Benefits of Service Level Prototyping

Blomkvist, Johan

doi:10.1080/14606925.2016.1177292

Cited by 10 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The abstract representation of differences in terms of FBS facilitates the retrieval and transfer of methods from other domains. For example, service walkthroughs to increase understanding of user experience when interacting with a system (Blomkvist 2016) may be a useful addition to common validation techniques in systems engineering. They may be found based on their support for S-to-Bs transitions that have been found important in INCOSE.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What distinguishes a model of systems engineering from other models of designing? An ontological, data-driven analysis

Kannengiesser

Gero

2022

Res Eng Design

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper investigates how the core technical processes of the INCOSE model of systems engineering differ from other models of designing used in the domains of mechanical engineering, software engineering and service design. The study is based on fine-grained datasets produced using mappings of the different models onto the function-behaviour-structure (FBS) ontology. By representing every model uniformly, the same statistical analyses can be carried out independently of the domain of the model. Results of correspondence analysis, cumulative occurrence analysis and Markov model analysis show that the INCOSE model differs from the other models in its increased emphasis on requirements and on behaviours derived from structure, in the uniqueness of its verification and validation phases, and in some patterns related to the temporal development and frequency distributions of FBS design issues.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What distinguishes a model of systems engineering from other models of designing? An ontological, data-driven analysis

Kannengiesser

Gero

2022

Res Eng Design

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the fourth workshop, we introduced the concept of prototyping [39] as a designerly way to test co-designers' ideas for improving telepractice according to desirability, feasibility and viability with a wider audience of lived experience experts and staff. The co-designers helped to plan the prototyping, and accessibility was a key consideration in selecting a prototype, as the group were conscious of the target audience.…”

Section: Workhop 4: Story Telling and Generation Of Future State Solu...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Community-based participatory-research through co-design: supporting collaboration from all sides of disability

Benz,

Scott-Jeffs,

McKercher

et al. 2024

Res Involv Engagem

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background As co-design and community-based participatory research gain traction in health and disability, the challenges and benefits of collaboratively conducting research need to be considered. Current literature supports using co-design to improve service quality and create more satisfactory services. However, while the ‘why’ of using co-design is well understood, there is limited literature on ‘how’ to co-design. We aimed to describe the application of co-design from start to finish within a specific case study and to reflect on the challenges and benefits created by specific process design choices. Methods A telepractice re-design project has been a case study example of co-design. The co-design was co-facilitated by an embedded researcher and a peer researcher with lived experience of disability. Embedded in a Western Australian disability organisation, the co-design process included five workshops and a reflection session with a team of 10 lived experience and staff participants (referred to as co-designers) to produce a prototype telepractice model for testing. Results The findings are divided into two components. The first describes the process design choices made throughout the co-design implementation case study. This is followed by a reflection on the benefits and challenges resulting from specific process design choices. The reflective process describes the co-designers’ perspective and the researcher’s and organisational experiences. Reflections of the co-designers include balancing idealism and realism, the value of small groups, ensuring accessibility and choice, and learning new skills and gaining new insights. The organisational and research-focused reflections included challenges between time for building relationships and the schedules of academic and organisational decision-making, the messiness of co-design juxtaposed with the processes of ethics applications, and the need for inclusive dissemination of findings. Conclusions The authors advocate that co-design is a useful and outcome-generating methodology that proactively enables the inclusion of people with disability and service providers through community-based participatory research and action. Through our experiences, we recommend community-based participatory research, specifically co-design, to generate creative thinking and service design.

show abstract

“…Burns et al, 2006). Prototyping is used to explore, evaluate or communicate a future situation using a facsimile version of a to-be-designed artefact (Blomkvist, 2016). In service design, prototyping is used for gathering both insights and feedback on a proposed service from prospective service users and other important stakeholders without having to create the service .…”

Section: Service Design As An Approach and Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

Devising Capabilities : Service Design for Development Interventions

Lambe

2023

Linköping Studies in Science and Technology. Dissertations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite the progress in recent decades, one in ten people globally still live in extreme poverty, and this number is set to increase in the coming years. Designing interventions to improve well-being and livelihoods is challenging because poverty is multidimensional and plays out in complex, adaptive social-ecological systems, where behaviours and practices at the local level can have unintended consequences elsewhere in the system. In such contexts, linear approaches to designing development interventions are insufficient. Service design has emerged as a human-centred, integrative approach to designing services and systems in complex settings, but knowledge gaps remain on how service design can be used to address development challenges in the Global South. Without an understanding of how service design tools and approaches function in these contexts, there is a risk they might inadvertently cause harm to research participants and local communities. This thesis contributes new knowledge about how service design can be used to design development interventions in complex social-ecological contexts The research questions address three areas where service design could play a role: (i) how service design could be used to make sense of local level complexity and package this information for development programmers and policymakers; (ii) how service design could support local agency in the design of development projects; and (iii) how service design could be used to complement conventional methods of development research.The research questions were addressed using three case studies of development interventions. In two of the cases, a clean cookstove intervention in Kenya and an insurance product for small-scale farmers in Uganda, a service design approach was combined with quantitative methods. In the third case study, participatory backcasting was used to inform a long-term plan for energy transition for an off-grid community in Machakos, Kenya. A conceptual framework was first developed to support the use of service design to address development challenges in complex social-ecological systems. Elements of the framework were then applied in two of the case studies: the cookstoves and insurance studies. The thesis uses service design as an approach and practice, and the capabilities approach as the main conceptual and theoretical framing.I would like to thank my supervisors, Stefan Holmlid and Matthew Osborne. Stefan, thanks for agreeing to take me on and for being as curious as me about the role of service design in development settings. You embody the design research attitude-keeping inquiries open and experimental, rather than narrowing the focus. Although at times frustrating, this approach has broadened my horizons and made me a better thinker. To Matthew, my friend and co-pilot these past six years. Thanks for being at once rigorous and creative, and for taking a chance on these service design methods, and on me. Your clear and honest feedback helped me see the wood for the trees writing the kappa, and your sense...

show abstract

Benefits of Service Level Prototyping

Cited by 10 publications

References 28 publications

What distinguishes a model of systems engineering from other models of designing? An ontological, data-driven analysis

What distinguishes a model of systems engineering from other models of designing? An ontological, data-driven analysis

Community-based participatory-research through co-design: supporting collaboration from all sides of disability

Devising Capabilities : Service Design for Development Interventions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About