Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T08:12:58.195Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tackling Reframing: The Development and Evaluation of a Problem Reframing Canvas

Part of: Design Creativity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2019

Sabine Liana Mensch  and
Milene Gonçalves

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.

The problems of today are increasingly complex in nature. Yet, most support provided by design agencies and innovation consultancies is based on unstructured approaches, guided by the facilitators own intuition. This article presents the Teckel canvas, an approach to guide problem reframing in facilitation to both tackle solution and problem understanding. After synthesising the main insights from prominent reframing methods and models, a meta-process of reframing was created, which was translated into a practical canvas. Two Dutch case studies are examined in which the proposed reframing canvas is tested. When this canvas was used in facilitation, we found out that the medium and message can be reframed separately or together and that the canvas can be used as a tool for overview on the subject. Our findings indicate that an explicit and tangible use of reframing can improve solving complex problems to be more clear, visual and reflective.

Keywords

Design methodsDesign practiceReframingFacilitationVisualisation
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , July 2019 , pp. 379 - 388
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) 2019

References

Aguirre, M., Agudelo, N. and Romm, J. (2017), “Design Facilitation as Emerging Practice: Analyzing How Designers Support Multi-stakeholder Co-creation”. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 198–209.Google Scholar
Benammar, K. (2012), Reframing: The art of thinking differently. Boom uitgevers, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Calabretta, G., Gemser, G. and Karpen, I. (2016), Strategic Design: Eight Essential Practices Every Strategic Designer Must Master, BIS Publishers, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Flatland, (2018a), Data retrieved from interviews with the staff from FlatlandGoogle Scholar
Flatland, (2018b), retrieved from https://flatland.agency/legacy-jongens-van-de-tekeningen/Google Scholar
Hey, J. H., Joyce, C. K. and Beckman, S. L. (2007), “Framing innovation: negotiating shared frames during early design phases”. Journal of Design Research, Vol. 6 No. 1-2: pp. 79–99.Google Scholar
Hekkert, P. and Van Dijk, M. (2011). ViP-Vision in Design: A Guidebook for Innovators. BIS Publishers, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
Maher, M. L., Poon, J. and Boulanger, S. (1996), “Formalising design exploration as co-evolution”. In Advances in formal design methods for CAD (pp. 3–30). Springer, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
Maister, D. H., Green, C. H. and Galford, R. M. (2000), The trusted advisor. Simon and Schuster, LondonGoogle Scholar
Owens, C. (2016), “How to get past just telling people to change their behaviour”. [Weblog] Retrieved 7 December 2018, from https://xblog.xplane.com/how-to-get-past-just-telling-people-to-change-their-behaviorGoogle Scholar
Paton, B. and Dorst, K. (2011), “Briefing and reframing: A situated practice”. Design Studies, Vol. 32, No. 6, pp. 573–587.Google Scholar
Van der Sanden, M. C. and Flipse, S. M. (2016), “Science communication for uncertain science and innovation”. Journal of Science Communication, Vol. 15, No. 06, pp. C05.Google Scholar
Schön, D. A. (1983), The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action (Vol. 1). Basic Books, New York.Google Scholar
Stompff, G., Smulders, F. and Henze, L. (2016), “Surprises are the benefits: reframing in multidisciplinary design teams”. Design Studies, Vol. 47, pp. 187–214.Google Scholar
Van Boeijen, A., Daalhuizen, J., van der Schoor, R. and Zijlstra, J. (2014), Delft design guide: Design strategies and methods. BIS Publishers, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Vermaas, P., Dorst, C. and Thurgood, C. (2015), “Framing in design: A formal analysis and failure modes”. Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED15), (July), pp. 1–10.Google Scholar
Wiltschnig, S., Christensen, B. T. and Ball, L. J. (2013), “Collaborative problem-solution co-evolution in creative design”. Design Studies, Vol. 34, No. 5, pp. 515–542.Google Scholar
Wedell-Wedellsborg, T. (2017), “Are you solving the right problems?” Harvard Business Review, Vol. 95, No. 1, pp. 76–83.Google Scholar
Wenger, E. (2000), “Communities of practice and social learning systems”. Organization, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 225–246.Google Scholar
Wiltschnig, S., Christensen, B. T. and Ball, L. J. (2013), “Collaborative problem–solution co-evolution in creative design”. Design Studies, Vol. 34, No. 5, pp. 515–542.Google Scholar