What is holding back service design from making a distinct departure from a product-centred to a socio-material human-centred framework? We have a concern for co-designing that is often discussed as a generic method to develop empathetic connections and understandings of people and their contexts. In this use, mastering the craft of co-designing had inadvertently isolated the method from the practitioner, fragmenting its process as a series of static events or a tool for deployment in staged workshops. Contributing to current debates on co-designing and design anthropology, our paper seeks to re-entangle co-designing back into its lived and enacted contexts. We see co-designing as a reflexive, embodied process of discovery and actualisation, and it is an integral, on-going activity of designing services. Co-designing can catalyse a transformative process in revealing and unlocking tacit knowledge, moving people along on a journey to 'make real' what proposed services might be like in the future. Co-designing plays a critical role especially when it involves the very people who are enmeshed in the realisation of the proposed services itself. As such, our case study of a weekend Ordnance Survey Geovation camp pays closer attention to how this took place and discusses the transformative process that was central to it. By taking a phenomenological perspective and building on a seminal anthropologists' work, Tim Ingold, our paper counters the limitations in service design that tends to see its process as a contained series of fixed interactions or systemized process of methods. Through Ingold, we see 'the social world as a tangle of threads or life-paths, ever ravelling here and unravelling there, within which the task for any being is to improvise a way through, and to keep on-going. Lives are bound up in the tangle.' Similarly, we view co-designing as being and becoming, that is constantly transforming and connecting multiple entanglements. ududThe journal article originated as conference presentation for the 10th European Academy of Design Conference in Gothenburg in 2013. It was one of two papers selected for publication.
展开▼
机译：是什么使服务设计从以产品为中心的架构明显偏离以人为本的社会材料的架构？我们担心共同设计，通常将其作为发展移情联系和对人及其背景的理解的通用方法进行讨论。在这种使用中，精通协同设计的技巧无意中将方法与从业者隔离开来，将其过程分散为一系列静态事件或在分阶段研讨会中部署的工具。为了促进当前有关协同设计和设计人类学的辩论，我们的论文力图将协同设计重新融入其现实生活和制定的环境中。我们将协同设计视为发现和实现的反思性，体现性过程，它是设计服务不可或缺的，正在进行的活动。协同设计可以促进揭示和释放隐性知识的变革过程，使人们继续前进，以“实现”拟议服务在将来可能会变成什么样。协同设计起着至关重要的作用，特别是当参与设计的服务本身的人们参与时。因此，我们对周末军械测量局大本营的案例研究更加关注了这是如何发生的，并讨论了其中至关重要的变革过程。通过从现象学的角度出发，并基于人类人类学的开创性工作，蒂姆·英戈尔德（Tim Ingold），我们的论文克服了服务设计中的局限性，后者倾向于将其过程视为一系列固定的相互作用或系统化的方法过程。通过Ingold，我们将“社会世界看成是缠绕在一起或生活道路的缠结，曾经在这里肆虐并在其中散布，其中任何人的任务都是即兴通过并保持持续下去。生命纠缠不清。”同样，我们将协同设计视为存在和变为，正在不断变换和连接多个纠缠。 ud ud该期刊文章最初是2013年在哥德堡举行的第十届欧洲设计学院会议的会议演讲。它是被选中发表的两篇论文之一。
展开▼
