a definitive test.
8. Solving a wicked problem is a "one shot" operation, with no room for trial and
error.
9. Every wicked problem is unique.
10. The wicked problem solver has no right to be wrong - they are fully responsible
for their actions.
As a consequence of these characteristics, wicked problems do not have solutions, but only
resolutions. They are constantly redefined due to the changes in perspectives or contexts.
Another key aspect is that one cannot split the problem from its possible solution, since the
problem definition is already excluding potential solutions. Our case of the digital learning
environment for higher education is a typical example of a wicked problem. Every formulation
leads to certain solution directions, it will continuously be further developed due to new
technologies and needs from students, it involves significant development and implementation
costs and is, therefore, important and, lastly, it is part of a higher order problem: the overall
(higher) educational system.
This last point, of a problem being a part of a larger problem, can be related to one of the
complexity principles of Morin (2008), the holographic principle. With a holographic recording
there is not one image, but a seemingly random structure. When it is lit, several images can be
reconstructed from different viewpoints on the same objects as if they were still there. In the

13. 13
words of Cath (2015, p. 11): “The part is in the whole and the whole is in the part. Simplicity only
looks at the parts, isolated from their context (...) while holism only looks at the whole, without
regard the specific.” I think this holds for our case as well. Therefore, a DLE is not suited to be
analysed in isolation. It is an important medium in the interaction between a student and a
higher education institution. Inevitably, values and pedagogy are imprinted in its design. On the
other hand, only discussing these values and pedagogy in a holistic manner, would remove us
too far from the actual DLE. Therefore, we have to discuss the whole (higher education) that we
can see in the part (the DLE). We have to identify the role of issues in higher education in DLEs.
While wicked problems are inherently complex, Cath (2015) argues that there is a meaningful
difference with complicatedness. The latter is, according to Cath (2015, p. 16): “the result of the
organizational and technical resistance to complexity, in a search for the perfect machine or the
one best way. Mostly, we reduce the complexity issues to something simpler, something we can
control.”
This can related to the field of DLEs, in which IT-staff will access the technical concerns
and possibilities, educational experts focus on the pedagogy, university board representatives
try to define the added value for the profile of the institution and visionaries hope to enable
disruptive innovations.4
Different actors try to control a certain complex phenomenon, but fail to
do so since they do not realise that one of the characteristics of complexity is that it cannot be
fully controlled or determined. A digital learning environment is inherently and indeterminate
subject, in the words of Buchanan (1992). In this regard, it is, like other wicked problems,
particularly suited for design thinking, since designers are not concerned with determined,
particular subjects (Buchanan, 1992). With regard to digital learning systems, proponents of the
earlier discussed design discipline are able to wander, relatively freely, through all these
perspectives in order to come to a temporal definition and accompanying (re)solution of the
wicked problem.
In this regard it is important to mention that some authors identify complexity as
observer-dependent: “The complexity of a system, as seen by an observer, is directly
proportional to the number of inequivalent descriptions of the system that the observer can
generate” (Tsoukas and Hatch, 2001, p. 986; see also Casti, 1986). In this sense, it is a quality
of the observer to be able to see the complexity of a practice, or, to rephrase it in terms of the
principle of the hologram, the ability to see the whole in the part and vice versa.
Related to the ability to understand a wicked problem, is ‘creative confidence’ (Kelly and
Kelly, 2013). This concept refers to the trust an individual has in his or her own creativity.
4
Programma Visie op DLWO, SURFnet

14. 14
Teachers from design schools state that this is actually the capability they are trying to teach
students through design thinking (Rauth et al., 2010). Individuals who have trust in their own
creativity, might more easy challenge the status quo and respond better to changing
circumstances. This is an important capability since temporally defining wicked problems (also
called ‘framing’) is important, especially when the professional practice in which an organisation
falls, is evolving (Drost, 2011). With regard to creativity, it is important to note that more intuitive
and rational approaches should not be seen as a trade-off. Matzler et al. (2014) concluded that
rational and intuitive decision-making approaches are not in contradiction, but could, and
should, be combined. In particular, regarding explorative success, valuable for innovative
practices, more intuitive approaches are beneficial.
3.2 Design thinking concepts
As discussed in the previous subsection design thinking is not a member of the family of
‘traditional’ scientific thinking. In this subsection, I will explain distinctive features of design
thinking to illuminate the contrast with logico-scientific thinking. The above stated ‘wandering
through perspectives’, while continuously exploring the possibilities of in formulation of the
wicked problem and solution, can be illustrated as is shown in Figure 2 below. Design thinkers
are able to diverge and converge their thoughts in order to take broad perspectives into account
when developing a single product or service. This aspect stands in stark contrast with more
linear, logico-scientific approaches to problem solving as, for instance, the waterfall method. In
the latter method, the problem is first, (i) unambiguously defined, then (ii) data is gathered and
(iii) analysed, where after a (iv) solution is formulated and (v) implemented (Conklin, 2008).
Figure 2. Iterations through the problem and solution space (Lindberg et al., 2011)

15. 15
As we can see in Figure 2, with design thinking the ideating and prototyping could still influence
the process of defining the problem. Testing the prototype can be seen als implementation or, in
traditional terms, gathering data (insights from test users) to (re)define the problem.
This does not mean that design thinkers are unable to follow a rigid method, they choose
to work from a different perspective. In this regard, Bruner (1986, p. 11) claims there are “two
modes of thought”. The scientific method is based on the ‘logico-scientific’ thinking mode and is
characterized by an aim to reach the truth through tight analysis, categorical, non-contradictory
and theory-driven work, to name a few characteristics (Tsoukas and Hatch, 2001). The method
of design thinking is foremost based in the ‘narrative mode’, in which the aim is to to come to
meaningful experiences based on stories, intuition, contradictions, experimental and context-
sensitive work (Tsoukas and Hatch, 2001). This mode enables individuals to come to up with
several, sometimes paradoxical, interpretations for an observation. In other words, the narrative
mode enables them to see the earlier discussed ‘seemingly random structures’ of the hologram
when they look through several viewpoints, while logico-scientific thinkers focus on the details in
one particular viewpoint. The object of research is not the physical structure (hardware) behind
the concrete phenomenon (learning via a digital learning system), but the hard- and software
“presents an opportunity to rethink from a new fresh perspective our basic concepts from the
beginning” (Dogic-Crnkovic, 2003). A digital learning system is a human-made object to serve
the development of humans. It enables us to think and experiment differently with regard to
learning. Therefore, this field is suited for a more narrative mode of thinking (of which design
thinking is an example).
In order to demonstrate how design thinking transforms the abstract narrative mode to
actual practices, I will draw mostly from the earlier mentioned work of Brown (2009). Instead of
talking about wicked problems with high (social) complexity, Brown relates design thinking to the
need for innovation. This innovation is supposedly a novel product or service which solves a
difficult to define (i.e. wicked) problem. In addition to the problem formulation, the organisation
and technological possibilities influence the innovation process as well. This is made visual in
Figure 3, the ‘triad of innovation’. This triad is assembled by the constraints and reach of
desirability, viability and feasibility. While the particular scope of technical feasibility, business
viability, and human desirability is significant, for real innovation all three have to be taken into
account.

