Sustaining Thai Government Agency Innovation through Design Thinking Learning Effectiveness

Abstract

Thailand’s 4.0 strategy intends to achieve prosperity, security, and sustainability for its citizens both today and in the distant future. By focusing on the public sector and its civil servants, the government is driving innovation in the public sector by using design thinking (DT) to train government officials to improve public sector innovation (PSI). However, despite studies being conducted on DT and its increasing popularity among scholars, there is still a gap between knowledge and practice with regard to the learning effectiveness of the DT methodology in terms of fostering public sector innovation. Therefore, the authors’ objective for this study was to explore the effectiveness of DT in the Thai PSI and measure the learning effectiveness of the design thinking method (DTM). The researchers conducted action research through a series of workshops and in-class activities involving both qualitative and quantitative approaches. The sample was made up of government officials participating in the Thai Government Innovation Lab (GIL) project in 2020 and 2021. The results on the effectiveness of the program showed that fostering government innovation through DT education led to highly sustainable and highly effective outcomes. This study contributes to the development of public innovation by implementing the DTM as a core methodology for fostering innovation in public organizations.

1. Introduction

The world is becoming more complex, with external drivers and challenges such as the global pandemic, technology disruption, and environmental issues causing unexpected changes that give birth to unforeseen problems for all types of organizations [1]. However, since 1991, Design Thinking (DT) has grown in recognition; it is a tool that organizations can deploy to deal with complexity and foster innovation [2]. However, although DT has become a significant business trend in recent decades, it has not generally been used to address social issues [3].

Design thinking can be a tool for resolving a “wicked problem”, a term that refers to a problem that has innumerable causes, is tough to describe, and does not have one right solution [4]. Additionally, previous studies have suggested that DT is a mechanism that organizations can use to create innovative and rapid solutions to highly complex problems. However, in so doing, the interest, concerns, and human values are factored into the design process [5,6,7].

In the context of Thailand, the nation is stepping up its drive to incorporate innovation into the Thailand 4.0 model as part of the fourth industrial revolution. Thailand’s 4.0 economic model aims to free the nation from multiple economic challenges resulting from past economic development models. These include agriculture (Thailand 1.0), light industry (Thailand 2.0), and advanced industry (Thailand 3.0). These challenges include “a middle-income trap”, “an inequality trap”, and “an imbalanced trap”. The objectives of Thailand 4.0 include the four aspects of economic prosperity, social wellbeing, raising human values, and environmental protection.

According to the Thailand 4.0 model, both the public and private sectors need to transform and adapt themselves according to this governance principle. This is supported by Muhibbullah et al. [8] in Bangladesh, whose research supports the idea that design thinking is a way to develop youth entrepreneurial programs and digital skills. As such, the current Thai government aims to drive economic development through the concept of a value-based economy, in which innovation is the key driver. This is consistent with Chiu and Lin [9], who reported that today China’s central and local governments pay more attention to knowledge innovation activities no matter what the problems may be.

In Thailand, the Thai government has implemented the Government Innovation Lab (GIL), which is in collaboration with the UNDP and the Office of The Public Sector Development Commission (OPDC) [10]. The GIL focuses on a citizen-centric approach and the real needs of the people through public collaboration for innovation development in government services. Additionally, the initiative is being implemented in partnership with the Thailand Creative & Design Center (TCDC) and other Thai universities and academics. However, the ability of Thai education to foster innovation is still being examined [11].

2. Literature Review

This literature review presents four key elements that the authors identified in developing innovation using design thinking.

2.1. Design Thinking

While DT seems to be a term still in its infancy in terms of its applicability in the practical world, there is no denying that humans have been involved in design activities for centuries. Similarly, the term DT is still relatively new among academic scholars, and the study of DT and its application are still gaining interest in the academic world.

Moreover, academic scholars have studied DT from different aspects and explored various contextual applications of D.T. Simon’s [12] study of DT, which became famous partially through his Nobel Prize-winning book The Sciences of the Artificial. The original main idea of Simon [12] was to differentiate between the existing world (reality) and the designed work (artifacts), with DT’s role being to study the way humans “design” the artifacts, which is commonly referred to as the Science of Design. The Science of Design also involves sequential heuristic activities that entail developing, evaluating, analyzing, and refining ideas [13]. Thus, multiple stages are used to create ideas and assess and select the best solutions for production [14]. We can say that Simon’s work was the first theoretical foundation of design thinking, which raised the interest of scholars to study the myth of design thinking and how humans design or create artifacts.

While Simon’s approach was theoretical, i.e., the scientific world, another school of thought viewed DT from the practical world through the lens of designers, commonly called designerly thinking, instead of design thinking. The idea of designerly thinking was based on research that studied how designers work in an industry, such as architects [15], which is more about the practice-based side and how the creative process unfolds. Rather than viewing design thinking as pure science, scholars look at designerly thinking as how we make meaning in the world through design. Krippendorff [16] justified this by stating that DT must create meaning and connect a design object, artifacts, and individuals. Therefore, we can see the theoretical development related to DT, which involves both scientific and artistic sides.

Another view that scholars have recently taken is that DT can be viewed as a method of solving problems. Buchanan [4] explained how DT could be a method to solve problems through its multidisciplinary nature and using a systematic approach model, from problem formulation to the proposed solutions.

While DT has been mentioned and studied for some time, the research in this area is still mostly limited to design schools or engineering schools. However, DT has gained greater interest and become more popular since it has been integrated into management practice, whereby DT was recognized as an alternative tool for creating innovations.

Various scholars have proposed many DT models as a method of creating innovations. However, all these models share the same values of being systematic, problem based, and comprised of critical thinking and creative thinking. Until now, the most recognizable model is the one that was co-developed by the Hasso Plattner Institute of Design at Stanford University Stanford d.school [17].

This Stanford d.school DT model comprises five stages and is based on the theoretical foundations of previous DT-related theories. It is a systematic, scientific, and practice-based approach to making sense of and solving complex problems step by step. The five stages of the Stanford d.school DT include empathize, define, ideate, prototype, and test [18]. One of the critical aspects of this design thinking method is that it has the core theory of human-centered design (HCD) as its essence, whereby every design thinking process should start with a human aspect or be empathetic, as described in the model.

Brown and Katz [19] also teamed up to write about DT and firmly stated that DT is not a methodology that produces results that can be quantified. Instead, DT is a philosophy that is an intersection between innovation and business viability, feasibility, and commercialization.

2.2. Public Sector Innovation (PSI)

A new economy or industry emerges where individuals can combine new technology and a new market while creating new economic system values. Many of the studies related to innovation have focused on the private sector, while a limited number have dealt with understanding PSI [20,21,22,23].

However, Bloch and Bugge [24] provided a clear understanding of the concept of PSI and indicated that it consists of three areas. First, the nature of PSI is based on the main idea of serving the public. Second, PSI involves many vital stakeholders who create specific conditions for the execution or implementation of innovation. Third, the most distinctive feature of PSI is its need to be activated in a market-based framework since it is used for non-profit purposes. Therefore, these three principles are very important for understanding what makes the field of PSI distinctive.

Several other scholars have added their definitions of PSI. Altschuler and Behn [25] gave a very generic definition of PSI, which is not much different from PSI in that the PSI depends on the degree of novelty and change made in the organization. Mulgan [26] described a more pubic-related essence when he defined PSI as new ideas that create public value. The Oslo Manual observed that PSI is about creating new ideas and ensuring that the innovation is implemented [27].

Additionally, based on an extensive literature review, De Vries et al. [28] and others have categorized PSI into six types. First, the authors stated that process innovation refers to improving the efficiency and quality of both external and internal processes. Second, administrative process innovation involves the creation of new working methods, new management methods, and new organizational forms [29]. Technological process innovation discusses how creating and using new technologies within organizations allows for better consumer and citizen services [30]. Fourth, product or service innovation involves the creation of new products or public services [31]. Fifth, governance innovation details how new forms and process development are used to meet specific problems within society [32]. Finally, conceptual innovation refers to creating new concepts, paradigms, or frames of reference that identify and resolve specific problems [33].

As the theoretical foundation of PSI has started to develop, the public sector is also forced to develop innovations with increasingly scarce resources [34]. Such innovation activities are observed as territorial dynamics of culture [35]. Thus, this high compression force includes the dynamics of the culture, demands of politicians, and citizen requirements for more innovations to increase citizen satisfaction.

In terms of public sector innovation in the context of Thailand, there is a demand and gap. The Thailand Development Research Institute (TDRI) has also recently explained that government officials must give R&D (research and development) a chance, with innovation learning the way [36]. For R&D innovation projects to drive the economy, they must receive enough financial support from the government and serve the practical needs of industry.

However, there is a gap in public service innovation in Thailand, as mentioned by [37]. Additionally, the Thai government may not be able to use previous public sector management methods; therefore, it needs to find a new government management method to prepare for changes and problems arising from the creation of PSI. Therefore, newer methods for driving innovation in Thailand’s public sector are needed.

2.3. Design Thinking (DT) As a Method to Drive Public Sector Innovation

Deploying DT as a tool to create PSI has gained interest recently, but DT is still a relatively new approach to help government agencies resolve complex problems and create innovations. Moreover, many of DT’s applications have been regulated by innovation labs or GovLabs [10,38].

The first Government Innovation Lab was developed in Denmark, which provided physical space that could serve as a platform to drive multiple users, including government agencies and stakeholders, to co-create innovative ideas from a citizen’s perspective. Recently, the idea of Government Innovation Labs (GILs) is gaining popularity as a new approach to create innovation in policy and service design for public sector entities worldwide [39].

However, while there is a rising number of GILs around the world, one recent study questioned the effectiveness of DT in PSI due to the slow and limited progress being made within this space [40]. In another example of PSI based on a survey of the PSI labs in both Australia and New Zealand, one of the critical issues raised for further research was the need for a deeper understanding of how the DT methodology is being applied in PSI labs. However, according to a global survey conducted by Deloitte, 79% of the executives surveyed rated DT as an essential or crucial issue [41].

2.4. Design Thinking Learning Effectiveness (DTLE)

In training, development, and educational research, learning effectiveness is one of the critical variables in educational initiatives. These have been considered up-and-coming methods to increase an individual’s potential to start a new venture or innovate [14].

Although learning is a very complex construct, it is essential to measure learning effectiveness (LE) as the outcome of the learning process [42]. Additionally, LE is the construct applied to measure the effectiveness of the educational input at various levels. Previous studies have also applied this construct to measure the effectiveness of the developed educational program [43,44].

Many researchers have deployed the LE construct to measure the effectiveness of aspects of educational technology [45,46,47], while several studies have deployed this construct to measure the effectiveness of different aspects of teaching methodologies [48,49]. From this, we can consider the application of LE as a recognizable construct to measure the effectiveness of learning.

2.5. Literature Review Summary

Our literature review found a limited number of studies concerning design thinking learning effectiveness, in contrast to the number of design thinking-related studies and the popularity of this subject among scholars. Therefore, recognizing that there is still a knowledge gap with regard to the DTLE method, we set out to build on the foundation laid by various scholars and studies to measure the effectiveness of the design thinking philosophy and its implementation in Thai government agencies [17,18,19,38,50].

Moreover, this study built on the five-step empathize, define, ideate, prototype, and test process through an interactive design thinking classroom and group work. The study further measured the DTLE through an analysis, obtaining descriptive statistics, means of learning effectiveness, and a descriptive rating.

Finally, our literature review found that the study of design thinking in the public sector is limited, especially in terms of the research on learning effectiveness in the design thinking process. This has led to the research question of this study: What is the learning effectiveness of the design thinking method in creating PSI?

2.6. Research Objectives

The Thai GIL has also deployed the Stanford Design Thinking Model (SDTM) as the core method of driving PSI [51], which led to the SDTM becoming the focus of this study. Therefore, as there is still limited understanding of the effectiveness of this program for government agencies, this research is interested in studying the effectiveness of the SDTM for Thai government officials from various agencies. We also seek a better understanding of the effectiveness of the process, which benefits the design of an appropriate teaching and training method within the context of Thai government agencies. The intent is to determine which components best serve future PSI. Additionally, to apply PSI to Thai government agencies, this research has three primary objectives:

(1)

To apply the Stanford Design Thinking Model (SDTM) to increase innovation in Thailand government agencies;

(2)

To measure Thai government agency officials’ design thinking learning effectiveness;

(3)

To provide recommendations for improving the design of Thailand’s Government Innovation Labs (GILs).

