Empati yang Tidak Menyelamatkan: Ilusi Design Thinking pada Ekosistem EdTech Zenius

Authors

  • Nur Afifah Az-Zahra Universitas Kuningan
  • Elda Ajeng Universitas Kuningan
  • Ziyan Jamal Maulana Universitas Kuningan
  • Muhammad Yusuf Universitas Kuningan
  • Yayan Sopyan Universitas Kuningan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.59024/jisi.v4i3.2469

Keywords:

Design Thinking, EdTech Indonesia, Lean Start-Up, UI/UX, Zenius Education

Abstract

This article critically examines the implementation of Design Thinking in the development of Zenius Education, an Indonesian EdTech platform, during 2020-2024. Using a qualitative explanatory single-case study design, the study analyzes the paradox between successful user empathy and ecosystem failure that led Zenius to cease operations in 2024. Findings show that Zenius succeeded on the desirability pillar (content quality acknowledged as superior) but failed systematically on the viability pillar, scoring 2/10 on an ecosystem index compared to its closest competitor Ruangguru at 8/10. Analysis through Brown's (2008) three-pillar framework, Matthews and Wrigley's (2017) design-maturity spectrum, and Sreenivasan and Suresh's (2024) Design Thinking-Lean Start-up integration theory reveals that Zenius remained trapped at the Human-Centered Design level without transforming toward Design as Strategy. The study proposes the concept of the “Design Thinking illusion”: a condition in which user empathy is achieved yet fails to sustain business viability due to an insufficiently framed wicked problem. Practical implications are directed at UI/UX designers to move beyond interface competence toward ecosystem design that builds switching costs and long-term user loyalty.

References

Alfirahmi, D. M., Kania, D. S., & Yusup, D. (2023). Rancang Bangun Aplikasi Pengelolaan Sampah Plastik Menggunakan Pendekatan Design Thinking. Dadang Yusup INNOVATIVE: Journal Of Social Science Research, 3, 219–233. https://j-innovative.org/index.php/Innovative/article/view/2165/1576

Bell, S. J. (2008). Design Thinking. American Libraries, 39(1/2), 44–49.

Brown, T. (2008). Design Thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 84–92.

Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2017). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches. SAGE Publications. https://books.google.co.id/books?id=gX1ZDwAAQBAJ

Ilyas, I. M., Kansikas, J., & Fayolle, A. (2024). Rethinking entrepreneurship and management education for engineering students: The appropriateness of design thinking. The International Journal of Management Education. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:271361456

Matthews, J., & Wrigley, C. (2017). Design and Design Thinking in Business and Management Higher Education. Journal of Learning Design, 10, 41. https://doi.org/10.5204/jld.v9i3.294

Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Rittel, Horst W. J., Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning , Policy Sciences, 4:2 (1973:June) p.155. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169.

Sabika, A., Wahid, F., Saphira Farhani, F., & Setiani, N. (2019). Rancang Purwarupa Aplikasi UniBook Menggunakan Metode Pendekatan Design Thinking. Rancang Purwarupa Aplikasi UniBook Menggunakan Metode Pendekatan Design Thinking, Agustus, 5. http://www.marketeers.com

Satria, A. B. A., & Muntaha, A. A. (2022). Inovasi pendidikan abad 21: penerapan design thinking dan pembelajaran berbasis proyek dalam pendidikan Indonesia. Jurnal Pendidikan Dasar, 9(2). https://doi.org/10.20961/jpd.v9i2.59940

Sreenivasan, A., & Suresh, M. (2024). A comparative analysis of lean start-up and design thinking and its integration. Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 18, 172–194. https://doi.org/10.1108/APJIE-09-2023-0181

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. SAGE Publications. https://books.google.co.id/books?id=nvwOAQAAMAAJ

Tsai, C.-A., Song, M.-Y., Lo, Y.-F., & Lo, C.-C. (2023). Design Thinking with Constructivist Learning Increases the Learning Motivation and Wicked Problem-solving Capability-An Empirical Research in Taiwan. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 50, 101385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2023.101385

Yin, R. K. (2017). Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods. SAGE Publications. https://books.google.co.id/books?id=uX1ZDwAAQBAJ

Downloads

Published

2026-07-30