Transitions can be facilitated through collective networked action, moving from coordinated learning towards more forceful interventions. This coordinated effort is challenging in more extended learning and innovation networks. Creating and maintaining an overview of activities within such a network and connecting them to a common cause can be a powerful approach. A tool named MissionMapping was developed in an iterative process in applied co-design research. With the tool, we intend to allow for a more holistic perspective when navigating the activities of the network related to the transition by working towards more of an overview of the questions and activities within the network. This article describes three cases in which MissionMapping was applied to facilitate synergy in networks of people collaborating on societal challenges. A cross-case analysis was done to develop insights on how MissionMapping supports the synergy of goals and projects within societal challenges. MissionMapping allows participants to build their mission landscape. They combine individual activities to create shared territories. The tool was developed in an iterative process. In the three cases, different versions of the tool were used during live workshops. After the cases and applying MissionMapping in other cases, the tool results in a flexible set that can be adapted to different purposes for a workshop and adopted by others who like to apply the tool. The article presents insights resulting from a cross-case analysis of applying the MissionMapping tool. One insight was that it is difficult to keep track of adjustments over time when the network dynamics change. Additionally, we found that while preparing the workshop, adjusting and printing the tiles cost time and are not easily transferable to others who might be interested in applying the tool. Navigating the mission resulted in increased enthusiasm for the topic at hand. The form factor also seems to contribute to a sense of agency. However, the increased agency does not automatically transfer to actions, as organisations are often inflexible. MissionMapping stimulates the development of a shared language through the landscape metaphor. This helps to cross boundaries in multidisciplinary networks. Capturing and transferring insights visually and digitally was quite challenging. Further exploration is needed to find an effective method. It is difficult to capture the impact of the MissionMaps and requires monitoring over time. For now, we conclude that it benefits collaboration, creates overviews in complex networks, and may fuel idea generation.
Innovating physical products can be seen as systems engineering at a higher abstraction level. It spans multiple domains and focuses not on developing the product, but realising the complete innovation. In our new approach, we focus on the four most important domains of physical product innovation: market, technology, production and business. Technology Innovation Processes (TIP) is a newly developed, flexible and pragmatic data-informed decision approach that helps innovation managers to navigate through the early stages of a blue-ocean innovation process, where not much is known.
MULTIFILE
10-12-2024
Background: A patient decision aid (PtDA) can support shared decision making (SDM) in preference-sensitive care, with more than one clinically applicable treatment option. The development of a PtDA is a complex process, involving several steps, such as designing, developing and testing the draft with all the stakeholders, known as alpha testing. This is followed by testing in ‘real life’ situations, known as beta testing, and then finalising the definite version. Our aim was developing and alpha testing a PtDA for primary treatment of early stage breast cancer, ensuring that the tool is considered relevant, valid and feasible by patients and professionals. Methods: Our qualitative descriptive study applied various methods including face-to-face think-aloud interviews, a focus group and semi-structured telephone interviews. The study population consisted of breast cancer patients facing the choice between breast-conserving therapy with or without preceding neo-adjuvant chemotherapy and mastectomy, and professionals involved in breast cancer care in dedicated multidisciplinary breast cancer teams. Results: A PtDA was developed in four iterative test rounds, taking nearly 2 years, involving 26 patients and 26 professionals. While the research group initially opted for simplicity for the sake of implementation, the clinicians objected that the complexity of the decision could not be ignored. Other topics of concern were the conflicting views of professionals and patients regarding side effects, the amount of information and how to present it. Conclusion: The development was an extensive process, because the professionals rejected the simplifications proposed by the research group. This resulted in the development of a completely new draft PtDA, which took double the expected time and resources. The final version of the PtDA appeared to be well-appreciated by professionals and patients, although its acceptability will only be proven in actual practice (beta testing)
