Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-07T22:30:21.561Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A CHAT Approach to Understand Framing in Digital Service Innovation

Part of: Product-Service-System (PSS) Design

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2019

Nick Sturkenboom ,
Ehsan Baha ,
Rebecca Price ,
Maaike Kleinsmann  and
Dirk Snelders
Nick Sturkenboom*
Affiliation:
TU Delft;
Ehsan Baha
Affiliation:
TU Delft; Meaningwise
Rebecca Price
Affiliation:
TU Delft;
Maaike Kleinsmann
Affiliation:
TU Delft;
Dirk Snelders
Affiliation:
TU Delft;
*
Contact: Sturkenboom, Nick TU Delft, Product Innovation Management The Netherlands [email protected]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Within the third wave of digital service innovation, framing is becoming increasingly complex. Accordingly, design practice finds itself in a transition from designing single service solutions that are shared, to designing systemic solutions that are shareable. We report a case study in which we use Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) to analyze the framing process that a designer went through when designing a digital service for a Connected Care startup. Results show the importance of the designer's activity awareness and the challenge of dealing with relational complexity when framing the digital service innovation. With this work, we hope to inspire researchers and practitioners with the potential that CHAT has to offer for the reflective practice in digital service innovations.

Keywords

Service designDesign theoryDesign practiceReflective PracticeCultural Historical Activity Theory
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , July 2019 , pp. 3031 - 3040
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2019

