Advertisement

Some Aspects of Using Universal Design as a Redesign Strategy for Sustainability

  • Moyen M. Mustaquim
  • Tobias Nyström
Conference paper
Part of the Progress in IS book series (PROIS)

Abstract

Sustainability is something that unites humankind and the important 2015 UN Climate Change Conference manifested this and was described by many as our last chance. A shifting towards sustainability through design is a challenge for managers and policymakers of organizations since the existing system or product could be complex and may have difficulty to adopt such a shift. This paper explores how organizations and their designers and developers could benefit from having a predictable process to follow for conducting such a shift, since numerous challenges are associated with costs and revenues. While universal design (UD) is a design philosophy closely associated with the sustainable design, an advanced perspective of UD could be implied as a redesign strategy for existing design and may be used as a radical design and innovation strategy for sustainability. In this paper, some of the aspects of UD as a redesign strategy for sustainability are addressed. Based on the previous theoretical frameworks, a UD approach for redesigning towards sustainability was formulated and discussed.

Keywords

Sustainability Information system design Universal design Universal design for redesign 

References

  1. Coello, C. A. C. (1999). A comprehensive survey of evolutionary-based multiobjective optimization techniques. Knowledge and Information Systems, 1(3), 269–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Geels, F. W. (2010). Ontologies, socio-technical transitions (to sustainability), and the multi-level perspective. Research Policy, 39(4), 495–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Glavic, P., & Lukman, R. (2007). Review of sustainability terms and their definitions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 15(18), 1875–1885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Global Footprint Network. (2013). The national footprint accounts (2012th ed.). Oakland: Global Footprint Network.Google Scholar
  5. Henderson, R. M., & Clark, K. B. (1990). Architectural innovation: the reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 9–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hwang, C.-L., & Masud, A. S. M. (1979). Multiple objective decision making-methods and applications: a state-of-the-art survey (Vol. 164), Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  7. Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Stoddard, D. B. (1998). Business process redesign: Radical and evolutionary change. Journal of Business Research, 41(1), 15–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kilmann, R. H., Pondy, L. R., & Slevin, D. P. (1976). The management of organization design: Strategies and implementation. New York: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  9. Mustaquim, M., & Nyström, T. (2013). Designing sustainable IT system from the perspective of universal design principles. In C. Stephanidis & M. Antona (Eds.), UAHCI: Design methods, tools, and interaction techniques for eInclusion, LNCS (Vol. 8009, pp. 77–86). Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Mustaquim, M., & Nyström, T. (2014). Open sustainability innovation pragmatic standpoint of sustainable HCI. In B. Johansson, B. Andersson, & N. Holmberg (Eds.), Perspectives in business informatics research, LNBIP (Vol. 194, pp. 101–112). Cham: Springer International.Google Scholar
  11. Norman, D. A., & Verganti, R. (2014). Incremental and radical innovation: Design research vs. technology and meaning change. Design Issues, 30(1), 78–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Nyström, T., & Mustaquim, M. (2014). Sustainable information system design and the role of sustainable HCI. In A. Lugmayr (Ed.), Proceedings of the 18th International Academic MindTrek Conference (MindTrek ’14). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  13. Sherwin, C. (2004). Design and sustainability. The Journal of Sustainable Product Design, 4(1), 21–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Stirling, A. (2007). Deliberate futures: Precaution and progress in social choice of sustainable technology. Sustainable Development, 15(5), 286–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Story, M.F., Mueller, J.L, Mace, R.L.: The universal design file: Designing for people of all ages and abilities, (revised ed.). NC State University—The Center for Universal Design (1998)Google Scholar
  16. Tidd, J., & Bessant. J. (2013). Managing innovation: Integrating technological, market and organizational change (5th ed.). WileyGoogle Scholar
  17. Turner, K., Lenzen, M., Wiedmann, T., & Barret, J. (2007). Examining the global environmental impact of consumption activities Part 1: A technical note on combining input-output and ecological footprint analysis. Ecological Economics, 62(1), 37–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Utterback, J. M., & Abernathy, W. J. (1975). A dynamic model of process and product innovation. Omega, 3(6), 639–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Wackernagel, M., & Rees, W. (1996). Our ecological footprint: Reducing human impact on the earth. Gabriola Island: New Society Publishers.Google Scholar
  20. Weick, K. E. (1993). Organizational redesign as improvisation. In: G.P. Huber & W.H. Glick (Eds.) Organizational change and redesign: Ideas and insights for improving performance (pp. 346–379). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Uppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden

Personalised recommendations