Early user involvement in designing intelligent products and environments

Lottie Kuijt-Evers1, Marc Steen2,

1TNO Quality of Life, Hoofddorp, The Netherlands

2 TNO Information & Communication Technology,Delft, The Netherlands

Corresponding author:

Abstract:A literature review was conducted on user involvement in design. The focus of the review was on how researchers and designersattempt to cooperate with end-users, with the goal of making a better match with end-users’ needs and preferences. The main goal of the research was to get insight in which method or which practice would be most appropriate for whatkind of project. We identified six movements: participatory design, ethnographic fieldwork, lead-user approach, contextual design, co-designing, and empathic design. These movements differ on two major topics. Firstly, the focus on whose knowledge is leading(knowledge of researchers/designers or knowledge of end-users),and secondlywhich knowledge is privileged (knowledge about the present situation or about the future).A special focus is on the design of intelligent or smart work equipment; ambient intelligence in the working environment, as these are the products of tomorrow. Ambient intelligence involve integrating tiny microelectronic processors and sensors into every day objects in order to make them “smart”. Smart products can explore their environment, communicate with other smart products, and interact with humans.

How should potential end-users of these kinds of products be involved in the design process? A case study on the development of a smart office chair for call centre work illustrates a possible way of user involvement.

Key-words:

Human centered design, smart work equipment, ambient intelligence

1Introduction

Ergonomists are facing a new challenge. The development of new technologies give the opportunity to design smart or intelligent workplaces and work equipment which make use of ambient intelligence. Ambient intelligence involves integrating tiny microelectronic processors and sensors into every day objects in order to make them “smart”. Smart or intelligent products can explore their environment, communicate with other smart products, and interact with humans.

The hoverstop mouse is an example of a smart product which is used in a work situation (Kraker et al., 2008). This computer mouse, which looks like a regular one, is equipped with sensors. The Hoverstop mouse registrates if the workers’ hand is lying on the mouse or hovering above the mouse without performing any mouseclicks. This is an undesired behaviour as it causes unnecessary muscle tension. In that case, the mouse will start vibrating and the worker will release the mouse.

This example shows that smart products give ergonomists new possibilities to stimulate employees to work in a healthy, efficient and comfortable way. Ergonomists have the opportunity to direct these developments of ambient intelligence in such a way that it is not a threat for the employees, but a guide to help them to change their (unhealthy) behaviour and provide support during working tasks. This will not be an easy job as from technology and ICT developments in the past was seen that there seems to be a gap between the world of researchers and designers on the one side, and the world of end-users and customers on the other side (Muller 2002).

In order to make smart working equipment and environments that fit the end-users’ needs, we are interested in attempts which aim to bridge this gap. Human-centered design or user involvement refer to such attempts of researchers and designers interacting with the end-users constructively in their innovation projects. One of the main characteristics of human-centered design (HCD) can be defined asthe active involvement of usersfor a clear understanding of user and task requirements (ISO/IEC, 1999).

However, the problem is that there are many different methods for user involvement in the design process. This wide variety means that one must select a method (or a mix of methods) from this broad range. Unfortunately, information is lacking about which method or practice is most appropriate for which kind of project, or for which goal. Therefore, we performed a literature review in order to answer the question: Which methods or practicescan be applied for which kind of project, and for which goals?

Based on these descriptions, we indicate which we think is a good method to apply to designing ambient intelligence for work situations. A case study on the development of a smart office seat for a call centre will be presented to illustrate a possible way of (early) user involvement in designing smart working equipment.

2 User involvement in design

In our literature review, which has been extensively described in Steen et al. (2007), we aim to have a specific focus as well as to include a wide variety of methods/practices at the same time. We focused on methods/practices which occur in the early stages of product development stages. Furthermore, we tried to draw from a wide range of traditions, which is different from reviews which focus on one kind of method or practice. We drew from various reviews (Muller and Kuhn 1993; Kaulio 1998; Aldersey-Williams et al. 1999; Friedman and Kahn 2002; Muller 2002; Kujala 2003; Koskinen and Battarbee 2003; van Kleef et al. 2005; Spinuzzi 2005; Törpel 2005; Sanders 2006). From these and other papers, six main methods were selected: 1) participatory design, 2) ethnographic field work, 3) lead user approach, 4) contextual design, 5) co-design, and 6) empathic design. We can plot these HCD methods into a space, in order to provide an overview and to discuss the differences between these methods/practices. In this way we can get insight in which method can be used in which situation. The role of knowledge served as a base for this overview.

2.1 The role of knowledge

We propose to look at HCD through the lens of ‘knowledge’. With ‘knowledge’ we refer to a wide range of concepts: knowledge of end-users about their practice; knowledge of a researcher about some end-users’ practice; knowledge of a designer about technology; an end-user’s ideas for product improvementetcetera.We wish to raise two questions concerning the role of knowledge in HCD:

  • Whose knowledge is privileged? This question is about the roles of researchers/designers and of end-users. If end-users initiate a project, their knowledge is leading: end-usersmove -with their knowledge-towards research and design activities. Onthe other hand, if researchers/designers initiate a project, their knowledge is leading and steers the way they interact with end-users. One can envision a continuum of ‘pro active user involvement’ versus ‘reactive user involvement’ (Limonard and de Koning 2005).
  • Which knowledge is privileged? This question is about what kind of knowledge is the starting point for a project and about the role of this knowledge in the process of product design?A project can start with ideas about a current situation, often depicted as problematic, an ‘is’ situation (‘present socio-technical context of use’(Limonard and de Koning 2005). Or it may start with ideas about some future situation, often depicted as an opportunity, an ‘ought’ situation (‘future use of a technology in context’; ibidem).

2.2 Human Centered Design methods

In the next sections, we shortly describe six methods and practices with special attention to whose and which knowledge is privileged. We describe the methods as separateand stereotypical moves, but we are well aware that in reality these moves are often combined (instead of being separate), and that moves are adapted and performed differently in different settings (instead of being stereotypes). Following these descriptions the methods and practices are plotted in an overview (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Different human-centred design methods and practices

We draw a space along two dimensions. The horizontal dimension is about an emphasis on end-users’ knowledge and their move towards research and design activities versus an emphasis on researchers’ and designers’ knowledge and their move towards end-uses. The vertical dimension is about an emphasis on a current situation (‘is’) or on a problem versus an emphasis on a future situation (‘ought’) or on an opportunity. This vertical dimension also draws attention to three (underlying) values: 1) a move towards democracy and emancipation in participatory design and ethnographic fieldwork; 2) a move towards pragmatic and commercial application in the lead user approach and contextual design; and 3) a move towards creativity and inspiration in co-designing and empathic design. The argumentation of the location of the six methods within this overview is presented in next sections.

2.2.1 Participatory design

The move of participatory design (Schuler and Namioka 1993; Muller and Kuhn 1993) is of end-users towards, and into, the research and design process. Participatory designis about providing peoplea voice in the process of design, evaluation and implementation of a system which they will be using. In participatory design, end-users are treated as experts – often experts in doing some specific work – and it is attempted to bring their knowledgeand their skills into the development process. End-users’ knowledge about their current practice is privileged. The goal is to let end-usersand designers jointly create a tool with which the end-users can do their work better.

2.2.2 Ethnographic fieldwork

There is a tradition of conducting fieldwork – applied social science, inspiredby ethnography or ethnomethodology – in order to inform or inspire product development(Blomberg et al. 1993). The ethnographic move is about researchers and designers going ‘into the field’ – often to work places – to better understand people via observations and interviews. If we artificially isolate the ethnographic move from participatory design move, wesee researchers and designers who study end-users via observations and interviews. They gather knowledge about end-users and end-users’ current practice, and this knowledge – the researchers’ and designers’ understanding and representation of end-users – is privileged to the ethnographic move.

2.2.3 Contextual design

In contextual design(Beyer and Holzblatt 1998)the ethnographic move iscomplemented with a move into the design process. It is a techniqueto help researchers and designers observe people doing tasks in their natural context(often a work context)andthen to apply pragmatically their findings in the design of aproduct or system. In contextual design, knowledge about end-users is gathered by the project team members. This knowledge is then brought into the development process where it is transformed into product requirements. The technique’s explicit goal is to transform knowledge about a present situation into knowledge (specifications) about a future situation (with this new system).

2.2.4 Lead user approach

Many ideas for new products originate in the heads and hands of innovative end-users or ‘lead users’ (Von Hippel 1988; Von Hippel et al. 1999; Von Hippel 2005). Lead users experience a problem or need which they cannot fulfil with a current product and create innovative solutions, applications or modifications.In the lead user approach end-users’ knowledge and skills regarding some future product is privileged. The movement is of end-users bringing innovative knowledge, knowledge about a future situation, into the development process. An important difference with participatory design is that the lead user approach is oriented towards pragmatic and commercial goals (rather than towards democracy or emancipation).

2.2.5Empathic design

In empathic design, researchers and designers try to get closer to the life and work of end-users bytrying to empathise with them.There is a broad variety of techniques, which are often combined in one project, for example: observing (or ‘shadowing’) potential end-users or via role-playing parts of potential end-users’ lives (Iacucci et al. 2000; Iacucci and Kuutti 2002; Oulasvirta et al. 2003; Svanaes and Seland 2004). The researchers’ and designers’ knowledge – or better: experience – is privileged in empathic design. Empathic design is about attempts to find inspiration in the end-users’ practice and to fuel creativity by empathising with end-users. Since inspiration and creativity are key, we can say that knowledge – ideas – about some future product are privileged.

2.2.6 Co-designing

In co-designing(Sanders 2000; Sanders 2002)or co-creationpotential or future end-users are invited, together with researchers and designers, for all sorts of workshops, and they are provided with tools to jointly create. The focus is on jointly articulating ideas, on playing with concepts, on making and evaluating sketches, on jointly tinkering with mock-ups and prototypes. Knowledge of end-users and knowledge of researchers and designers are brought together, similar to participatory design, with the goal of creating knowledge about some future and desirable situation and products. Ideas about this future situation and this future product are privileged. Co-designing can be thought of as a mixture of participatory design and empathic design.

3 Case study: smart office chair

This case is part of a larger project in which a smart office chair is designed and evaluated. The smart office chair contains sensors and vibrating actuators. The sensors registrate the body posture of the person sitting on it, and can send vibration signals to the person if the person is sitting for a too long time in an (awkward) posture. The vibrating signals remind the person to change position or go for a walk, which is meant to help people to work in healthy and efficient way.

The question for this case was: “What would be valuable other functions of this technology in similar application domains?”In order to explore and articulate ideas for such new functions, people from a call centre were involved in the process.As we wanted to design a product for the future, two methods remained: co-design and empathic design. We choose for co-design as we wanted to use the knowledge of the end-users, rather than increasing our knowledge on their job. The reason for this is that the aim of the project was not to design a smart office chair especially for call centre agents. Therefore, we were interested in more possible applications and it was necessary to get the call agents out of their working environment, into a work shop.

The workshop (with three call-centre agents and two researchers/designers) was organised in three steps: 1) a physical and creative warming-up exercise; 2) an explanation of the current idea for the smart office chair; and 3) creatively and collectively generating ideas and creating mock-ups. The workshop started sitting in a circle without a table between the participants (looking back toa previous workshop, it occured that a table between the participants created a physical as well as social “distance” and it resulted in wait and see (Pals et al., 2008)). The facilitators explained the goal of the workshop to the participants. After that, the warming-up exercises (step 1) started. The participants and facilitators stood in a circle and did 1) a physical exercise of throwing an imaginary ball to each other and 2) a creative exercise of making a word string of words starting with the last letter of the previous word. During the second step, the facilitators explained the idea of the smart office chair and the possible application of it. The participants and facilitators openly discussed the idea of the smart office chair. Whenever someone articulated another idea, he/she was invited to act-out this idea through body language and making mock-ups, using materials like adhesive tape, pieces of plastic, robe, wires, cardboard etc. The ideas were noted down and summarized by the facilitators. In the third step, participants and facilitators build a mock-up, using the materials described before, to visualize the smart office chair of the future, which may be: a) a chair that measures an awkward sitting position, by measuring the distance between a person’s face and the computer screen in addition to sensors in the chair seat; b) a chair that automatically adjusts to the profile of the person, based recognition of the call-agent (a smart card, irisscan); c) a chair that senses the physical tension of the person sitting on it and can provide a relaxation massage via the actuators,and d) a chair that senses if customers are angry during difficult phone calls and provide a punchball to let of steam afterwards.

Conclusion

In this paper, we showed an overview of six methods of user involvement. We plotted them in an overview based on whose knowledge (end-users vs designers/researchers) and what knowledge (present vs future) is privileged. This overview can give ergonomists something to hold on when they have to chose an approach. We illustrated the use of this overview using it as a support in choosing the appropriate method to collect ideas for other applications of the smart office chair. However, the usability of this overview should be tested in far more case-studies in order to proof its value. Furthermore it is important to keep in mind that the success or failure of a project does not exclusively distinct of choosing the appropriate method. Even if the “appropriate” method is chosen, a project or workshop can fail or give different results than expected. One important reason for this is that user involvement is a social process, which includes politics and creativity (Pals et al., 2008). These social qualities must be taken into account in the way user involvement is organized, irrespective of the method that was chosen to involve end-users. It is not enough to set an agenda and invite people, one must also be aware of the social process and make a number of choices about topics that will influence this process. Examples of such topics are: the location of the workshop; the set up of the workshop (e.g. the agenda, the steps and the rules); the use of storytelling (e.g. about end-users’ practices or problems via photos or dramas); the use of games or exercises (e.g. to establish shared experiences during the workshop); and the use of visualizations, (like mock-ups or prototypes) of the product or service which is being developed (Muller 2002). However, when these social aspects are taken into account and the end-users are involved in an appropriate way, human centered design can contribute to the development of smart working equipment and environments in a valuable way.
References