1981
Volume 7, Issue 1-2
  • ISSN: 1749-3463
  • E-ISSN: 1749-3471

Abstract

The use of service design to support healthcare innovation has increased over the past decade. Recently, a growing number of design labs have been established to facilitate service design processes inside healthcare organizations. There is a growing need to gain a deeper understanding of how to set up and work within these spaces so that they live up to their promise of healthcare innovation and do not become a hype that fades out over time. Despite a growing body of literature on design labs, little attention has been given to the role of the lab space and how space may be ‘made use of’ to support healthcare service design. To examine the practice of making use of space, action research was conducted by embedding a design lab inside a hospital. Through empirical observations, we unpack three spatial dimensions that are made use of inside healthcare service design labs: (1) supporting sensemaking and promoting innovation as culture; (2) facilitating and encouraging interactions among stakeholders; and (3) challenging mental models and shaping propositions collaboratively. This extended understanding of lab space challenges existing research priorities, suggesting practical implications for using space more purposefully within design labs.

Funding
This study was supported by the:
  • Centre for Connected Care (C3)
  • Centre for Design Research of the Oslo School of Architecture and Design (AHO)
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY). To view a copy of the licence, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1386/art_00013_1
2020-12-01
2022-11-26
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/art/7/1-2/art.7.1-2.13.1.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1386/art_00013_1&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Adelman, C.. ( 1993;), ‘ Kurt Lewin and the origins of action research. ’, Educational Action Research, 1:1, pp. 724.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Aguirre, M.,, Agudelo, N., and Romm, J.. ( 2017;), ‘ Design facilitation as emerging practice: Analyzing how designers support multi-stakeholder co-creation. ’, She Ji, 3:3, pp. 198209, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sheji.2017.11.003. Accessed 2 February 2021.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Batalden, M.,, Batalden, P.,, Margolis, P.,, Seid, M.,, Armstrong, G.,, Opipari-Arrigan, L., and Hartung, H.. ( 2015;), ‘ Coproduction of healthcare service. ’, BMJ Quality & Safety, 25:7, pp. 50917.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Begun, J. W.,, Zimmerman, B., and Dooley, K.. ( 2003;), ‘ Health care organizations as complex adaptive systems. ’, in S. S. Mick, and M. E. Wyttenbach. (eds), Advances in Health Care Organization Theory, San Francisco, CA:: Jossey-Bass;, pp. 25388.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bjögvinsson, E.,, Hillgren, P.-A., and Ehn, P.. ( 2012;), ‘ Design things and design thinking: Contemporary participatory design challenges. ’, Design Issues, 28:3, pp. 10116.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Blomkvist, J.. ( 2014;), ‘ Representing future situations of service. Prototyping in service design. ’, Ph.D. thesis, Linköping:: Linköping University;.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Blomkvist, J., and Segelström, F.. ( 2014;), ‘ Benefits of external representations in service design: A distributed cognition perspective. ’, Design Journal, 17:3, pp. 33146.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Brandt, E.,, Binder, T., and Sanders, E. B.-N.. ( 2012;), ‘ Tools and techniques: Ways to engage telling, making and enacting. ’, in J. Simonsen, and T. Robertson. (eds), Routledge International Handbook of Participatory Design, New York:: Routledge;, pp. 14581.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Crouch, C., and Pearce, J.. ( 2012), Doing Design Research, New York:: Berg;.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Denzin, N. K., and Lincoln, Y. S.. ( 2011), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, Thousand Oaks, CA:: Sage;.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Donetto, S.,, Pierri, P.,, Tsianakas, V., and Robert, G.. ( 2015;), ‘ Experience based co-design and healthcare improvement: Realizing participatory design in the public sector. ’, Design Journal, 18:2, pp. 22748.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Dorst, K.. ( 2011;), ‘ The core of “design thinking” and its application. ’, Design Studies, 32:6, pp. 52132.