3. Material and Methods

3.1. Research Design

This study conducted action research and used a quantitative approach to measure learning effectiveness. Reflections from learners were collected in each step of the GIL modules and workshops, namely the empathy step, define step, ideate step, prototype step, and test step [17], to provide qualitative data to support the effectiveness of DT among Thai government agencies. This study consisted of four stages. The first stage was the development of the training material, followed by the second stage, reviewing the relevant data and literature, the development of the design thinking training method, and the organization of the training platform. In the third stage, data were collected through a questionnaire on learning effectiveness. Finally, in the fourth stage, the authors analyzed the data and interpreted the results. Other studies have shown the effectiveness of applying the DT philosophy in training and development programs [3,50].

3.2. Instrument Design

This study’s DLTE process was developed from the Stanford d.school’s five design thinking process stages [17]. It was designed as a form of blended learning, whereby participants experienced various forms of teaching, including lecture-based learning about the theory of design, project-based learning through class workshops, and experiential learning through design practice. The total length of time established for the training was six months, with 12 meeting sessions. Participants were also given group assignments to be accomplished outside of the classroom. The measurement instrument consists of ten items (using a five-point Likert scale) for design thinking learning effectiveness adapted from [50], as shown in

Table 1. Questionnaire items for the design thinking by GovLab (DTBGL) concept learning effectiveness.

Section	Statement List
Section 1: Learner’s profile	Gender of respondents Age of respondents Years of working in the government units
Section 2: Learning effectiveness using the Design Thinking by GovLab (DTBGL) concept	The DTBGL environment is superior in promoting individual class participation over traditional classroom methods. The DTBGL environment is superior in strengthening my ability to detect problems over traditional classroom methods. The DTBGL classroom atmosphere is superior to traditional classroom teaching. The DTBGL process allows me to interact more with my classmates and teachers. The DTBGL classroom allows me to have more effective communication with other professionals. The DTBGL classroom process allows more opportunities for brainstorming and creativity. The DTBGL classroom environment allows me more time to reflect and think. The cloud-based environment permits me to spend more time on my homework. The DTBGL environment strengthens my ability to solve problems. The DTBGL classroom allows me more ability to concentrate in class.
Section 3: Learner’s reflection on the five steps of the GovLab classes.	Learners got the benefits and reflections from Empathy, Define, Ideate, Prototype, and Test from the DTBGL classes.

Source: Adapted from Tu et al. (2018). [50].

.

3.3. Sample and Data Collection

Data were collected from two groups: the first sample group comprised participants in the 2020 Thailand Government Innovation Lab (GIL) program. The second sample group consisted of participants in the 2021 Thailand GIL program. There were 63 respondents, with 47 from the 2020 GIL program and the remaining 16 participants from the 2021 GIL program. The researchers also provided an online survey at the end of each program, and all program participants participated in this survey.

The two sample groups consisted of high-level agency executives and middle-level management staff. The individuals in the group were drawn from 10 Thailand government agencies from different ministries which serve the public sector in different areas. These included: 1. Department of Agricultural Extension; 2 Royal Irrigation Department; 3) Customs Department; 4. Royal Thai Police; 5. Department of Industrial Works; 6. Department of Land Transport; 7. Office of the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration Civil Service Commission; 8. Royal Thai Army; 9. Bangkok Mass Transit Authority; and 10. the Office of the Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commissions.

3.4. Model Assessment

The effectiveness of the learning model was measured through learning effectiveness concepts, as outlined by Tu et al. [48]. This concept has also previously been applied in the measurement of the learning effectiveness of DT.

The research instrument was a questionnaire that used an online Google form to elicit opinions from the participants using a mixed-method research approach, including quantitative and qualitative methods. Additionally, using a three-section questionnaire, data were collected on the learner’s profile and DTGL learning effectiveness. Moreover, open-ended questions were used to allow participants to reflect on the five steps of DT. A five-level Likert-type agreement scale was used in the Section 2 to assess the input from the participants. The following discussion provides the details of the instrument.

3.5. Data Analysis

The analysis of each participant’s opinions (Table 1) was conducted using IBM’s^® SPSS^® (Chicago, IL, USA) for Windows Version 21 program (

Table 2. Characteristics of the respondents (n = 63).

