Will be discussed in Part I Chapter

This part focusses primarily on the academic approach to the development of the solution. Research questions have been established that guided the analysis phase in which information was gathered to understand the context and to become able of developing a solution that is feasible. These research questions focussed on the Dutch healthcare system, colorectal cancer from both the individual and the societal perspective, the methodology necessary for the development of the solution, and how the solution can be implemented. After establishing research questions, it became clear that the goal of this research was in line with Design Science Research and that the solution must become a ‘generic design’, a design that is translatable to other contexts to become valuable for the academia. DSR has also been used to evaluate the solution and validate the results of this project. Additionally, this part also discussed the scope of this research, structured by the previously develop Capital Model. Generally speaking, the scope signifies the role of the author during this research project as a generalist: someone responsible for the system design of the solution and relation to the super-system context, not the person responsible for the actual measuring and communication technology. In other words, functions have been defined and placed in context, but how these functions will be executed is the responsibility of others. In addition, the author had to assume that the company was able of developing a system capable of measuring and analysing stool to such a degree that the designed business model (Part IV) is feasible. Even more so, the author was limited due to time and available opportunities to test the conceptual design ‘on paper’ in the real world through prototyping. Therefore, in Part V, the validation can only be done theoretically.

Three methodologies have been considered to be used for the development of the system. However, neither of these fulfilled the established criteria or were feasible, and so, another methodology had to be developed. The developed methodology is a combination of the declined methodologies infused with the capital model. The methodology combines stages from the stage-gate approach with the user- centric vision of UCD. The model follows a stage-gated approach whereby the idea is ‘freezed’ before the solution can be designed, and the solution is ‘freezed’ before the implementation can be developed. This is due to practical reasons. As figuring out how something can be implemented in the real world can only be done when the thing that must be implemented is clear and fully established. However, as in most design trajectories, the development is a cycle rather than a clear cut route. Even though this model suggests that the development of the solution and implementation followed a linear path, in reality these divisions are much more vague and undetermined. To illustrate this, feedback loops have been added to the methodology that show that even during the design of the implementation, the solution is susceptible for change. Through the development of the methodology, it became possible to design and validate.

A. Simon, H. (1996). The Sciences of the Artificial, 3rd Edition.

Andreasen, M. M., & Hein, L. (1987). Integrated product development. Bedford: IFS (Publications.

Antioco, M. R., Moenaert, K., Lindgreen, A., Wetzels, M. (2008), Organizational Antecedents and Consequences of Service Business Orientations in Manufacturing Companies. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36 (3), 337–58.

Brown T. (2008), Design Thinking. Harvard business review, 86(6), 84-92, 141.

Cooper, R. G., et al. (1986). Winning at New Products. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 3(4), 307-308.

Fornell, C., Rust, R., Dekimpe, M. (2010), The Effect of Customer Satisfaction on Consumer Spending Growth. Journal of Marketing Research, 41 (February), 28–35.

Gordon, W. J. J. (1961). Synectics: The development of creative capacity. New York: Harper.

Hagedorn, T. J., et al. (2016). An information model to support user-centered design of medical devices. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 62, 181-194.

Hedström, O., Ylikoski, P. (2010). Causal mechanisms in the social sciences. Annual Review of Sociology, 36, 49-67. Hybs, I. and J. S. Gero (1992). An evolutionary process model of design. Design Studies, 13(3), 273-290.

Kaplan, A. V., et al. (2004). Medical device development: from prototype to regulatory approval. Circulation, 109(25), 3068-3072. Neu, W., and Brown, S. W. (2008). Manufacturers Forming Successful Complex Business Services. International Journal of Service

Industry Management, 19 (2), 232–51.

Norman, D. A. and S. W. Draper (1986). User Centered System Design; New Perspectives on Human-Computer Interaction, L. Erlbaum Associates Inc.

Osborn, A. F. (1963) Applied Imagination: Principles and Procedures of Creative Thinking. New York: Scribner.

Osterwalder, A., & Pigneur, Y. (2010). Business model generation: A handbook for visionaries, game changers, and challengers. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley

Pahl, G. and Beitz, W. (2007) Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach, Springer, Berlin

Pajunen, K. (2008). The nature of organizational mechanisms. Organization Studies, 29(11), 1449-1468. Paton, B & Dorst, K (2011). Briefing and reframing: A situated practice.

Pelz, D. S. (1978). Some expanded perspectives on the use of social science in public policy. In: Yinger, M., Cutler, S.J. (Eds.), Major Social Issues: A Multidisciplinary View. Free Press, New York, pp. 346-357.

Pietzsch, J. B., Shluzas, L. A., Paté-Cornell, M. E., Yock, P. G., & Linehan, J. H. (2009). Stage-gate process for the development of medical devices. Journal of Medical Devices, Transactions of the ASME, 3(2). https://doi.org/10.1115/1.3148836

Rahimi, N., & Ibarra, M.M. (2014). A review of multiple user center design methods for new product development in smart and connected health applications. Proceedings of PICMET ‘14 Conference: Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology; Infrastructure and Service Integration, 3498-3510.

Reymen, I., Hammer, D. K., Kroes, P. A., van Aken, J. E., van Aken, J. E., Dorst, C. H., ... Basten, T. (2006). A domain-independent descriptive design model and its application to structured reflection on design processes. Research in engineering design, 16(4), 147-173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-006-0011-9

Robert, G. C. (1990), Stage-gate systems: A new tool for managing new products, Business Horizons, 33, (3), 44-54

Rochford, L. and W. Rudelius (1997). New product development process: Stages and successes in the medical products industry. Industrial Marketing Management, 26(1), 67-84.

Sawhney, M., Balasubramanian, S., Krishnan, V. V. (2004), Creating Growth with Services. MIT Sloan Management Review, 45 (2), 34–43. Shankar, V., Berry, L. L., Dotzel, T. (2007), Creating and Managing Hybrid Innovations. Presentation at AMA Winter Educators’ Conference,

San Diego, CA (February 16–19).

Stark, N. (2001). Integrating Clinical Research Into the Product Development Cycle. MDDI, May 2001.

van Aken, J., Chandrasekaran, A., & Halman, J. (2016). Conducting and publishing design science research: Inaugural essay of the design science department of the Journal of Operations Management. Journal of operations management, 47-48, 1-8. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jom.2016.06.004

Vargo, S. L. and Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68 (January), 1–17. Wise, R. and P. Baumgartner (2000). Go downstream: The new profit imperative in manufacturing.

Wise, Richard and Peter Baumgartner (1999). Go Downstream: The New Profit Imperative in Manufacturing. Harvard Business Review, 77 (5), 133–41.

SOLUTION