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Engin, M.. ( 2011;), ‘ Research diary: A tool for scaffolding. ’, International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 10:3, pp. 296306.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Eriksen, M. A.. ( 2012;), ‘ Material matters in co-designing – Formatting and staging with participating materials in co-design projects, events and situations. ’, Ph.D. thesis, Malmö:: Malmö University;.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Fallman, D.. ( 2008;), ‘ The interaction design research triangle of design practice, design studies, and design exploration. ’, Design Issues, 24:3, pp. 418.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Folkmann, M. N.. ( 2011;), ‘ Spaces of possibility: The imaginary in design. ’, Design Journal, 14:3, pp. 26381.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Foucault, M., and Miskowiec, J.. ( 1986;), ‘ Of other spaces. ’, Diacritics, 16:1, pp. 2227.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Frayling, C.. ( 1993;), ‘ Research in art and design. ’, Royal College of Art Research Papers, 1, pp. 15.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Freire, K., and Sangiorgi, D.. ( 2010;), ‘ Service design and healthcare innovation: From consumption to co-production and co-creation. ’, in Proceedings of the Second Nordic Conference on Service Design and Service Innovation (ServDes), Linköping:: Linköping University;, pp. 111.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Fuller, M., and Lochard, A.. ( 2016), Public Policy Labs in European Union Member States, Luxembourg:: Publications Office of the European Union;.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Gioia, D. A.,, Corley, K. G., and Hamilton, A. L.. ( 2013;), ‘ Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. ’, Organizational Research Methods, 16:1, pp. 1531.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Glanville, R.. ( 2007;), ‘ Try again. Fail again. Fail better: The cybernetics in design and the design in cybernetics. ’, Kybernetes, 36:9&10, pp. 1173206.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Hagberg, S.. ( 1995), Edwin Hutchins, Cognition in the Wild, London:: MIT Press;.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Heron, J., and Reason, P.. ( 1997;), ‘ A participatory inquiry paradigm. ’, Qualitative Inquiry, 3:3, pp. 27494.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Hollan, J.,, Hutchins, E., and Kirsh, D.. ( 2000;), ‘ Distributed cognition: Toward a new foundation for human-computer interaction research. ’, ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 7:2, pp. 17496.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Jones, P.. ( 2013), Design for Care: Innovating Healthcare Experience, New York:: Rosenfeld Media;.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Jones, P.. ( 2018;), ‘ Evolutionary stakeholder discovery: Requisite system sampling for co-creation. ’, in Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Relating Systems Thinking and Design (RSD7), Torin, pp. 40817.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Kieboom, M.. ( 2014), Lab Matters: Challenging the Practice of Social Innovation Laboratories, Amsterdam:: Kennisland;.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Kinugasa-Tsui, K.. ( 2018), Co-Working Space Designs, Melbourne:: Images Publishing;.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Kitzinger, J.. ( 1995;), ‘ Qualitative research: Introducing focus groups. ’, BMJ Clinical Research, 311, pp. 299302.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Kolko, J.. ( 2010;), ‘ Abductive thinking and sensemaking: The drivers of design synthesis. ’, Design Issues, 26:1, pp. 1528.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Lefebvre, H.. ( 1991), The Production of Space, Cambridge:: Blackwell Publishing Ltd;.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Lichtenstein, B. B.. ( 2014), Generative Emergence: A New Discipline of Organizational, Entrepreneurial and Social Innovation, New York:: Oxford University Press;.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Lincoln, Y.,, Lynham, S., and Guba, E.. ( 2011;), ‘ Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences, revisited. ’, in N. K. Denzin, and Y. S. Lincoln. (eds), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, , 4th ed.., California:: Sage;, pp. 916.