Trans RINA, Vol 156, Part C1, Intl J Marine Design, Jan - Dec 2014
techniques are currently in common use in the product design industry. Analysis,
design and
There are development
however several challenges that
traditional UCD methods:
Gathering rich user insights - Traditional marketing tools do not always result in the desired level of user insights as, for instance, they focus on quantitative data rather than in-depth qualitative data.
Acquiring experts knowledge - When designing for professional use situations with which designers are not familiar the designer’s lack of practical experience needs to be compensated.
Early validation of user requirements - needs to validate concept directions with users, traditional usability testing takes place too late in the development process.
Obtaining a multi-perspective review - If users with a variety of roles are involved in the use of the same product, use situations can become complex.
The top segment in Figure 1, represents active user involvement and participatory design methods that have been
developed to address the aforementioned
challenges. Active user involvement methods have become more broadly applied in practice over the last ten years. Pioneers in this field, include design consultancy IDEO, who are well known for their design approach of user involvement in the analysis phase, and Philips, who employ the LivingLabs approach. [4]
Participatory design had initially been used for the design of software and organisational structures with the goal of representing the interests of workers in the design process. Recently it has been applied to civic participation,
healthcare design and architecture.
Compared to UCD and active user involvement techniques, the broad adoption of participatory design in industry has been moderate. As there is no homogenous community that can be represented, nor is there a clearly definable group of users to attend to [4].
The field of active user involvement has a number of methods addressing different parts of the spectrum, each with its own interpretation of active user involvement. The following characteristics can be used to differentiate between the
various methods: type of involved; number of stakeholders involved; evaluation
activities as part of these methods are mostly conducted by professionals for or together with users [4].
cannot be addressed
in product by
these
is to gain access to the user's tacit and practical knowledge [4.]
Active user involvement methods help end users express and analyse their current user interaction behaviour with products and the context, allowing them to conceptualise and reflect on future
use scenarios. Effective
communication is required in order for end users to share their tacit and practical knowledge with a design team effectively and efficiently. However, communication between users and a multidisciplinary design team is challenging for both sides. As designers and engineers are trained to communicate in a multidisciplinary environment, but users are not. Therefore, it is difficult for members of the design team to identify appropriate questions for prospective users and construct them so that the answers reveal useful design insights, as end users are generally not able to translate their current habits and routines into user requirements. It is therefore necessary to employ a range of tools and techniques to facilitate communication between end users and the design team. They are often practical and action oriented, encouraging participants to describe and explain their actions. Designers can subsequently use this information to improve the product. Physical mock-ups or virtual prototypes are often used to reduce the threshold for users to engage with the
tools. Generic Luras and Nordby [5] groups of
techniques include: task analysis; scenarios; virtual reality [4].
investigated the use of field
research in multidisciplinary design process of a bridge for an offshore service vessel. Over three years they investigated ten field studies carried by 12 designers and researchers as part of the Ulstein Bridge Concept (UBC) project (
http://designresearch.no/projects/ulstein-bridge- concept/). UBC is a design research project seeking to redefine current ship bridges on offshore service vessels including
deck layout, workplace design and user
interfaces. The project were carried out by a multidisciplinary team of researchers and designers from the fields of interaction, industrial, sound and graphic design, as well as experts in human factors and engineering.
stakeholders type of
relation between the stakeholder and the product; project activity in which stakeholders are involved. Involvement can be limited to a specific activity phase (analysis, design or testing), or applied throughout the project. Despite the variety of methods and their implementation in relation to the above characteristics, most of the methods and techniques share one common goal, which
Figure 2: Model for design-driven field research [5].
©2014: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects
C-3
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188