The Struggles of Co-creation – The Highs and Lows of Involving Stakeholders into the Service Design Process

  • Fredrik Sandberg
  • Bo Westerlund
  • Erik Widmark
  • Sophie Andersson
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 408)

Abstract

This paper presents our experiences from a research project on how to co-develop new methods for idea generation within a service design practice. As an example the paper describes how service designers used two visual inquiry methods together with customers and employees in different service situations. The results show that that there is great potential in developing methods for co-design work based on design approaches. This project relies on a mindset where materials of different kinds, that can be organized and reorganized in different ways are used. This supports a way of creating knowledge that facilitates production of other results than the purely verbal. We have also realized that it requires a great amount of work to achieve a great result.

Keywords

Business Development Co-creation Co-Design Idea Generation Visual Methods Service Design 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Cross, N.: Designerly ways of knowing. Design Studies 3(4), 221–227 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kimbell, L., Julier, J.: The Social Design Methods Menu (2012), http://www.lucykimbell.com/stuff/Fieldstudio_SocialDesignMethodsMenu.pdf (retrieved February 27, 2013)
  3. 3.
    Krippendorff, K.: The Semantic Turn: A New Foundation for Design. Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Liker, J.K.: The Toyota Way - Lean for excellence. Liber, Malmö (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nelson, H.G., Stolterman, E.: The design way: intentional change in an unpredictable world. MIT Press, Cambridge (2012)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Prahalad, C.K., Krishnan, M.S.: The New Age of Innovation: Driving Co-created value through global networks. McGraw-Hill Professional, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rittel, H., Webber, M.: Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Public Sciences 4, 155–169 (1973)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sandberg, F.: Visual Inquiry: A Tool for Presenting and Sharing Contextual Knowledge. In: Proceedings of the Nordic Design Research Conference: ’Making Design Matter’, NORDES 2011, Helsinki (2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sandberg, F.: Co-creating collaborative food service opportunities through work context maps. In: 3rd Nordic Conference on Service Design and Service Innovation, ServDes. 2012 (2012)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sanders: Convivial Toolbox: generative research for the front-end of design. BIS Publishers, Amsterdam (2012)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Star, S.L., Griesemer, J.R.: Institutional Ecology, ‘Translations’ and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology. Social Studies of Science 19(3), 387–420 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Westerlund, B.: Design space exploration: co-operative creation of Proposals for Desired interactions with future artefacts. KTH, Stockholm (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fredrik Sandberg
    • 1
  • Bo Westerlund
    • 2
  • Erik Widmark
    • 3
  • Sophie Andersson
    • 3
  1. 1.School of DesignLinnaeus UniversityKalmarSweden
  2. 2.KonstfackStockholmSweden
  3. 3.Transformator Design ABStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations