Methodology of Workshop-Based Innovative System Design Grounded in Systems Engineering and Design Thinking

  • Toshiyuki YasuiEmail author
  • Seiko Shirasaka
  • Takashi Maeno
Part of the Service Science: Research and Innovations in the Service Economy book series (SSRI)


In the design of innovative service systems and products, workshop-based collective intelligence has become a widespread method. There are a number of “Future Centers” and design schools discussing effective methods of collaboration among various stakeholders. However, what emerges from these activities is often just dialogue that does not lead to creative ideas. In our graduate school, we have developed a unique methodology for workshop-based innovative design based on both systems engineering and design thinking. Systems engineering is a reliable way of designing systems, whereas design thinking promotes creativity.

By combining both these ideas, which are usually assumed to be opposites, a systematic, reliable, and creative methodology is realized. In this chapter, first, the methodology is introduced. Then, examples of the methodology’s applications for education in universities and public Future Centers are shown. Finally, the method’s effectiveness is demonstrated by several examples, showing that it is useful for innovative service-system design.


Workshop Systems engineering Value co-creation Co-design Innovation Creativity 



Most of the studies at Keio SDM out of which this chapter has come were financially supported by the Center for Education and Research of Symbiotic, Safe, and Secure Systems Design of the Keio University Advanced Research Center through the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) Global COE Program (Keio University GCOE H-10). Some studies were also supported by a Kakenhi (23611038) Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C) through the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) and MEXT.


