Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-grxwn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-11T04:30:22.338Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE HEALTHCARE DESIGN DILEMMA: PERILS OF A TECHNOLOGY-DRIVEN DESIGN PROCESS FOR MEDICAL PRODUCTS

Part of: Socio-technical Issues in Design

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2020

H. Wilke ,
P. Badke-Schaub  and
K. Thoring
H. Wilke
Affiliation:
Anhalt University of Applied Sciences, Germany
P. Badke-Schaub
Affiliation:
Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
K. Thoring*
Affiliation:
Anhalt University of Applied Sciences, Germany Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
*
*katja@thoring.com

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This paper reports an embedded single case study from a globally operating manufacturer for digital healthcare products. Based on nine semi-structured interviews, document analysis, and a diary study among employees, we were able to gain insights on the daily business routines and interactions of the design team, the UX research team, and the product management department. The results revealed several unexpected insights that indicate a practical mismatch between user-centred design processes learned from the textbook and design practice in the healthcare sector that warrant further research.

Keywords

healthcare designuser-centred designuser experiencedesign processindustrial design
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: DESIGN Conference , Volume 1 , May 2020 , pp. 2217 - 2226
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Andersen, T.O. (2019), “Large-scale and long-term co-design of digital health”, Interactions, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 74–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Apple Health. (2018), “The Future of Healthcare is in your Hands”, Apple Healthcare, available at: https://www.apple.com/healthcare/ (accessed 3 March 2019).Google Scholar
Bate, P. and Robert, G. (2007), Bringing User Experience to Healthcare Improvement: The Concepts, Methods and Practices of Experience-Based Design, Radcliffe Publishing.Google Scholar
CBInsights. (2018a), How Google Plans To Use AI To Reinvent The $3 Trillion US Healthcare Industry, available at: https://www.cbinsights.com/research/report/google-strategy-healthcare/ (accessed 3.3.2019).Google Scholar
CBInsights. (2018b), Amazon In Healthcare: The E-Commerce Giant's Strategy For A $3 Trillion Market, available at: https://www.cbinsights.com/research/report/amazon-transforming-healthcare/ (accessed 3.3. 2019).Google Scholar
Ciccone, N.W., Patou, F. and Maier, A.M. (2019), “Designing for Better Healthcare: A Systemic Approach Utilising Behavioural Theory, Technology and an Understanding of Healthcare Delivery Systems”, International Conference on Engineering Design, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 937–946.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donetto, S. et al. (2015), “Experience-based Co-design and Healthcare Improvement: Realizing Participatory Design in the Public Sector”, The Design Journal, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 227–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisenhardt, K.M. and Graebner, M.E. (2007), “Theory Building from Cases: Opportunities and Challenges”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 25–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Festinger, L. (1957), A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, Stanford Univ. Press, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
Flaherty, K. (2016), “Diary studies: Understanding long-term user behavior and experiences”, Nielsen Norman Group Articles.Google Scholar
Froschauer, U. and Lueger, M. (2016), Artefact Analysis in Organisational Research, p. 23.Google Scholar
Godbold, R., Lees, A. and Reay, S. (2019), “Ethical Challenges for Student Design Projects in Health Care Settings in New Zealand”, International Journal of Art & Design Education, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 182–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodrich, J. (2018), “Why experience-based co-design improves the patient experience”, The Journal of Health Design, Vol. 3, No. 1 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanington, B.M. and Martin, B. (2012), Universal Methods of Design: 100 Ways to Research Complex Problems, Develop Innovative Ideas, and Design Effective Solutions, Mass, Rockport, Gloucester.Google Scholar
Hartswood, M.J. et al. (2003), “Working IT out in medical practice: IT systems design and development as co-realisation”, Methods of Information in Medicine, Vol. 42 No. 04, pp. 392–397.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, P.H. (2013), Design for Care: Innovating Healthcare Experience, Rosenfeld Media, Brooklyn, N.Y.Google Scholar
Kouprie, M. and Visser, F.S. (2009), “A framework for empathy in design: stepping into and out of the user's life”, Journal of Engineering Design, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 437–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kumar, V. (2012), 101 Design Methods: A Structured Approach for Driving Innovation in Your Organization, Wiley, Hoboken, N.J.Google Scholar
Noël, G. and Frascara, J. (2016), Health and Design, Health Design Network.Google Scholar
Sanders, E. and Dandavate, U. (1999), “Design for experiencing: new tools”, First International Conference on Design and Emotion, TU Delft.Google Scholar
Yin, R.K. (2009), Case Study Research, 4th ed., Sage, Newbury Park.Google Scholar