Technique 1.218 Design Thinking Readiness Assessment
Introduction
Apply this technique to assess an organisation’s capacity to apply Design Thinking in a change initiative.
Ratings help identify strengths, risks, and capability gaps.
Instructions: Rate each item 1 to 5 by ticking the appropriate box.
1 = Not at all true
2 = More untrue than true
3 = Similar number of untruths and truths
4 = More truths than untruths
5 = Very true
Score Statements
A. Empathy Capability (Human Understanding)
|
No. |
Statement |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
1.1 |
We understand our employees’ real frustrations, fears, and motivators. |
☐ |
☐ |
☐ |
☐ |
☐ |
|
1.2 |
Leaders value qualitative insights, not just metrics. |
☐ |
☐ |
☐ |
☐ |
☐ |
|
1.3 |
We have access to stakeholders for interviews, observation, and co-design. |
☐ |
☐ |
☐ |
☐ |
☐ |
|
1.4 |
Our change team is skilled in empathy-building tools (interviews, journey maps). |
☐ |
☐ |
☐ |
☐ |
☐ |
|
1.5 |
Employees feel safe to speak honestly. |
☐ |
☐ |
☐ |
☐ |
☐ |
Subtotal (max 25): _______
2. Problem Definition Capability (Clarity of the Real Issue)
|
No. |
Statement |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
2.1 |
We avoid jumping to solutions before understanding root causes. |
☐ |
☐ |
☐ |
☐ |
☐ |
|
2.2 |
We can articulate the problem in user-centred terms. |
☐ |
☐ |
☐ |
☐ |
☐ |
|
2.3 |
Leadership is willing to revisit assumptions. |
☐ |
☐ |
☐ |
☐ |
☐ |
|
2.4 |
We have skill in synthesising insights and defining HMW statements. |
☐ |
☐ |
☐ |
☐ |
☐ |
|
2.5 |
Teams align around a shared definition of success. |
☐ |
☐ |
☐ |
☐ |
☐ |
Subtotal (max 25): _______
3. Ideation Capability (Creativity & Openness)
|
No. |
Statement |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
3.1 |
People feel free to contribute unconventional ideas. |
☐ |
☐ |
☐ |
☐ |
☐ |
|
3.2 |
We can convene diverse groups for co-design. |
☐ |
☐ |
☐ |
☐ |
☐ |
|
3.3 |
We use structured ideation techniques when solving problems. |
☐ |
☐ |
☐ |
☐ |
☐ |
|
3.4 |
Leadership encourages experimentation over perfection. |
☐ |
☐ |
☐ |
☐ |
☐ |
|
3.5 |
We generate multiple options, not just one. |
☐ |
☐ |
☐ |
☐ |
☐ |
Subtotal (max 25): _______
4. Prototyping Capability (Experimentation Culture)
|
No. |
Statement |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
4.1 |
We can build quick, low-cost prototypes for testing. |
☐ |
☐ |
☐ |
☐ |
☐ |
|
4.2 |
The organisation accepts “rough drafts” as part of the process. |
☐ |
☐ |
☐ |
☐ |
☐ |
|
4.3 |
Pilots are common before full implementation. |
☐ |
☐ |
☐ |
☐ |
☐ |
|
4.4 |
We have a mindset of learning quickly, not avoiding mistakes. |
☐ |
☐ |
☐ |
☐ |
☐ |
|
4.5 |
Feedback from prototypes directly informs the change approach. |
☐ |
☐ |
☐ |
☐ |
☐ |
Subtotal (max 25): _______
5. Testing & Feedback Capability (Learning Loops)
|
No. |
Statement |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
5.1 |
We regularly test change elements with real end users. |
☐ |
☐ |
☐ |
☐ |
☐ |
|
5.2 |
Feedback is captured systematically and transparently. |
☐ |
☐ |
☐ |
☐ |
☐ |
|
5.3 |
We iterate based on learning, even if it delays the rollout. |
☐ |
☐ |
☐ |
☐ |
☐ |
|
5.4 |
Data (both qualitative and quantitative) influences decisions. |
☐ |
☐ |
☐ |
☐ |
☐ |
|
5.5 |
Employees see their feedback incorporated. |
☐ |
☐ |
☐ |
☐ |
☐ |
Subtotal (max 25): _______
Scoring & Interpretation
Total Score (max 125): _______
100–125 (High Design Thinking Readiness)
- Strong culture of empathy, co-design and experimentation
- Ideal conditions for using design thinking in major change programs
70–99 (Moderate Readiness)
- Good foundation; targeted capability building needed
- Use design thinking but address gaps (usually in empathy or prototyping)
40–69 (Low Readiness)
- Organisation tends to push top-down solutions
- Recommend training, small pilots, and leadership coaching
- Start with small experiments before scaling
0–39 (Not Ready)
- Resistant to feedback, co-design and iteration
- Change likely to face significant resistance
- Start with leadership alignment and small, safe design thinking trials
(source: Madel, Monika et al, 2021)