Niels Jernes Vej 10
9220 Aalborg
Denmark
Contact Person:
Kristian Østergaard Sørensen
Phone: +45 9940 3512
E-mail:
4. adresselinie, tryk derefter F9
Project title:Design Adapted Technology for Healthcare
Academic keywords:
· Design thinking
· Framing
· Healthcare
· Healthcare technology
· Abductive reasoning
· Wicked problems
· Product development
· Engineering design
· Industrial design
Name of project proposer: Louise Møller og René Bennyson,
Department: Architecture, Design and Media Technology
Academic description of the project:
In the article 5 Things Preventing Technology Adoption In Health Care, it is argued that new technologies often not addressing the real problem. (Pearl 2014) Developers do not consider the end user in many cases, when develop or discover new technology for the healthcare. (Pearl 2014) when end users are not considered in the development, the right match between their needs and healthcare technology will not take place.(Frost & IDA 2012) The problem rises in the interaction between the user and the technology and require a full understanding, if the technology and its purpose shall succeed in the healthcare.(Region Syddanmark 2010)
Since engineering philosophical positions is derived from science (natural science), their focus is developing technical solution addressing the functional specification of users needs. Moreover, solving problems let the engineers to break down the complex problem in to smaller pieces and make the problem tame and generate a narrow specialized view. (Ulrich & Eppinger 2011; Cross 2001) In contrast, many areas in the healthcare care industry philosophical positions are derived from social sciences and humanities, and have a holistic view of approaching problems. The gab between the engineering’s view of problems - and the holistic view in the healthcare industry, can be addressed by industrial design with a design thinking approach and generate a bridge between the two views. So technology addressing the right problem and creates values for the users. (Martin 2009) Design thinking has a constant focus on users and tends to generate a strong empathy with them. (Cross 2011) Design thinking is as well addressing the context of use, which plays an important part of understanding the problem. (Krippendorff 1989) Having industrial design as an integrated part in product development is ensuring the competitive advantages (Kotler 2006) and lead to better financial performance. (Hertenstein et al. 2005) Industrial design’s holistic view on problems creates them complex and open. (Rittel & Webber 1973)
An open problem is an unframed problem, where the path of finding a solution to the problem is not known in advance. This requires a reframe of the problem and sees them in their right context. (Friis 2006) In order to build a conceptual framework for solving open ended problems with a design thinking approach, it is necessary to use abduction as reasoning. Many technologies have failed when introduced to the market, as a result of lacking or not have the proper abduction in their reasoning. (Martin 2009, chap.3)
In abductive reasoning the WHAT, HOW and VALUE is not known in advance. The designers in design thinking are addressing the open ended problem solving by creating frames for the HOW and VALUE as argumentation for the design decisions – the WHAT. (Dorst 2011) Framing is the main challenge in sharing the design intent between industrial designers and engineering designers. A tool have been developed in order to ensure strengthen and support of the design intent in sharing the frames. (Møller Nielsen & Laursen 2016) The company will get assistance in adapting design thinking as an integrated part of the product developing process. Especially, handling framing of problems and sharing frames between engineering designers and industrial designers for ensuring the design intent.
Cross(2006) sees a tendency in his studies, which indicate there may exist an individual strategy in the designers approach of in their creative design which lead to the framing of problems. There do exist a knowledge gap in this area, which is relevant for getting closer to the full understanding of design thinking. Furthermore, it will strengthen the understanding and use of framing.
References
Cross, N., 2011. Design Thinking 1st ed., London: Berg Publishers.
Cross, N., 2006. Designerly ways of knowing 1st ed., London: Springer London.
Cross, N., 2001. Designerly ways of knowing: design discipline versus design science. Design Issues, 17(3), pp.49–55.
Dorst, K., 2011. The core of “design thinking” and its application. Design Studies, 32(6), pp.521–532.
Friis, S.K., 2006. Conscious Design Practice as a Strategic Tool.
Frost, F. & IDA, 2012. Sundhedsteknologi i 2020 - Engineering Life Care,
Hertenstein, J.H. et al., 2005. The Impact of Industrial Design Effectiveness on Corporate Financial Performance. Design, pp.3–21.
Kotler, P., 2006. Marketing Management 12e ed., New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Krippendorff, K., 1989. On the essential contexts of artifacts or on the proposition that “design is making sense (of things)”. Design Issues, (5), pp.9–39.
Martin, R.L., 2009. The Design of Business: Why Design Thinking is the Next Competitive Advantage,
Møller Nielsen, L. & Laursen, E.S., 2016. Sharing the Design Between Industrial Designers and Engineering Designers. , In progres(1).
Pearl, R., 2014. 5 Things Preventing Technology Adoption In Health Care. , pp.7–12. Available at: http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertpearl/2014/09/11/5-things-preventing-technology-adoption-in-health-care/.
Region Syddanmark, 2010. Kompetenceundersøgelse for velfærdsteknologier i Region Syddanmark I dette dokument,
Rittel, H.W.J. & Webber, M.M., 1973. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), pp.155–169.
Ulrich, T.K. & Eppinger, D.S., 2011. Product Design and Development 5th ed., McGraw-Hill Education.