Design Thinking 2.0: examining perceptions & current practices in Design Thinking towards the development of an innovation framework

Design Thinking is recognised as a mind-set, a toolkit, a process, and a methodology, with debates over its definition and identity now widespread. As we continue to understand the impact of Design Thinking we can acknowledge opposing opinions on it, from a failed experiment to an enabler of innovation. It has been hailed as design’s greatest export, yet there is increasing disquiet amongst the design community regarding the misuse and dilution of Design Thinking leading to the devaluing of design as a skilled practice. This workshop will aim to engage participants in constructive debate and activities surrounding the application of design thinking, it’s positioning within design practice, and significance across non-design industries. By gaining a better understanding how Design Thinking is viewed, used, and evaluated, can we develop a more rigorous methodological framework for its application across a range of industries to ‘unlock’ innovation in answering complex issues

Where Does Design Thinking Leave Design? Snapshots of a conversation with the design community

Design Thinking has gained recognition as an acclaimed process for generating innovative, human centred solutions at a social and business level. It has also gained notoriety amongst many designers, who claim that its success as an exported element of the design process has resulted in its commodification, and led to it becoming a diluted series of processes that lack criticality. This article describes the findings from a conversation session held at DRS2018 which posed the question: HAVE WE REACHED PEAK DESIGN THINKING? Participants were asked to identify with a range of positions on the topic and were then given three questions to provide a constructive debate. The findings point to a lack of a clear distinction between design and Design Thinking, a lack of consensus as to whether a designer is required in the process and also a lack of agreement as to its benefits. In order to prevent a continued backlash against Design Thinking the findings point to the need for a framework that can outline the clear distinction between design and Design Thinking, whether the designers skills are required and the context and scale of a project that would require design or Design Thinking or both

Where does design thinking leave design? Snapshots of a conversation with the design community

peer-reviewedDesign Thinking has gained recognition as an acclaimed process for generating innovative, human centred solutions at a social and business level. It has also gained notoriety amongst many designers, who claim that its success as an exported element of the design process has resulted in its commodification, and led to it becoming a diluted series of processes that lack criticality. This article describes the findings from a conversation session held at DRS2018 which posed the question: Have we reached peak design thinking? Participants were asked to identify with a range of positions on the topic and were then given three questions to provide a constructive debate. The findings point to a lack of a clear distinction between design and Design Thinking, a lack of consensus as to whether a designer is required in the process and also a lack of agreement as to its benefits. In order to prevent a continued backlash against Design Thinking, the findings point to the need for a framework that can outline the clear distinction between design and Design Thinking, whether the designers skills are required and the context and scale of a project that would require design or Design Thinking or both

Intrinsic factors implicated in the sequence of diabetic ulceration : the potential role of core2 β1,6-N- acetylglucoseaminyltransferase (core2GlcNAcT-I) [core 2 transferase]

EThOS - Electronic Theses Online ServiceGBUnited Kingdo

Intrinsic factors implicated in the sequence of diabetic ulceration : the potential role of core2 B1,6-N-acetylglucoseaminyltransferase (core2GlcNAcT-I) (core 2 transferase)

Peripheral neuropathy is an insidious complication of diabetes mellitus with notable secondary events, such as vascular dysfunction and plantar ulceration. Traditional doctrine maintains that diabetic ulceration is a direct consequence of concurrent neuropathy and pressure. It was hypothesised that neuropathic ulceration is promoted by capillary occlusion, the resultant hypoxia leading to expeditious cell death. The Golgi enzyme, core 2 transferase, was implicated in this event, given its mediation of intercellular signalling and leukocyte / endothelial adhesion. Hence, an upregulation of this particular facilitator would increase leukocyte / endothelial binding and thereby, effect microcirculatory stasis and post-occlusion ischaemia. Type II diabetic study groups, with and without neuropathy (n=20), were canvassed and set against aged matched non-diabetic controls (n=5). All participants were subjected to anthropometric testing prior to venous blood sampling for the key marker, core 2 transferase. Additional blood chemistry and clinical testing (VPT and 10g monofilament) was further undertaken to demonstrate possible correlations with core 2 transferase upregulation. The outcome of this study identified that core 2 transferase was significantly elevated in both diabetic study groups, in comparison to control participants (p&lt;0.001). This trend was further continued, when comparing diabetic neuropathic individuals to both remaining groups (p&lt;0.001). Subsequent linear regression modelling identified three principal correlations with core 2 transferase over-expression: VPT, 10g monofilament and creatinine levels. Using each of the above correlations as independent co-variates, adjusted models identified a very robust Rsq of 0.911 (91% predictability) for VPT and creatinine, as clinical markers for core 2 transferase specificity. Consequently, these findings positively implicate core 2 transferase activity within a diabetic population and moreover, offer validated clinical tools to facilitate its early detection.</p

Diabetic foot screening:New technology versus 10g monofilament

The objective was to determine if new technology could provide feedback to the clinician when a 10 g force had been delivered. Using a novel electronic force sensor, clinical longevity and the potential for reduced force delivery were assessed under laboratory conditions. Subsequent inter- and intrareliability data were generated and compared with the existing World Health Organization clinical standard (10 g monofilament). A total of 20 subjects were trained in the use of the 10 g monofilament (Bailey Instruments, Salford Quays, UK) and prototype electronic force sensor (Exsensus, UK). A total of 2000 applications (n = 100 per subject) were administered to a calibrated target at a controlled rate, while time and force histories were captured on a digital storage oscilloscope and data recorder for statistical analysis. Engineering standards in accordance with the American Society for Testing and Materials were applied throughout the experiment. No significant differences in mean peak, median peak, interquartile range, and total range of pressure forces were observed for the electronic force sensor. Alternatively, significant differences for mean and median peak forces were present in the 10 g monofilament ( P &lt; .05 and P &lt; .01). Post hoc analysis further showed the monofilament to degrade significantly at ≤30 applications ( P = .013). Forces delivered by the electronic force sensor appear to be significantly less susceptible to mechanical variability than those provided by monofilaments, thus increasing longevity. Similarly, this new technology provides objective feedback as to when the device is functioning correctly and potentially negates the need for fiber rest periods. </jats:p

Social Sensing of Heatwaves

Heatwaves cause thousands of deaths every year, yet the social impacts of heat are poorly measured. Temperature alone is not sufficient to measure impacts and “heatwaves” are defined differently in different cities/countries. This study used data from the microblogging platform Twitter to detect different scales of response and varying attitudes to heatwaves within the United Kingdom (UK), the United States of America (US) and Australia. At the country scale, the volume of heat-related Twitter activity increased exponentially as temperature increased. The initial social reaction differed between countries, with a larger response to heatwaves elicited from the UK than from Australia, despite the comparatively milder conditions in the UK. Language analysis reveals that the UK user population typically responds with concern for individual wellbeing and discomfort, whereas Australian and US users typically focus on the environmental consequences. At the city scale, differing responses are seen in London, Sydney and New York on governmentally defined heatwave days; sentiment changes predictably in London and New York over a 24-h period, while sentiment is more constant in Sydney. This study shows that social media data can provide robust observations of public response to heat, suggesting that social sensing of heatwaves might be useful for preparedness and mitigation