Investigating the impact of design thinking and technological designs in supporting entrepreneurial ecosystems

Document Type : Original Article (Quantified)

Authors

1 Associate Professor and Faculty Member, Director of the Technological Entrepreneurship Department, Faculty of Entrepreneurship, University of Tehran

2 PhD Student in Entrepreneurship, University of Tehran

Abstract
Abstract
The aim of the present study is to investigate the effect of design thinking and technological designs in supporting entrepreneurial ecosystems. The research method is applicable in terms of its purpose, quantitative in terms of implementation method, and descriptive-correlational in terms of nature and method. The statistical population of the study included 150 managers and entrepreneurs of knowledge-based companies in Isfahan, of whom 93 were randomly selected through the Cochran formula. A researcher-made questionnaire based on a 5-point Likert scale was used to collect research data. The content validity of the tool was confirmed by specialists and experts, and Cronbach's alpha and composite reliability were used to measure the reliability of the tool. By distributing the questionnaire, the validity of the tool was measured with three methods: construct validity (external model), convergent validity (AVE), and divergent validity. The AVE value for all variables must be greater than 0.5. SPSS and PLS software were used to analyze the data. The research findings show that all research hypotheses have been confirmed. Accordingly, the integration of design thinking and technological design has a significant impact on supporting entrepreneurial ecosystems. These findings emphasize the importance of these two approaches in creating and developing entrepreneurial ecosystems.
Introduction
“Design thinking” has been used by many universities in entrepreneurial ecosystems. Despite the differences between entrepreneurship and design thinking as two separate disciplines, their combination in entrepreneurial ecosystems is promising (O’Shea et al., 2021). Design thinking is a problem-solving approach that primarily deals with understanding the needs of people and creating innovative solutions to meet these needs. It is considered a driver of innovation and change with the aim of solving problems and meeting human needs. Many developments in the business environment, especially high levels of uncertainty, have prompted the need to deviate from traditional ecosystems and implement design thinking in entrepreneurial courses (Sarooghi et al., 2019).
Entrepreneurial ecosystems refer to a network of businesses, organizations, institutions, and individuals connected to each other and exchange ideas, resources, and knowledge. These ecosystems provide a suitable platform for the development of innovation and the formation of startups. In this space, the use of approaches such as design thinking and technological design can help accelerate the process of growth and innovation, and enable entrepreneurs to create sustainable solutions based on the real needs of society and markets (Molina & Valbuena, 2019).
On the other hand, technological designs, which use advanced tools and new technologies to develop products and services, help accelerate the innovation process and improve performance in digital and technical environments. Combining these two approaches can significantly improve entrepreneurial and innovation processes (Zahra et al., 2023). In fact, this combination can pave the way for designing products that, in addition to efficiency and productivity, also carefully consider human needs and user experiences. In other words, design thinking and technological designs can simultaneously support entrepreneurial ecosystems because they not only solve more complex problems that arise in innovation processes, but also help create technological solutions based on data and advanced technologies (Aransyah et al., 2023). This raises the question: how can design thinking and technological designs support entrepreneurial ecosystems.
Theoretical Framework
Entrepreneurial ecosystems are a set of entrepreneurial actors, organizations, institutions, and processes that come together and interact to create the conditions in which new businesses are created and grow. They include elements such as access to finance, talent, mentoring, and institutional conditions such as an entrepreneurial culture and entrepreneurial networks and leadership (Koriwan & Applianti, 2023).
Technological Design
Technological design refers to the process of creating order out of chaos and making technology usable for business purposes. It involves guiding transformation processes through automation, digitalization, and technical advancement to enable the development of innovative products and services in the digital age (Lehoux et al., 2014).
Design Thinking
Design thinking is a tool that manufacturers can use to develop solutions to consumer problems (Whitehead et al., 2019).
Research Background
Farokhmanesh et al. (2024) investigated the effect of design thinking on corporate performance through the mediation of business model innovation. According to the conceptual model presented in this study, 7 hypotheses were confirmed. These findings showed that human-centeredness, learning from failure, discovering customer needs, idea generation, experimenting with ideas, business model innovation, and design thinking have an effect on business performance. The results show that the conceptual model presented can well explain the phenomenon under study and has appropriate accuracy and validity. This study focuses on examining the effect of multiple factors, including human-centeredness, deductive reasoning, learning from failure, discovering customer needs, idea generation, experimenting with ideas, business model innovation, and design thinking, on business performance. The results of this study show that these factors have a positive effect on business performance by improving management processes and strategies, improving innovation processes, and increasing organizational capabilities. Therefore, companies can use these findings to develop new strategies and approaches to improve performance, increase competitiveness, and achieve more sustainable growth in today's dynamic and complex markets. At the end of this study, some suggestions are also made.
Shiralian et al., (2024) presented a study titled "The Innovation Equation: Understanding the Relationship between Team Cohesion, Motivation, and Design Thinking Mindset in Enhancing Employees' Innovative Performance". While there was no direct correlation between employee motivation and innovative performance, a significant positive relationship was identified between team cohesion and innovative performance, with design thinking mindset effectively mediating these relationships. Therefore, design thinking mindset was considered as an important factor in increasing innovative performance. This study emphasizes the importance of cultivating a design thinking mindset, in combination with team cohesion and employee motivation, to increase innovative performance in organizations. These insights are critical for organizations seeking to foster a sustainable culture of innovation.
Research Methodology
The research method is applicable in terms of its purpose, quantitative in terms of its implementation method, and descriptive-correlational in terms of its nature and method. The statistical population of the research includes managers and entrepreneurs of knowledge-based companies in Isfahan, numbering 150 people, of whom 93 were selected as a sample by random method through the Cochran formula. A researcher-made questionnaire based on a 5-point Likert scale was used to collect research data. The content validity of the tool was confirmed by specialists and experts, and Cronbach's alpha and composite reliability were used to measure the reliability of the tool. By distributing the questionnaire, the validity of the tool was measured with three methods: construct validity (external model), convergent validity (AVE), and divergent validity. The AVE value for all variables must be greater than 0.5.
Research findings
SPSS and PLS software were used to analyze the data. The research findings show that all research hypotheses have been confirmed. Accordingly, the integration of design thinking and technological design has a significant impact on supporting entrepreneurial ecosystems. These findings emphasize the importance of these two approaches in creating and developing entrepreneurial ecosystems.
Conclusion
The present study aimed to investigate the impact of design thinking and technological designs in supporting entrepreneurial ecosystems. The results of this study are consistent with the results of Farokhmanesh et al. (2024), Shiralian et al. (2024), Karami & Zakipour (2023), Abolhasani et al. (2021), Lynch et al. (2021), O’Shea et al. (2021), and Mansoori & Lackéus (2020). Farokhmanesh et al. (2024) showed that human-centeredness, learning from failure, discovering customer's needs, ideation, testing ideas, business model innovation, and design thinking have an impact on business performance. It also shows that these factors have a positive impact on business performance by improving management processes and strategies, improving innovation processes, and increasing organizational capabilities. Therefore, companies can use these findings to provide new strategies and approaches to improve performance, increase competitiveness, and achieve more sustainable growth in modern dynamic and complex markets.
According to the results of this research, the following suggestion is made:
It is recommended to make greater use of design thinking and technological design, holding practical workshops, and developing digital tools to more easily implement design thinking and technological design in startups.

