From within and in-between – co-designing organizational change

References

• Akama, Y., and A. Prendiville. 2013. “Embodying, Enacting and Entangling, a Phenomenological View to Co-Designing Services.” Swedish Design Research Journal 13 (1): 29–40.
   Google Scholar
• Appelbaum, S. 1997. “Socio‐Technical Systems Theory: An Intervention Strategy for Organizational Development.” Management Decision 35 (6): 452–463. doi:10.1108/00251749710173823.
   Google Scholar
• Battarbee, K. 2004. “Co-Experience: Understanding User Experiences in Social Interaction.” DA diss., University of Art and Design Helsinki.
   Google Scholar
• Brandt, E. 2001. “Event Driven Product Development.” PhD diss., Technical University of Denmark.
   Google Scholar
• Brandt, E., and M. Agger Eriksen. 2010. “Co-Design Events, Driving Innovation by a Series of Events.” In Rehearsing the Future, edited by J. Halse and E. Brandt, 70–73. Denmark: Danish Design School Press.
   Google Scholar
• Buchanan, R. 2001. “Design Research and the New Learning.” Design Issues 17 (4): 3–23. doi:10.1162/07479360152681056.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buchanan, R. 2004. “Management and Design, Interaction Pathways in Organizational Life.” In Managing as Designing, edited by R. Boland and F. Collopy, 54–63. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Buchanan, R. 2008. “Introduction: Design and Organizational Change.” Design Issues 24 (1): 2–9. doi:10.1162/desi.2008.24.1.2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deserti, A., and F. Rizzo. 2013. “Design and the Cultures of Enterprises.” Design Issues 30 (1): 36–56. doi:10.1162/DESI_a_00247.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hämäläinen, R., and E. Saarinen. 2008. “Systems Intelligence—The Way Forward? A Note On Ackoff’s ‘Why Few Organizations Adopt Systems Thinking’.” Systems Research and Behavioral Science 25 (6): 821–825. doi:10.1002/sres.904.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huizinga, J. 1950. Homo Ludens – A Study of the Play Element in Culture. First Beacon Press paperback edition published 1955. Reprinted by arrangement with London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Printed in the USA.
   Google Scholar
• Ingold, T. 2007. Lines a Brief History. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Jordan, B., and A. Henderson. 1995. “Interaction Analysis. Foundations and Practice.” Journal of the Learning Sciences 4 (1): 39–103. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls0401_2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kronqvist, J., A. Salmi, and P. Pöyry-Lassila. 2011. ““Start with a Small Ball of Snow” – Presenting Multiple Meanings as a Challenge and Basis for Participatory Innovation.” In Proceedings of the Participatory Innovation Conference 2011, 293–299. Sønderborg: University of Southern Denmark.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, A. 1991. “Integrating Positivist and Interpretive Approaches to Organizational Research.” Organization Science 2 (4): 342–345. doi:10.1287/orsc.2.4.342.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, J.-J., M. Jaatinen, A. Salmi, T. Mattelmäki, R. Smeds, and M. Holopainen. 2018. “Design Choices Framework for Co-Creation Projects.” International Journal of Design 12 (2): 15–31.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Light, A., and Y. Akama. 2012. “The Human Touch: Participatory Practice and the Role of Facilitation in Designing with Communities.” In Proceedings of the 12th Participatory Design Conference: Research Papers - Volume 1, edited by K. Halskov, H. Winschiers-Theophilus, Y. Lee, J. Simonsen, and K. Bødker, 61–70. Roskilde, Denmark: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Luoma, J. 2007. “Systems Thinking in Complex Responsive Processes and Systems Intelligence.” In Systems Intelligence in Leadership and Everyday Life, edited by R. Hämäläinen and E. Saarinen, 281–294. Espoo: Helsinki University of Technology: Systems Analysis Laboratory.
   Google Scholar
• Mattelmäki, T., and F. Sleeswijk Visser. 2011. “Lost in Co-X Interpretations of Co-Design and Co-Creation.” In Proceedings of IASDR’11, 4th World Conference on Design Research, Delft University, edited by -L.-L. Chen and N. Roozenburg, 1–12. Delft, Netherlands: International Association of Societies of Design Research.
   Google Scholar
• Mattelmäki, T., E. Brandt, and K. Vaajakallio. 2011. “On Designing Open-Ended Interpretations for Collaborative Design Exploration.” CoDesign 7 (2): 79–93. doi:10.1080/15710882.2011.609891.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mattelmäki, T., K. Vaajakallio, and I. Koskinen. 2014. “What Happened to Empathic Design?” Design Issues 30 (1): 67–77. doi:10.1162/DESI_a_00249.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morgan, G. 1997. Images of Organisation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Norman, K., M. Renshaw, C. Mowles, H. Larsen, and P. Tucker. 2015. “Patient Falls Decrease as Conversation Deepens.” Paper presented at the Participatory Innovation Conference 2015, The Hague, Netherlands, May 18–20.
   Google Scholar
• Prendiville, A. 2015. “A Design Anthropology of Place in Service Design: A Methodological Reflection.” The Design Journal 18 (2): 193–207. doi:10.2752/175630615X14212498964231.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prendiville, A., I. Gwilt, and V. Mitchell. 2017. “Making Sense of Data through Service Design – Opportunities and Reflections.” In Designing for Service, Key Issues and New Directions, edited by D. Sangiorgi and A. Prendiville, 227–236. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
   Google Scholar
• Saarinen, E., and R. Hämäläinen. 2004. “Systems Intelligence: Connecting Engineering Thinking with Human Sensitivity.” In Systems Intelligence-Discovering a Hidden Competence in Human Action and Organisational Life, edited by R. Hämäläinen and E. Saarinen, 9–37. Espoo: Helsinki University of Technology: Systems Analysis Laboratory.
   Google Scholar
• Salmi, A., P. Pöyry-Lassila, and J. Kronqvist. 2012. “Supporting Empathetic Boundary Spanning in Participatory Workshops with Scenarios and Personas.” International Journal of Ambient Computing and Intelligence 4 (4): 21–39. doi:10.4018/IJACI.
   Google Scholar
• Sanders, E. 2002. “Scaffolds for Experiencing in the New Design Space.” In Information Design, edited by Institute for Information Design Japan (IIDJ). Tokyo, Japan: Graphic-Sha Publishing Co.
   Google Scholar
• Sanders, E. 2006. “Scaffolds for Building Everyday Creativity.” In Design for Effective Communications: Creating Contexts for Clarity and Meaning, edited by J. Frascara. New York, NY: Allworth Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sanders, E., and P. Stappers. 2008. “Co-Creation and the New Landscapes of Design.” CoDesign 4 (1): 5–18. doi:10.1080/15710880701875068.
   Google Scholar
• Schön, D. 1991. repr. Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think In Action. Surrey, England: Ashgate Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Smeds, R., P. Pöyry-Lassila, and E. Huhta. 2010. “Prosessisimulointi In InnoSchool - välittävä koulu.” In Oppimisen verkostot, ympäristöt ja pedagogiikka, edited by R. Smeds, L. Krokfors, H. Ruokamo, and A. Staffans, 132–135. Espoo, Finland: Aalto ARTS Books.
   Google Scholar
• Smirchich, L., and G. Morgan. 1982. “Leadership: The Management of Meaning.” Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 18 (3): 257–273.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stacey, R. 2001. Complex Responsive Processes in Organizations: Learning and Knowledge Creation. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Stacey, R., D. Griffin, and P. Shaw. 2000. Complexity and Management: Fad or Radical Challenge to Systems Thinking? London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Suchman, L. 2002. “Located Accountabilities in Technology Production.” Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems 14 (2): 91–105.
   Google Scholar
• Tsoukas, H., and R. Chia. 2002. “On Organizational Becoming: Rethinking Organizational Change.” Organization Science 13 (5): 567–582. doi:10.1287/orsc.13.5.567.7810.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vaajakallio, K. 2012. “Design Games, a Tool, a Mindset and a Structure.” DA diss., Aalto University School of Arts, Design and Architecture.
   Google Scholar
• Weick, K., K. Sutcliffe, and D. Obstfeld. 2005. “Organizing and the Processes of Sensemaking.” Organization Science 16 (4): 409–421. doi:10.1287/orsc.1050.0133.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar