Exploration of the user involvement
models and methods of participation in
modern technology
Master Thesis
Human-Centered Informatics
142 000 characters
(60 pages)
Author: Mihail Dimitrov
Supervisor: Ann Bygholm
Aalborg
`
02.06.2014
Aalborg University -
Page | 1
Acknowledgements
First and foremost, I would like to express my deep gratitude to my thesis
supervisor Ann Bygholm, for patiently guiding me through the writing process and for
being a helpful asset, providing valuable advices and assistance. I would also like to
offer my special thanks to my family and friends, for their moral support. Last, but not
least, I would like to sincerely thank my friend Gergana for being a source of inspiration
and motivation for me.
Thank you!
Mihail Dimitrov
Page | 2
Page | 3
Abstract
Exploration of the user involvement models
and methods of participation in modern technology
By
Mihail Dimitrov
Aalborg, June 2014
As the technological world advances, the competition among manufacturers
becomes more severe, and companies are looking for new ways to maximise their
profits. Therefore their focus has been shifted to the individual users, and their voice.
Now, companies are trying harder than ever to utilize the users’ feedback as much as
possible, in order to maintain a high rate of satisfaction among their customers.
This Master thesis’ main objective is to investigate which are the new ways of
user involvement in the design process of today, and what defines their unique
characteristics, as well as to understand user involvement in its many variations, in
which it has been applied for many years. This is achieved by doing a “desk-study” and
by exploring in detail three main practices, which were chosen for this thesis –
Participatory Design, User-driven Innovation, and Co-creation. The three
aforementioned approaches are also the most established ones, and their impact has
been researched for many years. By doing this investigation, I am also examining the
new models for user involvement, which have appeared in the past years. To illustrate
one of the models, I am creating a case, which represents a Future Participatory
Workshop, and studies a particular technology, and the way users interact with it. The
goal of the workshop is to generate a discussion, which will trigger the users’ tacit
knowledge, and therefore cause them to suggest new features or ways of improvement
for the product. The investigated product in question is the Samsung’s Galaxy Gear
Smart watch, and it serves as an intermediate point between users and researchers, as
it is a source of valuable information, which the participants of the workshop are able to
share. This workshop is done with the purpose to illustrate one of the models within a
real-life scenario, and also to demonstrate my practical knowledge for this practice.
On the basis of the results of this research, it can be concluded that the user
involvement covers many different areas, activities and approaches, but at the same
time, it is also applied for various reasons – from providing the users with a voice,
through a method for producing more efficient products, to a way of conducting a more
successful marketing strategy, therefore achieving higher level of publicity.
Page | 4
Page | 5
Table of contents
INTRODUCTION
8
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
12
CASE DESCRIPTION – WEARABLE TECHNOLOGY
14
STATE OF WEARABLE TECHNOLOGY
SMART WATCH
SAMSUNG GALAXY GEAR WATCH
CHOICE OF CASE AND RELEVANCE
14
14
15
16
METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH
18
WHAT IS USER INVOLVEMENT?
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF INVOLVING THE USERS
TECHNIQUE OF COLLECTING DATA
USER INVOLVEMENT APPROACHES
18
20
22
24
PARTICIPATORY DESIGN
Overview
Stages of Participatory Design
Challenges and benefits of Participatory Design
Participatory Design Ethnography
USER-DRIVEN INNOVATION
Overview
Forms of user-driven innovation
The Innovation Wheel
Lead-user innovation
Innovation through “Open-source” products
CO-CREATION
Overview
Steps in the co-creation process
Types of co-creation
Examples
Challenges and benefits
24
24
25
27
26
28
28
29
32
34
35
37
37
38
40
41
41
CONTEMPORARY MODELS OF USER INVOLVEMENT
43
MODEL 1: PRODUCT CUSTOMIZATION
MODEL 2: WORKSHOP WITH SPECIALISTS
MODEL 3: “THE LEGO-MODEL”
MODEL 4: CROWD-SOURCING AND CROWD-FUNDING
REVIEW OF EXISTING SMART TECHNOLOGY
WHAT IS THE SAMSUNG GALAXY GEAR SMART WATCH?
LIST OF FEATURES AND REVIEW OF THE TECHNOLOGY
GESTURE CONTROLS
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF THE WATCH
44
45
47
48
51
51
51
55
56
Page | 6
SMART WATCH WORKSHOP
OVERVIEW
PARTICIPANTS
FUTURE WORKSHOP STAGES
Preparation
Stage 1 – Critique
Stage 2 – Fantasy
Stage 3 – Implementation
The follow-up phase
ANALYSIS OF THE RESPONDENTS’ ANSWERS
59
59
59
60
60
61
64
67
68
69
CONCLUSION
73
BIBLIOGRAPHY
77
LIST OF FIGURES
81
Page | 7
Introduction
In the world of technology, we have been witnessing the process of an increased
competition on innovative products. It is a competition of new technology, however, it
also focuses on consumer understanding and satisfying user needs. Today, competition
concentrates on the understanding of emerging customer needs and the ability to utilise
this valuable information when developing new products and experiences.
In the Information and Communications Technology (ICT) industry, where
innovations are the main source of technological progress, there is a risk that
researchers and designers might create a product, which only a few people would want
or need to use. Academic studies and increasingly policymakers have begun to
understand what many successful businesses have long known: that users, customers
and amateurs can be an incredibly valuable source of invention and innovation. With
increased global competition and cheaper sources of high-quality technological
solutions, companies can no longer rely on maintaining a competitive advantage based
on “traditional” drivers of price and quality. They must strive to seek alternative sources
of competitive advantage and are, therefore, undertaking major transformation in their
innovation processes and business models in order to deliver more valuable products
and services to the market. In order to deliver a higher level of contribution, these new
innovation strategies often involve direct participation and involvement of users in
various stages of the innovation process.
The idea of involving users has been around for very long time, and has always
been successful. During that time, the reasons for involving the users have changed –
from democratisation, through a way of an effective product development to an answer
of the severe competition. But even with different purposes, the objective of the user
inclusion remains the same – to be able to produce a product or a service with a
maximum usability and user value, using the customers as an effective and practical
resource during the design process. The term “user-centered innovation” was first
embraced by Professor Eric Von Hippel from Massachusetts Institute of Technology
(MIT), who defined the concept as “innovation created by the user to obtain a higher
user value as opposed to commercial innovations taking place within companies”
(Hippel, 2005).
The concept of user involvement has existed and called by various names –
Participatory Design, User-driven innovation, Co-creation, etc. These approaches of
involving the users in the creation of a new product or service are the foundation of the
investigation in this Master Thesis. They represent the idea, which firmly stands for
actively including all the stakeholders (partners, employees, customers, users) in the
design process, in order to ensure that the product or service meets their needs.
Participatory Design first appeared in Scandinavia, under the name “Cooperative
design” in the 1970s (Bødker, 1987). The nature of this approach has made it
Page | 8
exceptionally successful, being the foundation of many major projects worldwide. The
areas, in which the Participatory Design is widely used, are extraordinarily diverse,
drawing on fields such as graphic design, software engineering, architecture, public
policy, psychology, anthropology, sociology, and from localized experiences in diverse
national and cultural contexts (Gregory, 2003).
Another term, concerning user involvement is the User-driven Innovation
approach. Eric Von Hippel stated that his observations led him to believe that many
products and services are “polished” by the users, during the implementation phase of
the product. The goal of this approach is to deliver a better experience for the end user,
as he is in the role of a resource in the innovation process, providing his knowledge in
order to improve the end product. This is only achievable by having a meaningful
cooperation with the users, reaching a high level of awareness of their needs, and the
ability to translate them into a unique product or service, which cannot be found
elsewhere on the market.
The last term, which I will be investigating, is Co-creation. It represents a
business strategy, focusing on customer experience and interactive relationships. Cocreation allows and encourages a more active involvement from the customer to create
a value rich experience. By using it, the researchers are able to gain more insight, to
help refine concepts, and understand the real issues and needs of all stakeholders.
Some of the most recognised companies in the world, such as Lego, Coca-Cola,
Microsoft and Burberry are using co-creation in order to receive help from the users to
define their products.
