Human Centered Design Innovation

Transcription

1 Human Centered Design Innovation Praima CHAYUTSAHAKIJ, Ph.D. Chulalongkorn University C/o Department of Industrial Design,School of Architecture,Bangkok10330 THAILAND, Abstract: User information is an important source of human centered design innovation. Through the investigation of forty-seven human centered case studies collected from leading design consulting firms, this study aims to establish the relationship between user research and design innovation, to identify the research characteristics and investigation models critical to each innovation situation, and to discuss where, why, and how the research and analysis should be done so that information is gathered efficiently and is available to the team at the right time in the multi-disciplinary design process. The investigation involves in-depth interviewing with design directors, project managers, design researchers, and designers from twenty-three leading design consulting firms. Each interview was recorded, transcribed, analyzed, scored and compared on non-continuous and semantic scales. The results reveal four major patterns of user research correlated with innovation situations that combine variations on technology and market. Distinct patterns of user research underpin design in each innovation situation. These can be identified according to investigation models and research characteristics. This study suggests new approaches to user research planning, an alternative mental model of design innovation, and a different way of describing user research in relation to design innovation. The investigation reveals how user research should be planned, conducted and tailored for each innovation situation. Key words: user research, human-centered design, innovation, design planning, design process 1. Introduction While a new idea is a thought about something new or unique, and making that idea real is an invention, innovation is an invention that has a socioeconomic effect; innovation changes the way people live [1]. User information is an important source of new product ideas (of what should be designed), which has the potential to redirect a company s technology capabilities toward an entirely revolutionary innovation. Having recognized the primary importance of understanding how people interact with design, many research methods are borrowed from the social sciences both to 1) understand, credibly explain and predict human behavior in the pre-design process [2] and 2) to measure how people perceive, understand, remember, and learn in the design evaluation process [3]. While understanding current human behaviors is a goal of social science research, design requires the application of such understanding, turning it into innovation. Thus, designers struggle with the methodological implications of conducting user research to support design. This study aims to better understand the relationship between user research and design innovation and to identify where, why, and how the research and analysis should be done so that information is gathered efficiently

2 and is available to the team at the right time in the multi-disciplinary design process. 2. Innovation The relationship between business growth and innovation is widely understood by executives today as has been written by a number of consultants and business scholars such as Richard Foster (1986), James M. Utterback (1994), Clayton Christensen (1997), and Richard Leifer (2000). These authors agree that incremental innovation can keep the company competitive with current platforms, but only radical innovation can provides a platform for the long term growth that corporate leaders seek [4,5,6,7]. Scholars have long distinguished between what Christensen (1997) calls sustaining and disruptive technological innovations, although not always in those words. For example, James March (1991) made a distinction between exploitation of existing technology and exploration of new technology [8]. Leifer (2000) places innovations into two categories: incremental and radical innovation. Along the same line in relation to design, John Heskett (1997) proposed four design innovation strategies to be decided by the organization in any given situation. The strategies include: no change, incremental detail change, radical redefinition of basic concepts, and fundamental innovation. According to Heskett, design projects usually begin with business objectives, which fall into one of the four innovative strategies, based on market situation, a company s willingness to spend and capability to innovate [9]. There has been no investigation establishing the relations between innovation and user research in design. As the objectives of this study is to understand how different types of user research are conducted and applied in each innovation situation. It is necessary to develop innovation classification in a way that is meaningful to this study. From literature review, observation, case studies, expert interview, and intensive analysis, the Design Innovation Model was developed as a framework to explain the relationship between user research and design innovation. The four quadrants of the Design Innovation Model represent four design innovation situations including: Situation I- New New Known Market Market Technology for New Market (NT-NM), Situation II- New Technology for Known Market (NT-KM), Situation III- Known New NT NT A-Usability Technology Technology for New Market (KT-NM) and Situation IV- Known NM KM Concern Technology for Known Market (KT-KM). Also through intense Known KT KT research, two major concerns of design innovation were found. The B-Symbolic Technology diagonal dot line on the Design Innovation Model separates two Concern NM KM major concerns: A-usability concern (above the dot line) and Figure 1: Design Innovation Model ( Praima Chayutsahakij, 2003) B-symbolic (or design language) concern (below the dot line). 3. User Research and Human Centered Design Key to innovative design is an understanding of the user. In the past, directions for design development were based on marketing research, which limits innovation to its evolutionary form. Because traditional marketing research builds upon opinions of current experience and already present technologies, it is generally unhelpful for design that is not tied to a familiar consumer paradigm. Recently, a few forward thinking companies started deriving their design directions from user research, which helps uncover unarticulated or emerging user needs. Within the history of user research in design, it has been classified according to information resources, human senses [10], research applicability [11], data gathering technique, user s participation technique, and investigation

3 model [12]. Later, Jay Melican (2000) proposed dimensions of user research classification including: analytical approach (conceptual vs. procedural), degree of abstraction (raw vs. abstract), degree of generalization (individual, social/organization, cultural), model of collection (observing, listening/discussing, participating), media of delivery (verbal, visual, tactile), and position of privilege (privileges the subject, privileges the researcher) [13]. Particularly for the classification of the investigation areas, Beyer and Holtzblatt (1998) proposed five investigation models including: flow model, sequence model, artifact model, cultural model, and physical model [14]. The five analytic models are also related to Spradley's (1980) nine major dimensions of social situation [15], Pena s (1969) framework for information gathering [16], Owen s (1989) Structured Planning [17], AEIOU framework for observation, which was developed by the Doblin Group, a consulting office in Chicago and Chayutsahakij s (2001) analysis matrix [18]. One of the objectives of this study is to understand how different types of user research are conducted and applied in each innovation situation. It is necessary to develop user research classification in a way that is meaningful to this study. Based on the previous approaches (discussed above) and expert interviews, two sets of semantic scales were developed in order to discuss research characteristics and investigation models critical to each innovation situation. The two semantic scales are 1). research characteristics and 2). Investigation models The Characteristics of User Research The research characteristics semantic is developed from Research Characteristics Semantic Scales Jay Melican s (2000) dimensions of user research pre-design during post-design 1 Phase of Application 2 Research Aim classification in combination with dimensions suggested generative evaluative 3 Research Structure open-ended prepared by Aldersey-Williams, Bound, and Coleman (1999), and 4 Analytic Perspective conceptual procedural 5 Generalization Sanders (1992) [13,11,12]. In addition, the scales related cultural social/group individual 6 Mode of Collection* 7 Media of Delivery* immerse observe listen participate to phase of application (the point in the design process that *non continuous scale experience tactile visual verbal the user research is used) and the research aim (generative vs. evaluative) are added as shown in figure 2. Figure 2: Research Characteristics Semantic The seven research characteristics investigated in this study are 1). phase of application (pre-design, during design, and post-design), 2).research aim (generative, evaluative), 3). research structure (open-ended, prepared), 4).analytic perspective (conceptual-procedural), 5). degree of generalization (cultural, social, individual), 6).mode of collection (immerse, observe, listen, participate), 7).media of delivery(experience, tactile, visual, verbal) 3.2 Investigation Models The Investigation Model Semantic used in the study is Investigation models Semantic Scales developed based on Beyer and Holtzblatt s (1998) five 1. Flow Model models of user-behavior analytic perspective, in 2. Activity Model 3. Sequence Model combination with other analytic approaches including 4. Ergonomics Model 5. Artifact Model Spradley's (1980) dimensions, Pena s (1969) framework 6. Physical Model for information gathering, AEIOU framework for 7. Cultural Model observation, and Chayutsahakij s (2001) analysis matrix [14,15,16,17,18]. Figure 3: Investigation Models Semantic The seven investigation models used in this study are 1).flow model, 2).activity model, 3).sequence model, 4).ergonomics model, 5).artifact model, 6).physical model, and 7).cultural model. Flow model takes into account the interaction between key stakeholders. It helps explain people s roles and helps define how people

4 communicate to get a job done. Activity model helps better understand recognizable patterns of activities people do in everyday life and/or around the design system. Sequence model helps better understand work task order over time and the steps people take for a purpose. Ergonomics model takes into account the physical, cognitive, social, organizational factors in order to makes design compatible with the users needs, abilities, and limitations. Artifact model explain how people create, use, and modify things for their purposes. Physical model helps better understand the physical context of the potential user and the product or service. The cultural model helps define expectations, desires, values, and the whole approach people take in their context. The essentialness of the investigation models are compared on the semantic scales ranging from not related on the left end, to related in the middle and to critical on the right end. 4. Research Methodology The understanding of user research and innovation relations comes primarily from in-depth analyses of 47 human centered case studies. During the field research, in-depth interviews were conducted with key individuals in 23 leading design research and consulting firms over a period of 3 months. The interviewees