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Mager, B.. ( 2009;), ‘ Service design as an emerging field. ’, in S. Miettinen, and M. Kovisto. (eds), Designing Services with Innovative Methods, Helsinki, Finland:: University of Art and Design Helsinki;, pp. 2743.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Mager, B.,, Jones, M.,, Haynes, A.,, Ferguson, C.,, Sangiorgi, D., and Gullberg, G.. ( 2017), Service Design Impact Report: Health Sector, Köln:: Service Design Network gGmbH;, https://www.service-design-network.org/books-and-reports/service-design-impact-report-health-sector-en. Accessed 23 November 2020.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Mager, B.,, Nisbett, A.,, Siodmok, A.,, Katz, A.,, Mauldin, C.,, O’Sullivan, D., and Evenson, S.. ( 2016), Service Design Impact Report: Public Sector, Köln:: Service Design Network gGmbH;, https://www.service-design-network.org/books-and-reports/service-design-impact-report-public-sector-en. Accessed 23 November 2020.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. McDermott, C. M., and O’Connor, G. C.. ( 2002;), ‘ Managing radical innovation: An overview of emergent strategy issues. ’, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 19:6, pp. 42438.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. McGann, M.,, Blomkamp, E., and Lewis, J. M.. ( 2018;), ‘ The rise of public sector innovation labs: Experiments in design thinking for policy. ’, Policy Sciences, 51:3, pp. 24967.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. McGann, M.,, Wells, T., and Blomkamp, E.. ( 2019;), ‘ Innovation labs and co-production in public problem solving. ’, Public Management Review, 10 December, pp. 120, https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2019.1699946.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Molloy, S. J.. ( 2018;), ‘ A review of design labs as a model for healthcare innovation. ’, MA thesis, Toronto:: OCAD University;.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Mulgan, G.. ( 2014;), ‘ The radical’s dilemma: An overview of the practice and prospects of social and public labs – Version 1. ’, London:: Nesta;, https://media.nesta.org.uk/documents/social_and_public_labs_-_and_the_radicals_dilemma.pdf. Accessed 23 November 2020.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Nadin, S., and Cassell, C.. ( 2006;), ‘ The use of a research diary as a tool for reflexive practice: Some reflections from management research. ’, Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management, 3:3, pp. 20817.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Oliveira, M. D.,, Magone, J. M., and Pereira, J. A.. ( 2005;), ‘ Nondecision making and inertia in Portuguese health policy. ’, Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 30:April, pp. 21130.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Patton, M.. ( 1990), Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, Beverly Hills, CA:: Sage;.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Proksch, D.,, Busch-Casler, J.,, Haberstroh, M. M., and Pinkwart, A.. ( 2019;), ‘ National health innovation systems: Clustering the OECD countries by innovative output in healthcare using a multi indicator approach. ’, Research Policy, 48:1, pp. 16979.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Reason, P., and Bradbury, H.. ( 2008;), ‘ The SAGE handbook of action research participative inquiry and practice. ’, in P. Reason, and H. Bradbury. (eds), Themes in Education, , 2nd ed.., London:: Sage;.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Reay, S.,, Collier, G.,, Kennedy-Good, J.,, Old, A.,, Douglas, R., and Bill, A.. ( 2017;), ‘ Designing the future of healthcare together: Prototyping a hospital co-design space. ’, CoDesign, 13:4, pp. 22744.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Rogers, Y., and Ellis, J.. ( 1994;), ‘ Distributed cognition: An alternative framework for analysing and explaining collaborative working. ’, Journal of Information Technology, 9:2, pp. 11928.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Romm, J., and Vink, J.. ( 2018;), ‘ Investigating the “in-betweenness” of service design practitioners in healthcare. ’, in M. A. Pfannstiel, and C. Rasche. (eds), Service Design and Service Thinking in Healthcare and Hospital Management -Theory, Concepts, Practice, Potsdam:: Springer;, pp. 11735.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Saidi, T.,, Villiers, K. De, and Douglas, T. S.. ( 2017;), ‘ The sociology of space as a catalyst for innovation in the health sector. ’, Social Science and Medicine, 180, pp. 3644.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Sanders, E. B.-N., and Stappers, P. J.. ( 2014;), ‘ Probes, toolkits and prototypes: Three approaches to making in codesigning. ’, Codesign-International Journal of Cocreation in Design and the Arts, 10:1, p. SI.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Sanders, E. B.-N., and Westerlund, B.. ( 2011;), ‘ Experiencing, exploring and experimenting in and with co-design spaces. ’, in I. Koskinen,, T. Härkäsalmi,, R. Mazé,, B. Matthews, and J-J. Lee. (eds), Proceedings of the 4th Nordic Design Research Conference: ‘Making Design Matter!’, Helsinki, Finland, pp. 298302.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Sangiorgi, D.,, Patricio, L., and Fisk, R.. ( 2017;), ‘ Designing for interdependence, participation and emergence in complex service systems. ’, in D. Sangiorgi, and A. Prendiville. (eds), Designing for Service – Key Issues and New Directions, London:: Bloomsbury Academic;, pp. 4964.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Schön, D. A.. ( 1983), The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action, New York:: Ingram Publisher Services US;.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Segelström, F.,, Raijmakers, B., and Holmlid, S.. ( 2009;), ‘ Thinking and doing ethnography in service design. ’, in Proceedings of International Association of Societies of Design Research: ‘Rigor and Relevance in Design’ (IASDR 2009), Seoul, pp. 434958.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Sevaldson, B.. ( 2008;), ‘ Rich design research space. ’, Form Akademisk, 1:1, pp. 2844, http://journals.hioa.no/index.php/formakademisk/article/view/119/108. Accessed 23 November 2020.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Sevaldson, B.. ( 2010;), ‘ Discussions and movements in design research: A systems approach to practice research in design. ’, Form Akademisk, 3:1, pp. 835.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Sharma, S., and Conduit, J.. ( 2016;), ‘ Cocreation culture in health care organizations. ’, Journal of Service Research, 19:4, pp. 43857.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Steen, M.. ( 2013;), ‘ Co-design as a process of joint inquiry and imagination. ’, Design Issues, 29:2, pp. 1628.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Tsekleves, E., and Cooper, R.. ( 2017;), ‘ Emerging trends and the way forward in design in healthcare: An expert’s perspective. ’, The Design Journal, 20:Sup1, S225872.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Tõnurist, P.,, Kattel, R., and Lember, V.. ( 2017;), ‘ Innovation labs in the public sector: What they are and what they do?. ’, Public Management Review, 19:10, pp. 145579.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Torjman, L.. ( 2012), Labs: Designing the Future, Toronto:: MaRS Solutions Lab;.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Van Maanen, J.. ( 1979;), ‘ The fact of fiction in organizational ethnography. ’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 24:4, pp. 53950.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Vink, J.. ( 2019;), ‘ In/visible- conceptualizing service ecosystem design. ’, Ph.D. thesis, Karlstad:: Karlstad University;.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Vink, J.,, Edvardsson, B.,, Wetter-Edman, K., and Tronvoll, B.. ( 2019;), ‘ Reshaping mental models – Enabling innovation through service design. ’, Journal of Service Management, 30:1, pp. 75104.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Vink, J.,, Koskela-huotari, K.,, Edvardsson, B., and Wetter-edman, K.. ( 2020;), ‘ Service ecosystem design: Propositions, process model, and future research agenda. ’, Journal of Service Research, online first , 2 September, pp. 119, https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670520952537.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Wang, V.,, Lee, S.-Y. D., and Maciejewski, M. L.. ( 2015;), ‘ Inertia in health care organizations: A case study of peritoneal dialysis services. ’, Health Care Management Review, 40:3, pp. 20313.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Romm, Jonathan,, Agudelo, Natalia, and Freitas, Thiago. ( 2020;), ‘ Shaping physical, social and imaginary spaces in healthcare design labs. ’, Artifact: Journal of Design Practice, 7:1&2, pp. 13.113.29, doi: https://doi.org/10.1386/art_00013_1
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1386/art_00013_1
Loading
/content/journals/10.1386/art_00013_1
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a success
Invalid data
An error occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error