Geraldine Fitzpatrick
ABSTRACT
Co-design projects often include multiple partners from diverse organisations in a Quadruple Helix model for innovation. While literature on co-design and participatory design (PD) projects often focus on how to co-design with end-users or citizens, our paper discusses collaboration issues among citizen, industrial, public and academic partners in a living lab-based co-design project. Through analysis of end-project interviews with these partners, we identify a number of tensions that were negotiated in the course of the project, and identify team management, collaboration and facilitation strategies for putting PD to work among this group of citizen, industrial, public and academic partners. We discuss the conflicting discourses of the Quadruple Helix model and the co-design approach to innovation as a possible reason for such tensions. We understand tensions in PD projects organized in a Quadruple Helix model for innovation as both unavoidable and in some cases even productive in driving forward innovative design.
- Robert Arnkil, Anu Järvensivu, Pasi Koski and Tatu Piirainen. 2010. Exploring the Quadruple Helix. Työraportteja 85/2010 Tampere University Working Papers. ISBN 978-951-44-8208-3Google Scholar
- Valerio Bellandi, Paolo Ceravolo, Ernesto Damiani, Fulvio Frati, Jonatan Maggesi and Li Zhu. 2012. Exploiting Participatory Design in Open Innovation Factories. 2012 Eighth International Conference on Signal Image Technology and Internet Based Systems, Naples, 2012, 937--943. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3, 2: 77--101.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Henry Chesbrough. 2003. The logic of open innovation: managing intellectual property. California Management Review, 45(3), 33--58.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Henry Chesbrough. 2003. Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Harvard Business School Press BooksGoogle Scholar
- Enrico Coiera. 2009. Building a National Health IT System from the Middle Out, Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 16, 3: 271--273Google ScholarCross Ref
- Henry Etzkowitz and Loet Leydesdorff. 2000. The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and "Mode 2" to a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations. Research policy. 29, 2: 109--123Google Scholar
- Geraldine Fitzpatrick, Alina Huldtgren, Lone Malmborg, Dave Harley and Wijnand Ijsselsteijn. 2015. Design for agency, adaptivity and reciprocity: re-imagining AAL and telecare agendas. In: Designing Socially Embedded Technologies in the Real-World, V. Wulf, K. Schmidt, D. Randall, (Eds), Ch13, 305--338, Springer CSCW Book Series.Google Scholar
- Christopher Frauenberger, Judith Good, Geraldine Fitzpatrick, and Ole Sejer Iversen. 2015. In pursuit of rigour and accountability in participatory design. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 74, 0: 93--106.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Erik Grönvall, Lone Malmborg, and Jörn Messeter. 2016. Negotiation of values as driver in community-based PD. In Proceedings of PDC '16, ACM Press, 41--50 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Sampsa Hyysalo and Louna Hakkarainen. 2014. What difference does a living lab make? Comparing two health technology innovation projects. CoDesign 10, 3--4: 191--208.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ole Sejer Iversen, Kim Halskov, and Tuck Wah Leong. 2010. Rekindling values in participatory design. In Proceedings of the 11th Biennial Participatory Design Conference (PDC '10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 91--100. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Anne Marie Kanstrup. 2017. Living in the lab: an analysis of the work in eight living laboratories set up in care homes for technology innovation. CoDesign 13, 1: 49--64.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Helena Karasti. 2014. Infrastructuring in participatory design. In Proceedings of the 13th Participatory Design Conference: (PDC '14), ACM Press, 141--150 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Robin Murray, Julie Caulier-Grice and Geoff Mulgan. 2010. The open book of social innovation. London: NESTA.Google Scholar
- Corinna Ogonowski, Benedikt Ley, Jan Hess, Lin Wan, and Volker Wulf. 2013. Designing for the living room: long-term user involvement in a living lab. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI2013), ACM, 1539--1548. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Open Innovation 2.0 | Digital Single Market. Retrieved April 5, 2018 from https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/open-innovation-20Google Scholar
- Roger S. Pressman. 2015. Software engineering: a practitioner's approach. McGraw-Hill Education, New York, NYGoogle ScholarDigital Library
- Gareth Priday and Sonja Pedell. 2017. Deepening user involvement through Living Labs. In Proceedings of the 29<sup>th</sup> Australian Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, Brisbane, QLD, Australia, November 2017 (OzCHI 2017), 4 pages. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Elizabeth B.-N. Sanders & Pieter Jan Stappers. 2008. Co-creation and the new landscapes of design, CoDesign, 4:1, 5--18Google ScholarCross Ref
- Anna Seravalli. 2017. ReTuren : participatory design, co-production and makers' culture for sustainable waste handling. Report, Malmö University http://hdl.handle.net/2043/23849, 1--20Google Scholar
- Jakob Trischler, Per Kristensson, and Don Scott. 2018. Team diversity and its management in a co-design team. Journal of Service Management 29, 1: 120--145.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Eric Von Hippel. 2005. Democratizing Innovation. MIT PressGoogle Scholar
- Maarten Van Mechelen, Jan Derboven, Ann Laenen, Bert Willems, David Geerts, and Vero Vanden Abeele. 2017. The GLID method: Moving from design features to underlying values in co-design. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 97: 116--128.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Daisy Yoo, Alina Huldtgren, Jill Palzkill Woelfer, David G. Hendry, and Batya Friedman. 2013. A value sensitive action-reflection model: evolving a co-design space with stakeholder and designer prompts. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 419--428. Google ScholarDigital Library
Recommendations
Participatory design negotiations in project funding regimes
PDC '18: Proceedings of the 15th Participatory Design Conference: Short Papers, Situated Actions, Workshops and Tutorial - Volume 2In this paper, we discuss two emerging controversies in the meeting between participatory design (PD) ideals and the funding regime in an EU-funded cross-sector partnership project with seven partners. We argue that this discussion is much needed within ...
The role of design fiction in participatory design processes
NordiCHI '18: Proceedings of the 10th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer InteractionParticipatory design is in essence very malleable as any design technique could lend itself to it, as long as users and stakeholders are involved. Design fictions however, have more often been used as either a vehicle for critical designs, or as a sheer ...
Designing Together?: Group Dynamics in Participatory Digital Badge Design with Teens
IDC '17: Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Interaction Design and ChildrenBalancing the dynamics between industry, academia, and stakeholders in a participatory design (PD) project can be challenging, particularly with teens as design partners. In this reflective case study of digital badge design, we attempt to untangle ...
Comments