16. 16
Figure 3. The Triad of Innovation (Adaptation from Brown, 2009, p. 19)
The first circle covers human desirability. This is, according to Brown, the most difficult aspect
since individuals, in general, do not always show or tell which innovations they need. Their
needs are often ‘latent’, and practitioners of design thinking need to discover them. The second
circle contains business viability, since every innovation needs a viable business case in order
to become sustainable. Organisations need to figure out whether they are suited to fulfil the
particular need that is discovered in the desirability circle. In the experience of Brown, most
companies actually start their innovation process in this circle (2009, p. 20). They look at what
suits their business and limit therefore the scope of potential ideas severely. As we have seen in
the case context, this happens at SURFnet as well. There is no actual process to stimulate
inspiration and ideation. Ideas that do arise are taken through the applied LCPM-model in order
to assess the viability. The third circle refers to the technical constraints. Proponents of this view
hold that firms firstly need to focus on the development of technology before considering other
issues. This model is visualised in Figure 4 below. The most successful example of this
‘technology-push’ model is the Sony Walkman (Beard and Easingwood, 1992). However, there
are risks as well (Chesbrough and Rosenbloom, 2002; Burgelman and Sayles, 2004; Brem and
Voigt, 2009).
Figure 4. Innovation model based on technology (Adaptation from Brem and Voigt, 2009; based
on Specht, 2002)

17. 17
Literature and organizational practices seem to focus on a combination of the viability and the
feasibility. Therefore, the potential value of design thinking seems to lie foremost in discovering
the desirability and the implementation of this aspect in innovative processes. In order words,
design thinking is particularly appropriate for making sense of the wickedness, while technical
know-how and organizational context remain as necessary conditions for innovative success.
In order to illuminate the design process, Brown (2009) distinguishes three phases: (i)
inspiration, (ii) ideation and (iii) implementation. The division between inspiration and ideation is
particularly interesting, since most innovation models have at best one phase in the area of
‘idea generation and collection’ or take ideas for granted (as we have seen in our case at
SURFnet, see also: Brem and Voigt, 2009; Deschamps et al., 1995; Thom, 1980). In this
inspiration phase, key elements are understanding, observation and empathy. In the words of
Brown (2009, p. 41): “A better starting point is to go out into the world and observe the actual
experiences (...) In a design paradigm, however, the solution is not locked away somewhere
waiting to be discovered but lies in the creative work of the team.” In contrast to traditional
innovation literature ideas are not ‘collected’, but empathy is developed in the field. Direct
observation of, and interaction with, the target group is mandatory. In order to postulate what
people are thinking and feeling when they are active, abductive reasoning is needed. Abductive
reasoning refers to processes of developing plausible hypotheses behind observations. Paul
(1993) represents it as follows:
𝜑 → 𝜔, 𝜔
𝜑
“From the occurrence of 𝜔and the rule “𝜑implies 𝜔”, infer an occurrence of 𝜑 as a plausible
hypothesis or explanation for 𝜔” (Paul, 1993). While deduction requires a logical relation that is
necessarily true, abduction only demands a plausible connection between the occurrence and
hypothesis. It is therefore suited for hypothesis generation, which can be tested in a later phase
with methods of induction (Price, 1953). In addition, it is argued that most ‘psychologically
simple’, or intuitive hypothesis should be preferred (Price, 1953; Paul, 1993). Since design
thinking holds that every project is unique, hypothesis generation and, thus, abductive
reasoning is a required capability for design thinking (Tschimmel, 2011, p. 3). Finding these
considerations and feelings behind people’s behaviour is a difficult to master, but nonetheless
practicable, skill (Brown, 2009, p. 43).
In addition, Brown suggests to focus on extreme users since they have “exaggerated concerns”:
We could gain inspiration from their passion, their knowledge, or simply the extremity of their

18. 18
circumstances (Brown, 2009, p.44, 206). Through this observations and insights, design
thinkers hope to gain empathy with the users: “[Empathy] is perhaps the most important
distinction between academic thinking and design thinking (...). The mission of design thinking is
to translate observations into insights and insights into products and services that will improve
lives (Brown, p.49). Diverse, interdisciplinary teams are likely to come up with more potential
underlying hypotheses of observed behaviour in comparison to mono-disciplinary individuals. In
this regard, it is important that individuals collaborate intensively. In the gripping words of Brown
(2009, p. 27): “this ability is what distinguishes the merely multidisciplinary team from a truly
interdisciplinary one”.
Another element of design thinking is the visual, or, if we include all senses, perceptive
cognition. This consists of the transformation of bottom-up processing of input through the
senses into the mind and the top-down process of categorizing the elements of our input based
on earlier experience (Tschimmel, 2005). In this regard, Bohm (2004) discusses ‘real
perception’ in contrast to mechanical perception. In the words of Tschimmel (2012): “We have to
be aware that the repertoire of patterns, which we have in our minds, will determine our
recognition, our classifications, our analysis and all of ours subsequent thought processes.” This
leads Tschimmel (2012) to the concept of ‘perceptive cognition’. This refers to the “complex
process of exploiting at one and the same time the stimulus input, and also the reasoning about
its properties” (Tschimmel, 2012). This perception “goes in and through images”. In order to
(re)lay connections with a team (re)drawable images work much better than more static
approaches (Ware, 2010). Ideas regarding perceptive thinking, lead Tschimmel to the creation
of the Perception-in-Action model:
Figure 5. A sketch of Perception in Action by Tschimmel (2011)
The perception of a p/t (problem / task) leads to an interpretation by Dx (design thinker), which
leads to a solution space. This space leads to new possible interpretations and so on. In every

19. 19
phase, the senses are triggered which leads to new ideas, which can lead to unpredictable new
steps. The importance of perceptive cognition relates to the human-centric perspective of
design thinking. In the words of Dorst (2007), design thinkers are more “actively involved in the
world than most people.”
The last important elements of design thinking that I will discuss are rapid prototyping
and testing. From the importance of perceptive cognition, it follows that concepts need to be as
visual and embodied as possible. This enables designers to evaluate a concept in ways that
would not be possible as long as it remained in mere words. Schön (1983) describes this
process as “conversations with materials”, which relates to the meaningful interaction of
designers with their medium (Hartmann et al., 2006). It is important to contrast this type of
prototyping with the functional prototyping by specialists that is normally done in IT. While the
earlier mentioned waterfall-method is oftentimes replaced by ‘agile scrum’, this method only
focuses the team on short-term goals. A more diverse approach that facilitates creativity,
multiple perspectives, and radical new solutions is uncommon in IT (Lindberg et al., 2011).
However, in the case context (see subsection 2.2) we already saw that the role of IT systems
like DLE is changing from a one-dimensional technical issue to a more (socially) complex role.
Therefore, IT development at companies like SURFnet could be revised to include rapid
prototyping and testing in an earlier phase. This could lead to more suitable and innovative
solutions. Within design thinking, meaningful prototypes could be sketched, experience
blueprints, clay construction or build with foam. Besides the enablement of conversations
between designers, stakeholders and the materials, rapid prototyping facilitates testing with real
users (Brown, p. 231). Since design thinking intends to envision solutions for their latent needs,
testing with real users is necessary to assess if the design team is on the right track.
3.3 Preliminary Conclusions
In conclusion, design thinking enables practitioners to develop innovations and reframe wicked
problems. This is important in a rapidly changing environment with inherent ambiguity and
uncertainty. The most important aspect of design thinking is its human-centric approach. It
brings the element of desirability to the forefront of the innovation process, while other
innovation models tend to consider this aspect only seriously at a later stage in the
development. In addition, from this focus on the human, the discussed elements of observation,
abductive reasoning, empathy, collaborative teams, perceptive cognition, rapid prototyping and
testing emerge naturally as well. While some of these elements could already be identified in

20. 20
more mainstream business practices, the human-centric attitude that is enacted through design
thinking provides them with more meaning and value. This is relevant for problems that are
‘wicked’ since the definitions of these problems are dependent on the interpretation and
meaning of those that try to solve it.

21. 21
4. Research Methodology
In this section, I will present my research methodology. Since I will conduct my research within
an organization and with the aim of improving (a small part of) practices in that organization, my
thesis will be grounded in action research (AR). AR is defined by Reason and Bradbury (2001,
p. 1) as follows: “Action research is a participatory democratic process concerned with
developing practical knowing.” In this sense, AR is remarkably different from other scientific
methods that stress objectivity, representational knowing and distance between the researcher
and the research subject. Within an action research project, it is important to make a division
between the action (i.e. the fieldwork within the organization) and the research about this action
(in this case, the thesis). This is made graphically explicit by Perry and Zuber-Skerritt (1992):
Figure 6. Action Research division between action and research (Perry and Zuber-Skerritt,
1992)
While the action itself is outside the scope of scientific practice, it does needs to be verified by
the participants and analysis is required on both content and process within the thesis. The

22. 22
action starts in general with a plan that is approved by the participants, where after they act. The
results of this process are observed and reflected upon. With regard to a master thesis, one
such cycle is recommended (Perry and Zuber-Skerritt, 2002). In addition, one could make a
distinction between three types of action research (see Figure 7 below).
Figure 7. Types of action research (Zuber-Skerritt, 2002; based on Carr and Kemmis, 1986)
In deliberation with the project leader, I decided to conduct an emancipatory action research. I
will be a member of the project team and the goal is to improve organizational practices. The
goal is to increase the practitioners’ understanding of design thinking and develop suggestions
for a change in the organizational practice towards innovation. The relationship is symmetric
(type 3 in Figure 7 above), I will start up a design process besides the current processes of the
team and we will try to learn from each other. In addition, I hope to be able to develop, on the
basis of my intervention in this practice, scientific knowledge with regard to design thinking in IT
and management (Iversen et al., 2004).

23. 23
4.1 Action
Before the start of this design process, I did an intervention in a knowledge-sharing meeting of
the whole OOM-program. On the basis of the following table, I discussed the different
approaches and emphasized the need to relate to the end-user.
characteristics of a Design Thinking
Manager
characteristics of the traditional thinking
manager
mainly visual, use of sketching and
prototyping tools
mainly verbal, use of diagrams and tables
intensive observation and wondering,
challenging stereotypical perception
immediate perception and quick interpretation
of a situation
emotional and rational at the same time,
subjective
mainly rational and objective
abductive and inventive analytical, deductible and inductive
failure is a part of the process looking for the ‘correct’ answers
comfortable with ambiguity and uncertainty lead by organizing and planning
empathic and human-driven, deep
understanding of peoples’ needs and dreams
customer-driven, deep understanding about
what clients would like to have for their social
status
principally collaborative principally individual
Table 1. Characteristics of design thinking and traditional managers (Tschimmel, 2012, p. 4-5)
I choose this table in order to contrast design thinking to traditional thinking in very common
terms to which the participants could relate. One participant coined the presentation
‘inspirational’, while others clearly needed some time to think about it. At the very least, I have
provided with this table an impression of design thinking in office settings. The intervention was
executed. Therefore, the alternative, design thinking process could begin. The HIPD has
developed the following model:

24. 24
Figure 8. Design thinking process in six phases (HPID, 2009)
There are other versions of this model in with a different amount of phases, but the process they
intend to describe is roughly the same. I used this one not only in my research, but also within
my action (presentations and discussions with stakeholders). Particular interesting features are,
in my opinion, the connecting swirls between the spheres that embody the phases. This
represents, in my view, the less rigid, more flowing nature of a design thinking process. The fact
that every sphere has at least two connecting swirls is a reference to the importance of iteration
in design thinking.
4.2 Qualitative Data Analysis
For every phase in the design thinking process, I will reflect upon and analyse the action in this
thesis. This action provides a varied set of qualitative data. Maxwell (1996) distinguishes three
methods for analysis:
● memo’s
● categorizing strategies
● contextualizing strategies
During and immediately afterwards the actual data gathering process I wrote memos to capture
my thoughts. Based on these notes and the raw data, I categorized my findings into themes.
Within and around those themes, I employed a contextualizing strategy by developing (small)
narratives. With regard to the interviews in the ideation (see subsection 5.4) and interviews with
SURF employees (see section 6), I took notes during the first interviews, where after I
developed categories, which I tested among the latter interviewees. However, I still gave them
space for novel suggestions. With the exception of the student session at the Sandberg
Institute, all sessions and interviews were in Dutch. However, in order to facilitate readability I
only provide English translations in this thesis.

25. 25
5. Action Process
In this section, I will describe, reflect and analyse the performed action of the design thinking
process phase by phase. In addition to the six subsections that follow now, Appendices A to E
provide background information on elements of the action process.
5.1 Understand
Design thinkers are in general no experts on the specific matter of the design thinking process.
Therefore, in the first phase of understanding experts are interviewed and more traditional
research is conducted in order to gain necessary background knowledge. In this phase I talked
with the experts of FPLO-team and OOM-program, read the booklets they have produced on
this matter and investigated academic literature on DLEs, the role of technology in education
and potential different learning needs of students. In addition, I took a look outside the world of
higher education. Interestingly for our purposes, the head of the OOM-program visited nine
institutions to reflect on the changing role of DLEs within their institution. This fits very well with
the common practice of expert interviews in the understanding phase of the process. Due to this
unexpected situation and the fact that FPLO team forms in itself a diverse group of experts, I
decided to interview external experts later on in the process (see subsection 5.4 Ideation).
5.1.1 IT and Education
While the team supported earlier foremost the IT and educational technology staff at
universities, they have noticed that the DLE has gained more widespread attention within higher
education institutes. It is no longer seen as a technical addendum to the educational process. It
is moving towards a more central role with the primary processes of teaching and learning.
Educational institutions experiment with different pedagogies and different, more
technologically-based forms of teaching. These are not only grassroots experiments at the level
of individual teachers, but has become a strategic issue as well. Universities and the Ministry of
Education, Culture and Science are developing visions about the future of education in a more
digitalized, rapidly changing world in which the DLE plays an important role. In this regard, we
can conclude that the subject of this team is becoming increasingly wicked (Rittel and Webber,
1973).
Due to this trend, vision and strategy on the future of education become more important
than before. Selwyn (2011, p. 2) argues therefore that for education technologists, “the primary

