Activities of design continually develop within the context of economic, social, technological and global change (Buchanan, Doordan & Margolin 2010:7). Design can be considered both as a verb and a noun that provides a bridge between theory and practice that can be applied in many different areas. Although there is no singular definition of design, Margolin (2009:37) suggested that design can be broadly considered as ‘conception and planning of the artificial world’. These views acknowledge that design is a pluralistic area of study that is interdisciplinary in nature and can be productively incorporated into any area of human activity. Therefore, design can be evident within all aspects of everyday contemporary life at different levels of complexity.

The complexity of design is highlighted by the open-complex problems that designers are faced with whereby designers need ‘…to conceive and plan what does not yet exist …, before the final result is known’ (Buchanan 1992:18). The nature of open-complex problems is that each attempt to solve the problem shifts the understanding of what the problem may be (Buchanan 1992; Nielsen & Christensen 2014). Designers are required to invent a framework to define the design situation as well as develop explanations of how problems may be solved in any particular circumstance. Solutions can be concrete or more abstract, for example, products (tangible) or strategies (intangible) for a society (Chou 2018).

Val et al. (2017) highlight that design is not always aimed to achieve pre-determined goals. Although it is tempting to try and simplify the activity or process of design, Buchanan (1992) argued that the integrative nature of design draws interest from other disciplines, not because they are looking for common philosophies or methodologies, but rather because of a common interest in conceiving and planning what does not yet exist to enrich human lives in complex environments such as living, working, playing and learning. The versatility of design is therefore apparent.

Scholars and authors who have an interest in design concur that the process of surging between problem definition and problem solution is not a linear process but rather iterative (Buchanan 1992; Cross 2001; Dorst 2011; Johansson-Sköldberg, Woodilla & Cetinkaya 2013; Lawson 2006; Yu, Yue & Halling 2018). Authors who apply design methodologies to solve open-complex problems refer to design as being innovative but messy at times, because the parameters change during the process of design and applying novel ways to solve problems are often required (Ney & Meinel 2019). Design incorporates thinking tools and iterative processes that allow designers (and in many cases their potential users) to reframe problem definition that can be solved in creative ways (Garbuio et al. 2018). Design can therefore be viewed as a discovery process where novelty is found, but is motivated by transformation or change for improvement of a current situation.

Some prominent themes that overlap with entrepreneurship can be identified to understand the relevance of design thinking in entrepreneurship.

The aim of this section is to identify the most prominent themes that parallel with design with reference to the understanding of entrepreneurship as a discipline. In line with design, definitions for entrepreneurship are diverse and range from having a focus of starting ventures to a more comprehensive view that involves corporate entrepreneurship (Kuratko & Morris 2018) and social entrepreneurship (Kee 2017). Other authors include entrepreneuring in their view of entrepreneurship as an act of bringing about the new (Antonacopoulou & Fuller 2019). Another construct that emerged from the field of entrepreneurship is entrepreneurial orientation that involves entrepreneurial behaviour and it is acknowledged to be applicable not only in new venture creation (Covin & Lumkin 2011; Gupta & Gupta 2015; Lee et al. 2019; Wales 2016). Some authors prefer to focus on entrepreneurship as the field that deals with venture creation as the primary goal (Dahalan, Jaafar & Rosdi 2013; Halim et al. 2017). Nevertheless, new venture creation for new or existing markets, innovative value add, ‘filling’ potential gaps in markets with novel ideas and even growing businesses exponentially have all been incorporated in the field of entrepreneurship (Bocken & Snihur 2019). There is, therefore, no particular definition for entrepreneurship, and perhaps, the diversity of the fields bears testimony to the relevance of viewing entrepreneurship as an applied science as Daniel (2016) noted. We therefore view entrepreneurship as the applied science that embraces the role of the entrepreneurs (with their thinking and actions) applied to changing or transforming a current situation into a preferred one.

We draw on the seminal work of Schumpeter (1934) on entrepreneurial development that is underpinned by economic development and focuses on the role of an entrepreneur within a system. The Schumpeterian view of an entrepreneur in an economic system. In this regard, Schumpeter (1934) views the entrepreneur as an agent of change. The idea of agent of change transforms their environments through their thought, actions and processes aligns with theories of design and the role of the designer in their societies when solving open-complex problems (Cook 2019). We therefore view entrepreneurship from a design lens as: the study of yielding novel ideas (including concrete and abstract offerings) in novel ways, in order to add value by sustaining, developing and integrating human needs through meaningful change where possible, or adapting them when necessary within broader complex environments and systems.

From the above design perspective of entrepreneurship, we highlight three prominent themes that could be important to understand the educational purposes: (1) change or transformation, (2) novelty and (3) innovation. We acknowledge that there are several links in entrepreneurship and design but offer these three main themes for this article.

