Search

Service design is increasingly seen as a means to enable systemic change in complex contexts. The contexts in which services are co-produced—the social group, network, service organisation, or ecosystem—can be considered complex social systems. A characteristic of complex social systems is that new system behaviour emerges through a mechanism called self-organisation. Self-organisation shows how human relationships are at the core of social systemic change. Such systemic changes are reflected in system behaviour such as adaptation, mutual learning, and collective creativity and motivation. As service design is in essence about human relationships, it becomes relevant to ask how we can design for human relationships to positively enable social systemic change? In this paper, I argue that expert design reasoning is an important source in designing conditions that enable positive human relationships, and that this design reasoning can be expanded to work towards a design rationale for systemic change by building on theories of complex social systems. I illustrate this perspective with the reasoning of service designers in two cases, who used their insights to design for human relationships. I conclude with a discussion of the implications for service design practice and service design education.

This paper explores several approaches for designing data-informed intelligent systems to create a positive impact. Two contrasting case studies in K12 education are used to illustrate design methods, questions and recommendations. The first case study addresses the poverty achievement gap in America and shows how product data can be used to identify areas of inequity in digital education. The second case study looks at the unintended consequences of automating data-driven optimization in the context of a digital math game. Together, the two case studies reveal generalizable knowledge that supports the design of intelligent feedback loops to create a positive impact. Further, this paper considers both the benefits and limitations of data feedback in complex social-technical systems.

“My Wellness Check” is a well-being assessment system designed to support wellbeing feedback loops within large organizations, like universities. In this paper, we present a narrative describing the human-centred design process used to develop a context-sensitive well-being feedback system within a large technical university during the COVID-19 pandemic. We share quantitative and qualitative findings from the first two feedback cycles, where well-being assessments were sent to over 30,000 students and staff. By involving community members and decision-makers in the qualitative data analysis, we successfully translated results into administrative policy and community action. Our ongoing design research project highlights the desirability and feasibility of well-being feedback loops within large complex systems.

The healthcare industry struggles with the creation of radical innovations due to many different stakeholders with competing interests. This research project aimed at the development of a methodology that supports medical designers to create innovations by using deep human insights. As a starting point, we used a four-layer model of insights into human needs and aspirations, ranging from solutions (‘what’) and scenarios (‘how’), to goals and themes (‘why’). To transform this model into a design methodology, we iteratively developed and evaluated the methodology together with medical designers in a real world design setting. As a result, we distinguished five stages of a so called ‘Thematic Framing’ process: (1) current frame, (2) needs and aspirations, (3) themes, (4.a) new frames, (4.b) ideas for solutions, and (5) opportunities. The added value of the methodology is that the ‘why’ level is divided in why’s on the goal level – within the design context – and why’s at the theme level that will be analysed outside the design context. Moving outside the design context allows for mapping the pattern of the theme to solutions in other contexts; this can create metaphors that can subsequently form a bridge to new frames and solutions.

The aim of this study is to support designers in dealing with the variety of situations in which product are used, so-called dynamic and diverse use situations (DDUS). Dealing with varying use situations in the design process is difficult because it is hard to predict the situations in which a product will be used, to anticipate what will happen when the product encounters those situations and to generate solutions for conflicting requirements. A retrospective case study of three design projects in practice furthermore showed that knowledge of DDUS often remains implicit and is not shared between members of a product development team. We therefore developed a set of guidelines to support designers and design teams when dealing with DDUS in the design process. The basic principle of the guidelines is that existing design activities are used to create and apply an explicit 'frame of reference of product use'€™ which makes DDUS and their relation to use issues explicit. In this paper we explain these guidelines and show its application to the design of an individual mobility device.

