User expectations regarding new products and services are evolving rapidly, forcing innovative organizations to explore new avenues for innovation, combining products and services. This paper focuses on the integrative design of product–service systems (PSSs) and builds on the servitization and service-based innovation literature. Many tools have been proposed for designing integrated PSS, with the intent to generate economic and/or sustainable impact. In this article, we focus on tools being used for bringing the user experience and intangibles in the design process. Although the literature is rich with tools and methods to optimize the PSS design process, it does not consider the full array of methods and their impact. This lack of research attention might hinder organizations developing PSS. Using in-depth interviews, this qualitative research systematically combines the extant conceptual literature on PSS design tools and processes with expert insights, thereby contextualizing how to lower thresholds in PSS design processes and how to increase the effectiveness of PSS design tools. The paper contributes to the literature on servitization and PSS by explicitly identifying twenty-one preconditions that support the PSS design process while integrating product and service innovation in close relation to the end-user.

The field of design practice and design education is reaching out to address problems that cannot be solved by introducing a single product or service. Complex societal problems such as gender inequality cannot be solved using a traditional problem-solving oriented design approach. The specific characteristics of these problems require new ways of dealing with the dynamics, scale and complexity of the problem. Systemic design is a design approach integrating systems thinking in combination with more traditional design methodologies, addressing complex and systemic problems. This paper reports a systemic design approach in an educational context for the case of academic gender inequality. We show the way the problem was addressed and how design students were invited to take a systemic perspective, provide integrated interventions and take first steps in providing instruments for implementation. We conclude with the learnings from this case study, both on the process and the results.

Controversies are an inseparable part of social systems which, if constructed properly, can create a unique condition for higher-order learning. In addition, design inquiry, as a process of thought and planning, is also a constructive process. This provokes the question of how to construct controversies from a designerly perspective in order to steer higher-order learning. This paper presents a theoretical contribution to the field of social system design by providing the first insights into design intervention to facilitate a network of allied construction. Through a systematic review of the concept of conflict and disagreement, the link between controversies and knowledge transmission is examined in order to highlight the benefit of controversies in a constructive way. Next to that, the essential steps for constructing a network of allies are proposed. These steps are compared with specific aspects of design in order to unfold the advantages of design for network construction. Finally, the paper wraps up with concluding remarks about the necessity of having a bridging step from theory to action in order to facilitate the construction of controversies in a real-life context.

Transformability is one of the essential attributes of social systems. To improve transformability, one should create the preconditions for strategic intervention on the underlying social structures. This paper proposes a design-driven conflict (DDC) methodology in response to the limitation of the systemic design approach by aggregating a network of allies essential for the paradigmatic shifts. The proposed methodology has more strategic implications. It starts with unfolding the actors and shared resources (phase one context mapping). It continues with defining the power relations between them, drivers, and spillovers that cause conflicts and disagreements (phase two analysis). After this, it shows how one can synthesize the commonalities and the core narratives of actors in the form of boundary objects (phase three synthesis). By using the existing narratives and the commonalities between actors as inputs for the translation phase, DDC creates the preconditions for a network of allies construction. Next, the methodology uses translation as a method, in relation to the four moments of a ‘sociology of translation’, problematization, interessement, enrolment, and mobilization, in order to gradually change the learning paradigm of the system. In the scaling-up phase (phase five), DDC proposes ways of creating a narrative platform, shedding light on how to mobilize the results of translation from the community level onto a broader social scale. The framework for the design methodology has been evaluated based on a method content analysis and by a group of experts from diverse backgrounds and disciplines. The results show, except for the efficiency of the method, which requires additional investigation in a real-life context, the efficacy and effectiveness of the method have been elaborated in a sufficient way.

This study investigates the application of Design-Driven Conflicts (DDC), a systemic design method, to foster cooperation and action between conflicting actors during periods of unrest. Using narrative simulation, the research explores how the DDC method—comprising five dialogic processes and steps—can shift the mindsets of opposing agents from rivalry to collaboration and promote a culture of creativity essential for the continuity of social innovation. Over the course of five collaborative sessions, our findings indicate that the DDC method significantly enhanced the quality of engagement, improved the level of dialogue, and stimulated reflective practices, ultimately leading to the frame innovation. The results suggest that DDC is a valuable design method for community-level engagement and crisis response, with practical implications for design institutions, policymakers, and practitioners working at various organizational levels to address complex societal challenges. Future research should focus on testing the method’s applicability in real-world settings to assess its broader impact and implications in diverse crisis situations.