  1. Allen T, Henn G (2007) The organization and architecture of innovation: managing the flow of technology. Elsevier, BurlingtonGoogle Scholar
  2. Brown T (2009) Change by design: how design thinking transforms organizations and inspire innovation. Harper Business, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown J, Isaacs D (2005) The world café: shaping our future through conversations that matter. Berrett-Koehler, WilistonGoogle Scholar
  4. Buchenau M, Fulton-Suri J (2000) Experience prototyping. In: DIS’00 proceedings of the third conference on designing interactive systems: processes, methods, and techniques. ACM, New York, pp 424–433Google Scholar
  5. Buzan T, Buzan B (2003) The mind map book (revised edn). BBC Worldwide Limited, LondonGoogle Scholar
  6. Checkland P, Scholes J (1990) Soft systems methodology in action. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  7. Donaldson KM, Ishii K, Sheppard SD (2006) Customer value chain analysis. Res Eng Des 16:174–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dori D (2002) Object-process methodology: a holistic systems paradigm. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dvir R, Shwartzberg Y, Avni H, Webb C, Lettice F (2006) The future center as an urban innovation engine. J Knowl Manag 10(5):110–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Forsberg K, Mooz H, Cotterman H (2005) Visualizing project management, 3rd edn. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  11. Gray D, Brown S, Macanufo J (2010) Gamestorming: a playbook for innovators, rulebreakers, and changemakers. O’Reilly, SebastopolGoogle Scholar
  12. Grönroos C (2006) Adopting a service logic for marketing. Mark Theory 6(3):317–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Grundahl J (1995) The Danish consensus conference model. In: Joss S, Durant J (eds) Public participation in science: the role of consensus conferences in Europe. Science Museum, LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. Holman P (2010) Engaging emergence: turning upheaval into opportunity. Berrett-Koehler, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  15. Holman P, Devane T, Cady S, Associates (2007) The change handbook: the definitive resource on today’s best methods for engaging whole systems. Berrett-Koehler, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  16. Ishii K, Iino K (2008) Value-creating design: design science. Yokendo, Tokyo (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  17. Ishii K, de Wick O, Haruyama S, Maeno T, Kim S, Fowler W (2009) Active learning project sequence: capstone experience for multi-disciplinary system design and management education. In: Proceedings of the international conference on engineering design, ICED’09 24–27 Aug 2009. Stanford University, Stanford, pp 57–68Google Scholar
  18. Kawakita J (1986) KJ method: let chaos speak. Chuo-Koron, Tokyo (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  19. Kerzner H (2011) Project management metrics, KPIs, and dashboards: a guide to measuring and monitoring project performance. Wiley, HobokenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kim SK, Ishii K (2007) Scenario graph: discovering new business opportunities and failure mode. Stanford University Technical Paper, Stanford University Press, Stanford, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  21. Leonard D, Rayport JF (1997) Spark innovation through empathic design. Harv Bus Rev 75(6):102–113Google Scholar
  22. Leung P, Ishii K, Benson J (2005) Modularization of work tasks for global engineering. In: Proceedings of 2005 ASME international mechanical engineering congress and exposition, 5–11 Nov 2005. ASME, Orlando, pp 1–10Google Scholar
  23. Lewin K, Cartwright D (eds) (1951) Field theory in social science. Harper and Brothers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Maeno T, Makino Y, Shirasaka S, Makino Y, Kim SK (2011) Wants chain analysis: human-centered method for analyzing and designing social systems. In: Proceedings of the international conference on engineering design, ICED11, Copenhagen, 15–18 Aug 2011, pp 302–310Google Scholar
  25. Maeno T, Yasui T, Shirasaka S, Bosch O (2012) Social system design using models of social and human mind network: CVCA, WCA and Bayesian network modeling. In: Fourth international conference on applied human factors and ergonomics (AHFE 2012), 20–25 July 2012. AHFE, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  26. Matsuoka Y (ed) (2010) Design science: six viewpoints for the creation of the future. Maruzen, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  27. Murase H, Maeno T, Sakamoto K (2012) Factors for transition towards community supported agriculture (CSA) in Japan. Int J Environ Cult Econ Soc Sustain 7(5):199–214Google Scholar
  28. Nguyen NC, Bosch OJH, Maani KE (2011) Creating “learning laboratories” for sustainable development in biospheres: a systems thinking approach. Syst Res Behav Sci 28:51–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nonaka I, Konno N (1998) The concept of Ba: building a foundation for knowledge creation. Calif Manage Rev 40(3):40–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Osborn AF (1942) How to “think up”. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. Papert S (1980) Mindstorms: children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. Poteete A, Janssen M, Ostrom E (2010) Working together: collective actions, the commons, and multiple methods in practice. Princeton University Press, PrincetonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pugh S (1991) Total design: integrated methods for successful product engineering. Addison-Wesley, ReadingGoogle Scholar
  34. Putman R (2000) Bowling alone: the collapse and revival of American community. Simon & Schuster, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. Rawaswamy V, Gouillart F (2010) The power of co-creation: built it with them to boost growth, productivity, and profits. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  36. Saaty T (2001) The analytic network process: decision making with dependence and feedback, 2nd edn. RWS Publications, PittsburghGoogle Scholar
  37. Sanders EB, Stappers PJ (2008) Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign 4(1):5–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Shirasaka S (2009) A standard approach to find out multiple view points to describe an architecture of social systems: designing better payment architecture to solve claim-payment failures of Japan’s insurance companies. In: Proceedings of the INCOSE 2009, Singapore, INCOSE, USB Memory 3.3.3Google Scholar
  39. Soda Y, Yasui T, Maeno T, Shirasaka S (2012) Policy design workshop: collaborative design methodology architecting for the future public policies. In: Proceedings of the sixth Asia-pacific conference on systems engineering (APCOSE 2012), 30 April–2 May 2012. APCOSE, BrisbaneGoogle Scholar
  40. Ueda K, Tanaka T, Fujita K (2008) Toward value co-creation in manufacturing and servicing. CIPR J Manuf Sci Technol 1:53–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Vargo SL, Lusch RF (2008) Service-dominant logic: continuing the evolution. J Acad Mark Sci 36:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Williams Woolley A, Chabris CF, Pentland A, Hashimi N, Malone TW (2010) Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups. Science 330:686–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Xie C, Bagozzi RP, Troye SV (2008) Trying to prosume: toward a theory of consumers as co-creators of value. J Acad Mark Sci 36:109–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Yagita H, Tose A, Nakajima M, Kim SK, Maeno T (2011) A validation regarding effectiveness of scenario graph. In: Proceedings of the ASME 2011 international design engineering technical conferences, 28–31 Aug 2011. ASME, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  45. Yasui T (2011) A new systems-engineering approach for a socio-critical system: a case study of claims-payment failures of Japan’s insurance industry. Syst Eng 14(4):349–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Yasui T, Shirasaka S, Kohtake N, Tsutsuki A (2011) Creating community commons: a systems approach to revitalize declined rural towns. In: Proceedings of the fifth Asia-pacific conference on systems engineering (APCOSE2011), Seoul, 19–21 Oct 2011, APCOSE, USB Memory P0068Google Scholar
  47. Zwicky F (1969) Discovery, invention, research through the morphological approach. McMillan, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Toshiyuki Yasui
    • 1
    Email author
  • Seiko Shirasaka
    • 1
  • Takashi Maeno
    • 1
  1. 1.Graduate School of System Design and ManagementKeio UniversityYokohamaJapan

Personalised recommendations