Prototyping was used as a methodological approach. It was also used as a way to engage in dialogue about things that could be different, but in a ‘non-permanent’ way. As ideas and solutions were pitched as prototypes and therefore not permanent, they were less threatening in a context more resistant to change. Attempts to ‘think and do things differently’ using more traditional healthcare approaches were constrained by the traditional processes and systems that rejected them (when evaluating them using traditional ways of thinking). Prototypes helped people explore different ideas while minimising the ‘risk-taking’ that could affect individuals or organisations.  

Framing processes and activities as prototypes meant learning was fast, and methods could be ‘tweaked’ in response to the needs of busy people and changing environments and situations. Prototyping was a visual, creative and transparent way of engaging. It helped make thinking visible and accessible to all those involved in processes, lowering hierarchies and shifting the balance of power. It helped make ‘design’ to be more inclusive, increased participation (projects were a series of short engagements or experiments) and was cost-effective.  

“Test quickly, learn quickly. Rough sketches weren’t taken seriously, yet too much development was seen as too final. Needed to be a journey together, rather than transactional.”

What was discovered that was expected?
It was found that prototyping worked well as a method to understand new contexts and ways to help think differently. What was learnt was able to be easily applied in many other situations and contexts. Design focussed events, such as symposia were critical to engage non-designers and increase buy in and advocacy of others groups, as well as an outlet for the communication of learning and new ideas. However the implication of new solutions was difficult and ran up against the more traditional processes.

"Projects were successful when teams were strong, open to new ways of thinking and doing, and travelled through a project together."

What was discovered that wasn't expected?
What was unexpected was that despite the interest in the creative space in the hospital, it was often difficult to draw in clinicians and the public. Staff, patients and whānau were perceived to be 'too busy' to visit or engage, the space and projects were not visible, or design wasn’t considered a priority. At the time, the potential of the opportunity wasn't fully understood locally but was respected globally.

"You don't know what you've got until it's gone."

How was this different to what was previously known?
What was learnt was how pioneering the opportunity was- to put a creative codesign space into a city hospital broke new ground for design. A key insight, was how important good relationships and alignment of purpose, values and culture, and expectations were, and also what these ‘looked like’ and how they were understood from the many different perspectives. This meant that for the project to be sustainable longer term, these needed to be closely watched and responded to and were as important as other factors (e.g., funding) that impacted the success of the project.

The findings of the research were shared via journal articles, conference presentations, informal tours, symposia, news and TV outlets, awards, digital and physical artefacts and social media with a range of different groups, including health, industry, design, academia, research, students, NGOs and research participants.

The project and the work that was generated led to the development of:

• New local and international relationships
• The Design for Health and Wellbeing Lab
• Good Health Design
• New models and frameworks to support universities and other organisations to serve communities better.
• New frameworks to help support students engaging in real-world projects

The research and the DHW Lab project that resulted from it informed how others approached and established design for health initiatives in New Zealand and internationally. This research, and the experiences of those involved, helped save others from having to start from scratch. It was a testament to the courage of the design team to embrace and share the results and their experiences honestly and take accountability for their role in the project's outcome. While it was expected that different groups and organisations would use the research to see potential in their own unique and specific way, the development of tools like 'initiate.collaborate' may help to make future projects more successful. The research helped legitimise design for healthcare workers, and design became attainable because it was made tangible.