Keywords

Subjects


Abolhasani, Z., & Dehghani, M., & Javadipour, M., & Salehi, K., & Mohammadhasani, N. (2021). Designing a Model for the Implementation of Work and Technology Curriculum Based on Design Thinking in the First Year of High School. Teaching and Learning Research, 18(1), 33-52. doi: 10.22070/tlr.2022.15323.1177. (In Persian).
Aransyah, M., & Fourqoniah, F., & Riani, L. (2023). Enhancing student entrepreneurship education model through design thinking and lean canvas approaches. Journal of Social Studies Education Research, 14(2), 195-216.
Bender-Salazar, R. (2023). Design thinking as an effective method for problem-setting and needfinding for entrepreneurial teams addressing wicked problems. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 12(1), 24. DOI:10.1186/s13731-023-00291-2
Beverland, M. B., & Wilner, S. J., & Micheli, P. (2015). Reconciling the tension between consistency and relevance: Design thinking as a mechanism for brand ambidexterity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43, 589-609. DOI:10.1007/s11747-015-0443-8
Boland Jr, R. J., Collopy, F., Lyytinen, K., & Yoo, Y. (2008). Managing as Designing: Lessons for Organization Leaders from the Design Practice of Frank O. Gehry. Design issues, 24(1). https://doi.org/10.1162/DESI.2008.24.1.10
Candeias, J. C., & Sarkar, S. (2024). Entrepreneurial Ecosystems Policy Formulation: A Conceptual Framework. Academy of Management Perspectives, 38(1), 77-105. DOI:10.5465/amp.2022.0047
Chin, W. W. (1998). Commentary: Issues and Opinion on Structural Equation Modeling. MIS Quarterly, 22(1), vii-xvi.
Chou, D. C. (2018). Applying design thinking method to social entrepreneurship project. Computer Standards & Interfaces, 55, 73-79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csi.2017.05.001
Collins, P. K. (2015). Building a local design and entrepreneurship ecosystem. Procedia Technology, 20, 258-262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.protcy.2015.07.041
Cronbach LJ. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. psychometrika. 1951; 16(3): 297-334.
Eisenbart, B., & Bouwman, S., & Voorendt, J., & McKillagan, S., & Kuys, B., & Ranscombe, C. (2022). Implementing design thinking to drive innovation in technical design. International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation, 10(3), 141-160. DOI:10.1080/21650349.2022.2048698
Elia, G., & Margherita, A., & Passiante, G. (2020). Digital entrepreneurship ecosystem: How digital technologies and collective intelligence are reshaping the entrepreneurial process. Technological forecasting and social change, 150, 119791. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119791
Elsbach, K. D., & Stigliani, I. (2018). Design thinking and organizational culture: A review and framework for future research. Journal of management, 44(6), 2274-2306. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206317744252
Farokhmanesh, T., & Khodaei, F., & Davari, A. (2024). The effect of design thinking on corporate performance through the mediation of business model innovation. Journal of Business Management, (), -. doi: 10.22059/jibm.2024.373874.4769. (In Persian).
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.
Henseler, J., & Ringle, C. M., & Sinkovics, R. R. (2009). The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. In New challenges to international marketing. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1474-7979(2009)0000020014
Karami, A., & Zakipour, M. (2023). Investigating the Mediation of Decision Bias between Design Thinking and Small Business Development, 14th International Conference on Management Research and Humanities in Iran, Tehran, https://civilica.com/doc/1895197. (In Persian).
Lehoux, P., & Daudelin, G., & Williams-Jones, B., & Denis, J. L., & Longo, C. (2014). How do business model and health technology design influence each other? Insights from a longitudinal case study of three academic spin-offs. Research Policy, 43(6), 1025-1038. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2014.02.001
Lynch, M., & Kamovich, U., & Longva, K. K., & Steinert, M. (2021). Combining technology and entrepreneurial education through design thinking: Students' reflections on the learning process. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 164, 119689. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.06.015
Magner, N., & Welker, R. B. & Campbell, T. L. (1996). Testing a model of cognitive budgetary participation -processes in a latent variable structural equations framework. Accounting and Business Research, 27(1), 41-50. DOI: 10.1080/00014788.1996.9729530.
Mansoori, Y., & Lackéus, M. (2020). Comparing effectuation to discovery-driven planning, prescriptive entrepreneurship, business planning, lean startup, and design thinking. Small Business Economics, 54, 791-818. DOI:10.1007/s11187-019-00153-w
Molina, V., & Valbuena, W. S. (2019). Mapping creativity and design within the entrepreneurship ecosystem. Kindai management review, 7(2019), 39-53.
Morris, A. K., & Fiedler, A., & Audretsch, D. B. (2024). Enablers of knowledge spillover entrepreneurship in entrepreneurial ecosystems: synthesis and future directions. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 49(5), 1737-1761. DOI:10.1007/s10961-023-10056-4
Moss, E., & Rousseau, D., & Parent, S., & St-Laurent, D., & Saintonge, J. (1998). Correlates of attachment at school age: Maternal reported stress, mother-child interaction, and behavior problems. Child Development, 69, 1390-1405.
O’Shea, G., & Farny, S., & Hakala, H. (2021). The buzz before business: A design science study of a sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystem. Small Business Economics, 56, 1097-1120. DOI:10.1007/s11187-019-00256-4
Qoriawan, T., & Apriliyanti, I. D. (2023). Exploring connections within the technology-based entrepreneurial ecosystem (EE) in emerging economies: understanding the entrepreneurship struggle in the Indonesian EE. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, 15(2), 301-332. DOI:10.1108/JEEE-02-2021-0079
Sarooghi, H., & Sunny, S., & Hornsby, J., & Fernhaber, S. (2019). Design thinking and entrepreneurship education: Where are we, and what are the possibilities?. Journal of Small Business Management, 57, 78-93. DOI:10.1111/jsbm.12541
Seidel, V. P., & Fixson, S. K. (2013). Adopting design thinking in novice multidisciplinary teams: The application and limits of design methods and reflexive practices. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30, 19-33. DOI:10.1111/jpim.12061
Shiralian, S., & Ghodratizadeh, F., & Talebi, K., & Chitsaz, E. (2024). The Innovation Equation: Understanding the Connection between Team Cohesion, Motivation, and Design Thinking Mindset in Boosting Employee's Innovative Performance. Journal of Entrepreneurship Development, 17(2), 188-210. doi: 10.22059/jed.2023.360821.654213. (In Persian).
Stackowiak, R., & Kelly, T., & Stackowiak, R., & Kelly, T. (2020). Design Thinking Overview and History. Design Thinking in Software and AI Projects: Proving Ideas Through Rapid Prototyping, 1-16. DOI:10.1007/978-1-4842-6153-8
Tomes, A., & Erol, R., & Armstrong, P. (2000). Technological entrepreneurship: Integrating technological and product innovation. Technovation, 20(3), 115-127. doi:10.1016/S0166-4972(99)00116-9.
Wei, Z., & Yang, D., & Sun, B., & Gu, M. (2014). The fit between technological innovation and business model design for firm growth: evidence from C hina. R&D Management, 44(3), 288-305. DOI:10.1111/radm.12069
Werts, C. E., & Linn, R. L., & Jöreskog, K. G. (1974). Intraclass Reliability Estimates: Testing Structural Assumptions. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 34(1), 25-33.
Whitehead, T., & Evans, M., & Bingham, G. A. (2019). Local or global? Approaches for new product development in low income countries. The Design Journal, 22(5), 707-723. DOI:10.1080/14606925.2019.1633882
Zahra, S. A., & Liu, W., & Si, S. (2023). How digital technology promotes entrepreneurship in ecosystems. Technovation, 119, 102457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2022.102457
Volume 5, Issue 4 - Serial Number 18
Winter 2026
Pages 361-379

  • Receive Date 05 June 2025
  • Revise Date 27 July 2025
  • Accept Date 22 September 2025