@article { author = {Udoewa, Victor}, title = {Five Modes and Nine Variations of Integration between HCD and Futures Design}, journal = {Journal of Design Thinking}, volume = {3}, number = {1}, pages = {73-92}, year = {2022}, publisher = {University of Tehran- Kish International Campus}, issn = {2645-3304}, eissn = {2717-1183}, doi = {10.22059/jdt.2022.349164.1084}, abstract = {Human-centered Design and Futures Design both offer different routes to alternative, new designs. Human-centered Design employs a need-based, problem-based, or deficit-based approach. Through the use of a shared, preferred future vision, Futures Design utilizes an asset-based approach, potentially leading to different, present-day design choices than a Human-centered Design process. Without knowing which methodology offers a preferred present-day design for the current needs of customers using existing services, designers may choose to integrate the two methodologies, gaining the benefits of both, a type of mixed-methods approach. Instead of mixed methods implying the combination of quantitative and qualitative methodologies, in this context, mixed methods means combining asset-based and need, problem, or deficit-based approaches. However, combining Human-centered Design and Futures Design can be confusing, especially with the multiple roles design can play in the Futures process (for example design futures versus Futures Design). I attempt to clarify how the methodologies can be integrated by sharing five modes and nine variations of integration along with their relative advantages and disadvantages.}, keywords = {Human-centered Design,futures design,Service design,Integration,Design Thinking}, url = {https://jdt.ut.ac.ir/article_90263.html}, eprint = {https://jdt.ut.ac.ir/article_90263_9011bf1aaf2e48d44418f21d68199fb3.pdf} }