Designers are increasingly involved in creative multi-stakeholder collaborations for social innovation, developing interventions to address complex societal challenges. Traditional impact measurement of social innovation often focuses on the measurable impact or value of the intervention on societal indicators. However, the complexity of creative multi-stakeholder collaborations requires a broader perspective on what is considered valuable beyond measurable societal impact. We studied the subjectively anticipated and experienced value of ten creative multi-stakeholder social innovation projects, as well as the value conflicts they generated. The most commonly reported value dimensions were innovation value, commercial value, network value, identity value, and learning value. Value conflicts arose from differences in how the innovation process was valued versus how the innovation outcome was valued. From a complexity perspective on social innovation, we argue that value assessments of creative multi-stakeholder collaborations should include additional value dimensions that support continuous social innovation. We discuss how network value and learning value are essential for continuous social innovation, and how these forms of value are captured both individually and collectively. The collective nature of value capture strengthens the argument that social innovation requires long-term commitment from design practitioners, extending beyond single design projects.

In this paper, we explore how resilience and wellbeing can integrate into, and improve design pedagogy. We establish 10 principles for designer resilience from workshops with students, educators and design practitioners. Each principle offers a platform to develop subsequent learning activities that remedy hollow didactic statements observed in education and research discourse (embrace complexity, navigate uncertainty and ambiguity). Future research will report on the results of integrating these principles and subsequent learning activities into a revised Master of Science design curriculum.

Public organizations are increasingly turning to design thinking to address wicked societal issues, enhance innovation, and improve services. However, in general, public organizations do not provide the most receptive context for design thinking. To be applied effectively, design thinking requires sufficient tolerance for uncertainty, capacity for risk-taking, receptiveness to new ideas, and flexibility to learn and adapt. Public organizations, instead, favor rationality, stability, and accountability, and are therefore generally characterized as rigid and risk-averse. Additional efforts are thus required to make way for design thinking within this context. Until now, research on strategies to support the application of design thinking in a public sector context is limited. In this paper, 14 design thinking projects in the public sector were analyzed to identify these strategies, resulting in a practical framework of strategic actions to build confidence, form an alliance, generate support, enhance compatibility, and thereby enable design thinking in the public sector. Accordingly, this study contributes to the theory and practice of design thinking for public issues.

Service design is increasingly seen as a means to enable systemic change in complex contexts. The contexts in which services are co-produced—the social group, network, service organisation, or ecosystem—can be considered complex social systems. A characteristic of complex social systems is that new system behaviour emerges through a mechanism called self-organisation. Self-organisation shows how human relationships are at the core of social systemic change. Such systemic changes are reflected in system behaviour such as adaptation, mutual learning, and collective creativity and motivation. As service design is in essence about human relationships, it becomes relevant to ask how we can design for human relationships to positively enable social systemic change? In this paper, I argue that expert design reasoning is an important source in designing conditions that enable positive human relationships, and that this design reasoning can be expanded to work towards a design rationale for systemic change by building on theories of complex social systems. I illustrate this perspective with the reasoning of service designers in two cases, who used their insights to design for human relationships. I conclude with a discussion of the implications for service design practice and service design education.

The benefits of student–staff partnerships are widely reported in the Students-as-Partners literature. It is envisaged that partnership initiatives can have a transformative effect on institutional cultures, however, how this transformation might be achieved is less clear. Building on transdisciplinary and systems change perspectives, we propose a Partnership Outcome Spaces framework to develop an understanding of how student–staff partnerships might influence institutional cultures. We identify four outcome spaces: situation, knowledge, learning and relationships, with reflexivity and a structured partnership methodology as key enablers of these outcomes. This framework is applied to a case study examining a Student Services Hub project in one Australian university. Through this analysis, the importance of less tangible and relational outcomes arising from student–staff partnerships are highlighted. To influence institutional culture change, we encourage student–staff partnership practitioners to purposefully negotiate the various possible outcomes of their initiatives as an integral part of the partnership process.

Complex societal challenges cannot be resolved with quick fixes, nor can they be successfully addressed from disciplinary or institutional silos. In this article we propose an innovative approach to tackling contemporary societal challenges based on complexity theory and transdisciplinarity. The lens of complexity reveals that such challenges emerge within complex contexts. Complex challenges cannot simply be resolved, due to their dynamic, non-linear nature. Instead, the complex context itself can be steered in a certain desired direction through iterative action and learning cycles. Transdisciplinary approaches help us understand how different perspectives and ways of knowing held by relevant actors can be combined to serve effective action in complex contexts. We have integrated complexity theory and transdisciplinarity to create a co-evolutionary model of innovation illustrating that who we work with, how we work, and what we learn and create co-evolve over time. We show how an innovation approach based on building a vision and including a reflexive social learning method can provide a guiding structure to this co-evolutionary process. We illustrate this approach with a case study focused on improving the well-being of staff and students at a university. We conclude the paper with implications for design.

This article presents empirical findings and recommendations from a survey of 100 industrial design engineering students from the Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering at Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands. The article adopts a self-deterministic motivation lens to present findings from a qualitative survey (N=100 respondents) and two member check workshops with design students and educators regarding motivations to study during COVID-19 restrictions. We identify that COVID-19 lockdown measures compromise three psychological prerequisites for motivation: ‘relatedness’, ‘autonomy’ and ‘competency’. We find that resilient students who have a sense of ‘purpose’ remain highly motivated. The article reveals creative approaches students are applying to build and sustain motivation during the COVID-19 pandemic. The article contributes recommendations for educators and administrators to promote student motivation in pandemic and post-pandemic higher education. This article contributes novel insights regarding how students in particular are remaining motivated to study during COVID-19.

Moving into the social and public sector, service design is becoming both more complex and more participatory. This is reflected in the greater diversity and interrelatedness of stakeholders and the wicked problems being addressed. However, although many service designers working in the social and public domains bring into their design practice the intention to make design more participatory and equitable, they may lack an in-depth understanding of power, privilege, and the social structures (norms, roles, rules, assumptions, and beliefs) that uphold structural inequality. In this paper we present findings from seven interviews with service designers to investigate the challenges they face when addressing power issues in design, and their experiences of how power shows up in their design process. By drawing from understandings of power in social theory, as well as the interviewees’ perspectives on how power manifests in design practice, we outline a framework for power literacy in service design. The framework comprises five forms of power found in design practice: privilege, access power, goal power, role power, and rule power. We conclude by suggesting that service design practices that make use of reflexivity to develop power literacy may contribute to more socially just, decolonial, and democratic design practices.

Positive student wellbeing is intrinsically connected to positive learning outcomes. Students learn more when they feel well, and the way we shape education influences the way students feel. The COVID-19 crisis has forced us to radically change our design education and is having a large impact on student wellbeing and learning. While some students manage well to adapt to the new circumstances, others struggle and face challenges such as risk of burnout, lack of motivation, and social isolation. In this paper we describe how we approached this challenge by applying methods and principles from strategic human-centred design and systems thinking. The strategic design approach included researching values and patterns in student and staff experiences. The systems approach meant that we saw the university as a complex adaptive system, which focused our activities on connecting staff and students who were and are running multiple creative experiments to promote student wellbeing. This approach is strategic because it supports continuous design and implementation of initiatives to promote wellbeing. While this is work in progress, we here present a number of design principles that we developed through this work that enable future designs that promote student wellbeing in (pandemic) higher education.

In recent decades, design has expanded from a practice aimed at designing things to one that helps to address complex societal challenges. In this context, a field of practice called systemic design has emerged, which combines elements of systems thinking with elements of design. We use a case study approach to investigate how expert practitioners carry out systemic design work in the context of public and social innovation, and explore what we can learn from their practices and design rationales when we compare them to systems thinking theories and approaches. Based on findings from five case studies, we present five systemic design principles: 1) opening up and acknowledging the interrelatedness of problems; 2) developing empathy with the system; 3) strengthening human relationships to enable creativity and learning; 4) influencing mental models to enable change; and 5) adopting an evolutionary design approach to desired systemic change. One way that scholars can contribute to this field is by continuing to monitor and describe emerging systemic design principles developed and performed at the forefront of the field, strengthening these learnings by building on the body of knowledge about systems thinking and design.