Articles Review

ARTICLES REVIEW
Name
Institution
Challenges of disruptive change
A change is usually good for any existing business if it is aimed at reaching more clientele and bringing more significant profit margins. However for any shift in successfully occur a company has to brace itself for what it takes, and innovation has become such a complicated venture for established businesses. Managers of organizations should have the capability to tell whether the company once subjected to the change is capable of making it through or it might bring it to a stall. This can be done by not only the assessment of the staff capabilities but also the structure of the organization, its abilities, and disabilities (Christensen and Overdorf, 2000).
To understand what changes an existing business is capable or incapable of handling, a manager should recognize the core capabilities of the organization and examine how these capabilities migrate with the growth and maturation of the company. Factors that determine what a business can be able to handle include its resources, values, and processes. Resources include people, equipment, funds, designs, information and relationship with suppliers. With access to high-quality ample resources, the higher the possibility of a company surviving change. Values of any company, in this case referring to criteria by which personnel set that assist them in decision making to prioritize things for instance which products to choose or which clients to see. Processes which means the way employees interact, coordinate issues, communicate, and make decision that are used to get products and services of advanced worth from resources (Christensen and Overdorf, 2000).

Processes are meant to perform a task in a consistent way thus a process for a particular task may be sluggish in another.
Factors that define capabilities and disabilities are bound to change over time. To cope with change, therefore, managers should fashion a different space in the organization where the change can occur by building fresh structures in the organization that provide space for development of processes, spinning out independent and create new processes within it or acquire a new organization with matching progressions and standards. With this, an organization is enabled to handle disruptive change without crumbling.
Design Thinking: Notes on Its Nature and Use
With the increasing population, there has been adverse pressure on resources and the environment, and this action needs to be taken to avert the outcome of this. The government which has the sole responsibility in engaging decision makers to take care of this issue seems to be failing at the task. Mostly the government engages the services of scientific thinkers, but this needs to be complimented because scientific thinking most times is unheeded (Owen, 2007). Design thinking set to complement scientific thinking. It is, however, the opposite of scientific thinking because scientists examine facts to come up with designs and visions, the designer, on the other hand, originates new designs and theories to address realities and possibilities.
The world needs more of understanding and insight, and ideas that can blend that knowledge and insight in creating new solutions. The major importance of Design thinking is Creativity. Creative people may be categorized into finders and makers (Owen, 2007). Finders mainly exercise their creativity through making discoveries and look for an explanation for facts that are not correctly understood. Makers, on the other hand, tend to conceptualize new formations from what they already know.
Characteristics of design thinking include systemic vision in that it takes to account the pact between and among several systems. It has the ability use language as a tool in that it uses diagrams to illustrate connections, features, and relationships (Owen, 2007). Design thinking tends to have a predisposition towards malfunctionality as solutions specific given problems can at times solve other issues provide some minor modification. Thus there is a considerable potential regarding applications and dividends from it. It also approaches problems with the aim of addressing them for long-term purposes and serving the best interests of both humankind and the environment. Design thinking and scientific thinking form a set of corresponding thought progressions that add substantial, strong points to an institute
IDEO
The article talks about IDEO a world-leading product design firm and its innovation, culture, and process. Boyle, a studio leader, had led his team in designing 3Com’s Palm V hand-held computer which had been rated as a fruitful invention with very hefty profitmaking prospective by designers and managers (Thomke and Nimgade, 2017). Boyle was to meet up with the founder of IDEO David Keller. Boyle had been asked by Handspring a business that was starting up to develop a novel hand-held computer Visor, but they need him to do it in less time it took to create the Palm V, which meant him and the team would have to take several shortcuts to IDEO’s legendary improvement process
David Keller had given up writing his Ph.D. thesis when he realized that most consultation corporations had specialists, with technological knowhow but devoid of clear access development firm for wide-range of goods. This led to him setting up David Kelly design that he runs for ten years. He later merged with Matrix and ID two to for a more significant company IDEO and Kelly became the chief executive officer since David Kelly Design was the largest of the three groups (Thomke and Nimgade, 2017). The merger offered services of developing and manufacturing of new products, designing, mechanical and electrical engineering services with clients including Philips, Apple Computer, Amtrak, NEC Corp, Samsung and several others.
IDEO prides itself on improving its inventions processes by having all complete projects reviewed. The central idea of IDEO is prototyping and experimentation practices. The company also indulges in playfulness whereby in all branches would have a “show-and-tells” that provided a platform for designers and engineers to display their newest products and self-designs. New uses for certain items would be found by them rummaging over the components, play with the switches, knobs, and any unusual materials (Thomke and Nimgade, 2017). There are managerial challenges of creating and managing an unusually creative and innovative company culture, but they had values they held, and these helped in maintaining the company like rewarding of employees who perform best by addition of shares in the company’s resource base of its customers.

References
Christensen, C. M., & Overdorf, M. (2000). Meeting the challenge of disruptive
change. Harvard business review, 78(2), 66-77.
Thomke, S and Nimgade, A (2017). IDEO. Harvard Business School Case 600-143, June
2000. (Revised October 2017.)
Owen, C. (2007). Design thinking: Notes on its nature and use. Design Research
Quarterly, 2(1), 16-27.