26. 26
focus should not be on the actual technological devices, tools and applications per se, but the
practices and activities that surround them.” In addition, learning itself is never an easy to define
activity since it is “entwined with many other stratifications of social life” (Selwyn, 2011, p. 2). In
the order to gain insight into the potential future of the DLE, we need to zoom out on the digital
and the learning in order to be able to obtain an overview of the environment. With regard to the
digital, Selwyn (2011) notices that contemporary technology enables many-to-many connectivity
in contrast to earlier forms of technology like television that enables one-to-many broadcasting.
This means that, among other things, elements of co-creation and knowledge sharing between
peers could be better technologically facilitated than before.
However, whether co-creation and increasing peer-to-peer communication are beneficial for
education is no longer a technological question. In this regard Selwyn (2011, p. 84) points out
that debates about technology in education are often normative, since establishing a “‘cause-
and-effect’ relationship between technology and learning is nigh on impossible.” Furthermore,
there is not only a discussion about the ‘internal imperative’ for technology in education
(whether certain technologies improve education), but also uncertainty about the ‘external
imperative’ (whether different education is required due to a more digitalized world). In order to
let these discussions flow more fruitfully Selwyn (2011) recommends changing the vocabulary of
the discussion from the current combination of ill-defined concepts and technologies towards a
discussion language based on the educational role of these technologies and more concrete
practices. This is exactly want I intend to do in my further steps regarding ideation and
prototyping: Make this important matter of the (future of the) DLE more concrete and accessible
for students, in order to enrich the discussion with their perspectives. Interestingly, the OOM-
program of SURFnet is still foremost focused on improving these concepts and technologies in
order to support the supporting staff at higher educational institutes. While the develop initiatives
in this direction, SURFnet has to retain a balance between the roles of facilitator and change
maker.
5.1.2 Digital World
While I will explore the potential internal imperative for technology education through
observation of my peer students in contemporary education, I did desk research regarding the
external imperative. To what extent is the world becoming more digitalized? And what does this
actually mean for education? Are enrolling students truly digital natives?
Floridi (2014) holds that those interacting objects influence the nature, and our
perception, of reality. We are entering the infosphere, a diabolic concept that refers minimally to

27. 27
“the whole informational environment constituted by all informational entities, their properties,
interactions, processes, and mutual relations” and maximally it becomes “synonymous with
reality, once we interpret the latter informationally” (Floridi, 2014).
What this means for our lives as individuals is not yet clear. Personal information is
partly constitutive of who you are and how you see the world. When we become able to
commoditize this through (learning) analytics, what does this mean for individuals? In this
regard, I concur with Floridi that “it seems crucial that we understand how ICTs are significantly
affecting us, our identities, and our self-understanding (Floridi, 2014, p. 58).”
In this regard, Floridi points out that human-computer interaction becomes a symmetrical
relationship: Humans are not only developing ICTs and environments for them to inhabit, but
ICTs are developing our identities and lifeworld as well (Floridi, 2014, Ciborra, 2002).
While the issues discussed in this subsection may seem to some as a rather futuristic
perspective, this is not the case. The NMC Report 2015, according to experts the leading
publication on technological trends in higher education, suggests the Internet of Things will have
an impact on higher education in four to five years (Johnson et al., 2015). In addition, in
summarizing the strategy of the Open University UK, the NMC Report signals an emphasis on
“the importance of students learning how to collaborate with technology” (Johnson et al., 2015,
p. 25, italics added). It speaks no longer of using technology, but of collaborating with
technology.
5.1.3 Digital Natives and Literacy
Within discussions about technology in education, the concept of ‘digital natives’ often comes to
the fore. While this concept has no strict definition, it refers to the notion that individuals growing
up in contemporary society have different information processing skills due to the rise of in
informational objects in their surroundings (Prensky, 2001). Prensky (2001) argued that since
these individuals have different skills they need different teaching methods to enable their
learning. Empirical research in this area is still scarce, but early studies suggest caution in this
regard, based on the following arguments: large differences in digital skills and usage within this
generation (Margaryan and Littlejohn, 2008; Kennedy et al., 2008) and difficulties in assessment
due to differences in actual and self-perceived skills (Correa, 2010; Corrin et al., 2010). Prensky
(2011) himself has changed his perspective and talks about ‘digital wisdom’, i.e. how to achieve
wisdom in the increasingly digital world described above. In this regard, it is important that there
has been a change from the earlier discussed internal to the external imperative of technology
in education. The question is no longer: ‘How could we improve current education with

28. 28
technology?’, but rather: ‘How should we change current education to fit an increasingly
technological world? In practice, these two questions are no opposites, but for our purpose, the
emphasis on the latter is beneficial. This question stresses the importance of the primary
process and, thus, the perspectives of the students that are directly involved in this process. In
addition, it points out that technology should no longer be seen in the light of potential means
and ends, but as “hidden trait of all that today is taken as real” (Ciborra, 2002, p. 76).
In this regard the notion of ‘affordances’ is interesting (Norman, 1993). Technology
makes certain actions possible, while it complicates and excludes others. As novel technologies
are increasingly becoming part of our society, they will influence our actions in ways that cannot
be easily foreseen. For educational purposes, it is important to realise that different technologies
facilitate different actions.
5.1.4 21th century skills
This brings us to the question of the intention of our education. What is it that we try to learn
students? A popular concept related to this issue is that of ‘21th-century skills’. Due to
digitization, increasing the speed of change in society and globalization, there are calls for a
different type of education. In his comparative study, Dede (2010) points out that an important
fundamental aspect of these 21th century skills is that refer to more ‘contextual’ capabilities.
Due to an increased complexity and (digital) possibilities of every-day life, interaction with the
environment has become relatively more important than isolated task execution (Koraly and
Panis, 2004). Within 20th century education knowing is separated from doing (Dede, 2010). Due
to this fundamental inconsistency, proponents of 21th century skills support a more fundamental
rethinking of education instead of adding little bits of 21th-century skills training on the edges.
While it is out of scope for this thesis to discuss this issue in depth, I would like to present the
most prominent framework of the Partnership for 21th century learning. Although other
frameworks (see: Metiri Group and NCREL, 2003; Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development, 2005; American Association of Colleges and Universities, 2007; International
Society for Technology in Education, 2007; Jenkins et al., 2006) highlight different aspects,
there is general congruence over 21th century skills in literature (Dede, 2010).

29. 29
Figure 9. 21th-century skills (The Partnership for 21st Century Learning, 2015)
While Figure 9 shows the 3Rs (reading, writing, arithmetic), education (and thus the
assessments, curricula and learning environments) should support the development of life and
career, learning and innovation, and information, media, and technology skills as well.
5.1.5 Outside Higher Education
Higher education does not exist a vacuum but follows on primary and secondary education. The
above discussed aspects of digitization and different learning objectives are discussed and
implemented there as well. I will discuss my observations of the Steve Jobs School and the
documentary ‘Onderwijzer aan de Macht’ (Power to the teacher).
A Dutch initiative, O4NT (Education for a novel time) has developed the concept of the
so-called ‘Steve Jobs’ Schools. These schools are organized in ‘tribal’ groups of the same size
with students from all ages (4 to 12 years old). They start and finish the day in their tribe with
half an hour that focuses on social interaction. In between, students can choose for themselves
where they want to spend their time. Every classroom (studio) has a specific purpose (math,
language, project or workshop to name a few). Children plan their own day on their iPad that
ensures they are only able to choose classes and timeslots that are available.
The role of teachers is very different in this environment. Instead of providing classical
instructions and revisioning student notebooks, they observe a diverse group of individuals and
while the revisions of the student work is done by technology which provides direct feedback

30. 30
and an adaptive learning path to the student, teachers can evaluate the learning analytics. This
enables them to provide one-on-one support if they deem this appropriate. Teachers state that
while it is difficult to release control, this system does enable them to look at students differently.
Instead of treating them as a group, they are now enabled to see each of them as an individual.
While discussions within higher education regularly questions the responsibility of students for
their own learning process, children in the environment of a Steve Jobs School actually prove to
be capable of doing so. This finding suggests that it might be more accurate to see the low
student responsibility as an outcome of, instead of a rationale for, a more traditionally controlled
learning environment.
In the documentary ‘Onderwijzer aan de Macht’5
several primary and secondary school
change makers are interviewed. We learn that primary schools got rid of the courses like
geography and history and give initiative to students to learn in those directions via projects.
Within highschool, we see that students learn more via activated methods than just listening and
reading.
5.2 Observe
I observed my fellow students at the university naturally when I was working with them in a
group or following lectures with them. In addition, the Maagdenhuis, the building of the board of
the University of Amsterdam, was ‘reappropriated’ by students. I will characterise my
observations of my fellow students in four groups: (i) Maagdenhuis, (ii) the opposition between
individualization and collaboration, (iii) digital experiences (iv) lifelong learning.
5.2.1 Maagdenhuis
As discussed above, design thinking tries to find the (latent) needs and dreams of the end-
users. In addition, the DLE is part of higher education at large. Therefore, I decided to zoom out
from the digital elements towards perspectives on the whole of higher education. The
Maagdenhuis was a fruitful ground for such perspectives.
I choose the following five speakers to analyse: David Graeber, Sally Haslanger, Gloria
Wekker, Wolfgang Streeck, Willem Schinkel (see Appendix A for background information). A
common theme was ‘rendementsdenken’, a Dutch term referring to a narrow focus on
efficiency, measurability and return on investment. Are we able to measure academic
performance? Schinkel points to the concept ‘cognitive capitalism’, which refers to “the
5
tegenlicht.vpro.nl/afleveringen/2014-2015/onderwijzer-aan-de-macht.html

31. 31
increasing trend of using the human mind for the production of funds”. Individuals are, on the
basis on this concept, required to invest in themselves. The increasing measurement,
necessary to determine the economic return on invest, focuses on the individual mind as a
factor in production. According to Streeck: “[This] individualization is the end of science and we
have come dangerously close to this point.” Science is, in his view, foremost a dialogue in which
presence is essential. With regards to this dialogue, Wekker points out that universities are
determined by a “mono-ethnic, mono-racial, mono-gender, mono-cultural state of affairs”.
Currently universities are “cloning” the current staff. However, our students will need to be able
to live and work in an increasingly diverse world. More importantly, “contemporary elites [like the
university staff] have cognitive deficits since they are segregated”, according to Haslanger. Due
to a focus on demarcated disciplines, scientists have trouble to truly understand societal
problems. A more multidisciplinary, problem-based education would be better, in her view.
Graeber advised his audience to “act as if you are free”, with which he meant that university
staff and students should devise their own education in dialogue with each other.
This sentiment could be heard at earlier protests at the university of Amsterdam. When
in 2013 two faculties tried to merge without taking the views of students into account, students
protested, proclaiming “We are the university”.6
In addition, when the Dutch Ministry of
Education asked students for essays on their vision of higher education in 2030, the second-
placed essay provided suggestions for a more community-based university where students
learned together with academics, alumni and other interested parties (Bolsius, 2015).
In conclusion, the importance of dialogue between within the university and with actual
communities around the university was emphasised. In addition, there was a critique on the
expansion of mechanical, individual assessment.
5.2.2 Individualization and Collaboration
While dialogue and interaction are important according to the speakers in the Maagdenhuis, we
can also see a trend towards individualization. For instance, a fellow student said regarding
group work: “Since our group is not working, I did all my individual assignments for the coming
weeks already.” Instead of trying to find ways of making the group work, this student chose to
make sure her individual work was in order. In another group with students who had a
background outside of academia one of them simply said: “I just do not understand this article.”
However, we needed to organize a discussion session about this article as a group. This is no
incident, group work at universities is often very difficult due to the different qualities,
6
http://www.scienceguide.nl/201311/wij-zijn-de-universiteit.aspx

32. 32
perspectives and effort of students. Collaboration is therefore often more task division to an
individual level than working together. In addition, due to the fact that students are in ad-hoc
groups for short time frames, groupwork in academia is inherently more difficult to organise
(Fransen et al., 2013).
Figure 10. Students learning in collaboration, individually, face-to-face and mediated by
technology in one self-organised learning session at the university
These problems are particularly relevant for DLEs and technology in education. An element of
21th-century skills is the increased attention for collaboration, especially across disciplines and
cultures. In addition, regarding this collaboration between students technology places an
important role in communication. However, technology is also used to fit education more to
individual demands (think only of the name of the FPLO-project team SURFnet: Flexible and
Personal Learning Environment). Figure 10 above illustrates the diverse elements of learning in
contemporary education.
5.2.3 Digital Experiences
In a group meeting at the end of a lecture a fellow student of mine said: “I have the feeling I’m
about to say something quite filthy, but don’t you guys think we should meet physically?” As
pointed out above, students already rely extensively on technology for their learning. From my
own experience, I came to the following figure:

33. 33
Figure 11. Digital tools used within learning
On the left side, there are official university portal, enrollment and roster sites. Thereafter, you
find services that are also provided by the University of Amsterdam like Blackboard and Google
Apps the Microsoft services (for instance Word and Skype) that are installed on the computers
at the university. However, with some courses individual teachers decide to use Dropbox,
Facebook pages and Skype. Students collaboration in groups makes often use of Whatsapp
and individual students learn via MOOC-platforms like edX and Coursera or apps like Duolingo.
In addition to these services, Dabbagh and Kitsantas (2012) point out that there is a growing
interest in the pedagogical view that “the community is the curriculum rather than the path to
understanding or accessing the curriculum” and that educational institutes should, therefore,
integrate social media platforms more into their DLEs.
With regard to the term DLE, we have to ask ourselves if there will be non-digital
learning environments in the near future. While concepts like ubiquitous computing sound
futuristic, students are in lectures, working groups and even in group meetings (see Figure 10
above) always interacting with digital platforms. Even if students are, in the words of my group
member, ‘filthy’ enough to meet physically, they still learn (partly) via digital media. If we wonder
a moment about this, we might ask ourselves: ‘Using a term like DLE suggests that there is still
a non-digital learning environment, but is this a tenable, future proof point of view?

34. 34
Future-oriented universities and their consultants are already developing perspectives of
higher education in a more digitalized world.78
In this regard, Keppel (2014) concludes: “within
[the] higher education environment there is a need to scaffold and coach learners in the
affordances of the technology to meet learning outcomes.”
5.2.4 Lifelong Learning
My university program actively tries to reach students who have completed a higher vocational
education and desire to gain an academic degree as well. This is often done at a part-time
basis. The expectation of the experts of SURFnet and others is that lifelong learning, and,
therefore, the number of part-time students, will grow. However, collaboration with them is often
difficult since they are often only able to meet and study in evenings and weekends. Classmates
of me stated that “their group had, due to other commitments, not been able to meet with all four
members once”, while the course lasted eight weeks. Due to their commitments part-time
students have a need for more personalised education. It is therefore not only that students
might be more individually oriented (as discussed above), but their more diverse circumstances
could present challenges for the organisation of education. Again, mediation by technology
could play a role in this process.
In this regard, it is interesting to look towards literature regarding personal learning
environments (PLEs) since this trend is partly driven by the desire to increase lifelong learning.
According to Olivier and Liber (2001, p. 1) lifelong learners desire a “learning profile” for
themselves in which they readily access their records in diverse environments, “not only their
past achievements, but also their current state and future plans.” The winner of the
aforementioned essay competition of the Ministry of Education described a scenario where
students were suggested to follow interesting courses at other universities (Ligterberg, 2015).
While current DLEs are institution-based, PLEs could easier match students with learning
opportunities (Olivier and Lieber, 2001; Hermans, 2015). Atwell (2007) even suggests that due
to “the use of mobile devices and the spread of connectivity it is at least theoretically possible to
bring this learning together and to access theory and knowledge in the context in which it is to
be applied - in the work process.” In this regard, PLEs could be related to concepts like ‘learning
organizations’ and individuals as ‘nomadic knowledge workers’ (Laurrillard, 2009; Moravec,
2013). However, seamless, more personalised learning also demands moments in time and
space where reflection on the learning experience is possible and potential gaps in
7
http://www.sjsu.edu/president/whitepaper/
8
http://dupress.com/articles/future-digital-education-technology/

35. 35
understanding can be detected in collaboration with peer and coaches (Sharples et al., 2013;
Keppel, 2014).
5.3 Point-of-View
Up to this point, we have seen that a DLE is an increasingly complex, wicked problem within
higher education. If we adopt a student perspective and shift our view from the organisational
complexity, we still have a volatile technological development that provide affordances for new
methods of teaching and learning (Floridi, 2014; Norman, 1993). In addition, from educational
perspective, this changing world demands new skills from students, while these student demand
more personalised learning environments and form, due to lifelong learning and the more
broadly defined skillset, a more diverse group. Within the observation phase, we identified
overlapping tensions between collaboration and individualisation, and technology-mediated and
physically bounded interaction.
In a meeting with the whole PFLE-team on 22 April, I presented excerpts from the
observations and understanding phases in a visually stimulating manner (See Appendix B) in
order to facilitate a more interactive and thought-provoking session. In addition, regarding my
observation that there are no non-digital learning environments anymore there were
suggestions that digital elements have to be seen in much closer connection with educational
practices. The team name consisting of ‘flexible’ and ‘personal’ provides space for enquiries in
this area (it is no longer purely considered with a digital learning environment, but with an
environment that is flexible and personal in which digitalisation plays an important role). I came
therefore to the following point of view:
DLEs are no longer components within university organisation, but should be seen as
integral elements of the educational process. In addition, this educational process is
changing in yet to be determined ways.
While this definition might seem rather broad, it already stipulates that it is no longer
foremost about technological or organizational issues, but about the educational process itself.
This frame suggests that the input from teachers and students is more important and that the
discussion should be focused around concrete educational practices (Selwyn, 2011). On the
basis of one’s vision on the future of these practices and the role of technology in this, one can
define the required organizational and technological facilities.
Thus, from a question zoomed in on DLEs, we have moved towards a question
regarding the future of education (and the role of DLEs within this education). In addition, when I

36. 36
started my ideation process with experts from universities, I came to the conclusion I needed
several user-centric scenarios. Since design thinking supports an iterative process, I include
four different user-need-insight combinations that provide the basis for forthcoming scenarios.
Table 2. Users, needs and insights

37. 37
5.4 Ideation
Since the OOM-program leader had already interviewed experts, I decided to speak with
experts in the ideation phase. Since I had at this point already a focus in my research on the
future of education and the role of DLEs (and other technologies), I was capable of having free-
flowing interactive conversations with them. I interviewed eight experts for roughly an hour on
the basis of four broad, open questions to acquire as many ideas as possible (See Appendix C
for background information on the experts and the questions). I developed the forthcoming
scenarios (see subsection 5.5) in between meetings with the experts. For instance, I gained
from the interviewees that the scenarios needed to be non-exclusive since they are developing
and combining several directions at once. In addition to the indirect support for the scenario
developing, I observed the following notions during the interviews.
Without exception, experts stated that they were foremost thinking of learning. As one
expert put it: “In order to create an ideal digital learning environment, I have to think about how
students ideally learn.” They all seem to agree that most of the academic staff are foremost
domain specialists and not necessary pedagogical experts. Therefore, they cannot simply
develop technological tools that are required by academic staff. They have to develop and
implement courses that are supported by novel technologies, in collaboration with staff.
Technology is in this case not only to improve current educational practices, but it enables other
types of teaching and learning. These experts focus for this reason on the learning process in
contrast to the ‘product’ of learning. Students should not be seen as knowledge consumers who
acquire particular learning products but more as nascent knowledge workers. This can be
related to the scenario of the learning community in which there is no longer a direct opposition
between students and faculty, since both are knowledge workers.
The experts often reference to frameworks that combine Bloom’s Taxonomy of
educational objectives with certain instructional practices and technological tools (Bloom et al.,
1956). In more recent literature, the TPACK-model is often used in support of the development
of education (Brouwer et. al, 2013).

38. 38
Figure 12. TPACK model (Brouwer et. al., 2013, p. 106)
As shown in the Figure 12, this model combines knowledge about content, pedagogy and
technology. This model stems from two findings. Firstly, earlier research suggested that that
content and pedagogy are not strictly separate issues, but are entwined (Shulman, 1986; 1987).
Some pedagogical styles are more suited for certain types of content and vice versa (Koehler
and Mishra, 2005). Secondly, we have seen an increase in technology in the classroom while
the educational value remained unclear (Mishra and Koehler, 2006). The focus has been on the
technical possibilities of software and devices, but not on the effects on learning. When we try to
do this, we fall immediately into the content and pedagogical areas. Therefore, an integrated
model is suggested in which those three factors; content, pedagogy and technology are seen as
intertwined and interdependent. The development of educational technology is, therefore, a
highly context-dependent activity. The scenarios are therefore not isolated DLEs, but views of
education, including pedagogy and technology.
An interesting observation that several experts mentioned was about students. The latter
would, at first instance, actually prefer traditional classes that are based on lectures and book-
learning. One expert stated that it took students a semester to appreciate novel teaching
methods that require more active behaviour from them. This suggests again, after our
experience at the Steve Jobs school, that student responsibility (and motivation) is not a given,
but can be influenced by the type of education.

39. 39
However, other experts pointed out that elementary schools (like the Steve Jobs School
we already discussed) and secondary schools make more use of technology to facilitate the
development of 21th century skills. This could provide pressure on tertiary education to do the
same.
Another element that comes back regularly is the collaboration with business and
lifelong learning. At the moment, students have to be registered by the university that facilitates
the course. However, experts observe a need for more diversification with regards to access.
Access for students from other educational institutes, lifelong learners that follow one course or
alumni that are asked to supervise group projects are required as well. What kind of different
needs do these different groups have? And how can one institution facilitate these needs?
A final agreement between all experts was that there were no one-dimensional
approaches to IT in education. None of the institutions of the experts focuses on one digital
technology or one pedagogical approach. They are experimenting and developing several paths
that can be used to facilitate different needs of teachers and students.
Experts differ on the role of interaction in DLEs. Some state that this should be the place
for interaction and that teamwork might be better analysed and supported with the support of
online tools, while other see the online environment more for lower-order learning skills. Related
to this is the question whether the DLE should be seen as an organizing tool (everything on one
online site) or a learning environment (where students actually learn in interaction with the
platform). Related to this is the tension between more personalised learning and more team-
based, interactive, learning. Personalisation fits well with individual learning analytics, while the
contribution of individuals within teams might be more difficult to measure. Or could we combine
personalisation and team-based education, but do we need to implement them on different
levels? Dilemmas regarding individualisation and collaboration are brought to the fore with the
scenarios and came back in the sessions with the students.
In addition to these conceptual discussions, the experts discussed some of their actual
practices with me that I integrated into my scenarios. For instance, the ‘teacher as hologram’ in
the third scenario was provided to me by one of those experts.
5.5 Prototyping
With the support of a colleague with experience in media design, I developed four scenarios
based on the aforementioned user-need-insight combinations (see subsection 5.3). On the
basis of Perception in Action (see Figure 5) I developed first semantic possibilities on the basis

40. 40
of the frames presented in the point-of-view. Thereafter, I developed the scenarios visually in
A2-posters in order to use them for brainstorm sessions with students. See ‘Appendix D:
Scenarios (Prototyping)’ for the posters themselves, I discuss the scenarios shortly below.
5.5.1 Universities as Learning Communities
Students are co-creators in learning communities that cross borders of disciplines and
universities. They want to learn in interaction with academic staff and other students based on
real-world problems. In congruence, the online environment consists of overlapping learning
communities around these problems. Together with staff, alumni and other professionals,
students create solutions. Assessment is more social as well, peers and problem owners can
judge students qualitatively.
5.5.2 Universities as Personal Learning Facilitator
Students are cognitive self-entrepreneurs in a university that sees itself as a personalised
learning facilitator. Individualised and career-oriented students gain more control over their own
learning process. Within the online environment, learning analytics enable students to evaluate
their own learning behaviour and compare themselves with their classmates. In order to achieve
comparable learning analytics, content is provided by staff and the learning process is
technologically controlled. Gamification elements are included.
5.5.3 Universities as digitalised Makerspaces
Students are explorers in a digitalised makerspace. Within an increasingly digitalised world
creativity and tech-savviness are stimulated by an extensively digitalised campus buildings. Due
to this (digital) media-rich environments, students are able to process and express information
with all senses. The learning process is simultaneously face-to-face and technology-mediated,
whereas the content comes from staff and students in interaction with technology. With regard
to assessment, students are made responsible for their own digital portfolio in which they
showcase their learning products and experiences.

41. 41
5.5.4 Universities as Reflection Spaces
Students are professionals that come to university for reflection. Lifelong learners desire
learning experiences that are relevant for their work. Therefore, they use wearable technology
for (the recording of) a personal learning experience. In addition to this seamless experience,
they analyse and reflect upon the collected data in groups with peers and a coach. Content
comes from the students, while the learning process is heavily technology-mediated (with the
support of teachers and peers).
5.6 Testing
I organised four sessions with in total 28 students in which I introduced the aforementioned
scenarios to them before asking their input in relation to their own experiences in education and
with technology. On the basis of design thinking guidelines, I tried to find ‘extreme users’. This
resulted in four groups:
a. Master students of the Sandberg Institute (an art school)
b. students from member organisations of the ISO (Interstedelijk Studenten Overleg,
Interurban Student Deliberation, an organisation that facilitates members of student
councils in the Netherlands)
c. Information Studies students
d. Informatics students who were in the final phase of the development of a digital learning
environment
An elaboration on the chosen groups can be found in ‘Appendix E: Student Sessions (Testing)’.
I also discuss in this appendix groups that I tried to include, but was unable to gather in time for
this research.
Before introducing the scenarios, I asked them to think for a moment about positive
learning experiences and the usage of technology in their education. This set the stage for their
evaluation of the scenarios. In the discussion afterwards certain grievances about their current
education came up as well.
A few general notions came to the fore in all sessions. Students saw a focus on
interaction and collaboration as ideal. When a group works well on a complex problem, they
help each other in their learning process. In addition, this is seen as a good preparation for a
future job. However, students point out that at university “it is expected of students that they are
able to collaborate, although this is a skill that must be learned.” Especially, the Information
Studies and Informatics groups would really like more attention for interaction and collaboration.

42. 42
“When something goes wrong in a group project, there is no feedback on the aspect of
collaboration. Due to this lack of guidance this does not result in a learning experience.” One
student spoke, in this regard, even of recurring “traumatic experiences” (since students do not
learn from the trauma, it happens again in the next group assignment).
Students were hesitant with technology providing feedback, let alone assessment, of
complex group collaboration. With regard to (peer) interaction and feedback students were more
enthusiastic. DLEs that enable students to ask questions directly next to, or below the content,
with other students providing answers were well received. Smart solutions as up-voting
questions (to provide the instructor with a sense of most problematic issues) or providing active
students with informal recognition (top contributor badges) were seen as potential
improvements.
Figure 13. Students brainwriting in response to the scenarios

43. 43
Interaction supporting technology was, in addition, seen as an important component of a more
personal learning environment. While students would appreciate a more personalised
curriculum, they do not see added value in a more modularised or individualised form of courses
(individualistic has in this regard a negative connotation). A general warning was made about
technology. Due to the complexity of higher-order learning goals, assessment and guidance
should remain in the hands of human experts. Especially within the subjective area of arts,
assessment and feedback must be qualitative and personal.
Learning analytics could nonetheless contribute to formative, positive feedback
(comparison of time spent with other students or adaptive systems that direct you toward
applicable reading or other exercises). In general, students from all groups mentioned that they
desired more formative feedback (“You get a grade and that’s it, or, if your score was
insufficient, you try to get an extra point” and “You can make the same mistake over and over,
but if your overall grades are sufficient, no-one pays attention”). ISO-students mentioned that
more choice on course-level of for projects in a course could facilitate students who have
particular interests. While their university might have not enough students for a course or project
that suits them, collaboration with students from universities could solve this problem.
An interesting finding was the fact that students emphasise the lack of student
motivation and responsibility for their own learning process. A concept of flipping the classroom
is by some disregarded as not attainable since “students do not learn before class.” Even within
smaller studies, students state that their fellow students do not really work. ISO-students, mostly
from large gamma studies, were most negative, stating, “minimum demands become the
maximum effort”. Interestingly, the situation was very different for the arts students. They have
often no specific grades and very few mandatory elements in their education, but seem more
motivated. As we have seen with Steve Jobs school in primary education, we see it here in
tertiary education as well: student motivation and responsibility is not a given, but seems to be
influenced by the type of education.
A rather strange notion arose from the session with bachelor students. They tend to
evaluate their study on academic and disciplinary basis. Even if they are themselves not
interested in pursuing an academic career they state that this is important. This seems to be in
congruence with the observation in the understanding phase (see subsection 5.1) in which prof.
dr. Gloria Wekker spoke of the cloning of academic staff. This group consists mostly of mono-
disciplinary academics and this was reflected in the students. Within the sessions with master
students (Arts and Information Studies), students realise more that tertiary education is only
their initial education (graduated is no longer finished with regard to schooling), that there are

44. 44
other issues important besides their own discipline and that are other modes of thinking of value
besides the ones teached at university.
The third scenario, in which the physical environment of an (applied) university becomes
a digital learning environment, delivered very diverse responses. Art students disregarded this
development as a “dystopia” and “uninspiring”. However, ISO-students thought it was
interesting, although they did not know how technology could support learning in the social
sciences. Information Studies students saw possibilities of learning via technology but the
question remained which technologies to use. Digital technology ages very quickly and the price
of novel technologies is very high, which raised questions of the sustainability of such a model.
Informatics students saw only a limited added value in their own studies, while some stated that
they preferred more staff instead of more technology. This scenario led to the most diverse
responses.
The last scenario, which focuses on lifelong learners, was for the full-time students that
attended the sessions not relatable. Some stated that it was comparable with internship-periods
at applied universities, in which students are most of the time working at companies and
reflecting on this experience at their institution with fellow students and staff. However, students
saw universities as places where you learn truly novel things and not only reflect.
What we can conclude from these sessions are the differences between the different
disciplines. This is emphasised by students themselves, who point out that it is their perspective
on their discipline and that technology actually could facilitate this diversity more. Could we
envision a technological structure that would facilitate this view? In addition, personalisation is
something that (full-time) students like on curriculum level, within their courses they do not seem
to demand more personal trajectories. A more personalised environment that enables students
to choose courses and provides them with insight into their personal learning process (of which
students are currently unaware) might be interesting.

45. 45
6. Results
In this section I will present my results regarding the three levels of my research as presented in
the introduction: (i) provide the FPLO-team with valuable insights regarding DLEs, (ii) evaluate
the potential value of design thinking for SURFnet and (iii) evaluate, on the basis of this case,
the usability of design thinking concepts and practices.
6.1 Insights regarding DLEs
IT and the primary process of education can no longer be separated. From a theoretical point of
view, Floridi (2014) and Ciborra (2002) have stated that digital technology is becoming an
indistinguishable element of everyday life. Besides this, in the observation phase we have seen
that students constantly use technology in their learning process. In addition, in the
Maagdenhuis we saw that students and teachers want to develop their education in
collaboration. In this sense, there is no longer a non-digital learning environment. The led us to
the following point of view: DLEs are no longer components within university organisation, but
should be seen as integral elements of the educational process. In addition, this educational
process is changing in yet to be determined ways. Within the ideation phase, this view was
confirmed by experts, who stated that they think foremost about learning. Within literature, the
TPACK-model, which suggests that technology in education is a highly context-dependent
matter, is well-known. Different disciplines have different demands regarding technology
(Educause Learning Initiative, 2015). Learning analytics, for instance, do not have the same
potential for experiential art education as they have with regards to basic arithmetic. Peer
feedback, on the other hand, might be of more importance for disciplines in which
communication and subjectivity are at the core of the professional practice. In addition, within
disciplines, different courses have different learning goals that correspond to different learning
activities that, in turn, correspond to a different (digital) learning environment. Therefore, we can
conclude that there is, on a course level, a high need for flexibility.
This means that teachers need to concern themselves with technology (and pedagogy)
in addition to the content, as stipulated by the TPACK-model. This has implications for SURFnet
as well. Instead of just providing IT, SURFnet facilitates the IT-component in the education (and
research) process. In order to do so, SURFnet has to develop more knowledge regarding this
educational process and the ways in which it is changing. With regard to a more personal
learning environment, we have seen that there is a need for personalisation and
individualisation on curriculum level. Students want to be able to choose their own courses, but

46. 46
they do like to follow these courses in interaction and collaboration with others (although there is
severe room for improvement in this regard). This brings me to the following model (see Figure
13).
Figure 14. Suggested model for a more flexible and personal learning environment
Within the ‘Personal Learning Organizer’ student can foremost choose courses based on their
preferences and course evaluations of peers. In addition, there are basic learning analytics that
could, for instance, suggest to login to a ‘Course Learning Environment’ on the basis that 90%
of the other students that follow this course did log in. These analytics are therefore not on a
detailed level of actual learning processes, but more on a meta-level. To help the student plan
his learning path, they can read and write about the options that are available. In addition,
learning groups or coaches could be given access to discuss their learning on this ‘meta’ level.
Within these elements students could learn to reflect upon their own learning process, since we
have seen that student currently tend to think mostly about the course content and academic
standards instead of their own personal development (Olivier and Lieber, 2001). A study and

47. 47
institutional independent framework could facilitate the first steps of students becoming lifelong
learners. In order to present students with a fair choice of courses of all educational institutes
this personal learning organizer (since most of the learning does not actually occur in this layer,
I called it organizer), is not provided by one educational institution but by a neutral
encompassing organisation. In this regard, some have spoken of an ‘Universiteit van Nederland’
(Van ‘t Riet, 2014). However, currently SURF seems the appropriate party for such a digital
facility.
The second layer is the ‘Course Learning Environment’. As stated before, the content,
pedagogy and technologies need to be aligned. This means that teachers and course
coordinators need to be able to decide what technological tools they actually want to make use
of. Dependent on the course learning goals and personal preferences teachers have the
flexibility to combine a range of tools in order to facilitate the learning processes they want
enable. In practice, courses in the same discipline will often have very comparable learning
environments (since they have comparable goals), but differentiations are possible. Special
attention in this regard should be paid to interaction and collaboration tools. While these
processes are seen as valuable, students complain about the lack of attention it has from
teachers who are focused on the course content. One could imagine some type of group role
tests at the start of the course in order to form more appropriate groups or technology-mediated
peer review processes. In addition, teachers would be able to assign more specific roles (since
they have more specific environments) per course for individuals.
These applications come from the third layer, the ‘Institutional Service Repository’
(Hermans, 2015). For most of these services licenses and support is required which cannot be
easily managed at course level. In addition, there might be a (strategic) need for uniformity on
an institutional level.
6.2 Design Thinking at SURFnet
As we have seen in the case context, SURFnet tries to collaborate with educational institutions
in order to support them with innovation. However, while the LCPM-model focuses on in-house
innovation, the OOM-program is more focused on supporting the institutions to innovate. In
addition, the LCPM-model is focused on the process around concrete innovations (and not on
fostering an innovative culture). With regard to fostering an innovative culture, SURFnet yearly
hands out five times 10.000 euro to individual employees who are selected via a lottery. They
need to decide on what type of innovation to spend this money. Colleagues who have ideas in
this regard can discuss them (informally) with the lottery winners who decide where they spend