Collaborative approaches to destination design require conscious and reflexive stakeholder involvement in activities and decision making. Design science studies such participatory processes by observing design teams in practice. From these observations, scientists have identified design strategies and processes that design teams use to support their work in identifying problems and developing solutions. Observing design processes in tourism destinations provides an opportunity to identify successful co-design strategies for destination design. This study presents three key co-design strategies based on data collected from five living labs in five destinations. Each co-design strategy is presented with a recommended use, suggestions for stakeholder involvement, and activities to develop solutions efficiently and effectively with the available resources. Together, the strategies provide a framework to optimise decision-making in relation to shaping destination design processes, and to validate processes and outcomes.
MULTIFILE
Co-creation as a concept and process has been prominent in both marketing and design research over the past ten years. Referring respectively to the active collaboration of firms with their stakeholders in value creation, or to the participation of design users in the design research process, there has arguably been little common discourse between these academic disciplines. This article seeks to redress this deficiency by connecting marketing and design research together—and particularly the concepts of co-creation and co-design—to advance theory and broaden the scope of applied research into the topic. It does this by elaborating the notion of the pop-up store as temporary place of consumer/user engagement, to build common ground for theory and experimentation in terms of allowing marketers insight into what is meaningful to consumers and in terms of facilitating co-design. The article describes two case studies, which outline how this can occur and concludes by proposing principles and an agenda for future marketing/design pop-up research. This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Overdiek A. & Warnaby G. (2020), "Co-creation and co-design in pop-up stores: the intersection of marketing and design research?", Creativity & Innovation Management, Vol. 29, Issue S1, pp. 63-74, which has been published in final form at https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12373. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Use of Self-Archived Versions. LinkedIn: https://nl.linkedin.com/in/overdiek12345
MULTIFILE
The context of a societal challenge provides insight into the complexity of the (eco-)system surrounding the current problematic situation: the environment, the stakeholders (including nature), the highlights and frustrations, the conflicts and dilemmas, and the opportunities for change. Why is this co-design session arranged? What problematic situation is encountered? Who (individual or group) took the initiative to act? Is there a specific reason to collaboratively start taking up this societal challenge? Does everyone in this session recognise the problematic situation? Why or why not?
MULTIFILE
Introduction: There is a lack of effective interventions available for Pediatric Physical Therapists (PPTs) to promote a physically active lifestyle in children with physical disabilities. Participatory design methods (co-design) may be helpful in generating insights and developing intervention prototypes for facilitating a physically active lifestyle in children with physical disabilities (6–12 years). Materials and methods: A multidisciplinary development team of designers, developers, and researchers engaged in a co-design process–together with parents, PPTs, and other relevant stakeholders (such as the Dutch Association of PPTs and care sports connectors). In this design process, the team developed prototypes for interventions during three co-creation sessions, four one-week design sprint, living-lab testing and two triangulation sessions. All available co-design data was structured and analyzed by three researchers independently resulting in themes for facilitating physical activity. Results: The data rendered two specific outcomes, (1) knowledge cards containing the insights collected during the co-design process, and (2) eleven intervention prototypes. Based on the generated insights, the following factors seem important when facilitating a physically active lifestyle: a) stimulating self-efficacy; b) stimulating autonomy; c) focusing on possibilities; d) focusing on the needs of the individual child; e) collaborating with stakeholders; f) connecting with a child's environment; and g) meaningful goal setting. Conclusion: This study shows how a co-design process can be successfully applied to generate insights and develop interventions in pediatric rehabilitation. The designed prototypes facilitate the incorporation of behavioral change techniques into pediatric rehabilitation and offer new opportunities to facilitate a physically active lifestyle in children with physical disabilities by PPTs. While promising, further studies should examine the feasibility and effectivity of these prototypes.
LINK
Background: Many intervention development projects fail to bridge the gap from basic research to clinical practice. Instead of theory-based approaches to intervention development, co-design prioritizes the end users’ perspective as well as continuous collaboration between stakeholders, designers, and researchers throughout the project. This alternative approach to the development of interventions is expected to promote the adaptation to existing treatment activities and to be responsive to the requirements of end users. Objective: The first objective was to provide an overview of all activities that were employed during the course of a research project to develop a relapse prevention intervention for interdisciplinary pain treatment programs. The second objective was to examine how co-design may contribute to stakeholder involvement, generation of relevant insights and ideas, and incorporation of stakeholder input into the intervention design. Methods: We performed an embedded single case study and used the double diamond model to describe the process of intervention development. Using all available data sources, we also performed deductive content analysis to reflect on this process. Results: By critically reviewing the value and function of a co-design project with respect to idea generation, stakeholder involvement, and incorporation of stakeholder input into the intervention design, we demonstrated how co-design shaped the transition from ideas, via concepts, to a prototype for a relapse prevention intervention. Conclusions: Structural use of co-design throughout the project resulted in many different participating stakeholders and stimulating design activities. As a consequence, the majority of the components of the final prototype can be traced back to the information that stakeholders provided during the project. Although this illustrates how co-design facilitates the integration of contextual information into the intervention design, further experimental testing is required to evaluate to what extent this approach ultimately leads to improved usability as well as patient outcomes in the context of clinical practice.
