Advertisement

Co-creative Practices in Service Innovation

  • Stefan HolmlidEmail author
  • Tuuli Mattelmäki
  • Froukje Sleeswijk Visser
  • Kirsikka Vaajakallio
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter is about co-creative practices that can be used for the purpose of service innovation. It starts with an introduction to our core assumption that innovation is a deliberate activity and can be enabled and triggered through staged co-creative practices. The main reasons for co-creative practices are first, bringing different people together to share, make sense and to collaborate, and secondly, to rethink current and explore future possibilities. In line with Kelley’s ideology, “You can prototype just about anything. What counts is moving the ball forward, achieving some part of your goal”. We highlight the open-ended exploration practices familiar to designers, in which the practice of identifying problems goes hand in hand with creating solutions. The basis for exploration in this chapter is in engaging people in reflective and creative dialogues, and to situate activities in order to set frames for reflection. In practice, the co-creative practices emerge and evolve in a non-linear progress of stages that are partly overlapping and in relation with each other. This chapter, however, is organised through the use of four lenses: (1) insight generation, (2) concept exploration and development, (3) converging towards a specification and (4) transformative and implementation processes. The chapter introduces a number of examples and applied co-creative practices from various fields of service design. They address the co-creative character of many well-known tools such as role playing, context mapping, design games and experience prototyping. Finally, the chapter sums up the main considerations for the applications of co-creative practices, defining the purpose, utilising co-creative characters and developing facilitation capacity.

Keywords

Co-creation Design practice Service innovation Reflective dialogue Creativity Creative practices Service design Collaborative design 

References

  1. Agger Eriksen M (2012) Material matters in co-designing: formatting & staging with participating materials in co-design projects, events & situations. Dissertation series in new media, public spheres, and forms of expression no 3. Faculty of Culture and Society, Malmö UniversityGoogle Scholar
  2. Agger Eriksen M, Vaajakallio K (2013) Some conflicts in staging co-design performative processes. In: Proceedings of the participatory innovation conference PIN-C 2013Google Scholar
  3. Arvola M, Blomkvist J, Holmlid S, Pezone G (2012) A service walkthrough in Astrid Lindgren’s footsteps. In: Proceedings of ServDes 2012. Espoo, FinlandGoogle Scholar
  4. Binder T (2007) Why design:labs? In: Proccedings of Nordes 2007Google Scholar
  5. Blomkvist J (2012) Conceptualisations of service prototyping: service sketches, walkthroughs and live service prototypes. In: Miettinen S, Valtonen A (eds) Service design with theory. Lapland University Press, VantaaGoogle Scholar
  6. Blomkvist J, Holmlid S (2009) Examplars in Service Design. The Nordic Conference on Service Design and Service Innovation. Oslo, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  7. Blomkvist J, Holmlid S (2011a) Service designers on including stakeholders in service prototyping. Include 2011, LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. Blomkvist J, Holmlid S (2011b) Existing prototyping perspectives: considerations for service design. Nordes 2011, 29–31 Maj, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  9. Blomkvist J, Segelström F, Holmlid S (2011) Investigating prototyping practices of service designers from a service logic perspective. In: Proceedings of the Nordic academy of management conference, NFF2011, 20–24 Augusti, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  10. Blomkvist J, Segelström F (2014) Benefits of External Representations in Service Design: a Distributed Cognition Perspective. The Design Journal 17(3):331–346Google Scholar
  11. Blomkvist J, Aberg J, Holmlid S (2012a) Service walkthrough to support service development. In: Proceedings of ServDes 2012, Espoo, FinlandGoogle Scholar
  12. Blomkvist J, Åberg J, Holmlid S (2012b) Service Walkthrough to Support Service Development. In: Proceedings of ServDes 2012, Espoo, FinlandGoogle Scholar
  13. Blomkvist J, Åberg J, Holmlid S (2013) Formative evaluation of IT-based services: a case study. Interact Comput. doi:  10.1093/iwc/iwt052 Google Scholar
  14. Brandt E (2001) Event-driven product development: collaboration and learning. PhD dissertation, Department of Manufacturing Engineering and Management, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, p 69Google Scholar
  15. Brandt E (2006) Designing exploratory design games: a framework for participation in participatory design? In: Proceedings of the ninth conference on participatory design. ACM Press, New York, pp 57–66Google Scholar
  16. Brandt E, Grunnet C (2000) Evoking the future: drama and props in user centered design. In: Proceedings of the participatory design conference, CPSR, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Brandt E, Messeter J (2004) Facilitating collaboration through design games. In: Proceedings of the participatory design conference 2004. ACM Press, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  18. Buchenau M, Fulton Suri J (2000) Experience prototyping. In: DIS’00 Proceedings of the 3rd conference on designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniques, ACMGoogle Scholar
  19. Burns C, Cottam H, Vanstone C, Winhall J (2006) RED PAPER 02: transformation design. British Design CouncilGoogle Scholar
  20. Cantu D, Simeone G (2012) Creating scenarios for regional projects. Service design for multifunctional and collaborative food projects. In: Proceedings of ServDes 2012, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  21. Chesbrough H, Vanhaverbeke W, West J (eds) (2008) Open innovation: researching a new paradigm. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  22. Díaz-Kommonen L, Reunanen M, Salmi A (2009) Role playing and collaborative scenario design development. In: Proceedings of international conference on engineering design (ICED’09). The Design Society, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA, pp 79–86Google Scholar
  23. Edman KW, Sangiorgi D, Edvardsson B, Holmlid S, Grönroos C, Mattelmäki T (2014) Design for value cocreation: Exploring synergies between design for service and service logics. J Serv Sci 6(2):106–121Google Scholar
  24. Ehn P, Kyng M (1991) Cardboard computers: mocking-it-up or hands-on the future. In: Greenbaum J, Kyng M (eds) Design at work: cooperative design of computer systems. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 169–195Google Scholar
  25. Ehn P, Sjögren D (1991) From system descriptions to scripts for action. In: Greenbaum J, Kyng M (eds) Design at work: cooperative design of computer systems. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 241–268Google Scholar
  26. Gaver W, Dunne A (1999) Projected realities, conceptual design for cultural effect. In: Proceedings of CHI’99, pp 600–607Google Scholar
  27. Gaver W, Dunne A, Pacenti E (1999) Cultural probes. Interactions 6(1):21–29Google Scholar
  28. Grönroos C (2008) Service logic revisited: who creates value? And who co-creates? Eur Bus Rev 20(4):298–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Grönroos C, Ravald A (2011) Service as business logic: implications for value creation and marketing. J Serv Manag 22(1):5–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Grönroos C, Voima P (2013) Critical service logic: making sense of value creation and co-creation. J Acad Mark Sci 41(2):133–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Habraken HJ, Gross MD (1987) Concept design games (book 1 and 2). Design methodology program. Department of Architecture, MIT, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  32. Hakio K, Mattelmäki T (2011) Towards customer centric services: suspension of expectations and trust. In: Proceedings of the participatory innovation conference Pin-C 2011, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  33. Halse J (2008) Design anthropology: Borderland experiments with participation, performance and situated intervention. PhD dissertation, IT University of Copenhagen, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  34. Halse J, Brandt E, Clark B, Binder T (2010) Rehearsing the future Denmark. The Danish Design School Press, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  35. Heinonen K, Strandvik T, Mickelsson KJ, Edvardsson B, Sundström E, Andersson P (2010) A customer-dominant logic of service. J Serv Manag 21:531–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Holmlid S (2009) Participative, co-operative, emancipatory: from participatory design to service design. In: Proceedings of Nordic Conference on Service Design, Oslo 2009Google Scholar
  37. Holmlid S (2012) Designing for resourcefulness in service. Some assumptions and consequences. In: Miettinen S, Valtonen A (eds) Service design with theory. University of Lapland Press, VantaaGoogle Scholar
  38. Holmlid S (2014) One Approach to Understand Design’s Value under a Service Logic. In Proceedings from DMI academic conference 2014, London, 2–4 Sept 2014Google Scholar
  39. Holmlid S, Evenson S (2006) Bringing design to services. Invited to IBM service sciences, management and engineering summit: education for the 21st century, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  40. Iacucci G, Kuuti K, Ranta M (2000) On the move with a magic thing: role playing in concept design of mobile services and devices. In: DIS’00 Proceedings of the 3rd conference on designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniques, ACMGoogle Scholar
  41. Johnston C (1998/2005) House of games. First published in Great Britain in 1998, as paperback original by Nick Hern Books Limited, London. Revised edition published in 2005, reprinted 2007 and 2008, Great Britain, Cromwell press, Trowbridge, WiltsGoogle Scholar
  42. Jungk R, Mullert N (1987) Future workshops: how to create desirable futures. Institute for Social Inventions, LondonGoogle Scholar
  43. Kankainen, A, Vaajakallio K. Kantol V, Mattelmäki T (2011) Storytelling Group—a co-design method for service design. J Behav Inf Technol 1–10Google Scholar
  44. Kelley T (2001) Prototyping is the Shorthand of Design. Des Manag J 12(3):35–42Google Scholar
  45. Kouprie M, Sleeswijk Visser F (2009a) A framework for empathy in design: stepping into and out of the user’s life. J Eng Des 20(5):437–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kouprie M, Sleeswijk Visser F (2009b) A framework for empathy in design: stepping into and out of the user’s life. J Eng Des 20:437–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kronqvist J, Salmi A (2011) Co-designing (with) organizations—human-centeredness, participation and embodiment in organizational development. In: Proceedings of the DPPI2011—international conference on designing pleasurable products and interfaces, 22–25 June 2011, Milan, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  48. Kronqvist J, Erving H, Leinonen T (2013) Cardboard hospital: prototyping patient-centric environments and services. In: Proceedings of Nordes 2013Google Scholar
  49. Lave J, Wenger E (1991) Situated learning. Legitimate peripheral participation. University of Cambridge Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lucero A (2009) Co-designing interactive spaces for and with designers: supporting mood-board making. Doctoral dissertation. Eindhoven University of Technology, NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  51. Mattelmäki T (2005) Applying probes—from inspirational notes to collaborative insights. In: Stephen S (ed) CoDes Int J CoCreat Des Arts 1(2)Google Scholar
  52. Mattelmäki T (2006) Design probes. Doctoral dissertation, University of Art and Design Helsinki, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  53. Mattelmäki T, Sleeswijk Wisser F (2011) Lost in Co-X—interpretations of Co-design and co-creation. In: Proceedings of IASDR conference, DelftGoogle Scholar
  54. Mattelmäki T, Vaajakallio K, Ylirisku S (2007) Active@work—design dealing with social change. In: Proceeding of include conference. Helen Hamlyn Institute, RCA, LondonGoogle Scholar
  55. Mattelmäki T, Hasu M, Ylirisku S (2009) Creating mock-ups of strategic partnerships. In: Proceedings of IASRD conference in Seoul, KoreaGoogle Scholar
  56. Mattelmäki T, Brandt E, Vaajakallio K (2011) On designing open-ended interpretations for collaborative design exploration. J CoDes 7(2):79–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Meroni A, Sangiorgi D (2011) Design for services, Surrey. Gower Publishing LtdGoogle Scholar
  58. Mitchell R, Caglio A, Buur J (2013) Oops! moments: kinetic material in participatory workshops. In Proceedings of Nordes 2013, Copenhagen/MalmöGoogle Scholar
  59. Oulasvirta A, Kurvinen E, Kankainen T (2003) Understanding contexts by being there: case studies in bodystorming. Pers Ubiquit Comput 7:125–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Parker S, Heapy J (2006) The journey to the interface: how public service design can connect users to reform. Demos, LondonGoogle Scholar
  61. Roos J (2006) Thinking from within: a hands-on strategy practice. Palgrave Macmillan, BasingstokeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Säde S (2001) Cardboard mock-ups and conversations. Doctoral thesis. UIAH Helsinki, FinlandGoogle Scholar
  63. Sanders EBN (2001) Virtuosos of the experience domain. In: Proceedings of the 2001 IDSA. Education conferenceGoogle Scholar
  64. Sanders EBN, Dandavate U (1999) Design for experiencing: new tools. Overbeeke CJ, Hekkert P (eds) Proceedings of the first international conference on design and emotion, Delft University of Technology, Delft, Netherlands, pp 87–92Google Scholar
  65. Sanders L, Stappers PJ (2012) Convivial toolbox: generative research for the front end of design. BIS Publishers, NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  66. Sangiorgi D (2011) Transformative services and transformation design. Int J Des 5(2):29–40Google Scholar
  67. Sato S, Salvador T (1999) Playacting and focus troupe: theater techniques for creating quick, intense, immersive, and engaging focus group sessions. In: Proceedings of interactions of the ACM, September–October 1999, pp 35–41Google Scholar
  68. Segelström F (2010) Visualisations in service design. Licentiate thesis: Linköping Studies in Science and Technology, Thesis 1450. Linköping University Press, Linköping, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  69. Segelström F, Holmlid S (2011) Service design visualisations meet service theory: strengths, weaknesses and perspectives. In: Proceedings of the art & science of service, 2011, Almaden, CA, USAGoogle Scholar
  70. Seland G (2009) Empowering end users in design of mobile technology using role play as a method: reflections on the role-play conduction. In: Kurosu M (ed) Human centered design HCII 2009. Springer, Berlin, pp 912–921CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Sleeswijk Visser F (2009) Bringing the everyday life of people into design. Doctoral thesis TU DelftGoogle Scholar
  72. Sleeswijk Visser F, Stappers PJ, van der Lugt R, Sanders EBN (2005) Contextmapping: experiences from practice. CoDesign 1(2):119–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Sleeswijk Visser F, van der Lugt R, Stappers PJ (2007) Sharing user experiences in the product innovation process: participatory design needs participatory communication. J Creat Innov Manag 16(1):35–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Svanaes D, Seland G (2004) Putting the users center stage: role playing and low-fi prototyping enable end users to design mobile systems. In: Proceedings of CHI 2004. ACM Press, Vienna, Austria, pp 479–486Google Scholar
  75. Vaajakallio K (2012) Design games as a tool, a mindset and a structure. Doctoral thesis. Aalto University PublicationGoogle Scholar
  76. Vaajakallio K, Mattelmäki T (2007) Collaborative design exploration: envisioning future practices with make tools. In: Proceedings of designing pleasurable products and interfaces (DPPI07). University of Art and Design Helsinki, pp 223–238Google Scholar
  77. Wentzel J, Holmlid S (2009) Speed sketching with designers: user inspired brainstorming. In: Proceedings from designing pleasurable products and interfaces 2009, DPPI’09, Compiegne, FranceGoogle Scholar
  78. Wright P, McCarthy J (2008) Empathy and experience in HCI. In: Proceedings of CHI 2008 dignity in design, April 5–10. ACM, Florence, Italy, pp 637–646Google Scholar
  79. Ylirisku S, Vaajakallio K (2007) Situated make tools for envisioning ICTs with ageing workers. In: Online Proceedings of the include conferenceGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stefan Holmlid
    • 1
    Email author
  • Tuuli Mattelmäki
    • 2
  • Froukje Sleeswijk Visser
    • 3
  • Kirsikka Vaajakallio
    • 4
  1. 1.Linköping UniversityLinköpingSweden
  2. 2.Aalto UniversityHelsinkiFinland
  3. 3.Delft University of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Design Agency DiagonalHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations