Conference article

Adapting service design tools to facilitate interdisciplinary research collaborations

G. Teal
School of Design, The Glasgow School of Art, UK

A. S. Macdonald
School of Design, The Glasgow School of Art, UK

P. J. Moynihan
School of Design, The Glasgow School of Art, UK

Download article

Published in: Conference Proceedings; ServDes.2010; Exchanging Knowledge; Linköping; Sweden; 1-3 December 2010

Linköping Electronic Conference Proceedings 60:12, p. 127-131

Show more +

Published: 2012-09-20

ISBN: 978-91-7519-770-8

ISSN: 1650-3686 (print), 1650-3740 (online)


This paper describes an ongoing multidisciplinary research project which is developing and prototyping a new food service for older hospital patients. This is a multi-faceted project combining the skills of designers; food sensory scientists; dietitians; medical sociologists; ergonomists and technologists with a diverse group of end users and stakeholders to map the existing food service and identify opportunities for re-design. This paper describes how three design methods/tools conventionally used by designers have been adapted and used to collaborate with colleagues from different non-design disciplines.


Multidisciplinary; design methods; design tools


Alvesson; M.; & Sköldberg; K. (1994). Tolkning och reflektion: Vetenskapsfilosofi och kvalitativ metod. Lund: Studentlitteratur.

Artman; H. (2002). Procurer usability requirements: negotiations in contract development. NordiCHI; Nordic conference on Human-computer interaction. 19-23 October Aarhus; Denmark.

Blanchot; M. (1963). Qu’en est-il de la critique. i M. Blanchot; Lautréamont et Sade (H. Engdahl; Övers.). Les Editions de Minuit.

Bourdieu; P.; Chamboredon; J.-C.; & Passeron; J.-C. (1968/1991). The craft of sociology: Epistemological preliminaries. Berlin: de Gruyter.

Clark; A. (1997). Being There: Putting Brain Body and World Together Again. Cambridge; MA: MIT Press.

Dourish; P. (2001). Where the Action Is: The Foundations of Embodied Interaction. Cambridge; MA: MIT Press.

Hallnäs; L.; & Redström; J. (2002). From use to presence: On the expressions and aestehtics of everyday computational things. ACM Transaction on Computer-Human Interaction ; 9 (2); 106-124.

Holmlid; S. (2004). Issues for cooperative design: A procurement perspective. Participatory Design Conference.

Hutchins; E. (1995). Cognition in the Wild. Cambridge; MA: MIT press.

Lakoff; G.; & and Johnson; M. (1999). Philosophy In the Flesh: The Embodied Mind And Its Challenge To Western Thought. New York; NY: Basic Books.

Lantz; A.; & Holmlid; S. (2010). Interaction design in procurement: The view of procurers and interaction designers. CoDesign; International Journal of CoCreation in Design and the Arts ; 6 (1); 43-57.

Markensten; E. (2005). Mind the Gap: A Procurement Approach to Integrating User-Centered Design in Contract Development. Stockholm: Royal Institute of Technology.

Merleau-Ponty; M. (2002). The Phenomenology of Perception. New York; NY: Routledge.

Merleau-Ponty; M. (1989). The Structure of Behavior. Philadelphia; PA: Duquesne University Press.

Thelen; E.; Schöner; G.; Scheier; C.; & Smith; L. B. (2001). The dynamics of embodiment: A field theory of infant perseverative reaching. Behavioral and Brain Sciences ; 24; 1-86.

Vargo; S.; & Lusch; R. (2008). Service-dominant logic: Continuing the evolution. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science (36); 1-10.

Citations in Crossref