Consequently, after the introduction of the aforementioned approaches, the users
have taken the role of the ones, defining the requirements. Organising the users and
involving them has become a crucial step when developing an innovative product or
experience. Academic studies have proven that user involvement has positive effects
on the quality or speed of the research and design process, as well as on the level of
user satisfaction (Kujala, 2003). Fig.1 illustrates the idea of user involvement, and also
serves as a slogan for the whole idea, which is the root of it - to exhibits benefits for all
sides. The shift of mind-set, the various models of user involvement and their benefits
are the foundation of the investigation, which will be conducted in this project.
Page | 9
Figure 1: French student poster. In English - I participate, you participate, he participates, we participate, you
participate, they profit
This research seeks to explore the phenomenon of involving the users into the
design process of technological products with the purpose of creating a more successful
end creation. My analysis will draw upon the techniques and methods of involving
users, by giving explanation about the advantages and disadvantages of customer
participation. As this could be done in various ways, I would identify and investigate
what are the new trends in the user involvement process. I will also look into the
different models of user involvement of today, and demonstrate their specific
characteristics, which made them stand out.
It is important to delimit the confines of this project. Clearly, I could have used
other techniques and methods in order to conduct this research. Also, there are
alternative ways of improving products, rather than using the users’ input.
Nevertheless, I chose to investigate the domain of user involvement by analysing
three different positions in it – those of Participatory Design, User-driven innovation and
Co-creation. In my opinion, involving the user in the design process and understanding
their needs lies into the root of the humanistic studies, and in addition to all foregoing, it
represents a personal drive, as it is a strong interest of mine.
Page | 10
Page | 11
Research Questions
The problem which needs to be addressed in this research is how the users take
part in the design process by analysing three different positions. During this
investigation, I will search for answers of what is the user’s role in the three distinct
traditions of user involvement, and what the typical user inclusion models of today are. I
believe that designing products cannot be confided just to experts and leadership, but it
needs to incorporate the creativity, expertise and ideas of the users and benefit from
them. I have chosen this topic not only because of my personal eagerness about this
area of research, but also because I wonder how the technological world advances, and
what are the necessary steps, which need to be taken, in order to progress. As
nowadays user involvement becomes an essential part of the design process, it is
important to define the levels of user participation and draw the lines of its impact. The
focus of this thesis is to explore the new ways, in which the users become part of the
technological innovations, by identifying various user involvement models, ways of
organising, interacting and participating. By investigating this topic, I will be able to
clarify the new methods of creation of technology. All these reflections bring us to the
Research questions:
“How do Participatory Design, User-driven Innovation and Co-creation
conceptualise user involvement, what differs between them, and what is their
contribution for developing new products?”
“What are the contemporary models of user involvement, and what are the tools
and techniques, which they use?”
In this project, I will work with the aforementioned research questions, by doing
an investigation of the different approaches and their specifics, as well as by analysing
the different positions of the aforementioned traditions. The investigation represents a
“desk-study”, since in its majority, the research gathers and analyses information about
user involvement, which is already available for print or on the Internet.
Additionally to the investigation of the user involvement approaches, I will also be
doing a case study, demonstrating one of the models of user involvement in a real-life
scenario. I will elaborate further on my choice of case and the reasons behind it in the
following chapter.
Page | 12
Page | 13
Case description – Wearable Technology
In this chapter I will describe the case I have chosen, give details about the
specific technology and its state, as well as why I find it relevant to include a case in this
project.
State of wearable technology
Wearable devices are products that must be worn on the user’s body for an
extended period of time, significantly enhancing the user’s experience as a result of the
product being worn. Furthermore, the device must contain advanced circuitry, wireless
connectivity and at least a minimal level of independent processing capability. In 2014,
90 million wearable devices are expected to be shipped (Wearable Devices, 2014), and
the number is expected to reach a significant increase by 2017, according to ABI
Research. Adding further momentum to the growth of the market is the entry of most of
the major platforms into the space, including Google, Microsoft and Apple.
Smart Watch
The target wearable technology, which will be a source of information in this
case, is the Smart Watch. The smart watch characterises a new, more functional
wristwatch, with added functionality, which can often be compared to a Personal Digital
Assistant (PDA) device. Because of its increasing popularity, as well as the innovation
that brings into our lives, this specific type of technology is interesting and is a subject of
an investigation. Today, personal computing is being redefined, as the technology
around us becomes a part of who we are. The wearable technology is a way to extend
ourselves, because the technology is now physically attached to our bodies. The smart
watches are able to provide information coming from the smartphone, and display it on
their screen. The technology is still being developed, but it provides a new ground for
research, which has never been explored so far. But even though the technology is in
its early stages of development, many of the models are already equipped with a vast
number of applications, which are typically found in a smartphone.
Please note that this investigation concerns the smart watches which are already
on the market by 01.02.2014. As there are new models being developed relatively
quickly, their features and potential will not be included in this project, as I will not be
able to fully investigate their capabilities. A detailed review of the technology in focus
can be found in the chapter “Review of existing technology”.
Page | 14
Samsung Galaxy Gear Watch
The smart watch, which I chose to use for research purposes in this thesis
project, is the Galaxy Gear Watch, developed by the South-Korean manufacturer
Samsung. As a well-known technological leader on today’s market, Samsung and their
products have always been in the spotlight by researchers and mass public. With this
innovative product, the company is hoping to conquer a very new and unexplored
market niche. Another reason for my choice for this smart watch is not only the ability to
test it myself, but also the possibility to work with it for continuous amount of time, in
order to extend my knowledge in this specific area.
A few weeks after its release, the Galaxy Gear Smart Watch did not receive very
favorable reviews from critics. Based on 27 reviews (as shown on Fig. 2), made by the
technological specialists from the best known tech-related websites (such as Engadget,
TechRadar, Gizmodo and Mashable), the average score that the watch receives is
5.9/10. (Engadget - Galaxy Gear Reviews, 2014)
Figure 2: Critic Reviews of the Samsung Galaxy Gear Watch. (The overall score is based on 27 critic reviews,
and not on the parameters on the right side.)
Source: http://www.engadget.com/products/samsung/galaxy/gear/
What is also worth mentioning is, that besides the critic reviews, there is also
user review available (Engadget - Galaxy Gear Reviews, 2014). As seen of Fig. 3, the
number of user reviews is much smaller (only 3, compared to 27 critic reviews), but
there is a drastic difference in the overall score for the watch – 8.7/10. This could be
attributed to the less experience the users have, or the fact that they have probably not
tested as many watches as the critics, so the flaws that are easy to spot for the first
group, are not as visible for the other.
Page | 15
Figure 3: User Reviews of the Samsung Galaxy Gear Watch. (The overall score is based on 3 user reviews,
and not on the parameters on the right side.)
Source: http://www.engadget.com/products/samsung/galaxy/gear/
Consequently, since there is without a doubt a room for improvement in this
particular piece of technology, I will be conducting a workshop, which includes potential
users and relies on their input in order to improve the product in question. During the
workshop, the users will have the ability to test the watch themselves, and act as
designers - they will be able to provide their opinions, ideas and suggestions for
improvements and propose additional features for the watch. With this, I will illustrate
one of the models of user involvement, and will demonstrate how it is being used in a
real-life scenario.
Choice of case and relevance
Certainly, other cases could also have been used, instead of this one. The topic
of innovative technology is widely popular by the time I am writing this thesis, and also
various products are in my zone of interest. A few of the products, which were initially
planned to be a part of my investigation, were Google Glass1 and Oculus Rift2. As none
of those products are officially released on the market yet, and they have only been
produced in “developer versions”, they are not only hard to obtain, but also very
expensive. That led to my choice of having an easier to acquire, and more accessible
technology such as the Smart Watch.
The choice of this particular case is due mainly to my personal interest in an
innovative technology such as the Smart watches. What is also worth mentioning is the
1
2
A wearable computer with an optical head-mounted display, displaying information in a smartphone-like format.
A virtual reality head set, initially meant for gaming, immersing the player into the virtual reality.
Page | 16
fact that I have access to a Smart Watch myself, so I can use it and acquaint myself
with it. I believe there is a big difference when investigating a technology, and in actual
fact being able to use it, rather than simply reading or listening about it. What is special
about this particular case is that the technology is yet to be refined, therefore I am
investigating the new additions and improvements, which could be made, in order to
generate a more suitable, convenient and easy to operate version of the Smart Watch.
I am aware that it could be argued on the choice of case for this particular
investigation, and what makes it a part of the problem. First of all, I believe the case
relates to the topic of user involvement, and contributes to the thesis, by allowing the
reader to gain more insight on the way users are included into this specific occasion.
Furthermore, it also allows me to demonstrate my comprehension about the area of
user inclusion and enables me to apply my knowledge in a real-life scenario, therefore
allowing me to further gain more expertise about this process. I would like to point out
that the inclusion of a case in this Master Thesis is also due to the reason that I would
like to demonstrate my knowledge, gained from the research of the three approaches of
user involvement, and illustrate that I can work with some of the necessary techniques,
which are required for them.
Having a case contributes to the demonstration of one of the models, widely
used in the technology world. Involving the user into the design process of a new
product has incrementally become a more and more important factor for a successful
invention in the end. Therefore, I believe a case, providing knowledge in the selected
area of investigation, could be beneficial not only to illustrate one of the models used
today and my awareness about it, but also to assist the reader to thoroughly
comprehend the theoretical frame of this project.
In the Dictionary of Sociology, the term “case study” is formulated as:
“The detailed examination of a single example of a class of phenomena, a case
study cannot provide reliable information about the broader class, but it may be useful in
the preliminary stages of an investigation since it provides hypotheses, which may be
tested systematically with a larger number of cases” (N. Abercrombie, 1988)
In his paper “Five Misunderstandings about Case-Study Research”, Bent
Flyvbjerg is arguing that the general and context-independent theoretical knowledge is
not more valuable than concrete, practical context-dependent knowledge (Flyvbjerg,
2006). According to Thomas Kuhn, a scientific discipline without a large number of case
studies is a discipline without systematic production of exemplars, therefore an
ineffective one (Kuhn, 1987). Therefore it could be said that providing a greater number
of case studies in a specific area of interest can possibly increase the knowledge of the
social science, hence reinforce it.
Page | 17
Methodological approach
In this chapter I will direct my focus towards the key topics which I find the most
relevant for this investigation and I will present some general concerns within the field of
involving users in the design process. This section should be viewed as the foundation
of the project because it addresses the understanding of phenomena that ultimately
becomes the basis for my selection of methodological steps. In order to investigate my
research questions, in line with the introduction to this topic, I have chosen to use
Participatory Design, User-driven innovation and Co-creation for this thesis. I will
supplement on my understanding of how obtainment of feedback happens through
interacting with users, and how this collaboration leads to a better overall
communication and enriches the design process. Furthermore, I will elaborate on my
choices for data collection techniques and explain the value and the importance of the
three aforementioned approaches of user involvement.
What is user involvement?
The process of user involvement constitutes of having a user-representative or a
group of users, who make a substantial contribution to the design process of a product
or a service. User involvement is playing a more and more important role in the system
developing cycle. Meaningful customer participation in product development and an
overall user-oriented approach is critical to the success of any development project
(Sun, 2013). There are three main forms of user involvement: (Damodaran, 1996)



Informative – users provide and/or receive information
Consultative – users comment on a predefined product of service
Participative – users influence decisions relating to the whole system
The informative and consultative forms of user involvement could be analyzed as
a “passive” form of involvement, since they do not require a high level of involvement in
the design process. Typical examples of informative or consultative form of involvement
are the questionnaires, surveys, rating-services, social-media comments, guest-books
and others.
The participative form, on the other hand, takes as a hypothesis that anyone,
who interacts with a specific system, product or service, should be actively taking
participation in its design. By doing so, it is believed that the members of an
organization could develop a greater understanding about the company, and are also
able to accomplish the company’s mission and purpose more effectively. According to
Ackoff, using the participative model of user involvement promotes an “increase in one’s
desire and ability to satisfy one’s own desires and those of others” (Ackoff, 1981). This
Page | 18
form of user involvement is more detailed, takes more resources, and differentiates
significantly from the typical “plan-act” approach. In this case, the companies make a
research, in order to reach a conclusion about the users’ needs, and only then the
process of design can begin. The developers do not create a product without a purpose.
From the first moment, they know what the product’s main goal is, and then they start
developing possible additional features. When designing with users, the designers
should consider the various user groups, which are using the product, and take into
account all of them. Lastly, the researchers need to continuously cycle the process of
investigation, in order to be informed about changes into the users’ behavior or
emerging needs for improvements.
With all said above, the participative form on user involvement could be
illustrated with a real-life example of an architect, building a house. This example
involves the American architectural firm “The Architects' Collaborative”, whose
philosophy was considered as a unique method of work, because it was focused on
collaborative working and user inclusion. Even though in large number of scenarios the
architects consider themselves artists, and do not rely on the users as much, generally
architects do not first build the house according to their will, and then ask the customers
if it meets their needs, and then start making enormous changes to it; they plan the
whole process together with the customers before beginning the actual build, in order to
make sure that every aspect of their requirements is covered beforehand. They are also
considering the desires of everyone, who is going to live in the house. They check
continuously with their customers during the design process to verify if their needs are
met. Also, they do not design a house around the rooms in the house – they design a
house, and then distribute the rooms inside. The architect is always concerned to build
the right design from the first try, because it is the least expensive way to design – this
could also be compared to what the companies, which involve users into their design
process, assume. Therefore designing the right product from the beginning is crucial for
a successful end result.
“The time we spend on fixing the wrong things, is time wasted that could be used
designing the
right things. Focusing on what is desired simplifies the design process and takes out
much of the trial and error.” (Ackoff R. L., 2006)
The concept of “involving users” in design processes exists in most design
research activities; however, it has a variety of levels and intentions. User participation
was divided into several different levels, by Arnstein in 1969, in his “ladder of citizen
participation” (Fig.4). In this scheme, he identifies and classifies the different levels of
citizen participation through their activity and efficiency to the final result. According to
him, there are 8 levels, divided into 3 main categories:
Page | 19



Non-participation – “Their real objective is not to enable people to participate in
planning or conducting programmes, but to enable powerholders to ‘educate’ or
‘cure’ the participants”
Tokenism - “When they are proffered by powerholders as the total extent of
participation, citizens may indeed hear and be heard. But under these conditions
they lack the power to insure that their views will be heeded by the powerful”
Citizen Power – “levels of citizen power with increasing degrees of decisionmaking clout” (Arnstein, 1969,1996)
Figure 4: Arnstein's Ladder of Citizen Participation from 1969
This ladder helps illustrating that there are significant differences between the
levels of user participation in the development process.
Arnstein’s ladder example and previously, the architect example, are two
instances, which are collected from totally different areas, but I believe they are both
relevant, as they illustrate the variety of user involvement, prove it could be applied in
various scenarios, and help introduce the concept of user involvement more generally.
Advantages and disadvantages of involving the users
Many researchers argue if involving the users in the design product is the best
way to improve the product. Like any other method, this one has its own advantages
and disadvantages. This argument has been discussed for many years, and findings
Page | 20
from various studies and researches show that effective user involvement leads to the
following benefits (Daniel Robey, 1982):





Improved quality of the product, arising from more accurate user
requirements.
Avoiding costly product features, which the user did not want or cannot use.
Improved levels of acceptance of the product.
Greater understanding of the product by the user resulting in more effective
use.
Increased participation in decision-making in the organization.
For a long time, it has been argued what does participation actually mean, but
this term can have different meanings, depending on the areas, in which it is applied. It
could mean everything from being able to understand the people’s needs using various
user-involvement techniques, through utilizing the participant’s input in the actual design
process, to innovating with users and creating a new product together.
