Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T13:43:40.415Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Communicating actionable user research for human-centered design

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 April 2013

Celeste Roschuni ,
Elizabeth Goodman  and
Alice M. Agogino
Celeste Roschuni*
Affiliation:
Berkeley Institute of Design & Mechanical Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, California, USA
Elizabeth Goodman
Affiliation:
School of Information, University of California, Berkeley, California, USA
Alice M. Agogino
Affiliation:
Mechanical Engineering Department, University of California, Berkeley, California, USA
*
Reprint requests to: Celeste Roschuni, 1865 Euclid Ave No. 27, Berkeley, CA 94709, USA. E-mail: celery@berkeley.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In human-centered design, user research drives design decisions by providing an understanding of end users. In practice, different people, teams, or even companies manage each step of the design process, making communication of user research results a critical activity. Based on an empirical study of current methods used by experts, this paper presents strategies for effectively communicating user research findings across organizational or corporate boundaries. To build researcher–client relationships, understand both user and client needs, and overcome institutional inertia, this paper proposes viewing user research clients as users of user research outcomes. This reframing of the crafting of communication across boundaries as a parallel internal human-centered design process we refer to as a double ethnography.

Keywords

Design CommunicationHuman-Centered DesignNew Product DevelopmentUser Research
Type
Special Issue Articles
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 27 , Issue 2: Studying and Supporting Design Communication , May 2013 , pp. 143 - 154
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Baecker, D. (2001). Why systems? Theory Culture & Society 18(1), 59–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartel, C., & Garud, R. (2009). The role of narratives in sustaining organizational innovation. Organization Science 20(1), 107–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beyer, H., & Holtzblatt, K. (1997). Contextual Design: Defining Customer-Centered Systems. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Bucciarelli, L. (1996). Designing Engineers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Carlile, P.R. (2002). A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: boundary objects in new product development. Organization Science 13(4), 442–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crilly, N., Maier, A., & Clarkson, J.P. (2008). Representing artefacts as media: modelling the relationship between designer intent and consumer experience. International Journal of Design 2(3), 15–27.Google Scholar
Dougherty, D. (1992). Interpretive barriers to successful product innovation in large firms. Organization Science 3(2), 179–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dym, C.L., Agogino, A.M., Eris, O., Frey, D.D., & Leifer, L.J. (2005). Engineering design thinking, teaching and learning. Journal of Engineering Education 94(1), 103–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ericson, K.A. (1993). Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faste, R.A. (1987). Perceiving Needs. Technical report. Washington, DC: Society of Automotive Engineers.Google Scholar
Frascara, J. (2004). Communication Design: Principles, Methods, and Practice. New York: Skyhorse Publishing.Google Scholar
Freeman, C., Robertson, A.B., Achilladelis, B.G., & Jervis, P. (1972). Success and failure in industrial innovation (Report on Project SAPPHO by the Science Policy Research Unit). London: University of Sussex, Center for the Study of Industrial Innovation.Google Scholar
Gasson, S. (2003). Human-centered vs. user-centered approaches to information system design. Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application 5(2), 29–46.Google Scholar
Gratton, L., & Erickson, T.J. (2007). 8 ways to build collaborative teams. Harvard Business Review 85(11), 100–109.Google ScholarPubMed
Hargadon, A. (2002). Brokering knowledge: linking learning and innovation. Research in Organizational Behavior 24, 41–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heath, C., & Heath, D. (2008). Made to Stick: Why Some Ideas Survive and Others Die. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Henderson, K. (1991). Flexible sketches and inflexible databases: visual communication, conscription devices, and boundary objects in design engineering. Science, Technology & Human Values 16(4), 448–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henderson, M.R. (1993). Representing functionality and design intent in product models. Proc. 2nd ACM Solid Modeling 1993, Montreal.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hey, J., Yu, J., & Agogino, A.M. (2008). Design team framing: paths and principles. Proc. ASME 2008 Int. Design Engineering Technical Conf., New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lai, J., Honda, T., & Yang, M.C. (2010). A study of the role of user-centered design methods in design team projects. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design and Manufacturing 24(3), 303–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madique, M.A., & Zirger, B.J. (1984). A study of success and failure in product innovation: the case of the U.S. electronics industry. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 31(4), 192–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maier, A.M., Dönmez, D., Hepperle, C., Matthias, K., Lindemann, U., & Clarkson, P.J. (2011). Improving communication in design: recommendations from the literature. Proc. 18th Int. Conf. Engineering Design (ICED '11), Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Maier, A.M., Eckert, C.M., & Clarkson, P.J. (2005). A meta-model for communication in engineering design. CoDesign 1(4), 243–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maier, A.M., Kreimeyer, M., Hepperle, C., Eckert, C.M., Lindemann, U., & Clarkson, P.J. (2008). Exploration of correlations between factors influencing communication in complex product development. Concurrent Engineering 16(1), 37–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, M.J.C. (1994). Managing Innovation and Entrepreneurship in Technology-Based Firms. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Nafus, D., & Anderson, K. (2009). Writing on walls: the materiality of social memory in corporate research. In Ethnography and the Corporate Encounter: Reflections on Research in and of Corporations (Cefkin, M., Ed.). New York: Berghahn Books.Google Scholar
Newman, C., & Lieu, D.K. (2005). Comprehension scaffolding for multimedia: structuring technical animations for learning. ASEE/EDGD Proc. Mid-Year Meeting.Google Scholar
Raven, M.E., & Flanders, A. (1996). Using contextual inquiry to learn about your audiences. SIGDOC Asterisk Journal of Computer Documentation 20(1), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanders, L. (2008). On modeling: an evolving map of design practice and design research. Interactions 15(6), 13–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schein, E.H. (2004). Organizational Culture and Leadership (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Wiley.Google Scholar
Schön, D.A. (1994). Frame Reflection. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Shannon, C.E., & Weaver, W. (1949). The Mathematical Theory of Communication. Springfield, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Sole, D., & Wilson, D. (2002). Storytelling in organizations: the power and traps of using stories to share knowledge in organizations. Boston: LILA, Harvard Graduate School of Education. Accessed at http://lila.pz.harvard.edu/_upload/lib/ACF14F3.pdfGoogle Scholar
Star, S.L., & Griesmer, J.R. (1989). Institutional ecology, “translations,” and coherence: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–1939. Social Studies of Science 19, 387–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stompff, G., Henze, L.A.R., de Jong, F., van Vliembergen, E., Stappers, P.J., Smulders, F.E.H.M., & Buijs, J.A. (2011). User-centered design in the wild. Proc. 18th Int. Conf. Engineering Design (ICED '11), Copenhagen, Denmark.Google Scholar
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory (2nd ed.). London: Sage.Google Scholar
Suchman, L. (1987). Plans and Situated Action. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Visser, F.S. (2009). Bringing the everyday life of people into design. PhD Thesis. Delft University of Technology.Google Scholar