Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Service Design and Service Thinking in Healthcare and Hospital Management

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Buur, J. (2012). The role of design in business model innovation. Sao Luis: Universidade Federal do Maranhão.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlile, P. R. (2002). A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects in new product development. Organization Science, 13(4), 442–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Cila, N. (2013). Metaphors we design by: The use of metaphors in product design. Delft: Delft University of Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Cupchik, G. C. (2003). The “Interanimation” of worlds: Creative metaphors in art and design. Design Journal, 6(2), 14–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Design Kit [WWW Document]. (2018). Designkit.org. Retrieved June 3, 2018, from http://www.designkit.org/

  • Development Impact and You [WWW Document]. (2018). Development impact and you. Retrieved June 3, 2018, from http://diytoolkit.org/

  • Ehn, P. (1988). Work-oriented design of computer artifacts. Stockholm: Umeå University, Arbetslivcentrum.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Engström, J. (2014). Patient involvement and service innovation in healthcare. Linköping: Linköping University, Department of Management and Engineering, LiU-Tryck.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Frist, W. H. (2014). Connected health and the rise of the patient-consumer. Health Affairs: Intersection of Health Care Policy, 33(2), 191–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gagliardi, P. (2016). The creation and change of organizational cultures: A conceptual framework. Organization Studies, 7(2), 117–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallouj, F., Rubalcaba, L., & Windrum, P. (2013). Public-private innovation networks in services. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gaver, B., Dunne, T., & Pacenti, E. (1999). Design: Cultural probes. Interaction Association for Computing Machinery, 6(1), 21–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hu, L. (2013). Terra Nova Minimaatschappij, Stichting Terra Nova, Democratisch Design, Eindhoven. Accessed January 10, 2018, from http://www.lisahu.nl/terra-nova/

  • 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 

  • Kaptelinin, V. (2017). Affordances. Encyclopedia of human-computer interaction. Aarhus: The Interaction-Design.org Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mattelmäki, T. (2008). Probing for co-exploring. CoDesign – International Journal of CoCreation in Design and the Arts, 4(1), 65–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Meroni, A. & Sangiorgi, D. (2011). Design for services (New ed.). Burlington, VT: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Morelli, N. (2002). Designing product/service systems: A methodological exploration. Design Issues, 18(3), 3–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norman, D. A. (1988). The design of everyday things. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Palthe, L. V. W. (2017). Philips Co-Create Toolkit, LvWP Studio, Eindhoven. Retrieved March 8, 2018, from http://lvwp.nl/PHILIPS-Cocreate-Toolkit

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pirinen, A. (2016). The barriers and enablers of co-design for services. International Journal of Design, 10(3), 27–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rygh, K. (2013). Value pursuit. Eindhoven: Design Academy Eindhoven.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Rygh, K. (2017). Actor mapping flags, tangible co-design communication tool. Oslo: The Oslo School of Architecture and Design.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, J., Stickdorn, M., Bisset, F., Andrews, K., & Lawrence, A. (2010). This is service design thinking: Basics, tools, cases. Amsterdam: BIS Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Service Design Toolkit [WWW Document]. (2018). Servicedesigntoolkit.org. Retrieved June 3, 2018, from http://www.servicedesigntoolkit.org

  • 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 

  • Smith, P. G., & Reinertsen, D. G. (1997). Developing products in half the time: New rules, new tools (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stompff, G. (2012). Facilitating team cognition: How designers mirror what NPD teams do. Maastricht: Delft University of Technology, Oce Business Services.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, B. (2015). The cognitive design of tools of thought. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 6(1), 99–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Wee, L. (2005). Constructing the source: Metaphor as a discourse strategy. Discourse Studies, 7(3), 363–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wetter-Edman, K., Vink, J., & Blomkvist, J. (2017). Staging aesthetic disruption through design methods for service innovation. Design Studies, 55, 5–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Oslo School of Architecture and Design, Oslo, Norway

    Karianne Rygh & Simon Clatworthy

Authors
  1. Karianne Rygh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Simon Clatworthy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Karianne Rygh .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Healthcare Management, Neu Ulm University of Applied Sciences, Neu-Ulm, Germany

    Mario A. Pfannstiel

  2. Management, Professional Services and Sports Economics, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany

    Christoph Rasche

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Rygh, K., Clatworthy, S. (2019). The Use of Tangible Tools as a Means to Support Co-design During Service Design Innovation Projects in Healthcare. In: Pfannstiel, M.A., Rasche, C. (eds) Service Design and Service Thinking in Healthcare and Hospital Management. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00749-2_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation