Advertisement

The Use of Tangible Tools as a Means to Support Co-design During Service Design Innovation Projects in Healthcare

  • Karianne RyghEmail author
  • Simon Clatworthy
Chapter

Abstract

To meet the complex societal and economic challenges facing healthcare service provision, the public sector is dependent on new partnerships and networked collaboration in order to meet policy and program goals. The medical culture with its deeply institutionalized ways of working combined with siloed expertise makes such collaboration and organizational change especially difficult. A lack of a common goal, a misalignment of working cultures and professional languages, and a lack of a shared understanding can pose obstacles for collaborative activities needed for co-developing healthcare services. Service design and co-design practices are therefore increasingly being called upon to manage collaborative processes and drive service innovation in designing patient-centric care. Tangible co-design communication tools commonly used in service design have shown to effectively support co-design processes through facilitating multimodal communication on topics that are otherwise difficult to articulate. However, such tools have not been commonly adopted by the medical field as the contribution of design to service innovation, and the value of using our bodily senses in design methods has not yet been clearly identified. This chapter aims to contribute to the uptake of tangible tools in healthcare by presenting the design and use of tangible tools and exemplifying tools from practice, through an analytical framework drawing on the use of metaphors and affordances in physical objects.

References

  1. Aguirre, M., Agudelo, N., & Romm, J. (2016). Facilitating generative emergence within large-scale networks: Unpacking six dimensions of design practice. In Proceedings of Relating Systems Thinking and Design (RSD5) October 13–15, 2016 Symposium. Peter Jones, OCAD University, Toronto, Canada.Google Scholar
  2. Baxter, H., Mugglestone, M., & Maher, L. (2009). The EBD approach: Experience based design. Using patient and staff experience to design better healthcare service. Concepts and case studies. Institute for Innovation and Improvement, Adridge, UK.Google Scholar
  3. Bitner, M. J., Ostrom, A. L., & Morgan, F. N. (2008). Service blueprinting: A practical technique for service innovation. California Management Review, 50(3), 66–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blomkvist, J., & Holmlid, S. (2010). Service prototyping according to service design practitioners. In Conference Proceedings, Second Nordic Conference on Service Design and Service Innovation 2010, Exchanging Knowledge. Linköping Electronic Conference Proceedings. Linköping University Electronic Press. Linköping, Sweden.Google Scholar
  5. Brandt, E. (2006). Designing exploratory design games: A framework for participation in participatory design? In Proceedings of the ninth conference on participatory design: Expanding boundaries in design. Trento, Italy.Google Scholar
  6. Brandt, E., Binder, T., Sanders, E.B.-N. (2012). Tools and techniques: Ways to engage telling, making and enacting. In J. Simonsen & T. Robertson (Eds.), Routledge international handbook of participatory design. Routledge international handbooks (1st ed., pp. 145–181). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Buur, J. (2012). The role of design in business model innovation. Sao Luis: Universidade Federal do Maranhão.Google Scholar
  8. Carlile, P. R. (2002). A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects in new product development. Organization Science, 13(4), 442–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chiara, D., Pacenti, E., & Tassi, R. (2009). Visualtiles: Communication tools for service design. In First Nordic Conference on Service Design and Service Innovation, 24–26th November, 2009. Linköping Electronic Conference Proceedings, Linköping.Google Scholar
  10. Cila, N. (2013). Metaphors we design by: The use of metaphors in product design. Delft: Delft University of Technology.Google Scholar
  11. Cila, N., Hekkert, P., & Visch, V. (2014). Source selection in product metaphor generation: The effects of salience and relatedness. International Journal of Design, 8(1), 15–28.Google Scholar
  12. Clatworthy, S., Oorschot, R., & Lindquister, B. (2014). How to get a leader to talk: Tangible objects for strategic conversations in service design. Presented at the ServDes 2014, Service Future; Proceedings of the fourth Service Design and Service Innovation Conference, 25th of June, 2014, Lancaster University, Linköping University Electronic Press, Linköping, pp. 270–280.Google Scholar
  13. Cupchik, G. C. (2003). The “Interanimation” of worlds: Creative metaphors in art and design. Design Journal, 6(2), 14–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Design Kit [WWW Document]. (2018). Designkit.org. Retrieved June 3, 2018, from http://www.designkit.org/
  15. Development Impact and You [WWW Document]. (2018). Development impact and you. Retrieved June 3, 2018, from http://diytoolkit.org/
  16. Ehn, P. (1988). Work-oriented design of computer artifacts. Stockholm: Umeå University, Arbetslivcentrum.Google Scholar
  17. Ekblom, B., Langnes, A., Nordli, U., & Owren, K. (2013). How to use the Boat, Customer Care 2020. Oslo: The Oslo School of Architecture and Design.Google Scholar
  18. Engström, J. (2014). Patient involvement and service innovation in healthcare. Linköping: Linköping University, Department of Management and Engineering, LiU-Tryck.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Frist, W. H. (2014). Connected health and the rise of the patient-consumer. Health Affairs: Intersection of Health Care Policy, 33(2), 191–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gagliardi, P. (2016). The creation and change of organizational cultures: A conceptual framework. Organization Studies, 7(2), 117–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gallouj, F., Rubalcaba, L., & Windrum, P. (2013). Public-private innovation networks in services. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gaver, B., Dunne, T., & Pacenti, E. (1999). Design: Cultural probes. Interaction Association for Computing Machinery, 6(1), 21–29.Google Scholar
  23. Hu, L. (2013). Terra Nova Minimaatschappij, Stichting Terra Nova, Democratisch Design, Eindhoven. Accessed January 10, 2018, from http://www.lisahu.nl/terra-nova/
  24. Junginger, S., & Bailey, S. (2017). Designing vs. designers: How organizational design narratives shift the focus from designers to designing. In D. Sangiorgi & A. Prendiville (Eds.), Designing for service: Key issues and new directions (pp. 33–47). London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
  25. Kaptelinin, V. (2017). Affordances. Encyclopedia of human-computer interaction. Aarhus: The Interaction-Design.org Foundation.Google Scholar
  26. Kleinsmann, M., Valkenburg, R., & Buijs, J. (2007). Why do(n’t) actors in collaborative design understand each other? An empirical study towards a better understanding of collaborative design. CoDesign – International Journal of CoCreation in Design and the Arts, 3(1), 59–73.Google Scholar
  27. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  28. Levina, N., & Vaast, E. (2005). The emergence of boundary spanning competence in practice: Implications for implementation and use of information systems. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 29(2), 335–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lynch, H. L., & Fisher-Ari, T. R. (2017). Metaphor as pedagogy in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 66(Supplement C), 195–203.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.03.021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mattelmäki, T. (2008). Probing for co-exploring. CoDesign – International Journal of CoCreation in Design and the Arts, 4(1), 65–78.Google Scholar
  31. McNamara, M. (2015). Unraveling the characteristics of mandated collaboration. In J. C Morris & K. Miller-Stevens (Eds.), Advancing collaboration theory: Models, typologies and evidence (pp. 65–85). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  32. Meroni, A. & Sangiorgi, D. (2011). Design for services (New ed.). Burlington, VT: Routledge.Google Scholar
  33. Mitchell, R., & Buur, J. (2010). Tangible business model sketches to support participatory innovation. DESIRE ‘10 Proceedings. 1st DESIRE Network Conference on Creativity and Innovation in Design. DESIRE Network, Lancaster, pp. 29–33.Google Scholar
  34. Molin-Juustila, T. (2006). Cross-functional interaction during the early phases of user-centred software new product development: Reconsidering the common area of interest. Faculty of Science, University of Oulu, Oulu.Google Scholar
  35. Morelli, N. (2002). Designing product/service systems: A methodological exploration. Design Issues, 18(3), 3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Norman, D. A. (1988). The design of everyday things. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  37. O’Flynn, J., Blackman, D., & Halligan, J. (Eds.). (2013). Crossing boundaries in public management and policy: The international experience (1st ed.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  38. Palthe, L. V. W. (2017). Philips Co-Create Toolkit, LvWP Studio, Eindhoven. Retrieved March 8, 2018, from http://lvwp.nl/PHILIPS-Cocreate-Toolkit
