Early user involvement in designing intelligent products and
environments
Lottie Kuijt-Evers 1, Marc Steen 2,
TNO Quality of Life, Hoofddorp, The Netherlands
2
TNO Information & Communication Technology, Delft, The Netherlands
1
Corresponding author: Lottie.Kuijt@tno.nl
Abstract: A literature review was conducted on user involvement in design. The focus
of the review was on how researchers and designers attempt to cooperate with endusers, 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 what kind of project. We identified six movements:
participatory design, ethnographic fieldwork, lead-user approach, contextual design, codesigning, 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 secondly which 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
1
1 Introduction
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 mouse clicks. 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 endusers constructively in their innovation projects. One of the main characteristics of humancentered design (HCD) can be defined as the active involvement of users for 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 practices can
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)
2
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 enduser’s ideas for product improvement etcetera. 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-users move -with their knowledge- towards research and design activities. On the
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 separate and
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).
Current situation
End-users knowledge privileged
Researchers/designers knowledge privileged
Participatory design
Ethnographic field work
Lead user approach
Contextual design
Co-design
Empathic design
Future situation
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
3
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 design is about
providing people a 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 knowledge and their
skills into the development process. End-users’ knowledge about their current practice is
privileged. The goal is to let end-users and designers jointly create a tool with which the endusers can do their work better.
2.2.2 Ethnographic fieldwork
There is a tradition of conducting fieldwork – applied social science, inspired by 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, we see 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 is complemented
with a move into the design process. It is a technique to help researchers and designers
observe people doing tasks in their natural context (often a work context) and then to apply
pragmatically their findings in the design of a product 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).
4
2.2.5 Empathic design
In empathic design, researchers and designers try to get closer to the life and work of endusers by trying 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-creation potential 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 to a 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
5
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 callagent (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 casestudies 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 endusers’ 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 mockups 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.
6
References
Aldersey-Williams, Hugh, John Bound, and Roger Coleman (1999), "The methods lab: User research for
design," in Presence: New media for older people, Kay Hofmeester and Esther De Charon de Saint
Germain, eds. Amsterdam: Netherlands Design Institute, 121-64.
Beyer, Hugh and Karen Holzblatt (1998), Contextual design: Defining customer-centred systems. San Fransisco:
Morgan Kaufmann.
Blomberg, J, J Giacomi, A Mosher, and P Swenton-Hall (1993), "Ethnographic field methods and their relation
to design," in Participatory design: Principles and practices, Douglas Schuler and Aki Namioka, eds.
Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum, 123-55.
De Kraker, Heleen, De Korte, Elsbeth M., Van Mil Ferry, L.K., Rijs, Bartjan P., Bongers, Paulien M. (2008),
"the effect of a feedback signal in a computer mouse on hovering behaviour, productivity, comfort and
usability in a field study," Ergonomics 51(2): 140-155.
Friedman, Batya and Peter Kahn (2002), "Human values, ethics, and design," in The human-computer
interaction handbook: fundamentals, evolving technologies and emerging applications, Julie Jacko and
Andrew Sears, eds. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1177-201.
Iacucci, Guilo and Kari Kuutti (2002), "Everyday Life as a Stage in Creating and Performing Scenarios for
Wireless Devices," Personal Ubiquitous Comput., 6(4), 299-306.
Iacucci, Guilo, Kari Kuutti, and Mervi Ranta (2000), "On the move with a magic thing: role playing in concept
design of mobile services and devices," New York City, New York, United States: ACM Press, 193202.
ISO/IEC (1999), "ISO 13407: Human-Centred Design Processes for Interactive Systems," ISO/IEC.
Kaulio, Matti A. (1998), "Customer, consumer and user involvement in product development: A framework and
a review of selected methods," Total Quality Management, 9(1), 141-50.
Koskinen, Ilpo and Katja Battarbee (2003), "Introduction to user experience and empathic design," in Empathic
design: User experience in product design, Ilpo Koskinen, Katja Battarbee, and Tuuli Mattelmäki, eds.
Helsinki: IT Press, 37-50.
Kujala, Sari (2003), "User involvement: a review of the benefits and challenges," Behaviour and Information
Technology, 22(1), 1-17.
Limonard, Sander and Nicole de Koning (2005), "Dealing with dilemmas in pre-competitive ICT development
projects: the
construction of 'the social' in designing new technologies.," in Everyday Innovators: researching the
role of users in shaping ICTs, Leslie Haddon, Enid Mante, B Sapio, Kari-Hans Kommonen, L
Fortunati, and A Kant, eds. Dordrecht: Springer.
Muller, Michael J. (2002), "Participatory Design: The third space in HCI," in The human-computer interaction
handbook: fundamentals, evolving technologies and emerging applications, Julie Jacko and Andrew
Sears, eds. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1051-68.
Muller, Micheal J. and Sarah Kuhn (1993), "Participatory design," Communications of the ACM, 36(6), 24-8.
Oulasvirta, Antti, Esko Kurvinen, and Tomi Kankainen (2003), "Understanding contexts by being there: case
studies in bodystorming," Personal Ubiquitous Comput., 7(2), 125-34.
Pals, Nico, Steen, Marc G.D., Langley, David J., Kort, Joke (2008), "Three approaches to take the user
perspective into account during new product design. Submitted to the International Journal of
Innovation Management.
Sanders, Elizabeth B. N. (2000), "Generative Tools for CoDesigning," in Collaborative Design, Scrivener, Ball,
and Woodcock, eds. London: Springer-Verlag.
Sanders, Elizabeth B. N. (2002), "From User-Centred to Participatory Design Approaches," in Design and the
Social Sciences, J Frascara, ed. Taylor & Francis.
Sanders, Elizabeth B. N. (2006), "Design research in 2006," Design Research Quarterly, 1(1), 1-8.
Schuler, Douglas and Aki Namioka (1993), Participatory Design: Principles and Practices. New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Steen, Marc G.D., Kuijt-Evers Lottie F.M., Klok, Jente. (2007), "Early user involvement in design; A review of
methods and practices", in Proceedings of the 23rd EGOS Colloquium. 5-7 July 2007. Vienna, Austria,
European Group for Organizational Studies.
Spinuzzi, Clay (2005), "The methodology of participatory design," Technical Communication, 52(2), 163-74.
Svanaes, Dag and Gry Seland (2004), "Putting the users center stage: role playing and low-fi prototyping enable
end users to design mobile systems," Vienna, Austria: ACM Press, 479-86.
Törpel, Bettina (2005), "Participatory Design: A multi-voiced effort," in Proceedings of The Fourth Decennial
Aarhus Conference, Olav W. Bertelsen, Niels O. Bouvin, Peter G. Krogh, and Morten Kyng, eds. New
York: ACM, 177-81.
7
van Kleef, Ellen, Hans C. M. van Trijp, and Pieternel Luning (2005), "Consumer research in the early stages of
new product development: a critical review of methods and techniques," Food Quality and Preference,
16(3), 181-201.
Von Hippel, Eric (1988), The sources of innovation. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Von Hippel, Eric (2005), Democratizing Innovation. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Von Hippel, Eric, S. Thomke, and M. Sonnack (1999), "Creating breakthroughs at 3M," Harvard Business
Review, 77(5), 47-57, 183.
8