Skip to main content

Bizchange

Co-Design Meetings to Enable Stakeholder-Supported Design Moves

  • Chapter
Book cover Co-Creation in Higher Education

Abstract

Over the years, we have experimented with several course set-ups in which master students collaborate with companies on a specific service design problem or opportunity. This has resulted in – at least at the outset and based on feedback – inspiring service design concepts that the company decision makers could bring into the organisation.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Archer, B. (1995). The nature of research. Co-Design Journal, 2(11), 6–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Argyris, C., Putnam, R., & Smith, D. M. (1985). Action science. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Argyris, C. (2010). Organizational traps: Leadership, culture, organizational design. OUP Oxford.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Brandt, E. (2006). Designing exploratory design games a framework for participation in participatory design? Proceedings Participatory Design Conference, 57–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brinkmann, S., & Tanggaard, L. (Eds.). (2010). Kvalitative metoder og tilgange: En grundbog. Hans Reitzels Forlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, T. (2009). Change by design. HarperBusiness.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, T., & Martin, R. (2015). Design for action. Harvard Business Review, September, 55–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buur, J., & Matthews, B. (2008). Participatory innovation. International Journal of Innovation Management, 12(3), 255–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buxton, B. (2007). Sketching user experiences: Getting the design right and the right design. Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bødker, S. (2000). Scenarios in user-centred design—setting the stage for reflection and action. Interacting with computers, 13(1), 61–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Bono, E. (1989). Six thinking hats. London: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dorst, K. (2015). Frame innovation. MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehn, P. (1993). Scandinavian design: On participation and skill. Participatory design: Principles and practices, 41–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative inquiry, 12(2), 219–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frayling, C. (1993). Research in art and design. London: Royal College of Art.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gioia, D. A., & Chittipeddi, K. (1991). Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation. Strategic management journal, 12(6), 433–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenbaum, J., & Loi, D. (2012). Participation, the camel and the elephant of design: an introduction. CoDesign, 8 (2–3), 81–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gudiksen, S. (2014). Game feedback techniques: Eliciting big surprises in business model design. Design research society proceedings.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gudiksen, S. (2015). Co-designing business models: Engaging emergence through design games (Ph.D Dissertation). Aalborg University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gudiksen, S. (2015). Designerly influence on politics and the press: Changing a deadlocked relationship. Nordes, 1(6).

    Google Scholar 

  • Gudiksen, S., Poulsen, S. B., & Buur, J. (2014). Making business models. CoDesign, 10(1), 15–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Houde, S., & Hill, C. (1997). What do prototypes prototype? In M. Helander & T. K. Landauer (Eds.), Handbook of human-computer interaction (2nd ed.). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • IDEO.org. (2015). The field guide to human-centered design.

    Google Scholar 

  • Junginger, S., & Sangiorgi, D. (2009. Service design and organizational change: Bridging the gap between rigour and relevance. In Proceedings of the 3rd IASDR Conference on Design Research (pp. 4339–4348). Seoul, South Korea: Korean Society of Design Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, T., & Littman, J. (2006). The ten faces of innovation: IDEO’s strategies for defeating the devil’s advocate and driving creativity throughout your organization. Crown Business.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, T., & Kelley, D. (2013). Creative confidence: Unleashing the creative potential within us all. Crown Business.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, A. J. (2000). Community building on the web. San Francisco, CA: Peachpit Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development (1). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koskinen, I., Zimmerman, J., Binder, T., Redström, J., & Wensveen, S. (2011). Constructive Design Research-1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muller, M. J. (2003). Participatory design: The third space in HCI. Human-computer interaction: Development process, 4235, 165–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osterwalder, A., & Pigneur, Y. (2010). Business model generation: A handbook for visionaries, game changers, and challengers (2nd ed.). UK: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pestoff, V. (2012). Co-production and third sector social services in Europe. New public governance, the third sector and co-production, 13–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004a). Co-creating unique value with customers. Strategy & Leadership, 32(3), 4–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rebernik, M., & Bradač, B. (2008). Idea evaluation methods and techniques. Institute for Entrepreneurship and Small Business Management. Slovenia: University of Maribor.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, Y., Sharp, H., & Preece, J. (2011). Interaction design: Beyond human-computer interaction.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roos, J., & Roos, M. (2006). Thinking from within: A hands-on strategy practice. Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosted, J. (2005). Brugerdreven innovation: Økonomi- og erhvervsministeriets enhed for erhvervsøkonomisk forskning og analyse.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritzer, G., & Jurgenson, N. (2010). Production, consumption, prosumption the nature of capitalism in the age of the digital ‘prosumer’. Journal of Consumer Culture, 10(1), 13–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau, D. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations: Understanding written and unwritten agreements. Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, E. B. N., & Stappers, P. J. (2014). Probes, toolkits and prototypes: Three approaches to making in codesigning. CoDesign, 10(1), 5–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action (Vol. 5126). Basic books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1976). The business school: A problem in organizational design. In H. A. Simon (Ed.), Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making processes in administrative organization (pp. 335–356). New York, NY: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spool, J. M. (2004). The KJ-technique: A group process for establishing priorities. User interface engineering Newsletter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stokes, P. D. (2005). Creativity from constraints: The psychology of breakthrough. Springer Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toffler, A. (1980). The third wave. New York, NY: Bantam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toffler, A. (1984). Future shock. New York, NY: Bantam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verganti, R., & Öberg, Å. (2013). Interpreting and envisioning—A hermeneutic framework to look at radical innovation of meanings. Industrial marketing management, 42(1), 86–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Sense Publishers

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Gudiksen, S. et al. (2017). Bizchange. In: Chemi, T., Krogh, L. (eds) Co-Creation in Higher Education. Creative Education Book Series. SensePublishers, Rotterdam. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6351-119-3_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6351-119-3_11

  • Publisher Name: SensePublishers, Rotterdam

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-6351-119-3

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics