1. Human Centered Design
1.1. User Centered Design
1.1.1. Norman (find tekst)
1.1.2. Melican III, J. P. 2000 "Describing User-Centered Designing"
1.2. Participatory Design
1.2.1. Historisk udvikling af PD.
1.2.1.1. Sanders og Steppers 2008 "Co-creation and the new landscapes of design"
1.2.1.1.1. Model: Co-design Fuzzy s. 6
1.2.1.2. Simonsen & Robertson 2013 "Routledge international handbook of participatory design"
1.2.1.3. Ehn 1989 "Work-oriented design of computer artifacts"
1.2.1.3.1. s. 39 - historisk gennemgang
1.2.1.3.2. "Hence, the quality of the product depends on its relevance, suitability, or adequacy in practical use"s. 116 kan kobles på Bucahanas useful, usable osv.
1.2.1.4. Spinuzzi 2005 "The Methodology of Participatory Design"
1.2.1.4.1. Beskriver designprocessen i tre dele 1. del: Initial exploration of wo 2. del: Discovery processes 3. del: Prototyping
1.2.1.4.2. "Participatory design's object of study is the tacit knowledge developed and used by those who work with technologi."s. 165 - Tacit knowledge - kobles på Sanders samt Ehn
1.2.1.5. Sanoff 2007 "Special issue on participatory design"
1.2.1.5.1. s. 213 - "PD practitioners share the view that every participant in a PD project is an expert in what they do, whose voice needs to be heard;" Sanoff
1.2.1.6. Barbera og Garcia 2017 "A Co-Design Process Microanalysis: Stages and Facilitators of an Inquiry-Based and Technology-Enhanced Learning Scenario" Måske den ikke er så relevant - har lige skimmet kilden igen
1.2.1.7. Luck 2003 "Dialogue in participatory design"
1.2.1.7.1. s. 523 - "In this way participatory design is more than a collection of design methods to influence the built form, it also has a human dimension and can engage the people who form the community in the process."
1.2.1.7.2. s. 524 - "When engaged in a participatory design workshop the people who attend are part of the social process of design and play an active part in the issue/problem raising, discussion and decision making processes that are part of the early design stage of a project."
1.2.1.8. Goodman-Deane 2008 "User Involvement and User Data: A Framework to Help Designers to Select Appropriate Methods"
1.2.1.8.1. s. 30 - Rammeværktøj for metode
1.2.1.8.2. Det er en balancegang mellem at bruge second-hand litteratur og primær litteratur
1.2.1.9. Keshavarz 2015 "Design and Dissensus Framing and Staging Participation in Design Research"
1.2.1.9.1. Udfordringer ved PD s. 8: "Design approaches to participation often demonstrated two important concerns – first, methods for the direct engagement of those who should work with and use the new technologies. Secondly, tools and techniques supported co-development of the technologies through mock-ups, prototypes, scenarios and games in order to establish a more egalitarian regime amongst diverse participants."
1.2.1.9.2. s. 12 - Framing and staging dissensus in design
1.2.1.9.3. s. 19 - "[...] I reflected on the role of the designer as translator within a process proceeded by participant’s storytelling (in Tehran and Gothenburg) and followed by participant’s storytelling"
1.2.2. Sanders 2008 "Co-design"
1.2.2.1. "we are moving from the design of categories of ‘products’ to designing for people’s purposes" s. 10
1.2.2.2. "The move from user-centred design to co-designing is having an impact on the roles of the players in the design process" s. 11
1.2.2.3. Model: Four levels of creativity s. 12
1.2.2.4. Kobles DT "Designers will be in demand as the usefulness of design thinking is acknowledged in mankind’s drive to address the challenges of global, systemic issues." s.14 "We will be using generative design thinking to address change in the future" s. 15
1.2.2.5. Model: Co-design Fuzzy s. 6
1.2.3. Ramaswamy 2018 "What is co-creation? An interactional creation framework and its implications for value creation"
1.2.3.1. s. 203 - tabel over forskellige Conceptualization
1.2.3.2. s. 198 - "An interactive platform is an instantiation of an agencial assemblage, composed of heterogeneous relations of artifacts, processes, interfaces, and persons, affording a multiplicity of interactive system-environments."
1.2.3.3. s. 200 - "Co-Creation is enactment of interactional creation across interactive system-environments (afforded by interactive platforms), entailing agencing engagements and structuring organizations."
1.2.4. Prahalad 2004 "Co-creation experiences: The next practice in value creation"
1.2.4.1. "High-quality interactions that enable an individual customer to co-create unique experiences with the company are the key to unlocking new sources of competitive advantage.Value will have to be jointly created by both the firm and the consumer (see Table 1)." s. 7
1.2.4.2. DART-metoden = dialog, acess, risk-benefits og transparency s. 9
1.2.5. Barbera og Garcia 2017 "A Co-Design Process Microanalysis"
1.2.6. Sanders 2008 "Co-creation and the new landscapes of design"
1.2.6.1. s. 6 - "Co-creation is a very broad term with applications ranging from the physical to the metaphysical and from the material to the spiritual, as can be seen by the output of search engines."
1.2.6.2. s. 6 - "We use co-design in a broader sense to refer to the creativity of designers and people not trained in design working together in the design development process."
1.2.6.3. s. 6 figur "The front end of the design process has been growing as designers move closer to the future users of what they design."
1.2.6.4. s. 10 "the relationships between new technologies and future human experiences have just recently become very complex and integrated."
1.2.6.5. s. 10 "[...] we are moving from the design of categories of ‘products’ to designing for people’s purposes."
1.2.6.6. s. 12 "Users can become part of the design team as ‘expert of their experiences’ (Sleeswijk Visser et al. 2005), but in order for them to take on this role, they must be given appropriate tools for expressing themselves."
1.2.7. Kreativitet
1.2.7.1. Tools
1.2.7.1.1. Design Games
1.2.7.1.2. Design Workshop
1.2.7.1.3. Prototyping
1.2.7.1.4. Make tools
1.2.7.1.5. Sanders og Brandt 2010 "A framework for organizing the tools and techniques of participatory design"
1.2.7.1.6. Ehn 1989 "Work-oriented design of computer artifacts"
1.2.7.1.7. Goodman-Deane 2008 "User Involvement and User Data: A Framework to Help Designers to Select Appropriate Methods"
1.2.7.1.8. Mattelmäki 2008 "Design probes"
1.2.7.1.9. Buchanan 1992 "Wicked Problems in Design Thinking"
1.2.7.1.10. Sanders og Dandavate 1999 "Design for Experiencing: New Tools"
1.2.7.2. Mattelmäki 2008 "Design probes"
1.2.7.2.1. Passer med artiklen creativity in design process "Kees Dorst and Nigel Cross (2001) write about the problem space and solution space between which the design work moves, bridging the gap between them. Framing the problem and solution spaces seems to be crucial for creative design. Cross’s findings (2004) also suggest that skilled designers move rapidly to early guesses about solutions, using these as a means of examining and defining the problem-solution area as a whole. Designers who use a lot of time for information gathering and problem definition did not do so well in producing solutions." s. 18.
1.2.7.3. Dorst 2001 "Creativity in the design process: co-evolution of problem-solution"
1.2.7.3.1. "Creative design seems more to be a matter of developing and refining together both the formulation of a problem and ideas for a solution, with constant iteration of analysis, synthesis and evaluation processes between the two notional design ‘spaces’ - problem space and solution space." S. 11
1.2.7.4. Sanders og Stappers 2012 "Convivial toolbox"
1.2.7.4.1. Kapitel 2: thinking about creativity
1.2.8. Brugerinvolvering
1.2.8.1. Goodman-Deane 2008 "User Involvement and User Data: A Framework to Help Designers to Select Appropriate Methods"
1.2.8.1.1. s. 23 - "In order to design products that will really be useful and usable in practice, it is important that designers keep in mind the users’ needs and desires"
1.2.8.2. Griffin 2012 "Obstaining Customers Need For Product Development"
1.2.8.2.1. s. 214 - "The most successful product development efforts match a set of fully understood customer problems with a cost-competitive solution to those problems."
1.2.8.2.2. s. 216 - "Customer needs are the problems that a product or service solves and the functions it performs."
1.2.8.2.3. s. 218 - en model til at finde customers needs og problems.
1.2.8.3. Spinuzzi 2005 "The Methodology of Participatory Design"
1.2.8.4. Bødker og Kensing 2010 "Participatory Design in Information Systems Development"
1.2.8.5. Cornwall 2008 "Unpacking ‘Participation’: models, meanings and practices"
1.2.8.5.1. s. 272 - Model: Pretty’s typology of participation
1.2.8.6. Allen 1993 "User involvement in the design process: why, when & how?"
1.2.8.6.1. s. 2 "User Involvement, therefore, may be a goal - not a given, and how to effect user involvement is not as straight forward as the text books convey!"
1.2.8.6.2. s. 3 "Users are central to everything and frighteningly distant. In developing retail software, we must satisfy the needs of all potential users, meaning everyone."
1.2.8.6.3. s. 5 "Participatory design is a body of practice and theory that emphasizes direct, empowered, collaborative action by users, in concert with software professionals."
1.2.8.7. Steen (2013) "Co-Design as a Process of Joint Inquiry and Imagination"
1.2.8.7.1. Def. på co-design
1.2.8.8. Kanstrup 2012 "A small matter of design – an analysis of end users as designers"
1.2.8.8.1. s. 109 - "I have, together with colleagues, been curious in exploring user-driven innovation as a perspective for PD and in relating findings from our work with user-driven design to related research areas"
1.2.8.8.2. s. 111 "Consequently co-operation is fundamental in PD ”since neither designer nor user groups can fully understand each others’ practices or meanings, we need to build a bridge that bring these experiences closer together” (Greenbaum & Kyng 1991, 4-5)."
1.2.8.8.3. s. 111 - inddrager Schön
1.2.8.9. Web 1996
1.2.8.9.1. Good products, by which we really mean successful products, products that are well accepted by the user population, are designed around user input. " s. 76
1.2.8.9.2. "Woolgar (1994) reminds us that the problems of `capturing’ requirements are the problems of sociological method and in the following list interviewee or subject could easily be substituted for user. · users don’ t know what they need · users don’ t know what is good for them · users can’ t articulate their needs, even when they do know them · users change their mind · users say different things to different people · users disagree with other users about what they need · users may not be real users at all." s. 77
1.2.9. Muller 2002 "Participatory Design: The Third Space in HCI"
1.2.9.1. s. 3 - "to bring users’ knowledges and perspectives directly into computer specification and design, it is necessary to do more than “just add users and stir.”"
1.2.10. Bødker & Kyng 2018 "Participatory Design that Matters—Facing the Big Issues"
1.2.10.1. s. 4:14 - Udviklet en ny PD med fem grundelementer.
1.2.11. Rill 2018 "The Art of Co-Creation: A Guidebook for Practitioners"
1.2.12. Katopoo (2015) "Combining Participatory Action Research (PAR) and Design Thinking (DT) as an Alternative Research Method in Architecture"
1.2.12.1. Thus, she proposed to consider qualitative and participatory research model for architecture or design. She argued that human-centered design research should involve those who will ultimately use the product or system, and provide a framework for achieving more successful solutions, thus design contained participatory process in its nature and will facilitated rapid development and resulted in a better product.
1.2.12.2. Similar to Roth, Caroll (2006) also argued that the new design approach should consider active participatory process during the whole process of design activities – in which users actively help in setting design goals and planning prototypes as opposed to the conventional design methods that involve users only after initial concepts, visions, and prototypes were decided.
1.2.13. Hagen 2011 "Enabling Co-design"
1.2.13.1. (Vi nævner det I PD I iteration 2)"When taking a codesign approach it is our role as designers to facilitate that participation" s. 1
1.2.13.2. "At the beginning of the design process we work with users to understand the design project in relation to their everyday lives including their habits, rituals, dreams, attitudes and experiences. These then become resources for inspiring design concepts and direction. In order for people to actively and effectively participate in the design process they must be able to imagine, access, and express their experiences and expectations. Simply asking people questions is not enough to facilitate this process. This is because people are not explicit sources of information. As humans we are limited in what we can express by our existing frames of reference, we can only talk in the language that we know. In addition, much of our experience and knowledge is tacit, or embedded in the everyday. Our habits, rituals, dreams and attitudes are not (necessarily) things that we can gain immediate access to in order to describe them to design researchers, we may not even be aware of them ourselves. Codesign methods (also known as generative methods (Sanders 2000)) create a platform for this to occur by making things that are normally unobservable available as resources for design. While methods such as interviews and observations give us access to the explicit and observable, generative methods allow us to access the tacit and implicit aspects of people’s lives (Sleeswijk Visser 2009)." s 1f.
1.2.13.3. Workshop"We often begin a workshop by asking participants to create a collage that describes their experiences about something related to the project topic (e.g., being a post graduate student, dealing with cancer, notions of giving etc)." 3
1.3. Design
1.3.1. Hassenzahl 2010 " Experience Design: Technology for All the Right Reasons."
1.3.1.1. Model med designkrav
1.3.2. Sanders 2008 "An Envolving Map of Design Practice and Design Research."
1.3.2.1. "[...] user-centered design zone. Thousands of people in this zone work to help make new product and services better meet the needs of “users.” s. 14
1.3.2.2. s. 14 - "The participatory design zone spreads across both the research-led and design-led approaches on the right side of the map. Participatory design is an approach to design that attempts to actively involve the people who are being served through design in the process to help ensure that the designed product/service meets their needs."
1.3.2.3. s. 15 - "Generative tools is a methodol- ogy in the generative design research bubble. The name “generative tools” refers to the creation of a shared design language that designers/researchers and the stakeholders use to communicate visually and directly with each other."
1.3.3. Schön
1.3.4. Mattelmäki 2008 "Design probes"
1.3.4.1. "The designers explore in three ways (p. 145 Schön 1983) : Firstly, “exploratory experiment is the probing, the playful activity by which we get a feel for things. It succeeds when it leads to the discovery of something there.” Secondly, the designers can act in a more determined manner because they want to have something happen. It actually happening is however not certain. Thirdly, designers can offer hypotheses through which the presented solutions are assessed, and the number of alternatives is reduced." s. 17
1.3.5. Friedman 2003 "Theory construction in design research: criteria: approaches, and methods."
1.3.5.1. "Most definitions of design share three attributes. First, the word design refers to a process. Second, the process is goal-oriented. Third, The goal of design is solving problems, meeting needs, improving situations, or creating something new or useful. Herbert Simon1 (p 129), 2 (p 112) defines design as the process by which we ‘[devise] courses of action aimed at changing existing situations into preferred ones.’ s. 507
1.3.5.2. "Good design solutions are always based on and embedded in specific problems." s. 511
1.3.6. Kimbell 2011 "Rethinking Design Thinking"
1.3.6.1. DT & Iterative processer"Design thinking and the designers who say they practice it are associated with having a human-centered approach to problem solving, in contrast to being technology- or organization-centered. They are seen as using an iterative process that moves from generating insights about end users, to idea generation and testing, to implementation." s. 287
1.3.6.2. Model: Different ways of describing design thinking. s. 297
1.3.7. Poulsen 2008 "Brugerorienteret design i praksis: Hvordan faglighed, tilgang og arbejdsformanvendes, integreres og forankres i virksomheder"
1.3.8. Heskett 2005 "Design"
1.3.9. Rogers, Shape og Preece 2011 "Interaction Design"
1.3.9.1. Interactive products"designing interactive products to support the way people communicate and interact in their everyday and working lives" s. 9
1.3.9.2. UX def. "[...] it is about how people feel about a product and their pleasure and satisfaction when using it, looking at it, holding it, and opening or closing it". s. 13
1.3.9.3. A simple interaction design lifecycle model s. 332
1.3.10. Bucolo, Sam & Matthews, Judy H. (2011) Design led innovation : exploring the synthesis of needs, technologies and business models
1.3.10.1. Design Led Innovation: approach som Schön, polyanyi, Ehn snakker om
1.3.10.2. s. "Design Led Innovation is broadly defined as a method which allows a company to consider and evaluate radically new propositions from multiple perspectives, typically spanning user needs, business requirements and technology demands."
1.4. Design Research
1.4.1. Buchanan 2001 "Design Research and the New Learning"
1.4.1.1. Useful, usable og desirable s. 13
1.4.1.2. “Design knowledge, it seems to me, lies in our grasp of the principles and methods of design that allow this activity to take place and lead to effective products.” s. 17.
1.4.1.3. “Design is the human power of conceiving, planning, and making products that serve human beings in the accomplishment of their individual and collective purposes" S. 9
1.4.1.4. Model: Four riders of design s. 12
1.4.2. Sanders 2006 " Design Research in 2006"
1.4.2.1. Designlandskab
1.4.3. Zimmerman 2007 "Research through design as a method for interaction design research in HCI"
1.4.3.1. Kap 1,3; 2,2; 5,7; kap 8;
1.4.4. Koskinen 2013 "Design Research Through Practice: From the Lab, Field, and Showroom"
1.4.5. Chayutsahakij, P. 2000 "Human Centered Design Innovation"
1.4.6. Bang, Krogh, Ludvigsen og Markussen 2012 "The Role of Hypothesis in Constructive Design Research"
1.4.6.1. s. 3 "we strongly support that design research be conducted by designers using design skills, and in order to underline this position we wish to acknowledge that motivations for both designing and researching can come from a number of sources."
1.4.6.2. s. 3f "A research The Art of Research 2012 Helsinki page 4 project can be born out of a clearly articulated research question, but a research question can also be generated from pure experimentation without having a clear aim or strategy."
1.4.6.3. s. 5 "We argue that the construction of research questions cannot be appropriately understood without a more elaborate description of the relation to motivational contexts and hypothesismaking."
2. Design Thinking
2.1. Kimbell 2011 "Rethinking Design Thinking: Part I"
2.2. Geissdoerfer 2016 "Design thinking to enhance the sustainable business modelling process – A workshop based on a value mapping process"
2.3. Cri 2017 "Design Thinking: What It Is and How It Works - a Case Study on Romanian Libraries"
2.3.1. Kan kobles på Vistisen
2.3.2. s. 181 - DT bliver sammenlignet med PD
2.3.3. "[...]the design process is described as iterative, characterized by a continuous re-definition of the problem and of the solution based on the feedbacks gathered from end-users, until a final solution is reached" s. 183 - beskrivelse af designproces
2.4. Brown og Katz 2011 "Change by Design: Change by Design"
2.4.1. "Insight is one of the key sources of design thinking [...]" s. 382
2.4.2. "The mission of design thinking is to translate observations into insights, and insights into the products and services that will improve lives." s. 382
2.5. Brown og Martin 2015 "Design for Action - How to use design thinking to make great thing actually happen"
2.5.1. "Iterative rapid-cycle prototyping didn’t just improve the artifact. It turned out to be a highly effective way to obtain the funding and organizational commitment to bring the new artifact to market." s. 60
2.5.2. "As strategies and large systems become the focus of design thinking, imagining the launch as just one of many steps in introducing a new concept will become even more important." s. 60
2.6. Lockwood 2010 "Design thinking: integrating innovation, customers experiences and brand value"-
2.7. Plattner 2009 "Design thinking: understand - improve - apply"
2.8. Buxton 2011 "Sketching user experiences: getting the design right and the right design"
2.9. Dorst 2011 "The core of ‘design thinking’ and its application"
2.10. Tellioğlu 2016 "The Role of Design Models in Design Thinking"
2.10.1. DT "The increase of technology use everywhere in the last years made it essential to invest more into innovation and creativity in product and service management. At this point, design thinking (DT) became an interesting approach as a new way of thinking. Facilitating innovation and idea generation was originally motivated by economic factors"s. 132
2.10.2. Definition DT: "Today, DT is defined as “a complex thinking process of conceiving new realities, expressing the introduction of design culture and its methods into fields such as business innovation” (Tschimmel, 2012, p.2)." s. 134
2.10.3. Modeller indenfor DT "The most popular DT models are: the 3 I Model (Inspiration, Ideation, Implementation) by IDEO (2001) (Brown and Wyatt, 2010, 33ff); the HCD Model (Hearing, Creating and Delivering) again by IDEO; the model of Understand, Observe, Point of View, Ideate, Prototype and Test by Hasso-Plattner Institute (Thoring and Müller, 2011); the 4 D or Double Diamond design process model (Discover, Define, Develop, Deliver) by British Design Council (2005); the Service Design Thinking Model (Exploration, Creation, Reflection, Implementation) by Stickdorn and Schneider (2010)." s. 134
2.10.4. “Design thinking is a human-centered approach to innovation that draws from the designer's toolkit to integrate the needs of people, the possibilities of technology, and the requirements for business success.” (Tim Brown, IDEO). s. 134
2.10.5. Model: Multidisciplinary Design Thinking (mDT). "DT not only shows how to design to provide user experience it also involves users in the entire design process". s. 135
2.11. Tscimmel 2012 "Design Thinking as an effective Toolkit for Innovation"
2.12. Med fokus på wicked problem
2.12.1. Buchanan 1992 "Wicked Problems in Design Thinking"
2.13. Strategisk Design Thinking
2.13.1. Vistisen 2014 "Strategisk Designtænkning"
2.13.2. Grácio 2017 "Design thinking in the scope of strategic and collaborative design"
2.13.2.1. "Design Thinking is a flexible methodology, since it as valuable elements, such as iterating frequently based on continuous feedback from all the intervenient." s. 31
2.14. Med fokus på PD
2.14.1. Bjögvinsson, E., Ehn, P., & Hillgren, P.-A. 2012 "Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges"
2.14.1.1. Sammenligner DT med PD
2.14.2. Behrendorff, C., Bucolo, S., & Miller, E. (2011). Designing disruption: linking participatory design and design thinking in technology orientated industries
2.14.2.1. s. 3 "The advantages of the PD method are that researchers (or designers) can associate more closely with real stakeholders (end users) at an early stage of design exploration."
2.14.2.2. s. 4 "design thinking creates dramatic new forms of value to the end users."
2.14.2.3. s. 7 "this paper suggests that using a participatory methodology not only compliments this approach, but also encourages closer engagement between companies and end users."
2.14.3. Fabri 2016 "Using Design Thinking to engage autistic students in participatory design of an online toolkit to help with transition into higher education"
2.14.3.1. s. 5: Table 1 - Design Thinking steps and where they are applied
2.14.3.2. s. 4 "Design Thinking advocates argue that by combining empathy, creativity and analytical processes, true innovation can emerge in the process of solving such problems."
2.14.3.3. s. 8 - det er ikke uanmindeligt, at man i steppet Ideate på forhånd ikke ved, hvordan toolsettet ser ud. Først i næste step, prototype, finder man ud af dette.
2.14.3.3.1. Koble på Brown og Wyatt 2010
2.14.3.4. s. 12 "While end user involvement was not specifically invited in Steps 2 and 3 (Define and Ideate), there is nothing to suggest that the workshop approach could not be extended to these, creating an uninterrupted continuum of user involvement throughout the design process."
3. Wicked problem
3.1. Kpamma 2017 "Participatory design, wicked problems, choosing by advantages"
3.1.1. Def af PD"Participatory design seeks to involve stakeholders in design process to enhance value generation to clients and users." s. 289
3.1.2. Def af WD "Wicked problems are problems that are difficult to resolve due to the absence of a precise definition of the problem and its solution" s.289
3.1.2.1. WD I relation til PD "Wicked problems are ill-defined problems without a definite solution set with a tendency of diverse and conflicting viewpoints, especially in group decision making". s. 290
3.2. Rittel 1973 "Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning"
3.3. Buchanan 1992 "Wicked Problems in Design Thinking"
3.3.1. "The challenge is to gain a deeper understanding of design thinking so that more cooperation and mutual benefit is possible between those who apply design thinking to remarkably different problems and subject matters. This will help to make the practical exploration of design, particularly in the arts of production, more intelligent and meaningful." s. 8
3.3.2. SK (fælles om normer) "Finally, others are exploring material objects as part of larger systems, cycles, and environments, opening up a wide range of new questions and practical concerns or reenergizing old debates" s. 11
3.3.3. "Although there are many variations of the linear model, its proponents hold that the design process is divided into two distinct phases: problem defini- tion and problem solution. Problem definition is an analytic sequence in which the designer determines all of the elements of the problem and specifies all of the requirements that a successful design solu- tion must have. Problem solution is a synthetic sequence in which the various requirements are combined and balanced against each other, yielding a final plan to be carried into production." s. 15 - kobles til Rittel
3.3.4. "Rittel's idea, wicked problems are a "class of social system problems which are ill-formulated, where the information is confusing, where there are many clients and decision makers with conflicting values, and where the ramifications in the whole system are thoroughly confusing." s. 15 (tænker også Rittel siger det)
3.4. Mattelmäki 2008 "Design probes"
3.4.1. Passer med artiklen creativity in design process "Kees Dorst and Nigel Cross (2001) write about the problem space and solution space between which the design work moves, bridging the gap between them. Framing the problem and solution spaces seems to be crucial for creative design. Cross’s findings (2004) also suggest that skilled designers move rapidly to early guesses about solutions, using these as a means of examining and defining the problem-solution area as a whole. Designers who use a lot of time for information gathering and problem definition did not do so well in producing solutions." s. 18.
3.5. Dorst 2011 (The Core 'design thinking' and its application.
4. Pragmatisme
4.1. Dorst 2011 "The core of ‘design thinking’ and its application"
4.2. Rylander 2012 "Pragmatism and Design Research"
4.3. Dalsgaard 2014 "Pragmatism and Design Thinking"
4.4. Shields 2006 "Using Pragmatism to Bridge the Gap Between Academe and Practice"
4.5. NY: Mark 2013 "Co-Design as a Process of Joint Inquiry and Imagination"
4.5.1. "A first move in this exploration is to note that (co-)design proceeds via a particular form of logic and that it cannot be adequately understood as a form of science or of engineering" s. 17
4.5.2. "Likewise, Dorst recently argued that abduction is at the "core" of design thinking.12 Dorst understands deduction as the process of moving from knowing "what" and "how" to the result" (e.g., if one knows about stars and about their move ments, one can deduce their locations) and induction as the process of moving from knowing "what" and "result" to possible options for "how" (e.g., if one knows about stars and their locations, one can induce possible working principles), and he proposes two forms of abduction. In abduction-1 (closed problem solving), one develops an object ("what"), based on a given desired outcome ("result") and a given working principle ("how"); in abduction-2 (open problem solving), one starts with a desired outcome ("result") and develops both an object ("what") and a working principle ("how"). The latter is associated with design thinking and with the notion of framing. Framing is an approach of itera tively developing frames (i.e., combinations of a result and a work ing principle) and developing possible solutions, and thus creatively moving between "result," "how," and "what" during the design process. s, 17f
4.5.3. "A key theme in pragmatism is its focus on people's practices and experiences, rather than on abstract theories." s. 18
4.5.3.1. Kobler de spå Schön
4.5.4. "Dewey's pragmatism has two key themes: It focuses on peo ple's concrete practices, their personal experiences, and the role of practical knowledge; it aims at promoting cooperation and at empowering people so that they can improve their situations." s. 19
4.5.5. Etiske aspekt: "A third move in this exploration is a turn toward ethics. Based on Dewey's pragmatist philosophy, I argue that co-design has inherent ethical" s. 20
4.5.5.1. Etik - berør det
4.5.5.2. Likewise, when people engage in a co-design process, they also engage in ethics—in a process with ethical qualities. These ethics become manifest, for example, when co-design participants express and share their personal experiences, when they empa thize with others, when they discuss current or problematic situa tions, when they envision possible or desirable situations, when they develop and evaluate possible solutions, and when they make decisions and bring about change. Co-design can be understood as an instance of "moral inquiry:" "a reflective response—intervening with analysis and imaginative deliberation—when action is frus trated," where deliberation may "proceed by dialogue, visualiza tion, imagining of motor responses, and imagining how others might react to a deed done." s. 21
4.5.5.3. Ethics is not an appendage to design but an integral part of i. s. 21
4.5.5.4. "[...]we can instead use the term ethos and discuss the ethos of co-design, which refers to the moral ideas and attitudes of participants in a co-design process." s. 21
4.5.6. Perception:"Dewey proposed that problems are best explored and defined using perception—one's capacities to see, hear, touch, smell, and taste current situations (what is)—and that solutions are best explored and developed using conception—one's capacities to imagine and envision alternative situations (what could be). Ideally, perceiving the problem and conceiving possible solutions are produc tively combined" s. 22
5. User-driven innovation
5.1. Baldassarre 2017 "Bridging sustainable business model innovation and user-driven innovation: A process for sustainable value proposition design"
5.1.1. s. 177 - Forklarer hvad user-driven innovation er
5.1.2. s. 177 - Beskriver kortfattet sammenhængen mellem Design Thinking og user-driven innovation
5.1.3. s. 178 - Beskriver research though design