  39. Patricio, L., Fisk, R. P., Cunha, E., & Falcao, J. (2008). Designing multi-interface service experiences: The service experience blueprint. Journal of Service Research, 10(4), 318–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pirinen, A. (2016). The barriers and enablers of co-design for services. International Journal of Design, 10(3), 27–42.Google Scholar
  41. Rygh, K. (2013). Value pursuit. Eindhoven: Design Academy Eindhoven.Google Scholar
  42. Rygh, K. (2014, December). Value pursuit – A tool for structuring conversation and encouraging collaboration in stakeholder networks. Tijdschrift voor Human Factors, 39(4). Soest.Google Scholar
  43. Rygh, K. (2017). Actor mapping flags, tangible co-design communication tool. Oslo: The Oslo School of Architecture and Design.Google Scholar
  44. Rygh, K., Arets, D., & Raijmakers, B. (2014). Defining values through collaboration. In ServDes 2014, Service Futures. Proceedings of the 4th Service Design and Service Innovation Conference. Lancaster University, Linköping University Electronic Press, Linköping University, Sweden.Google Scholar
  45. Rygh, K., De Vos, M., & Raijmakers, B. (2015). Value pursuit: Creating value between stakeholders in policy development. In Pin-C 2015 Reframing Design Proceedings of the 4th Participatory Innovation Conference 2015. The Hague University, The Hague.Google Scholar
  46. Sanders, E. B.-N., Brandt, E., & Binder, T. (2010). A framework for organizing the tools and techniques of participatory design. In PDC ‘10 Proceedings. Presented at the 11th Biennial Participatory Design Conference, Sydney, Australia. ACM, New York, pp. 195–198.Google Scholar
  47. Sanders, E., & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign: International Journal of CoCreation in Design and the Arts, 4(1), 5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sarin, S., & O’Connor, G. C. (2009). First among equals: The effect of team leader characteristics on the internal dynamics of cross-functional product development teams. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26(2), 188–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Schneider, J., Stickdorn, M., Bisset, F., Andrews, K., & Lawrence, A. (2010). This is service design thinking: Basics, tools, cases. Amsterdam: BIS Publishers.Google Scholar
  50. Service Design Toolkit [WWW Document]. (2018). Servicedesigntoolkit.org. Retrieved June 3, 2018, from http://www.servicedesigntoolkit.org
  51. Sevaldson, B. (2011). Giga-MAPPING: Visualisation for complexity and systems thinking in design. Nordes Proceedings of the 4th Nordic Design Research Conference. May 29th to May 31st, 2011. The School of Art & Design, Aalto University, Helsinki, Finland.Google Scholar
  52. Smith, P. G., & Reinertsen, D. G. (1997). Developing products in half the time: New rules, new tools (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  53. Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Steen, M., Manschot, M. A. J., & De Koning, N. (2011). Benefits of co-design in service design projects. International Journal of Design, 5(2), 53–60.Google Scholar
  55. Stephens, J. P., & Boland, B. J. (2014). The aesthetic knowledge problem of problem-solving with design thinking. Journal of Management Inquiry, 24(3), 219–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Stompff, G. (2012). Facilitating team cognition: How designers mirror what NPD teams do. Maastricht: Delft University of Technology, Oce Business Services.Google Scholar
  57. Tversky, B. (2015). The cognitive design of tools of thought. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 6(1), 99–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Vaajakallio, K., Lehtinen, V., Kaario, P., Mattelmäki, T., Kuikkaniemi, K., & Kantola, V. (2010). Someone else’s shoes: Using role-playing games for empathy and collaboration in service design. Swedish Design Research Journal, 1, 34–41.Google Scholar
  59. Wee, L. (2005). Constructing the source: Metaphor as a discourse strategy. Discourse Studies, 7(3), 363–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wetter-Edman, K., Sangiorgi, D., Edvardsson, B., Holmlid, S., Grönroos, C., & Mattelmäki, T. (2014). Design for value co-creation: Exploring synergies between design for service and service logic. Service Science, 6(2), 106–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wetter-Edman, K., Vink, J., & Blomkvist, J. (2017). Staging aesthetic disruption through design methods for service innovation. Design Studies, 55, 5–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Oslo School of Architecture and DesignOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations