{"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}
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.
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.