Items	Frequency	Percentage
Gender
Male	29	46.0%
Female	34	54.0%
Age at the last birthday
21–30	10	15.9%
31–40	22	34.9%
41–50	24	38.1%
51 or above	7	11.1%
Years of professional work experience
1–10 years.	22	34.9%
11–20 years.	24	38.1%
21–30 years.	11	17.5%
31–40 years.	6	9.5%

Source: Authors’ survey data (2020).

for both the mean and standard deviation (SD). For the mean interpretive criteria for each official’s input, a score of 4.50–5.00 indicates that they “strongly agreed” with the item’s statement. Next on the scale was 2.50–4.49, indicating they “agree” with the item, 2.50–3.49 was used to indicate “moderate agreement”, 1.50–2.49 indicated “disagree”, and, finally, 1.00–1.49 was used to indicate “minimal agreement”.

4. Results

This section first details each participant’s characteristics. This is followed by the descriptive statistics of each survey’s items using the IBM’s^® SPSS^® for Windows Version 21 software. Finally, the benefits and reflections from the participants’ five-step DT learning process are detailed.

4.1. Participants’ Characteristics

Table 2 summarizes the results from Part 1 of the questionnaire, which concerned three elements of each participant’s demographic characteristics. The analysis determined that from the 63 total respondents, 29 were men (46%) and 34 were women (54%). Additionally, most of the learners were 41–50 years old (38.1%), followed closely by learners 31–40 years old (34.9%). Finally, 38.1% had 11–20 years of work experience, followed closely by 34.9% with one–ten years of work experience. These descriptive statistics are provided in Table 2.

4.2. Questionnaire Descriptive Analysis for Design Thinking by GovLab (DTBGL) Learning Effectiveness

Table 3. Design thinking by GovLab (DTBGL) learning effectiveness (n = 63).

Items	Mean	SD	Scale Interpretation
The DTBGL environment is superior in promoting individual class participation over traditional classroom methods.	4.365	0.938	Strongly Agree
The DTBGL environment is superior in strengthening my ability to detect problems over traditional classroom methods.	4.349	0.883	Strongly Agree
The DTBGL classroom atmosphere is superior to traditional classroom teaching.	4.444	0.876	Strongly Agree
The DTBGL process allows me to interact more with my classmates and teachers.	4.238	1.011	Strongly Agree
The DTBGL classroom allows me to have more effective communication with other professionals.	4.143	0.913	Agree
The DTBGL classroom process allows more opportunities for brainstorming and creativity.	4.349	0.901	Strongly Agree
The DTBGL classroom environment allows me more time to reflect and think.	4.350	0.900	Strongly Agree
The cloud-based environment permits me to spend more time on my homework.	4.190	0.895	Agree
The DTBGL environment strengthens my ability to solve problems.	4.197	0.895	Agree
The DTBGL classroom allows me more ability to concentrate in class.	4.270	0.865	Strongly Agree

details the descriptive analysis of the participants’ answers to the DTBGL learning effectiveness questionnaire. We can ascertain that each agency’s participant viewed the atmosphere created within the learning process as highly preferred (mean = 4.444; SD = 0.976). This was closely followed by the participants’ belief that the class was more effective than more traditional classroom methods (mean = 4.365; SD = 0.938). Next, there was a near-even response for the importance of time to think, brainstorming creative ideas, and strengthening each participant’s ability to detect problems. However, of the ten items surveyed, the ability to communicate more efficiently with colleagues in different fields was judged as the least important result from the class (mean = 4.143; SD = 0.913). These results are interpreted as a good indicator of the model’s effectiveness in applying the DT process as part of government innovation development.

5. Discussion

Our literature review found a limited number of studies concerning Design Thinking Learning Effectiveness (DTLE), in contrast to the number of design thinking-related studies and the popularity of this subject among scholars. Therefore, recognizing that there is still a knowledge gap with regard to the DTLE method, we set out to build on the foundation laid by various scholars and studies [8,17,18,19,38,50] to measure the effectiveness of the design thinking philosophy and its implementation within Thai government agencies.

Moreover, this study built on the five-step empathize, define, ideate, prototype, and test process through an interactive design thinking classroom and group work. We further measured the DTLE with analysis using descriptive statistics, means of learning effectiveness, and descriptive rating.

The benefits and reflections, from the view of the participants, of the “Five-Step Design Thinking Learning Process” are given in the following five subsections. These sections are focused on the participants’ input from the open-ended questions concerning the GovLab DTLE five-step processes in the questionnaire.

5.1. Empathy

Learners felt that the empathy stage of the Design Thinking by GovLab (DTBGL) helped develop their listening skills. Participants also indicated that they developed better systematic thinking, which allowed them to better understand their staff and consumers. This is consistent with similar research on Thai government public sector innovation (TGPSI), in which it was stated that the creation of TGPSI needs to be driven by cooperation between all relevant sectors. These include executives, civil servants, and government personnel, making up an essential mechanism as a service provider and people as service recipients [37].

Finally, the empathy stage helped each participant develop a deeper awareness of staff and consumer needs and services while helping to develop innovative thinking and problem solving. The following direct quotes of participants indicate this awareness development:

“The empathy stage of the GIL equips me to understand service users’ feelings better and helps create mutual understanding.”

“The empathy stage helps me to see the problem that needs to be solved and find a way to make sense of the work process and begin to develop solutions and guidelines.”

“The empathy stage helps me think about the environment’s surroundings and the feelings and emotions related to any potential problems.”

5.2. Define

The benefits and reflections of the defined stage of the DTBGL included the systematic thinking process on top of the understanding of staff and consumer needs and problems from the empathy stage. Moreover, defining activity during the Government Innovation Lab (GIL) helped the participants review and rethink their staff and consumer problems holistically. Moreover, the define step also helped each participant to think in a broader scope about how the implementation of innovative ideas can affect their agency’s stakeholders. In certain areas, the aspects within this phase are reflected in other studies, such as that of Nguyen and Nguyen [52], who noted that in Vietnam an individual’s reputation is an essential aspect of higher education. Additionally, the authors noted that students are less influenced by media coverage and publicity over individual satisfaction. The following direct quotes of participants indicate this awareness development:

“The define stage helps me specify the point that needs to be corrected on the spot and understand the process and problems of current operations.”

“The define stage helps me review the process from a broader perspective. If the problem definition is unclear, we will not know how to solve problems.”

5.3. Ideate

The benefits and reflections from the ideate stage of the DTBGL included the development of better systematic process skills, idea generation, and brainstorming in generating ideas for their agency’s innovation. Participants also developed better teamwork skills, which necessitated better problem-solving and critical-thinking skills. This is consistent with another study from Thailand in which DT’s effectiveness entailed brainstorming for further ideas. The participating individuals discuss their feelings and goals to create a broad spectrum of choices in which the next element can be inserted [3]. The following direct quotes of participants indicate this awareness development:

“The ideate stage helps me create more concrete ideas and design innovation.”

“The ideate stage encourages us to get more ideas which can then be applied to process innovation and create a more systematic idea.”

“The ideate stage helps me brainstorm with colleagues and develop interesting and creative ideas that solve the problems.”

5.4. Prototype

The benefits and reflections from the prototype stage of the DTBGL involved experimenting with each team’s solution prototype so that an optimum solution can be found during the first three stages. Moreover, from the investigation in this phase, prototype ideas go through improvement, re-examination, or acceptance or rejection based on each user’s input from their experiences. Other studies have also suggested that the DT participants in this phase should be given more time and that there should be at least three “product” reviews in this stage [50]. Finally, the design team should comprehend any constraints inherent to the proposed innovative idea/solution/product by the end of this stage. The following direct quotes of participants indicate this awareness development:

“The prototype stage helps me to improve the work that has been done before. This is effectively done by developing a conceptual model simulation of the situation that needs to be improved.”

“The prototype stage helps me determine whether a design can be used or not until I reach an optimum design idea.”

“The prototype stage helps me glimpse innovation’s possibilities.”

5.5. Test

The benefits and reflections from the test stage of the DTBGL involved making alterations and refinements to the proposed innovative idea. Thus, each DTBGL team uses a systematic method to create measurement tools to validate their prototypes. The target user’s findings from this measurement will help participants refine the prototype to arrive at the alpha prototype close to the actual products and services. The following direct quotes of participants indicate this awareness development:

“The test stage helps me analyze the work and make every innovation point more developed and adaptable.”

“The test stage will help our team test the feasibility of prototypes that can be put into practice.”

“The test stage helps me get to know the real needs and feedback of users. I also become more confident in creating new ideas.”

“The test stage helps me find out if the ideas we come up with meet the customers’ needs or not.”

“The test stage brings feedback or suggestions from testers which then help improve the system and final product."

5.6. Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis Overview

The authors’ determination from the qualitative and quantitative analyses of the 63 DT learning effectiveness public-sector participants from ten Thai government agencies revealed a total agreement with the merits of the innovation development strategy employed by the researchers. The application of DT provides participants with a good atmosphere for innovation, participation opportunities, communication, and the opportunity to detect and solve problems. These findings provide evidence based on the application of DT in public sectors.

Additionally, based on the responses to the open-ended questions, there was an agreement on the blended-learning process used in each session in 2020 and again in 2021. Previous research has also suggested that the use of small teams for developing innovative products for users is an excellent method and that innovation does not start as a strategic activity but instead as a peripheral activity of a small team [20,22,23,50,53,54].

Specifically, participants liked the atmosphere created within the learning process, the blended-learning approach, the importance of time to think, the brainstorming of creative ideas, and the strengthening of each participant’s ability to detect problems. Additionally, the public servants felt that the networking aspect of this class over six months created a rich environment for idea creation. Moreover, there was much agreement on the utility of the all-day, hands-on workshops in innovative creation. Finally, this social network environment became a significant source of new ideas and knowledge and increased the number of perceived new opportunities. Furthermore, the participants appreciated the small-team approach, especially regarding the hands-on workshops and the five-step design thinking process. This allowed each team member to think holistically about the user’s needs and feelings in developing the proposed prototypes from their research.

6. Conclusions

This study was built on over half a century of innovation and creativity studies on design thinking, from which the Hasso-Plattner Institute of Design at Stanford (d.school) has become a recognized leader within the field. Today, DT is a global concept whose importance increases with each passing year, from Stanford’s small beginnings and six initial founders. However, the incubation of the DT concepts and processes usually begins in Government Innovation Labs or GovLabs, with Thailand being no exception. The application of DT shows strong effectiveness in selected government agencies based on the quantitative results adapted from [36] and the qualitative reflections on the five stages of GIT. Noting that governments take the lead in developing sustainable, innovative thinking and creativity in developing nations, the authors examined the research for innovation development in the public sector and found it to be minimal [3]. Therefore, teaming up with 10 Thai government agencies over two years, the authors built on the Stanford d.school design thinking steps and developed a program titled “Design Thinking by GovLab” [10,38].

This research is one of a few studies concerning DT within Southeast Asia’s “tiger” economies. However, 79% of the executives interviewed in a Deloitte global study [39] ranked this highly dynamic field as essential or very important. Moreover, the field of DT is constantly evolving as organizations create capability by combining university design schools with business alliances to experiment with various concepts and programs [52]. Finally, the industry is voicing a solid demand for individuals trained in DT; therefore, educational institutions must adapt to these ideas and implement programs to feed this insatiable thirst for trained DT professionals.

Finally, this research is an early attempt at introducing DT within a Thai public servant context. According to the GIL, as mentioned in the research design, this research provides an approach that can be applied to encourage government and public innovation in other countries. We feel that, from this perspective, this was achieved, and the message about DT’s importance both in a tactical and strategic sense is becoming louder with each passing day. Thus, there now needs to be collaboration between universities, government agencies, GovLabs, and scholars to develop programs that take complex problems and center them around employees. By using DT, sustainable productivity can be achieved.

7. Future Directions and Limitations

While there are many design thinking models and methods, this study found its foundation in the five-step process created by innovative thinkers from the Hasso Plattner Institute of Design at Stanford University Stanford d.school. Future studies could investigate how effective other DT models are in public sectors that might be similar or different to the government agencies from different ministries. Advanced statistics and research variables could be further explored. The study is also limited as only public servants from ten Thai government agencies were consulted, whereas future research might consider the application of DT in other contexts. This study is further limited by its use of DT in the Thai Government Innovation Labs in 2020 and 2021. Lastly, this research limited design thinking training to six months with 12 classroom sessions. Further research could perform a longitudinal design study or test the results from studies which used shorter or longer durations for design thinking classes.