设计能源解决方案:服务创新的两种参与式设计方法的比较

IF 3.9 3区 管理学 Q2 BUSINESS
T. Willmott, Erin Hurley, S. Rundle-Thiele
{"title":"设计能源解决方案:服务创新的两种参与式设计方法的比较","authors":"T. Willmott, Erin Hurley, S. Rundle-Thiele","doi":"10.1108/jstp-03-2021-0040","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PurposeParticipatory design involves users and other key stakeholders in processes that aim to ensure solutions generated meet their needs. This paper compares the processes and outcomes of two participatory design approaches (design thinking and co-design) to examine their utility in co-creating innovative service solutions for reducing household energy demand.Design/methodology/approachDesign thinking and co-design were implemented in two independent convenience samples of household energy users in Queensland, Australia. Workshops were conducted online using Zoom and Padlet technology. Informed by the capability-practice-ability (CPA) portfolio, a critical analysis based on the research team's experiences with implementing the two participatory design approaches is presented.FindingsThe key distinguishing features that set design thinking apart from co-design is extent of user involvement, solution diversity and resource requirements. With a shorter duration and less intensive user involvement, co-design offers a more resource efficient means of solution generation. In contrast, design thinking expands the solution space by allowing for human-centred problem framing and in so doing gives rise to greater diversity in solutions generated.Research limitations/implicationsMapping the six constellations of service design outlined in the CPA portfolio to the research team's experiences implementing two different participatory design approaches within the same context reconciles theoretical understanding of how capabilities, practices and abilities may differ or converge in an applied setting.Practical implicationsUnderstanding the benefits and expected outcomes across the two participatory design approaches will guide practitioners and funding agencies in the selection of an appropriate method to achieve desired outcomes.Originality/valueThis paper compares two forms of participatory design (design thinking and co-design) for service innovation in the context of household energy demand offering theoretical and practical insights into the utility of each as categorised within the CPA portfolio.","PeriodicalId":47021,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Service Theory and Practice","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Designing energy solutions: a comparison of two participatory design approaches for service innovation\",\"authors\":\"T. Willmott, Erin Hurley, S. Rundle-Thiele\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/jstp-03-2021-0040\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"PurposeParticipatory design involves users and other key stakeholders in processes that aim to ensure solutions generated meet their needs. This paper compares the processes and outcomes of two participatory design approaches (design thinking and co-design) to examine their utility in co-creating innovative service solutions for reducing household energy demand.Design/methodology/approachDesign thinking and co-design were implemented in two independent convenience samples of household energy users in Queensland, Australia. Workshops were conducted online using Zoom and Padlet technology. Informed by the capability-practice-ability (CPA) portfolio, a critical analysis based on the research team's experiences with implementing the two participatory design approaches is presented.FindingsThe key distinguishing features that set design thinking apart from co-design is extent of user involvement, solution diversity and resource requirements. With a shorter duration and less intensive user involvement, co-design offers a more resource efficient means of solution generation. In contrast, design thinking expands the solution space by allowing for human-centred problem framing and in so doing gives rise to greater diversity in solutions generated.Research limitations/implicationsMapping the six constellations of service design outlined in the CPA portfolio to the research team's experiences implementing two different participatory design approaches within the same context reconciles theoretical understanding of how capabilities, practices and abilities may differ or converge in an applied setting.Practical implicationsUnderstanding the benefits and expected outcomes across the two participatory design approaches will guide practitioners and funding agencies in the selection of an appropriate method to achieve desired outcomes.Originality/valueThis paper compares two forms of participatory design (design thinking and co-design) for service innovation in the context of household energy demand offering theoretical and practical insights into the utility of each as categorised within the CPA portfolio.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47021,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Service Theory and Practice\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Service Theory and Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/jstp-03-2021-0040\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Service Theory and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jstp-03-2021-0040","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

目的参与式设计让用户和其他关键利益相关者参与旨在确保生成的解决方案满足其需求的过程。本文比较了两种参与式设计方法(设计思维和共同设计)的过程和结果,以检验它们在共同创造创新服务解决方案以减少家庭能源需求方面的效用。设计/方法论/方法在澳大利亚昆士兰的两个独立的家庭能源用户便利样本中实施了设计思维和联合设计。研讨会使用Zoom和Padlet技术在线进行。根据能力实践能力(CPA)组合,基于研究团队实施两种参与式设计方法的经验,进行了批判性分析。发现将设计思维与协同设计区分开来的关键区别在于用户参与程度、解决方案的多样性和资源需求。由于持续时间更短,用户参与度更低,联合设计提供了一种更具资源效率的解决方案生成方式。相比之下,设计思维通过允许以人为中心的问题框架来扩展解决方案空间,并在这样做的过程中产生更大的解决方案多样性。研究局限性/含义将CPA投资组合中概述的六大服务设计星座与研究团队在同一背景下实施两种不同的参与式设计方法的经验相映射,可以调和对能力、实践和能力在应用环境中如何不同或趋同的理论理解。实际含义了解两种参与式设计方法的好处和预期结果将指导从业者和资助机构选择适当的方法来实现预期结果。原创性/价值本文比较了在家庭能源需求背景下服务创新的两种参与式设计形式(设计思维和联合设计),为CPA投资组合中每种形式的效用提供了理论和实践见解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Designing energy solutions: a comparison of two participatory design approaches for service innovation
PurposeParticipatory design involves users and other key stakeholders in processes that aim to ensure solutions generated meet their needs. This paper compares the processes and outcomes of two participatory design approaches (design thinking and co-design) to examine their utility in co-creating innovative service solutions for reducing household energy demand.Design/methodology/approachDesign thinking and co-design were implemented in two independent convenience samples of household energy users in Queensland, Australia. Workshops were conducted online using Zoom and Padlet technology. Informed by the capability-practice-ability (CPA) portfolio, a critical analysis based on the research team's experiences with implementing the two participatory design approaches is presented.FindingsThe key distinguishing features that set design thinking apart from co-design is extent of user involvement, solution diversity and resource requirements. With a shorter duration and less intensive user involvement, co-design offers a more resource efficient means of solution generation. In contrast, design thinking expands the solution space by allowing for human-centred problem framing and in so doing gives rise to greater diversity in solutions generated.Research limitations/implicationsMapping the six constellations of service design outlined in the CPA portfolio to the research team's experiences implementing two different participatory design approaches within the same context reconciles theoretical understanding of how capabilities, practices and abilities may differ or converge in an applied setting.Practical implicationsUnderstanding the benefits and expected outcomes across the two participatory design approaches will guide practitioners and funding agencies in the selection of an appropriate method to achieve desired outcomes.Originality/valueThis paper compares two forms of participatory design (design thinking and co-design) for service innovation in the context of household energy demand offering theoretical and practical insights into the utility of each as categorised within the CPA portfolio.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.00
自引率
15.20%
发文量
29
期刊介绍: Formerly known as Managing Service Quality – Impact Factor: 1.286 (2015) – the Journal of Service Theory and Practice (JSTP) aims to publish research in the field of service management that not only makes a theoretical contribution to the service literature, but also scrutinizes and helps improve industry practices by offering specific recommendations and action plans to practitioners. Recognizing the importance of the service sector across the globe, the journal encourages submissions from and/or studying issues from around the world. JSTP gives prominence to research based on real world data, be it quantitative or qualitative. The journal also encourages the submission of strong conceptual and theoretical papers that make a substantive contribution to the scholarly literature in service management. JSTP publishes double-blind peer reviewed papers and encourages submissions from both academics and practitioners. The changing social structures and values, as well as new developments in economic, political, and technological fields are creating sea-changes in the philosophy, strategic aims, operational practices, and structures of many organizations. These changes are particularly relevant to the service sector, as public demand for high standards increases, and organizations fight for both market share and public credibility. The journal specifically addresses solutions to these challenges from a global, multi-cultural, and multi-disciplinary perspective.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信