included design directors, project managers, design researchers and designers. The cases include consumer products, communication devices, web interfaces, furniture, hi-tech digital solutions, product platform strategy, and strategic design. The participants in this study were all intensely interested in finding ways to conduct and use user research effectively. All cases were self-reported as successful and favorites of the interviewees. Each interview was recorded and later transcribed. The interview data composed the information database from which findings were derived. Recognizing patterns of user research used in different innovation situations, the Design Innovation Model was developed as a framework to better understand the user research characteristics and investigation models critical to each situation. The characteristics of user research and the investigation models used in all the innovation situations are then compared on the semantic scales, and discussed regarding where, why, and how the research and analysis should be done so that information is gathered efficiently and is available to the team at the right time in the multi-disciplinary design process. 5. Results and Discussion From case studies, expert interview, and intensive analysis, mean scores are calculated for each characteristic of user research used in the four innovation situations (NT-NM, NT-KM, KT-NM, and KT-KM) and compared on the semantic scales in relation to phase of application, research aim, research structure, analytical perspective, degree of generalization, mode of collection, media of delivery (Figure 4). The mean scores for the investigation models are compared on the semantic scales in relation to flow model, activity model, sequence model, ergonomics model, artifact model, physical model, and cultural model (Figure 5). Semantic Scales pre-design during post-design generative evaluative open-ended prepared conceptual procedural cultural social/group individual immerse observe listen participate experience tactile visual verbal Research Characteristics 1 Phase of Application 2 Research Aim 3 Research Structure 4 Analytic Perspective 5 Generalization 6 Mode of Collection* 7 Media of Delivery* *non continuous scale NTNM NTKM KTNM KTKM-A KTKM-B Figure 4: Research Characteristics Comparison on Semantic Scales

5 Semantic Scales Investigation models 1. Flow Model 2. Activity Model 3. Sequence Model 4. Ergonomics Model 5. Artifact Model 6. Physical Model 7. Cultural Model NTNM NTKM KTNM KTKM-A KTKM-B Figure 5: Investigation Models Comparison on Semantic Scales The results reveal four major patterns of user research correlated with innovation situations that combine variations on technology and market. Distinct patterns of user research underpin design in each innovation situation. These can be identified according to investigation models and research characteristics. 5.1 User Research for New Technology-New Market Innovation (NT-NM) The critical objective of user research for NT-NM design innovation is to match the unarticulated needs of users with technological possibilities. User research is usually conducted as a pre-design service to support design decisions at the strategic level. Designers and design researchers apply user information in generating new project definition for a new context of use and/or new mission. In order to do so, it is essential to understand the users experience holistically by encompassing psychological, physiological, cultural and social forces. User research for NT-NM situation begins with questions developed based mainly on five investigation models:1) Flow model to investigate key stakeholders, who they are, what they do and how they interact with each other, in order to restructure the flow process and to create opportunities for new product functionality, 2) Activity model to better understand recognizable patterns of activities people do in everyday life and/or around the design system in order to restructure consumer segmentation, 3) Artifact model to better understand how people select, create, use, and modify things in order to identify hidden intents that might be undetected and unsupported previously, 4) Physical model to investigate the physical context of the potential user and the product or service in order to define both the constraints imposed by the physical environment and the structure people create within the constraints for their purposes. 5) Cultural model to better understand the common aspects of culture that pertain within and across user groups, and to define expectations, desires, values, and the whole approach people take in their context. For NT-NM design innovation, cultural model provides an in-depth understanding of potential user groups and the way to communicate to users. The NT-NM design innovation usually arises from holistic understanding about users through conceptual analytic perspective. Immersion and observation techniques provide the holistic understanding about users and holds the greatest potential benefit for addressing problems with new technological capacity that are not tied to a familiar consumer paradigm. It is critical that research is open enough to capture user s experience holistically, and put together the studies of many users associated with the same community to describe cultural norms. It is important to note that traditional participatory and interview techniques such as user-participatory design, focus group, and customer interviews are reported not useful for NT-NM innovation since users are so accustomed to current conditions and do not think to ask for a new solution even if they have real needs that could be addressed. User information for NT-NM innovation is presented both in verbal and diagrammatic formats mixed with visual media, including video or photographic imagery. In addition, user information is also delivered in the form or direct experience by engaging team members and clients in field study.

6 5.2 User Research for New Technology-Known Market Innovation (NT-KM) The critical objective of user research for NT-KM design innovation is to identify design scope and directions based on the emerging needs for new technology and/or functionality. Designers apply user information in generating new project definition what to design? and/or what kinds of components should be in the system? (for system design). User research for NT-KM innovation is conducted to increase understanding of the users in the market, uncover unmet needs useful for restructuring product processes and to help inform the direction of design iteratively in the late design process. User research begins with research questions developed based mainly on flow model and sequence model. Flow model is used to investigate key stakeholders in order to restructure the flow process and to create opportunities for new product functionality. Sequence model shows the detail structure of tasks that need to be supported, suppressed or replaced which helps identify the emerging needs for new technology and/or new functionality. In addition research questions are sometimes developed based on activity model and physical model. As NT-KM innovation deals with existing users in the market, the research supporting NT-KM innovation is focused on the activity around the design system rather than on the everyday-life activity level. Research supporting NT-KM innovation is usually semi-structured, asking a few open-ended questions such as why are you doing that? Or researchers may carry a list of questions to prompt the observation, for example, what problem is the user encountering? Most researchers develop an understanding of behaviors typical to a social group or an organizational group to which that individual belongs with a procedural analytic perspective. As designing a new class of product or service changes the way people live/perform in the market, and there is no existing product to use as a guideline. The direction of design needs to be developed through detailed understanding of the existing process/ activity in the prospective context in order to define the intent that people are trying to achieve. This is usually done by gathering data on people achieving their intent with current tools and looking at how people perform, interact with the tools, and whatever else is available to help them do what they need to do in order to identify problems. Similar to the NT-NM situation, traditional participatory and interview techniques are reported not useful to NT-KM innovation, while immersion and observation are usually employed as they hold the greatest potential benefit for addressing the problems with new technological capacity that is not tied to a familiar consumer paradigm. And the user information is usually presented in verbal and diagrammatic formats mixed with visual media, including video or photographic imagery. 5.3 User Research for Known Technology-New Market Innovation (KT-NM) The critical objective of user research for KT-NM design innovation is to identify design scope and directions based on the potential new market/ new context of use for the existing technology. Designers and design researchers apply user information generatively in decision-making about new context of use and new market, what is the potential new context of use?, who are the target users?, for what market?, what does the technology mean to them?, etc. User research plays an important role in the decision on re-branding and repositioning which are related to visual communication and design language to communicate the known technology to the new market. Searching for a new market, user research is used in combination with (or prior to) marketing research. User research for KT-NM situation begins with questions developed based on four investigation models: Activity Model, Artifact Model, Physical Model, and Cultural Model. User research for KT-NM innovation is open-ended and usually captures the user s experience and life styles. The important questions for use research in KT-NM situation include: What does the product, service or technology mean to users? What circumstances prompt people to use the product or service? Does the customer turn to the offering when and in the way the

7 company expected? If not, there may be an opportunity to explore. By interacting with the user s environment: how could the new technology product or service fit into the user s system? The research usually puts together the studies of many users associated with the same community to describe cultural norms with focus on a conceptual perspective. User research for KT-NM innovation provides both an in-depth understanding of how people behave, and also uncover the reason, the meaning, the emotion, and the motivation behind what people do. Research supporting KT-NM innovation is usually ethnographically oriented, aiming at understanding people in their natural social and cultural context by spending a significant amount of time with them. The user-participatory modes of data collection are also used, as the participants can refer to an existing product class as a foundation on which to formulate their opinions for KT-NM innovation. As KT-NM innovation emphasizes symbolic meaning aspects of design, user information is usually presented essentially in visual form and deliverables are enhanced with the inclusion of artifacts collected in the research process. 5.4 User Research for Known Technology-Known Market Innovation (KT-KM) User research for KT-KM innovation is usually done after the decision about the project definition what to design is made. Designers and design researchers only have opportunities to contribute in decision-making about new design criteria and/or new solution. However, user research for KT-KM innovation is not only conducted for post-design evaluation but is also used during the iterative design process, to set design goals with both utility and aesthetic/symbolic aspects. It is important to note that the two aspect of design goal are derived from different approaches with different inquiry bases. Thus, user research supporting 1) utility development and 2) design language development (where the concern is on symbolic meaning) are separately further discussed in and User Research for KT-KM Utility Development. User research for utility development provides direction for design criteria, with the goal to make the product and service more efficient. It provides directions for: what should the design do?, what are the problems to be eliminated?, how can the product or service be improved or made more effective?, in what way could it be better than the present or previous situation?. User research for KT-KM utility development begins with research questions developed based on sequence model, physical model and ergonomics model which helps deriving design direction compatible with the needs, abilities, and limitations of people. In addition, research questions are also developed based on cultural model and artifact model focusing on the existing objects used in the system. As research in this situation is conducted in order to identify problems to eliminate and the unmet need of users to be fulfilled by design, the research is usually done with a procedural perspective regarding user s actions, reactions, and interactions with a particular system or in a particular physical setting. Research techniques used for KT-KM utility development is usually a combination of ergonomic oriented research, empathetic design and user-participatory design. In addition, prototyping techniques are also used iteratively during design and for the evaluation of design solutions, in order for participants to better understand the design and formulate their opinions for utility development. As KT-KM innovation deals with a known product in the marketplace, competitive products are already established. User research is also done by gathering data on the basic practice of the market/ competitors, and using existing customer feedback channels to help set design scope and direction. User information for KT-KM innovation is presented in verbal and diagrammatic formats mixed with visual media. In the case of user participatory design, user data is also given in the form of tactile presentation, which involves the use of prototypes constructed by subjects. Prototyping is very useful to classify the concept of the new product or service for the design team, communicate the concept within and beyond the team, and

8 stimulate reaction among potential users User Research for KT-KM Design Language Development. User research for KT-KM innovation provides direction for design solution of how the design should look and feel?, what it should mean?, etc. In this situation, user information is applied in decision making on branding and brand identity in relation to the look and feel of the product, visual communication, packaging, retail environment, etc. It is critical that designers/ design researchers understand the intangible attributes of the product or service, and address influencers in the user s culture. Thus, research is conducted to focus on a conceptual perspective, concentrating on understanding users beliefs and attitudes toward a product, service, or situation in order to uncover the motivations and expectations behind the behaviors that users display. User research for KT-KM design language development begins with questions developed based mainly on four investigation models: Activity model, Artifact model, Physical model, and Cultural model to define expectations, desires, values, and the whole approach people take in their context. In addition, flow model are sometimes also investigated in order to better understand key stakeholders and to better communicate with them. User research for KT-KM design language development is usually semi-structured (is prepared and developed based on hypotheses for preference testing) and is ethnographically oriented. In addition, the user-participatory design techniques and prototyping techniques are also used iteratively during design and for the evaluation of design solutions, in order for participants to better understand the design and be able to formulate their opinions for design language development of how the design should look and feel. User information is usually presented essentially in visual form. Deliverables are also enhanced with the inclusion of artifacts collected in the research process. Prototyping is also a very useful data delivery technique to communicate within the design team and to stimulate reaction among potential users. 6. Conclusion The results reveal four major patterns of research correlated with innovation situations that combine variations on technology and market. This can be identified according to investigation models and research characteristics as shown briefly on Table 1. Table 1. User Research for different Innovation Situation Innovation NT-NM NT-KM KT-NM KT-KM Utility KT-KM Design Language Investigation models Flow Activity Physical Cultural Flow Sequence Activity Artifact Physical Cultural Sequence Ergonomic Physical model Activity Artifact Physical Cultural Phase of application Pre-design Pre-design During-design Pre-design During-design During-design Post-design During-design Post-design Research aim Generative Somewhat-generative Generative Evaluative Somewhat-generative Research Unstructured Semi-structured Unstructured Semi-structured Semi-structured Structure Analytic Somewhat Procedural Conceptual Procedural Conceptual perspective conceptual Generalization Cultural level Social level Cultural level Social level Social level Mode of collection Immerse Immerse Participate Media of delivery Tactile Experience Experience Tactile Experience

9 Findings of this study suggest new approaches to user research planning, an alternative mental model of design innovation and a different way of describing user research in relation to design innovation. Design Innovation Model (Figure 1) can be used by a multi-disciplinary team early in the design planning process. Once the decision on design innovation strategy (situation) is made and is communicated clearly to all team members, the findings about user research characteristics and investigation models can be used as a user research planning guideline for both individual innovation situations and across innovation situations. Acknowledgment I would like to thank Assoc.Prof. Sharon Poggenpohl (ID, IIT) and all of the leading design/consulting firms: Design Continuum, Fitch, FM, IDEO, Insight Product Development, Metaphase, Smart Design, Tenka Group, Cambridge Partner, Conifer Research, Eye Quilt, Dan Formosa, Design Consortium, Design Science, Design Research Associates, Sonic Rim, Cheskin Research, Doblin Group, Intel, Razorfish, Sapient, Scient, and SeeSpace. This work could not have been accomplished without their interest, cooperation and reflection. References 1. Williams A. Creativity, Invention & Innovation, Allen & Unwin, Australia, 14 (1999). 2. Karat J. User centered design: quality or quackery? Interactions, Vol.3, No.4, (July/August,1996). 3. Preece J. ed. A Guide to Usability, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA (1993). 4. Leifer R. ed. Radical Innovation, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA (2000). 5. Foster R. Innovation: the Attack s Advantage, Summit Books, New York (1986). 6. Utterback J.M. Mastering the Dynamics of innovation, Harvard Business School Press, MA (1994). 7. Christensen C. The Innovator s Dilemma, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA (1997). 8. March J. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science 2, No.1, (Feb 1991). 9. Heskett J. Design for profit. in D. Steenstra (ed.), Design for Profit Report: Proceeding Report of the Design for Profit Seminar held on 25 June 1997, at the Design Council in London, The University of Warwick Print Service, UK (1997). 10. Rubin A.I. and Elder J. Building for People: Behavioral Research Approaches and Directions, National Bureau of Standards, P.125, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C. (1980). 11. Aldersey-Willams H., Bound J. and Coleman R. eds. The Method Lab: User Research for Design, Royal College of Art, London (1999). 12. Sanders E. Converging perspectives: product development research for the 1990s. Design Management Journal, Vol. 3, No.4, pp (Fall 1992). 13. Melican J. Describing User-Centered Designing: How Design Teams Apply User Research Data in Creative Problem Solving, doctoral dissertation, Institute of Design-Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago (2000). 14. Beyer H. and Holtzblatt K. Contextual Design: Defining Customer-Centered Systems, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco (1998). 15. Spradley J.P. Participant Observation, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Inc., Orlando (1980). 16. Pena W.M. Problem Seeking: an Architectural Programming Primer, AIA, Houston (1987). 17. Owen C.L. Structured planning: a method for developing design concepts. CAD/CAM, Robotics and Factories of the Future, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Vol. 1, 3-9 (1989). 18. Chayutsahakij P. Value framing: Enhances design team s internal and external affective performance. Proceedings of the International Conference on Affective Human Factors Design, Asian Academic Press, London (2001). 19. Moore G.A. Crossing the Chasm: Marketing and Selling High-Tech Products to Mainstream Customers, Harperbusiness (1999).