This thesis discusses the relationship between the usability of products and the dynamics and diversity of use situations, and how this can be dealt with in product design processes. The usability of products is influenced by the situation in which the product is used. Consequently, when products are used in dynamic and diverse use situations (DDUS) the level of usability is diverse as well. For designers it could be difficult to predict these use situations and their consequences for usability. A study in design practice showed that designers often use knowledge of personal experiences or previous design projects for this purpose. However, this knowledge is often not shared between members of a product development team. This can negatively influence decision making with regard to choosing the best solution proposal or choosing the use situations which the product should accommodate. Moreover, it can negatively influence the external validity and focus of usability evaluations. Therefore a set of design guidelines was developed aimed at guiding designers in creating an explicit frame of reference of DDUS and the consequences for usability, and applying this frame of reference in decision making and usability evaluations. Furthermore, the Envisioning Use workshop technique was developed, which is aimed at sharing implicit and explicit knowledge of DDUS in a product development team, by jointly creating a first explicit frame of reference. Both the workshop and the guidelines were developed iteratively by applying and evaluating these supports in multiple design projects in both design practice and student projects. The evaluations showed that the workshop not only led to an explicit frame of reference of DDUS, but to a `shared vision¿ on product use as well. This shared vision was experienced as valuable in decision making processes. The application of the guidelines furthermore showed that working with an explicit frame of reference indeed leads to more focus in usability evaluations, and can improve their external validity. Finally the studies showed that `exploring usability¿ is a valuable approach in creating the explicit frame of reference. This approach combines exploring with verifying the connections between DDUS and usability issues.

This workshop introduces the Envisioning Use technique which is aimed at generating a shared vision on user experiences in product development teams. This shared vision could support decision making with regard to user experiences and inspire solution generation by making team members more dedicated to designing experiences.

The academic world is constantly under pressure to deliver maximum output for a minimum of (public) costs. For Design education this is important, because doing Design cannot be learned from a book. As teaching costs are mainly driven by the costs of supervisors, the amount of time invested in organizing a meaningful teaching experience determines the efficiency. Grading design is complex, because design assignments are open ended, and design tasks have no 'right' solution that can be easily validated. An efficient grading method therefore has to provide insight in both design result and design process in a short period of supervising time. In 2009 we set up the multidisciplinary course human-product relations as a part of the second year of the bachelor. The design work in this course is graded in an interactive session where the students present their results in a combined poster/sketch/model-presentation of approximately five minutes, following five minutes of question and answer. We call this the 'Design Fair'. In 2010 we also introduced a design course on aesthetics and meaning. In this course the students have to hand in their results in the form of a visual essay of maximum 50 slides. Both ways of grading suit particularly well with the intended learning experience, and experience showed that they provide insight in the students' results in an efficient way. A short quantitative evaluation of the visual essay method also showed that the objectivity of the grading method was sufficient.

We propose the Envisioning Use workshop technique that enables members of a product development team to share and become aware of knowledge they have and do not have about product use. The technique was developed in an iterative process in which the workshop was executed and evaluated with practicing designers. The technique combines steps in which knowledge is accessed in different ways such as remembering, imagining, experiencing and envisioning product use. The evaluations showed that with this approach a broad spectrum of product use knowledge can be collected in a half-day workshop. The interactive character of the workshop supports sharing knowledge on product use. The workshop should be executed at or before the start of a design project, possibly involving the client. It is applicable to both projects aimed at redesigning an existing product and projects that have a more explorative character.

The ease of use or usability of a product depends not only on product characteristics, but on the user characteristics and environment in which a product is used as well. Products that are used in varying use situations therefore have to meet varying usability demands. In our research on dynamics and diversity in use we study the means by which designers deal with these demands. In the course humanproduct relations of the bachelor Industrial Design Engineering (IDE) of the University of Twente, students learn to view and explore the relations between humans and products. These relations can consider aesthetics value, influence of behaviour and usability. When considering the dynamics or diversity of situations in which a product is used this does not only have implications for usability, it influences aesthetic relations as well. Our research on dynamic usability therefore allows for exploration with regard to implications for aesthetic demands. In the course these topics were brought together in a half-day multidisciplinary workshop. The topics were explored by means of theory and exercises. This paper gives an overview of this theory and is illustrated by exercises executed during the workshop and results of the design assignment (street furniture) in which students had to apply the theory. The collaboration in education between researchers in the fields of usability and aesthetics resulted in both interesting design education and inspiration for future research.

In this paper we introduce a framework for dealing with the complexity of human-product relationships. The actual framework is a matrix of design perspectives, with three cooperating disciplines on the one hand and three levels of abstraction on the other hand. Basis of the framework is the notion that a product cannot be seen as stand alone, yet always is influenced by the user(s). Thus, according to philosopher Don Ihde [1], user and product together define the actual product (use). The framework was developed for an integrated course on human product relations with input from the research groups on Usability, Design Aesthetics, and Philosophy of Technology. The interaction (or relation) between the product and the user can be analyzed and influenced with the use of theory from these three disciplines. Therefore we discern “A human as a User”, “A human as an Aesthetic”, and “A human as a Consumer”. From the philosophy of technology perspective (the human as a consumer) for instance, the theory of mediation and the ethics of influence of behaviour are used to analyze existing human product relations and create meaningful new ones. The three levels of abstraction within the framework concern interaction on an individual, a social and a societal level. Finally we discuss the implementation of this framework within education practice.