LINK
Although empathy is an essential aspect of co-design, the design community lacks a systematic overview of the key dimensions and elements that foster empathy in design. This paper introduces an empathic formation compass, based on a comparison of existing relevant frameworks. Empathic formation is defined here as the formative process of becoming an empathic design professional who knows which attitude, skills and knowledge are applicable in a co-design process. The empathic formation compass provides designers with a vocabulary that helps them understand what kind of key dimensions and elements influence empathic formation in co-design and how that informs designers’ role and design decisions. In addition, the empathic formation compass aims to support reflection and to evaluate co-design projects beyond the mere reliance on methods. In this way, empathic design can be made into a conscious activity in which designers regulate and include their own feelings and experiences (first-person perspective), and decrease empathic bias. We identify four important intersecting dimensions that empathy is comprised of in design and describe their dynamic relations. The first two opposing dimensions are denoted by empathy and differentiate between cognitive design processes and affective design experiences, and between self-and other orientation. The other two dimensions are defined by design research and differentiate between an expert and a participatory mindset, and research-and design-led techniques. The empathic formation compass strengthens and enriches our earlier work on mixed perspectives with these specific dimensions and describes the factors that foster empathy in design from a more contextual position. We expect the empathic formation compass—combined with the mixed perspectives framework—to enhance future research by bringing about a deeper understanding of designers’ empathic and collaborative design practice.
DOCUMENT
Emergency care (from ambulance to emergency room) is focused on somatic care: fixing the body. When a patient with mental dysregulation who experiences ‘disproportionate feelings like fear, anger, sadness or confusion, possibly with associated behaviours’ (Van de Glind et al. 2023) does not get appropriate attention, this can result in the disruption of treatment and even psychological trauma upon trauma. To improve the emergency care process, the authors of this paper - health researchers and design researchers engaged in a project based on the experience-based co-design (EBCD) approach (Donetto et al. 2015; Bate and Robert 2007). EBCD is a method used to design better experiences in healthcare settings, in cooperation with (former) patients and healthcare professionals. The process of EBCD involves partnerships between stakeholders and the discovery and sensemaking of experiences through specialized methods to gain an understanding of the interface between user and service, to design new experiences (Bate and Robert 2007, 31). There is, however, an interesting challenge in bringing patients and care professionals together. In emergency care, patients depend greatly on their healthcare providers. The patients in this study had existing mental vulnerabilities and may have been traumatized by previous visits. We needed to enable these stakeholders to be equal partners with ownership and power, one of the characteristics of co-design in EBCD (Donetto et al. 2015). In this paper, we describe how we adapted and applied the EBCD method, with a focus on creating equal partnerships. We also reflect on the extent of our success and the diBiculties we encountered in attaining this objective.
DOCUMENT
The Co-Design Pressure Cooker was set up to gather knowledge on co-design in product development activities of Small-to-Medium Enterprises(SMEs). This booklet gives an impression of ten projects conducted in the Province of Utrecht, the Netherlands. In these ten projects, a total of 22 companies were involved. 5000 booklets have already been printed in Dutch and handed out to SMEs for knowledge dissemination. We have received ample requests from the international community, which leads us to believe that there is an international audience for the cases conducted and knowledge gathered. This is why we decided to publish an English version of this booklet. The booklet will be followed by a scientific publication on the knowledge gathered for the academic community. Feel free to contact us for more information on this project
DOCUMENT
All social media should have a sticker saying 'Don't Jump for the Tool!' While it is tempting 'to use Twitter', the choice of a medium like Twitter cannot be seen in isolation of strategic goals, instruments and expected results, i.e. a communication strategy. We designed a board game, called the Media Strategy Game, which makes professionals aware of the choices and opportunities involved in developing a communication strategy. By playing the game, assumptions about objectives and results are made explicit and awareness is created for the activities needed to achieve objectives. The game therefore serves to stimulate discussions, provides insights for the development of an efficient media policy, and helps to create consensus. While designed for professionals who need to communicate a message inside or outside of an organization, it has also proved very valuable in trainings and in higher education. Recently a workbook has been added to the board game that helps professionals to formulate their communication strategy by providing 16 hands-on models for business strategy, business modelling, leveraging tools and formulating indicators to measure impact.
DOCUMENT
Aim: There is often a gap between the ideal of involving older persons iteratively throughout the design process of digital technology, and actual practice. Until now, the lens of ageism has not been applied to address this gap. The goals of this study were: to voice the perspectives and experiences of older persons who participated in co-designing regarding the design process; their perceived role in co-designing and intergenerational interaction with the designers; and apparent manifestations of ageism that potentially influence the design of digital technology. Methods: Twenty-one older persons participated in three focus groups. Five themes were identified using thematic analysis which combined a critical ageism ‘lens’ deductive approach and an inductive approach. Results: Ageism was experienced by participants in their daily lives and interactions with the designers during the design process. Negative images of ageing were pointed out as a potential influencing factor on design decisions. Nevertheless, positive experiences of inclusive design pointed out the importance of “partnership” in the design process. Participants defined the “ultimate partnership” in co-designing as processes in which they were involved from the beginning, iteratively, in a participatory approach. Such processes were perceived as leading to successful design outcomes, which they would like to use, and reduced intergenerational tension. Conclusions: This study highlights the potential role of ageism as a detrimental factor in how digital technologies are designed. Viewing older persons as partners in co-designing and aspiring to more inclusive design processes may promote designing technologies that are needed, wanted and used.
DOCUMENT