The theme of transformation: In entrepreneurship, it is well acknowledged when the entrepreneur is viewed as a change agent (Daniel 2016; Hagedoorn 1996; Schumpeter 1934). Dew et al. (2008) referred to the transformable environments where entrepreneurs perform their logic and action. This implies that the entrepreneur as an agent of change can reshape or transform their environments with their cognition and action. Dew et al. (2008) explained that this transformative ability is linked to an ability to effectuate in situations where there are no clearly specified goals. In this regard, the parallels between designers and entrepreneurs are apparent because designers too are often expected to transform and/or reshape their environments (Buchanan 1992; Buchanan et al. 2010:7; Cross 2001; Dorst 2011; Lawson 2006). During open- or complex-problem definition and solution, there are no specified goals, but rather an in-depth understanding of the problem as it emerges (Buchanan 1992). An in-depth understanding of the problem creates an opportunity for a meaningful transformation.

The theme of novelty: It seems to be prevalent in many views on entrepreneurship, whether it be new markets, new ideas, new products services or systems, or new venture creation (Weinberger et al. 2018). The construct of novelty is often used in economic systems in particular with reference to unpredictability (Witt 2016). Unpredictability is also an underpinning notion of design (Linton & Klinton 2019). In this regard, Stroe, Parida and Wincent (2018) referred to effectuation in entrepreneurial behaviour as a creative way to make or create value through the application of problem solving even in unpredictable environments. We therefore endorse the notion of novelty as a result of creativity in entrepreneurship as a way to develop new products or methods or new ventures as well as acting creatively within unpredictable environments (Born & Altink 1996; Kier & McMullen 2018).

The theme of innovation: It is prominent in an understanding of entrepreneurship if a design lens is applied. Innovation is often defined as an ability to (re)define and perceive in an atypical manner (Val et al. 2017). Innovation can also apply to outcomes such as products, methods, services or even systems (Poutanen, Soliman & Stahle 2016). Design thinking is often embraced as a tool to cope with complexity and to use as a driver of innovation (Daniel 2016; Dorst 2011; Glen et al. 2015). It is therefore not surprising that many educators have been applying design thinking methods in their classrooms as a way to enhance innovative ideas.

Gong (2020) notes the increasing popularity over the last decade to apply design thinking in entrepreneurship. The relevance of a design lens in entrepreneurship has been discussed in the previous section. The relevance of design thinking in entrepreneurship education will be further discussed in the following section to highlight the scholarly work that has been performed in this area.

New insights and knowledge creation is associated with social constructivism (Higgins et al. 2015; Jung 2017; Löbler 2006; van Aalst 2009). Design thinking within an educational setting can be underpinned by social constructivism (Scheer et al. 2012; Sheppard 2020). Social constructivism can be defined as the way in which people make meaning from objects as well as from social interaction, but the meaning does not stem from objects directly (Amineh & Asl 2015; Kim 2001). This approach to teaching and learning implies that students who use design thinking may be able to make meaning or mental connections between aspects of what they know and how to implement or use it. A theory that could support a social constructivism thinking paradigm that might be considered when thinking and doing is used in entrepreneurship education is effectuation.

Effectuation is a theory that deals with the decision-making about cause and effect in situations where transformation or change is required (Brettel et al. 2014). Dew et al. (2008) highlighted that effectuation is an advancement of the early cognitive entrepreneurship that focused on topics such as how entrepreneurs think in terms of proposing a potential competitive advantage. Effectuation is not only a way of thinking, but it also informs behaviour that is particularly relevant in identification of processes, opportunity or new venture creation when less certainty is present (Reymen et al. 2015). It is thus important to note that effectuation is usually applied in situations of uncertainty because effectuation has been identified as an appropriate framework for making judgements or decisions involving opportunity evaluation (McMullen 2015).

Effectuation has been applied in design thinking and Dorst (2011) made a case for applying effectuation as a way of thinking in ‘entrepreneuring’ because he saw that it is an evolving way to solve open-complex problems. The thought leader on effectuation, Sarasvathy (2001:245), states that ‘effectuation processes take a set of means as given and focus on selecting between possible effects that can be created with that set of means’. In this article, we therefore view effectuation as a thinking framework that involves a set of heuristics (mental shortcuts) that enable an individual to do what is possible within uncertain circumstances bearing in mind a specific context.

It is important to note that there is a core challenge to review the basic concepts of formal logic that describe the reasoning patterns used to solve problems in different settings if educators want to use effectuation. These concepts are deduction, induction and abduction and Dorst (2011:523) used them to differentiate between the reasoning patterns required to solve closed, well-structured problems and open-complex problems that designers are often faced with. Dorst (2011) explained that in any given situation, different problem-solving reasoning patterns are adopted according to what is known and unknown within the equation of the what (object) + how (working principle) leads to observable results. When solving well-defined problems, the reasoning pattern of deduction is applied to predict how an existing object (e.g. a business plan) with tested methods will perform in different contexts. Inductive reasoning is a creative process applied when the exiting object (e.g. a business plan) is known as well as the expected result, however, the working principle of how to achieve these results needs to be formulated. The proposed working principles can then be tested via deduction to establish whether the same results will be achieved in different situations (Dorst 2011). These logics are typically used in more traditional approaches to entrepreneurship education.

However, in the case of abduction, Dorst (2011) proposed that in design, observable results in the equation are replaced with meeting aspired values of people. In the context of open-complex problems, only the aspired value is known. The object and working principles do not yet exist. An explanation of how (working principles or method) to fulfil this value as well as the creation of the object, service or system needs to be developed. This lack of ‘known’ is the challenge that entrepreneurs deal with when they attempt to come up with innovative or inventive solutions to problems.

In the context of effectuation, McMullen (2015), as discussed earlier, highlighted the need for making decisions, judging and the evaluation of opportunities as being an important framework used to navigate through uncertain situations. Within the context of design thinking, Buchanan (1998) highlighted that inventing, judging, deciding and evaluating are the cornerstones of all human design abilities; however, these abilities need placements in order to effective within the discipline of designs that will be discussed in the following section. The role of design thinking as a way of promoting abductive reasoning could support invention, which, in turn, is important for entrepreneurship education.

Nevertheless, in order to invent, judge, decide or evaluate, problem placement and framing is important to enable a real understanding of meaningful solutions to open-complex problems so that action and production can occur. The following section is our contribution to the discourse of design thinking within entrepreneurship.

We acknowledge that the debate surrounding the concept of design thinking as it has emerged in different discourses has been viewed with some contention (Nussbaum 2011 and Collopy 2009 cited in Johansson-Sköldberg et al. 2013). We, however, take the position that design and creation of improving desired situations is an inherent quality of human nature and daily activity that remains relevant for continued exploration within different contexts. It is with this in mind that we look back to Buchanan’s (1992:8) seminal paper on Wicked Problems which discusses his theory on the doctrine of placements whereby he argued that design should not be reduced to a science of theory. Instead, Buchanan (1992) stated that design should be embraced as:

In this article, we do not claim to have distinctive insight into design thinking as the panacea to solve all human problems but rather suggest that a productive means to apply design thinking to new situations is to look back to Buchanan’s original intention of identifying places where open-complex problems emerge for further consideration.

These four broad placement areas where problem definition and solution need to be considered in contemporary life are identified by Buchanan (1992:9–10) as follows:

Symbolic and visual communication: The representation of signs, symbols and images as a means to communicate abstract ideas. This area extends to all forms of communication such as television, photography, film, print media and all forms of social media to name a few.

Construction of material objects: It requires the development of skills related to construction in order to convert images and symbols into tangible objects and extends to physical, social, psychological and cultural relationships between products and people.

Strategic planning of activities and organisational services: The incorporation of diverse knowledge and values to reach explicit end results that could include the consideration of market needs, manufacturing processes and identifying future markets before inventing and constructing tangible objects. This area extends to logical decision-making that consider how services and organisational structures can contribute to making human experience more intelligent, meaningful and satisfying.

Systemic integration of complex systems for living, working, playing and learning: It focuses on complex systems and environments within human culture that are needed to address social, political, environmental and economic transition (Buchanan et al. 2010:3). Systemic integration considers lived experiences that are not problems of action but rather reaching new understanding of social purposes in search for expression in appropriate activities and products requiring collaboration and individual initiatives that lead to debate (Buchanan 1998:16). This area extends to a consciousness of idea, thought and value that expresses unity and balance to a functioning whole.

Within the context of design, human abilities of inventing, judging, deciding and evaluating enable thought, action and production in order for design solutions to be effective (Buchanan 1992; 1998). Buchanan (1998) proposed that problem placement concerning systemic integration requires the cognitive abilities of evaluating, deciding, judging and inventing alternative solutions when seeking an understanding of core ideas, values and purpose of culture that inform and transform the environment. Strategic planning, construction and communication support potential successful solutions.

As reflected in Figure 1, a problem definition and solution in any one of these placements or areas will have an impact on all of the other placements or areas where design problems and solutions are required. The middle section common to all four placements in Figure 1 represents the viability of a potentially successful design solution. Moreover, the cognitive thinking skills of inventing, judging, deciding and evaluating are important to assist in an in-depth understanding of each placement.

The framework proposed in Figure 1 has some implications for entrepreneurship education and we offer those in the following section.