Since usability is a property of the interaction between a product, a user and the task that he or she is trying to complete [6], a product’s usability can vary when it is used in varying use situations. We define this as dynamic usability. This study is aimed at exploring how practitioners currently deal with dynamic usability. From a retrospective case study research of three design projects different principles and strategies were formulated for dealing with dynamic use situations. In this paper we present solution principles that are applied to accommodate products to dynamic use situations and we discuss two design process issues with regard to dynamic usability, namely the information sources that are used to get insight in the use situations and the means by which designers try to get insight in the consequence of their design decisions with regard to future use situations

More and more consumer products are used in situations that are characterized by varying users, user characteristics, environments and purposes. This increase of the ‘dynamics’ of use situations is caused by technological developments. The ongoing trend of automation of services results in an increasing number of products that are used by a wide variety of people such as ATM’s, copiers and museum audio guides. Furthermore the growing opportunities of wireless applications result in an increasing number of mobile products that therefore can be used in different kinds of environments. A static environment can be dynamic as well when objects and persons within it are subject to change. In order to support the needs of each individual user in each individual context of use a designer should attune products to this dynamic use situation, thereby achieving a high level of usability. This paper discusses the criteria a design method for dynamic use situations should meet

Design research and practice is increasingly aware of the sustainability crisis. Various initiatives have started to argue for a need to acknowledge and accommodate the needs of natural entities and systems in relation to sustainability. Such more-than-human considerations have also entered collaborative and participatory design. However, there yet seems to be a lack of broad and systemic perspectives on which natural entities to consider when designing for sustainability. Therefore, we developed a systemic typology of natural nonhuman stakeholders based on empirical study in a garden and analysis rooted in the distinctions, relationships, systems, perspectives – DRSP – theoretical structure for systems thinking. Our typology suggests seven distinct types: individual organisms, single species collectives, multi-species collectives, life processes, living systems, biogeochemical cycles and processes of the atmosphere. However, our findings indicate that one living entity represents several stakeholder types simultaneously. This illuminates a tension between the simplistic and systemic view of stakeholders in collaborative design and calls for a shift towards systemic mental models and new theories, approaches, methods and tools. In this article, we present our methodology and the typology developed; then we discuss the potential implications of the typology on collaborative and participatory design and avenues for further research.

This short paper presents the work-in-progress of research aimed at a meaningful transformation of a large-scale infrastructure space in Bulgaria. As part of an action research doctoral project, the paper explores the possibilities for the transformation of Trakia economic zone TEZ from an extractive operation into a space with local value. Starting from the ideological position that change is always possible, the research test how we can counteract the dominant global narrative of contemporary production from a local perspective. The paper describes the historical development of the industrial zone, highlights how the complex-mix of actors design use and transform the spatial reality of TEZ, and presents three tensions that occur in the actual reality of TEZ. Those tensions are not isolated processes but are instead part of an ecosystem of ambitions, perceptions, and activities. Therefore, we need to employ a systemic understanding of tensions to produce long-lasting change. The presented questions in the paper seek to raise a debate about the nature of tensions, their conceptual frameworks, and possible action strategies for activating tensions thoughtfully. Keywords: capital-led development, infrastructure space, soft-system methodology, transformation, action research, Proceedings of Relating Systems Thinking and Design (RSD10) 2021 Symposium, ISBN:978-94-6366-507-0

Introducing sustainability and circular economy (CE) in higher education is becoming a key instrument for tackling climate change. When we look at design curricula, several skills are required for designing for circularity among which the systems-oriented focus and the intrapersonal skill of collaboration. In this paper, we report on a case study where 15 teams of design students re-designed a university system to enable the use and development of DIY bio-based circular materials. Specifically, what we observed is the correlation between the systems archetypes used by the students both diagnostically and prognostically (Braun, 2002) and the number of collaborations the students created with other teams and external stakeholders. Results show that by adopting a systemic view, students could take in consideration possible positive and negative effects of (not) collaboration with other actors in their system. It is not yet explored the depth of this correlation, which could become a focus of future studies.