References

Akin, Ö. (2001), “Variants in design cognition”, In: Design knowing and learning: Cognition in design education, Elsevier Science pp. 105–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-008043868-9/50006-1Google Scholar
Baha, S.E. (2010), Designing for and with Stakeholders, MSc thesis, Eindhoven University of Technology.Google Scholar
Baha, S.E., Dawdy, G., Sturkenboom, N., Price, R.A. and Snelders, H.M.J.J. (2018), “Good Design-Driven Innovation”, Design Research Society International Conference, Limerick, 25–28 June, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland, pp. (98–111). http:/doi.org/10.21606/dma.2017.648Google Scholar
Barrett, M., Davidson, E., Prabhu, J. and Vargo, S.L. (2015), “Service innovation in the digital age: key contributions and future directions”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 135–154. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2015/39:1.03Google Scholar
Boland, Jr, Lyytinen, R.J., , K. and Yoo, Y. (2007), “Wakes of innovation in project networks: The case of digital 3-D representations in architecture, engineering, and construction”, Organization Science, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 631–647. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1070.0304Google Scholar
Calabretta, G. and Kleinsmann, M. (2017), “Technology-driven evolution of design practices: envisioning the role of design in the digital era”. Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 33 No. 3–4, pp. 292–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2017.1284436Google Scholar
Carroll, J.M., Rosson, M.B., Convertino, G. and Ganoe, C.H. (2006), “Awareness and teamwork in computer-supported collaborations”, Interacting with Computers, Vol. 18, pp. 21–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2005.05.005Google Scholar
Creswell, J.W., (2012), Educational research. Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research, Pearson, Boston.Google Scholar
Cross, N. (2001), “Design cognition: Results from protocol and other empirical studies of design activity”, In: Design knowing and learning: Cognition in design education, pp. 79–103. Elsevier Science. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-008043868-9/50005-XGoogle Scholar
Cross, N. (2007), Designerly ways of knowing, Birkhauser, Basel, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Dorst, K. (1997), Describing design: a comparison of paradigms, PhD thesis, Delft University of Technology.Google Scholar
Dorst, K. and Cross, N. (2001), “Creativity in the design process: co-evolution of problem–solution”, Design Studies, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 425–437. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(01)00009-6Google Scholar
Dorst, K. (2011), “The core of ‘design thinking’ and its application”, Design Studies, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 521–532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2011.07.006Google Scholar
Dorst, K. (2015), Frame Innovation: Create new thinking by design, MIT Press, London.Google Scholar
Engeström, Y. (2014), Learning by expanding, Cambridge University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Goldschmidt, G. (1991), “The dialectics of sketching”, Creativity Research Journal, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 123–143. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419109534381Google Scholar
Hey, J.H.G. (2008). Effective framing in design, PhD Thesis, University of California.Google Scholar
Kaptelinin, V. and Nardi, B. A. (2009), Acting with Technology: Activity Theory and Interaction Design. The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kaptelinin, V. and Uden, L. (2012), “Understanding delegated actions: Toward an activity- theoretical perspective on customer-centered service design”, Service Design and Innovation Conference, Espoo, Finland, 8-10 February, Linköping University Electronic Press, Linköping, Sweden, pp. (101–109).Google Scholar
Kimbell, L. and Blomberg, J. (2017), “The object of service design”, In: Designing for Service: Key Issues and New Directions. Bloomsbury, London, pp. 81–94.Google Scholar
Kleinsmann, M.S. (2006), Understanding collaborative design, PhD Thesis, Delft University of Technology.Google Scholar
Kleinsmann, M.S. and Snelders, H.M.J.J. (2015), “Reconceptualizing design thinking and equipping designers for the next wave of digital innovation”, International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED 15), The Design Society, Milano, Italy, 27–30 July, pp. (557–564).Google Scholar
Lloyd, P., Lawson, B. and Scott, P. (1995), “Can concurrent verbalization reveal design cognition?”, Design Studies, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 237–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-694X(94)00011-2Google Scholar
Maffei, S. and Sangiorgi, D. (2006), “From communication design to activity design”, In: Designing Effective Communications: Creating Contexts for Clarity and Meaning, Allworth Press, New York, pp. 83–100.Google Scholar
Menichinelli, M. (2018), “Service design and activity theory for the meta-design of collaborative design processes”, Service Design and Innovation Conference, Milano, Italy, 18-20 June, Linköping University Electronic Press, Linköping, Sweden, pp. (994–1008).Google Scholar
Schön, D.A. (1983), The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action, Basic Books.Google Scholar
Schön, D.A. (1984), “The architectural studio as an exemplar of education for reflection-in-action”, Journal of Architectural Education, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 2–9.Google Scholar
Schön, D.A. and Wiggins, G. (1992), “Kinds of seeing and their functions in designing”, Design studies, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 135–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-694X(92)90268-FGoogle Scholar
Stumpf, S.C. and McDonnell, J.T. (2002), “Talking about team framing: using argumentation to analyse and support experiential learning in early design episodes”, Design studies, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(01)00020-5Google Scholar
Stompff, G. (2012), Facilitating Team Cognition: How designers mirror what NPD teams do, PhD Thesis, Delft University of Technology.Google Scholar
Ten Bhömer, M. (2016), Designing embodied smart textile services: the role of prototypes for project, community and stakeholders, PhD thesis, Eindhoven University of Technology.Google Scholar
Tiwana, A., Konsynski, B. and Bush, A.A. (2010), “Research commentary—Platform evolution: Coevolution of platform architecture, governance, and environmental dynamics”, Information systems research, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 675–687. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1100.0323Google Scholar
Valkenburg, R. (2000), The Reflective Practice in product design teams, PhD Thesis, Delft University of Technology.Google Scholar
Valkenburg, R. and Dorst, K. (1998), “The reflective practice of design teams”, Design studies, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 249–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(98)00011-8Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978), Mind in society (Cole, M., John-Steiner, V., Scribner, S. and Souberman, E., Eds.), Harvard University Press, MA, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Yoo, Y., Boland, R.J. Jr, Lyytinen, K. and Majchrzak, A. (2012), “Organizing for innovation in the digitized world”, Organization science, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 1398–1408.Google Scholar
Yukawa, J. (2006), “Co-reflection in online learning: Collaborative critical thinking as narrative”, International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 203–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-006-8994-9Google Scholar