Involving the users helps the researcher implement more effective accessibility
solutions. Furthermore, it broadens his perspective, in a way that can lead to discover
new ways of thinking about the product, which will possibly make it work better for more
people in more different situations. Let’s take older people and people with disabilities,
for example. Understanding their issues when using a specific product will result in
more effective solution, which will work better for that specific target group and in the
end, will increase its usability. Creating websites or web-tools for people with disabilities
improves the overall usability of the product, including people without disabilities. This
action benefits all sides, since it gives improved service value for everyone.
Furthermore, when including users in the development process, researchers receive the
benefit of more efficient end-product, which works better in real-life scenarios, and
consequently maximizes the chances of being used by the public. This eliminates the
time-consuming activity of “guessing” the problem, and allows more time for planning
the development process.
Unfortunately, it is not sufficient just to have participation, what is needed is an
effective participation. Since the beginning of the involvement process, the users need
to be informed that this is a long-lasting process, which requires a lot of their time and
commitment. In addition, the users should be able to affect the end design with their
input, and as it seems, this is a difficult task. Their experience and quality of
participation is crucial for the successful end result. In his study, Hirschheim observed
that the term “participation” has a variety of meanings, and it could be used to describe
every process of user participation, from a simple informative or consultative form of
feedback, to a genuine user-led participative research (Hirschheim, 1983). In addition,
inadequate access to users to consult and ultimately include in the design process, as
Page | 21
well as inexperience in dealing directly with users, further restricts the uptake of a userinclusive approach.
One of the reasons, that could lead the project into an unfavorable direction, is
that during the process of collaboration with the users, the researchers need to adopt a
different role than their usual – and be “supporters”, rather than “do-ers”. Furthermore,
there may be a conflict of the expectations that the researchers have, and the real
result, delivered by the contributing users. This is known as the “hostage” role. It was
first identified by Hedberg, and it is observed in many of the participation activities. In its
essence, the “hostage” role means a block of the user participation, caused by the
developer team (Hedberg, 1975). The users act in a way that promotes “social comfort”,
rather than giving their real opinions, which limits the communication process. Users
feel not well-informed enough to make decisions, which causes their input to be noneffective. Inappropriate training may also be the cause for the “hostage” phenomenon,
as it leaves the users with the feelings they are participating in a process, which they do
not completely understand, nor have the ability to control. This occurrence is particularly
damaging, as it leaves the false notion for user participation, without bringing its benefits
in reality.
Another important point, which needs to be made, is the issue of user
representation. There have been many issues and discussions on the topic of “who to
involve”. During a user involvement process, the participants have to represent an
actual group of population, and possess the distinctive personal attributes of that group.
To ensure that there is an appropriate selection of representatives, it is important to
appreciate why the various types of future users need to be represented. This could be
due to the fact that the different target user groups have distinctive needs, competences
and areas of interest, which plays a part in the variety of their level of user contribution.
Technique of collecting data
The aim of the research is to understand the different kinds of user inclusion and
participation techniques within the different approaches for user involvement, which
exist today. To illustrate one of the models, I will be conducting a Participatory Design
workshop, which will involve potential users of the Smart Watch. Participatory Design
workshops give voice to the users in the design process, thus increasing the probability
of a usable design. They also provide a forum for identifying issues, and are also known
to be highly productive way of gathering data (Spinuzzi, 2005). Needless to say, when
many participants are involved into the design process, there is a lower tendency to go
into just one direction, as many of the participants have their own visions of how the end
product should be like, which is a premise for a good discussion and user collaboration.
With this said, I realize there is a probability for the users to confuse their real needs
with what they want, but do not need. As this is a common problem when working with
Page | 22
Participatory Design, a wide range of empirical investigations can be a useful tool in
order to emphasize on the real users’ needs (Spinuzzi, 2005).
In this case, I will be conducting a Participatory Design Future Workshop. The
specific features of this way of involving users will be investigated in the “Smart Watch
Workshop” section. Also there, I will point out the reasons for selecting it, and what are
the benefits from it.
During the workshop, I will be in the role of a company, which relies on the users,
in order to reflect on the advantages and disadvantages a specific product has. The
input, which the users provide will help determine a solution of a pre-existing problem,
which might be not visible for the manufacturers. Having the users to co-operate and act
as designers will change the predefined structure of designing products, and will
possibly bring innovative solutions. The Participatory Design workshop will be used in
order to understand how the users perceive and understand an innovative technology,
such as the Smart Watch. Since the users are the ones, who are going to decide the
future of the innovative technology in question, how they experience a product and what
they think about it is crucial for understanding the level of their satisfaction,
consequently – the level of success of that product. The data, which I will be collecting
during the Participatory Design workshop, will be reached through various set of
techniques – observations, recordings, interviews and prototypes. The workshop will
consist of a short presentation about the technology of Smart watches, followed by a
demonstration, in which the users will be able to use the watch by themselves, exploring
its features, within different types of scenarios. After this process, they will have the
possibility to sit together and talk about their experience, including their thoughts and
opinions and discuss new solutions that address the selected scenario, or discuss
attributes or features which they do not consider valuable in the technology. With the
help of paper, they will also have the chance to create a paper prototype for a future
version of the watch, if they would rather do it.
Page | 23
User involvement approaches
Participatory Design
Overview
Participatory Design (PD) is a design tradition in which the user involvement is in
focus and the primary objective is to establish a creative environment between the
designers and the users. It originated in the Scandinavian countries, in the 1970s and
1980s. Its main objective is the tacit knowledge, developed and used by those who work
with technologies (Spinuzzi, 2005). The meaning of the term “tacit knowledge” is that
kind of knowledge, which people have, without being able to articulate it – as opposed
to what people normally think when they think of “knowledge” – something systemized,
written, and well-defined. Tacit knowledge could be intuition, or body language, or
leadership, or any task, which requires physical coordination – those are all forms of
tacit knowledge, which could not be transferred from one person to another, and are
difficult to write down or visualize.
The objective of Participatory Design is to provide the people who will be using a
certain system or product with a voice in the process of design, evaluation and
implementation, and let them gain some sort of control over those, and more importantly
- to let them be able to influence the processes for their own benefit. Their knowledge of
their own situation and context is therefore highly appreciated and valuable, since it is
the sharing of this that will shape the end-result. According to Spinuzzi, Participatory
Design
“…attempts to examine the tacit, invisible aspects of human activity and assumes
that these aspects can be productively and ethically examined through design
partnerships with end-users” (Spinuzzi, 2005).
When using the Participatory Design, the users are seen as experts in their
domain – and this is a prospect to bring their tacit knowledge and skills into the
development process. The objective is designers and users to collaborate with each
other, and to exchange their comprehension about their domain, in order to formulate a
tool together, with which the end-user will be able to use the product more efficiently.
One of the most distinctive traits of Participatory Design is the one of “the language
game”, which consists of bridging the knowledge of researchers and users, by finding a
common language, or way of interaction between them, with which both parties feel
comfortable (Ehn, 1989).
PD draws on various research techniques – such as interviews, observations,
analysis, and prototypes. These techniques are the foundation of the iterative creation
Page | 24
of a new design, which constitutes the research results, both seen from the researchers’
and the users’ point of view. PD uses an abstract and changeable concept, which
enables the researchers to not follow a strict structure of actions (Kensing, 1998). What
this means is that Participatory Design does not necessarily indicate a strict way of
action, but rather supplies the researcher with a collection of techniques, tools and
values and lets him lead the participatory process. This is particularly appealing for me,
because I believe users have to be presented with freedom of action, when dealing with
design, as it is a process, which undergoes many changes and reworks. As this
approach is less strict, it gives a more substantial likelihood for reaching an innovative
and more usable end result. This is also the reason why I have decided to use PD as
main framework during my case with Smart Watches.
A PD workshop may result in video, photographs, transcriptions, and artifacts.
The method doesn't dictate what to build, so the resulting artifacts are expected to be
low-fidelity and incomplete, but the output of the workshop can provide valuable insight
into priorities and can motivate strategic design decisions and directional alignment.
Stages of Participatory Design
According to Spinuzzi, there are 3 stages, which are almost always present in
every PD research – Initial exploration of work, Discovery process and Prototyping.
In the first stage, designers familiarize themselves with the users and their ways
of working together. This process includes routines, work flow, ability to work together,
as well as other procedures. It draws mainly from ethnographic methods such as
observations, interviews and examinations of artifacts. Often the researchers combine
these methods, depending on the context of the investigation (Spinuzzi, 2005). It is
mandatory to make sure that all the participants understand well the goal and scope of
the workshop.
In the second stage is where the communication process between designers and
users begins. This is also where the various methods of involving the participants and
using their creativity are used, such as organizational games, role-playing games, future
workshops and interpretation sessions. Also, the participants should work together
when generating ideas, but it might be beneficial to consider individual brainstorming
first, and then sharing ideas and suggestions, which consequently generates greater
variety of ideas. During the discovery process, both sides agree on the desired outcome
of the project.
In the last stage, users and designers create a prototype, which has a goal to fit
what they have envisioned together during the previous two phases. Examples for
prototypes are mockups, paper prototypes, cooperative prototypes, as well as PICTIVE
(Plastic Interface for Collaborative Technology Initiative through Video Exploration). The
materials used within this method are low-fidelity office items such as pens, paper,
sticky notes, as well as collection of (plastic) design objects for screen and window
Page | 25
layouts. The video recording of the event keeps record of the participatory process, and
helps evaluating the ideas of the participants. It is also inexpensive and encourages an
atmosphere of exploration and invention. Since it uses plastic design components, it is
affordable and the results cannot be confused with a working system. It is widely used
because it makes a difference for the participants, it is fun to be a part of it, and the
implementation of the results is likely.
Participatory Design Ethnography
In the recent years of Participatory Design, the end users have been turned into
an essential asset and resource, and they are being seen as proper experts in details of
work’s achievement (Crabtree, 1998). In order to treat the participants as experts within
their domain of work, PD has a goal to create a work-like atmosphere for the involved
users. This is usually done by following scenarios, which simulate work environment
through alternative technological means, such as mock-ups and prototypes. It is
believed that this process triggers the users’ tacit knowledge and helps identifying future
possibilities or solutions.
The question of studying the work practices of the users or directly engaging
them into the design process has been a general concern for researchers. It is believed
that it is useful to combine the iterative design of workplace interventions with studying
the work practice, and use the direct user participation in both of these practices (K.
Bødker, 1994). The different ways people perceive the world around them is what helps
us identify elements, which form the relationship between ethnography and participatory
design.
The term ethnography relates to a study of the people and their specific customs,
habits and cultures, and it contributes towards understanding the life of humans and
their behavior. Ethnography focuses on everyday settings, meaning that the
researchers observe the users’ behavior in their natural environment. It is believed that
according to ethnographic researchers, the best way to grasp a situation is to encounter
it firsthand, which also connects with the idea of PD of direct interaction between users
and researchers (Blomberg, 2012). Also, ethnography uses a holistic point of view,
which points to the importance of understanding the actions in their integrality and within
the larger context. Furthermore, the researchers commit to describe the events as they
happen, without judging the users’ practices and their effectiveness. The basis of the
ethnographic point of view within PD is to gain mutual respect for different knowledge,
which the participants bring in the design process. This means that researchers and
users have to recognize and acknowledge their differences, but also to be able to
overcome them, in order to create an environment, in which they can exchange
expertise and create solutions together. Furthermore, the mutual respect for different
knowledge provides both parties with the opportunity to learn about others domain of
Page | 26
knowledge. Identifying contexts, in which the involved users and the researchers can
interact in such a way, which allows mutual learning experience, has been recognized
as an important aspect for PD projects (Blomberg, 2012).
Challenges and benefits of Participatory Design
There are without a doubt some challenges when using the PD approach. First of
all, as it represents a user-involvement model, the participants are extremely important.
Kensing identifies three basic requirements for user participation: access to relevant
information, being able to take an independent position on the specific problem, and
participation in the decision making process (Kensing F. , 1983). Additionally to those
requirements, there are more aspects, which need to be considered. Inviting the right
participants to be a part of the design process is crucial for its eventual success. Most
commonly, the users are not expert designers, and their culture, expertise and
environment contribute immensely to their efficiency during their participation. It could
be very difficult to get a good pool of end-users, because the researchers would have to
find people, representing the qualities, which the end-users possess, and also other
values should be considered, such as ethnography, geographic location, area of
expertise, personal eagerness and many more.
Furthermore, in many cases users may notice the problems, which a product
has, but could not offer any realistic solutions for those problems. Another limitation of
the method is that the implementation process is longer when compared to other
models, and Clay Spinuzzi claims that PD research “takes an enormous amount of time
and resources, as well as continuous critical participation by the users”, which is hard to
come by in many occasions (Spinuzzi, 2005). Additionally, this process could be very
costly (Kujala, 2003), and does not guarantee the successful translation of user data
into usable design, which consequently may force the designers to compromise the
design of the final product.
On the other side, PD provides a bigger opportunity for the users to become a
part of the design process and influence the direction of the project, as well as potential
to generate more or better ideas than designers alone. The main benefit from dealing
with participatory design is the understanding of the psychological, social and
organizational factors that affect the technology becomes noticeable, due to the
involvement of the users during the design and evaluation process of the product. The
customer participation grants that the product will be coherent with their needs, and
consequently – more efficient and effective. Also, when users have been involved into
the process of designing a new product, their feelings change and they develop a notion
of ownership for the final product, because they acknowledge that their ideas and
suggestions have been taken into account. This change often results in higher overall
Page | 27
customer satisfaction, as well as better incorporation of the final product into the
environment (Preece, 2002).
User-driven innovation
Overview
The term user-driven innovation refers to a practice, in which the users are
considered as a resource in the innovation process. A user-driven innovation process is
based on an understanding of true user needs and a more systematic involvement of
users. As Eric von Hippel states, most products in the industry are developed or refined
by users (Hippel, 2005). By planning the innovation process and including the users, the
manufacturers are able to achieve a more successful innovative product or service, and
increase the chance of creating new, useful solutions that their users actually want. The
user’s needs and dreams are the starting point for user-driven innovation, but not in the
sense that users drive the innovation themselves, but in the sense of having a greater
knowledge about the users’ needs is crucial for developing an innovative product, and
this knowledge itself initiates the innovation process. The users could be involved into
various stages of the innovation process in different ways.
In the past years, many studies have proved that the users innovate – Enos in
1962 documented that nearly all important innovations were developed by intermediate
users (Enos, 1962). The intermediate users include a technical team members working
in a collaborative environment. They perform all off the foundation user tasks, resolve
conflicts, and perform workspace configuration tasks.
Von Hippel’s research in 1976 was the first to pay big attention to the role of the
users as innovators. He made an investigation, in which he took 111 innovations, and
examined them. The result was that approximately 80% of those innovations were
invented, prototyped and first field-tested by users (Hippel, The dominant role of users
in the scientific instrument innovation process, 1976). This proved that the users can be
a major source of innovation.
A survey about the level of customer focus among Danish companies shows that
almost 90% of the companies in the medical device industry have engaged in working
together with users (Rosted, 2005). The percent for in the electronic industry is 80, and
in the 65 in fashion industry. The survey shows that customers are among the most
important sources of innovation – 90% (Fig5).
Page | 28
Figure 5: Sources of innovation. Source: Jørgen Rosted, 2005
Forms of user-driven innovation
Tanja Bisgaard identifies 4 different types of user-driven innovation, and each of
them possesses unique characteristics. In this section, I will describe them, by showing
their specifics (Tanja Bisgaard, 2010).
The forms of user-driven innovation, which I’m going to describe below, rely on
tapping the user’s knowledge that is hidden and usually the users are not aware of it or
cannot articulate. It is important to mention that often what users say and what they do
are two separate things. Also, generally users do not think about possibilities that do not
exist, so they adapt their behavior according to the existing ones. Those reflections lead
us to the conclusion that reaching their unacknowledged needs by simply questioning
them if they like a specific company’s idea, or about their needs, is not possible, and
requires further attention. Some of the forms below help us identify what has to be
done, in order to reach those needs.
User test – Within this form of user-driven innovation, the users are invited to test
the product. The actual test of the product comes at the end of the innovation process,
as the product or service is already produced. The user role in this case is to verify if the
product is usable, and whether he would buy it or not. The feedback of the user is still
valuable, and based on it the manufacturer can make slight changes to the product. As
any bigger adjustments at this late stage of development would be too costly, most
commonly they are avoided. This form is widely used before launching a new product to
the market, and in order to prevent a failure launch to the public, the manufacturer
requires some users to test the product beforehand. Within this method, the users do
Page | 29
not have a big impact on the innovation process, as their input is mainly associated with
product evaluation and refining, and does not deliver significant improvements.
User exploration – The main method, which is used within this form of user-
driven innovation, is based on ethnography, which can be described as qualitative
description of human and social activity. Innovative companies such as Lego are using
this form of user-driven innovation to improve their products and gain insights about the
users’ needs. The ethnographic approach implies that the companies are using different
ethnographic tools to observe and gain tacit knowledge about the actions and needs of
their potential users, in their natural environment, which normally the users are not able
to communicate or articulate. Often organizations are using user exploration to make
sure that the users’ response about their product is as the company initially intended.
The most common ethnographic tools to observe the users are video observations,
followed by personal interviews. It is important to note that often the users say one
thing, but mean something else. Consequently, the interviews are not a major source of
valuable information in this occurrence. During the observations, the users are put into
their natural environment, with the purpose of keeping their behavior as close to their
natural one, when they are not being observed. This often happens in their workplace,
homes or during a daily routine.
User innovation – This form of user-driven innovation implies that the users are
actively involved in the innovation process. Often the users are more knowledgeable
regarding a specific product or service than the company. The users who collaborate
with the company could be either expert users or advanced users. The expert users are
highly-qualified, educated workers who possess specific knowledge about a certain
area of expertise. Most commonly, they are engineers, doctors or other type of
scientists with a distinct set of proficiency. They collaborate with the company in order to
create an early prototype, or to help with their knowledge within a specialized product.
They are often invited into the innovation process, once the company has a concept
idea that needs to be developed. The advanced users are users, who are specialists in
certain product or services. They innovate together with the company, as they provide
their skills and knowledge to the organization, in order to commercialize a product or a
service. These users have high skills when using the company’s product, and can
contribute by giving innovative suggestions on improving it. By using this form, the
companies are hoping to get a specific knowledge from the expert users and the
advanced users, as this knowledge is often lacking in the organization itself. The form of
participation is constituted by workshops, or longer term user involvement in the
company.
User participation – This method is mostly known in the Scandinavian
countries, especially Finland and Denmark. Here, the users are tightly connected with
the innovation process. Their participation covers the areas of Participatory Design and
Page | 30
Participatory Innovation. The users are involved in the innovation process with the
purpose of giving new creative ideas for improving the product. The focus in this form is
the tacit knowledge of the users, which could be used to gain insight on their
unacknowledged needs. Once they have been revealed, they can be described further,
which helps the company to build a solution for those needs and as a result, to create a
better end product. The tools which are used within this form are provotypes, cultural
probes, experience prototyping and props. Provotypes are designed to provoke a
specific behavior from the user, making them think about things they have not though
about before. They are created to bring the unacknowledged feelings and thoughts of
the users and create awareness about them. The cultural probes are based on
understanding the everyday life of the customers, their routines, likes and dislikes etc.
The users are given equipment, with which they document their activities during the day
(most often a camera), and after a specific amount of time they meet with the
researchers in a workshop, in order to discuss their experiences. The experience
prototyping’s goal is to test the user experience about a product, even though it is not
completely finished and contains basic features only, in most cases it represents a
simple mockup of a product. This is also a method of obtaining hidden knowledge from
the users, as the simplicity of the product enhances the innovative process. Lastly,
props are used to help users express their ideas, which are not necessarily connected
to the developed products. They represent various artefacts, with the purpose of idea
stimulation and they help the users open their minds, in order to find needs, they do not
know they have. The users of this form of user-innovation are everyday users, and
potential customers. The method of participation varies, but it is mostly through
workshops, where users and researchers collaborate with each other. This form of userdriven innovation reminds of the Participatory Design method, but it also possesses
distinctive features. The similarities are due to the participative involvement of the user
in the design process, but the differences come when comparing the goals of the 2
approaches – PD seeks to involve the users and to create a collaborative environment,
in order to exchange ideas and suggestions, and “user participation” aims to provoke
their unacknowledged needs, leading to a more innovative solution for them. I of course
realize those two could be closely tied together in a real-life scenario, and the
combination of them could be very beneficial.
A study shows that the most used form of user-driven innovation used throughout
the innovation projects among companies is “user exploration”, as it involves the users
at the front end of the innovation process and makes possible for the researchers to
reach the users’ tacit knowledge and their unacknowledged needs (Fig.6) (Tanja
Bisgaard, 2010). The second most-popular approach is the user tests. This represents
the marketing aspect of the innovation process, and shows the company’s approach
about launching a new product – the users should be involved in the testing process, in
order to give valuable remarks about the creation’s specific features.
Page | 31
The other two forms are also used by companies, but significantly less than the
first two. This shows that user-driven innovation in real life relies more on observations
and tests, than user involvement and participation. This study also serves as a valuable
distinction point between Participatory Design and User-driven Innovation, as it serves
as a clear example for their dissimilarities.
Figure 6: Distribution of the forms of user-driven innovation.
Note: the companies are able to choose more than one form; therefore the sum of the results is not 100%
Source: Tanja Bisgaard, 2010
The Innovation Wheel
In pursuance of successful results, the companies are focusing on more
systematic approach when it comes to involving users. They are following a model,
which is called The Innovation Wheel (Fig.7). This model is used to systematically
describe the plan of action during the innovation process. Companies use four
dimensions, in order to support innovation – strategy, structure, skills and processes.
The Innovation Wheel links those dimensions together, and uses them together as a
“road map” for the user-driven innovation practice. It assists defining the business need
for innovation, and then specifies the relevant system within the business, which needs
to innovate. It helps assessing the potential drivers and obstacles for the innovation,
and brings creative minds together, in order to create a perspective for the future
creation. The wheel serves as a guideline for the researchers, as it provides a step-bystep plan, which serves as the foundation of creating innovative products or services.
Page | 32
Figure 7: A look at the Innovation Wheel’s steps
The wheel itself is separated into 8 steps, divided into two parts – the “What” and
the “How” parts. What to produce and how to produce it are fundamental questions,
whose answers are vital for the success of the product, which is being developed. Each
phase consists of 4 steps, but they are not necessarily always followed in the same
sequence by the companies, or sometimes some of them are not included in the
process at all (Emily Wise, 2008). I will now briefly explain each of the steps from both
stages.
“What” stage
In the first step, “Opportunity identification”, either the employees or people
outside the company (often involving users) reach an agreement about the specific area
of interest, where the firm can manufacture an innovative product. Then, in the “Data
collection” step, the opportunity is investigated by collecting data using various methods
and techniques about the specific articulated or non-articulated users’ needs. In the step
called “Pattern recognition”, the data is analysed in order to better understand unsolved
problems and user needs. In the final step of the first stage, called “Concept ideas”, the
previously identified patterns are converted into concepts, which represent the answer
of the “What” stage, and those concepts can represent an improved business model, a
brand new one, or a new way of meeting the users’ needs.
After having a clear idea about what to produce, the next question which comes
is “how to produce it?”. The necessary steps in order to answer this question are
answered in the “how” stage of the wheel.
Page | 33
“How” stage
This element of the wheel also consists of 4 steps. The first one is called
“Conceptualization”, and it serves as an evaluation of the current economic potential for
the product in creation. Next, in the “Prototype” step, the invention is being prototyped,
often by using sketches, models and mockups. When it comes to prototyping an ITrelated product, the users can also take part in the prototyping process. In case the
creation is a service or a non-physical product, which cannot be prototyped, then
descriptions or experiments could be used as a prototype. In the next step, “Test”, the
previously made prototypes are tested and evaluated by users. The goal of this step is
to provide an opportunity for feedback, before the process of production, so the
manufacturers can make corrections or small improvements of the product. In the last
step, “Implementation”, the workers collaborate together with other affiliated parts of the
company, responsible for the selling of the product, and put it on the market for sale.
Lead-user innovation
As I previously stated, innovation involves combining technical information or
knowledge with knowledge of user needs and translating the combination into new
products that the users want (Bogers, 2010). This being said, it does not necessarily
mean that the process of translation of the users’ needs has to be done by the
manufacturer. I believe it is relevant to mention another important form of innovation –
the lead-user innovation. Even though it does not really involve the user into working
together with the manufacturer, it presents a new perspective on creating innovative
products – namely, the one about creating them ourselves.
When users are discussing the problems a specific product has, or when they
wish for a new one, they commonly think that there should be someone else developing
it, and not them. But recently, many users have started to develop and modify products
for their own use in many fields (Hippel, Democratizing Innovation, 2005). This offers
great advantages over manufacturer-centered innovation, because it allows the users to
develop exactly what they need, rather than relying on manufacturers to produce a
product, which will suit their needs.
Von Hippel argues that users, compared to producers, develop fundamentally
different innovations, because they benefit from using the innovation, while they also
draw on a different knowledge base. Users innovate in case they want something,
which is currently not available on the market, and they are able to pay for the
development. As the big manufacturers often tend to develop products, which are
designed for the mass public, in order to reach significant profits from a large amount of
customers, the people with miscellaneous needs are often left out dissatisfied. A study
made by von Hippel proves that many of the dissatisfied users are willing to pay to get
exactly what they need (Hippel, Democratizing Innovation, 2005). Moreover, users are
not necessarily obliged to develop their products from scratch – they can also use and
benefit from innovations, freely shared by others. In addition, von Hippel believes that
Page | 34
innovative users are often so-called “lead users” – users whose needs are more
unconventional, due to the fact that the mainstream users will face those same needs
months or even years later. Another characteristic of the lead users is that they are
expecting relatively high benefits from obtaining a solution for their needs, and so they
innovate. This makes the lead users benefit significantly from providing solutions to
those needs in advance. If the users innovate for themselves in order to satisfy their
own needs, then it is possible that in the near future, the same innovation would be
attractive for many other users. Studies show that the greater the expected benefit from
the innovation is, the greater will be the investment into that innovation in obtaining a
high-worth solution (Schmookler, 1966).
The lead user method can be utilized in any industry and at any level of product
complexity. But one of the examples, which could be given for a lead-user innovation, is
Apple. Even though it is not a single user or a group of users, but a whole company, I
believe the example is still relevant. Apple makes products that they themselves want to
use. They are their own leading-edge customers. By inventing the iPhone in 2007, the
company was the first one to reach a niche-market of simple to use and very efficient
smartphones – something which almost all mobile-manufacturing companies followed
not too long after. The workers in Apple make products, which they would use
themselves – that makes them “embedded lead users” - lead user employees working
for a producer. These employees have needs, ahead of the market, and therefore were
able to create an innovative product, which would later respond to the needs of many
people.
Innovation through “Open-source” products
Another interesting aspect of self-developed products is the Open Source
products. Open source is a development model, which promotes universal access via
free license to a product “blueprint”, allowing usage, modifications, corrections and
improvements by virtually anybody. This term became popular with the rise of the
Internet, and brought many innovative and successful projects to life. As innovation is
the key to technological advance, the open-source model provided a way for the
innovation to evolve, and made it possible for the reduction of the time needed before
the next “technological step” is made. The best thing about open-source is that
researchers do not fight to get access to limited or insufficient resources – they rather
share them, and gain knowledge one from another, creating even more resources and
opportunities, for others to benefit (Weber, 2004). Researches show that the users can
develop an open-source product without the involvement of the producer (Benkler,
2006). People want to improve their communities, businesses and environment, they
just need the power to access the source of the problems.
There are many open-source products, known worldwide, but I will give 3
examples of open-source innovative products, which changed the way users interact:
Page | 35
The first example is Ubuntu, a Linux-distributed operating system for novice,
intermediate and advanced users, made by users. Its name translates as "humanity
towards others" or "the belief in a universal bond of sharing that connects all humanity",
which straightforwardly explains the idea behind this product – sharing knowledge,
collaboration, transparency and openness. I believe those values are also in the
foundation of user-driven innovation, therefore I found this open-source product
especially interesting.
Another example for open-source product is Apache – a web server application,
which is estimated to serve 54.2% of all active websites and 53.3% of the top servers
across all domains on the Internet (Netcraft - News, 2013). This means that half of
information on the Internet is supported by an application, which is open-source, and
serves as a proof that those products have a significant value in today’s technology
world.
The last example is probably the most well-known by the average user, and it is
Android. The mobile operating system backed up by Google is arguably the most used
mobile operating system in the world, known for its vast capabilities and customization
potential. Many people discuss if its popularity is due to the fact that the operating
system is easy to use, or because it allows the user to change or customize virtually
everything on his mobile phone or tablet. Personally, I believe both those features make
this operating system one of the most-desired platforms when it comes to mobile usage
and again, it shows that the open-source projects are everywhere around us, giving the
regular users a voice, in order to bring their innovative ideas and concepts to life.
Furthermore, major contributions from open source were responsible for
emerging of most of today's largest technology companies, including Google, Yahoo,
Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Amazon. Companies, and especially small firms,
begin to realize that open-source is one of the best ways to quickly and affordably
deliver their products to the mass public, share knowledge freely, sacrificing their
potential exclusive advantage which their product provides, for the substantial gains that
come from access to sources outside the organization.
By describing the lead-user innovation and the open-source model of innovation
and giving examples about them, I tried to demonstrate that the user-driven innovation
is an extremely powerful tool, which grows substantially by the minute. The topic of
user-driven innovation is immensely broad, and goes well beyond the scope of this
project, therefore I consciously chose to investigate only some of the topics, namely the
ones I find the most relevant for this thesis.
Page | 36
Co-creation
Overview
The last method for user-involvement, which I am going to describe in this thesis,
is the one of Co-creation. Co-creation is a form of collaboration, which allows the firms
to enable innovation with users, rather than for users. It represents a special way of
collaboration, where the intent is to create something which is not known in advance
(P2P Foundation - Co Creation). The focus on Co-creation is to develop new concepts,
products or services together with customers, partners and expert stakeholders, by
giving fresh ideas and new perspectives. It is about involving the outside world in a new
way, resulting in innovative and compelling concepts. Companies are designing and
marketing products in ways that appeal more to the emotional side of consumers.
According to this view, co-creation between companies and customers, as well as
production and consumption, is about tapping successfully into the collective
intelligence of consumers. The method’s ideology is based on a strong principle, coming
from the famous quote of Einstein – “You cannot solve a problem within the same
thinking that created it” (Pater, Co-creation's 5 guiding principles, 2009). (Fig.8)
Figure 8: Illustration of the differences between classical designing and the main idea, standing behind Cocreation: collaboration and exchanging creative ideas
Source: Sanders (2008)
Co-creation is a very broad term with various applications in both the physical
and non-physical areas of design. The method became more popular in the past few
years, due to the technological shift and the increasing competition among companies,
which made the end-user more valuable. Now, companies are using co-creation in
Page | 37
order to attract new customers, by relying on new methods and techniques to make an
impact on them. One of those new ways is providing the user with the ability to
customize the products, before buying them – I will elaborate more about this approach
in the next chapter. This customization technique is used as a powerful tool for
marketing and advertisement, as well as an interesting way to promote the company’s
products (Sanders, 2008). Co-creation allows bringing together expertise from various
areas in order to solve problems. It could also be applied in terms of building more
effective partnerships, as companies could have partnerships to integrate resources,
and create together products and services for the customers. This method provides a
way to raise those partnerships to another level, especially in cases where the
partnership companies have to come together, in order to create a common product.
It is important to mention that during the co-creation process there is a shift of the
role of the researcher. Normally, in other approaches, the researcher serves as the link
between the designers and the users, but in co-creation, he turns into a facilitator. As
facilitators, the researchers need to be able to lead and guide the participants,
provoking and strengthening their creativity. In addition, they also need to bring in
relevant theories and background knowledge, which could be beneficial for inspiring the
co-creation team (C. Postma, 2006).
Co-creation is about inclusive, creative and meaningful engagement with all
stakeholders, in order to mutually expand value. The key in co-creation is to have a
platform, in which the engagement takes place. This platform represents a purposelydesigned environment of artifacts, interfaces, processes and people, which enables the
value to be generated for all stakeholders (Sanders, 2008). The co-creation platform is
any engagement platform that enables co-creation of value. The platforms can take
many forms – basically any place where the stakeholders can engage with the
customers could be a potential platform.
Steps in the co-creation process
The first step in the co-creation process is to identify any ideas or opportunities
for co-creation, which could take many forms or shapes – from the highly operational to
the highly-strategic. Once those ideas have been identified, the next step is to recognize
who the key stakeholders are, particularly across the chain that supports that particular
process. Bringing the stakeholders onto a platform is the next step – ensuring that the
platform is designed effectively for the collaborators to participate efficiently in it. The
next step is to ensure that as the platform is implemented, the ones who use it are
involved into its evolution, providing their input on possible problems or improvements. It
is important that they are asked about their experiences, and about their overall
feedback. Finally, it is important that the company thinks about the links of the given
Page | 38
platform with another one, to ensure that the platform generates new types of
environment over a period of time for the stakeholders.
All these steps are guided by and in accordance with the key principles of the
method. Martijn Pater identifies 5 key principles of co-creation (Pater, What Is
Successful Co-creation Made of?, 2009)(Fig.9)





Inspire participation - this principle allows showing a transparent environment,
where people can contribute with their creative ideas and join the challenge, by
feeling they are welcome to do so. It is important to create an environment, in
which the ideas of participants, professionals and other stakeholders are treated
equally.
Selection – ensuring the best participants are engaged, in order to guarantee
creativity and to involve users, which have similar background to the challenge in
question. It is crucial to have a diverse selection of individuals – a mix of gender,
nationalities, interests and social environments contributes to a greater chance
good results.
Creativity through dialogue – to ensure that participants can share and
communicate, but also make sense of the content of the platform through
conversations with all the different participants on the platform, and with the
company, which supports the platform, in order to learn from each other.
Share results – to use the input of the participants and their interactions to
improve the product and the experience of the participants, and keep them
informed of progress and development. Another aspect of this principle is
recognizing the contributors’ actions and possibly rewarding them in some way.
Continuous development – In order to deliver good results, the companies should
continuously develop their product, not settle and keep the participants “in the
loop” during that time.
Figure 95: Visual on the 5 principles of co-creation. Source: Martijn Pater (2009)
Page | 39
Types of co-creation
There are known 4 types of co-creation, separated in two different dimensions –
openness and ownership (Fig.10). The first dimension identifies if anyone can join the
co-creation process, or there is a specific selection requirement, and the ownership
dimension defines if the outcome is owned by just the initiator or by all the contributors
as well.
The first type of co-creation is called “Crowd of people” or it is alternatively known
as crowd-sourcing. This implies that for any challenge, there is a person, who has an
idea that should be given a “playing field”. This form represents “the wisdom of the
crowds” – using online platforms, there is a higher chance to find a person with a
solution for your problem, which also gives a wider variety of options to choose from.
Additional information about crowdsourcing can be found in the next chapter.
Figure 6: The 4 types of co-creation. Source: Martijn Pater (2009)
When co-creation is open, and results are shared between initiator and
contributors, it is called a “Community of kindred spirits”. It is based on groups of people
with similar interests, or doing something for the greater good. Those groups can come
together and create, in order to make a product, available for everyone. A typical
example for this type of co-creation is the development of the Linux OS, which started
with one simple e-mail with a request for help, and then was developed exponentially by
many other users. Now Linux is one of the most used operating systems in the world,
providing security and stability for many of the web-servers worldwide.
The next type of co-creation is “Coalition of Parties”, which occurs when
companies collaborate together, in order to bring knowledge, investments or other
assets to the table to reach a shared goal, which could be impossible to achieve alone.
Page | 40
For example, NASA, teaming up with a furniture company, could produce light and
strong furniture, developed with the help of space technology.
The last type of co-creation is called “Club of experts”, which involves handpicked specialists, who help to solve a specific time-pressured challenge, which
demands expertise and breakthrough ideas. As an example for this model, an airplane
company works together with passengers, designers, pilots and the same furniture
company from the previous example, in order to create the best ergonomic and
comfortable airplane seat for long-distance travels. Those participants can all benefit
with their ideas, as they are “specialists” in a way.
Examples
In order to demonstrate the diversity of the co-creation method, in addition to the
examples from the previous section, I will give two more different examples, showing its
various applications.
In the first illustration, the co-creation is outside-in, which means that the
enterprise provides a platform, on top of which the users can engage in various
activities. For example Nike has built a platform, which is called Nike+
(https://nikeplus.nike.com), which keeps track of the runners’ data, brings it online to an
online-platform, where the runners can be connected to the running experience, map
their runs and share the running data with other runners, trainers or coaches. So in a
sense Nike has built a community, as integral part of the Nike+ platform experience.
In the second illustration, the roles are reversed, and the example shows an
inside-out type of co-creation - here the idea is about the engagement of employees in
terms of trying to implement their collective ideas. For example, Orange telecom has
built a platform called iDclic, which allows any employee of the organization to
contribute with his ideas, and propose a solution to a problem, but it also has to provide
a clear benefit for the company. The key aspect of this system is that any idea is visible
to all the other employees, who can track the progress of the idea, as it evolves into a
project, all the way through to its deployment. This system has enabled the company to
gather collective intelligence from all the employees with their creative input. As of 2007,
Orange France's idClic virtual suggestion box has collected over 95000 ideas, of which
7600 have been acted upon. Orange reckons that the 7600 ideas put into practice have
allowed it to save EUR 600 million over three years, mainly in the form of working hours
(Telecompaper - News , 2010). This participation provides an enormous capacity for the
organization to collaborate and co-create value with external stakeholders.
Challenges and benefits
There are a number of reasons why co-creation faces many challenges. One of
the most notable challenges for co-creation is the shift of mindset - the mindset of
Page | 41
creating for users, which needs to be transformed into creating with users. In order for
this transformation to become reality, the culture of the organization has to undergo
some changes, which could sometime result in a challenge. Furthermore, the ideology
of this method requires believing that every participant is creative. This is not a common
belief, and as von Hippel argues, only lead-users can co-create and co-design (Hippel,
Democratizing Innovation, 2005). Switching over from the well-established models of
production to the ones of giving more power and control to the regular users could also
be a difficult task. This change is mainly due to the Internet, as now it has given a voice
to people who were previously not even a part of the conversation (Sanders, 2008).
Another challenge, standing on the way of co-creation, is the over-reliance of
technology platforms to facilitate the co-creation production. There are many offline
platforms and tools, which do not receive enough attention, and are probably
underutilized (P2P Foundation - Co Creation). Lastly, it is challenging to focus more on
the experiences of the participants, because co-creation fundamentally is a humancentered approach, and not company-centered.
On the other side, there are also many benefits from using this approach. If
successfully used, co-creation method can reduce costs, by removing inefficient
systems and replacing them with more effective ones. It also decreases the risks,
because it involves the people, who would be using the product or service, and their
input is what gives the feeling of “safety” for the manufacturers, as it represents what
the users really want. Not only the manufacturers can feel more “safe” from the users’
input, but they also get the ability to grow and expand, by developing new products,
which they otherwise would not. Most importantly, the company has the ability to learn
faster, and utilize the knowledge which it gains from the co-creation process in order to
either solve problems more efficiently or to identify new opportunities faster. The
benefits of co-creation are coming in both directions – for consumers and for
manufacturers. While the users benefit from better final product as a result of the cocreation process, the manufacturer receives additional information from the consumers,
which can quickly be transformed into learning experience, resulting in a valuable,
supplementary knowledge for the organization.
To sum up, co-creation is a form of a creative learning process, which is strongly
focused on the relationships – the stress is put more on the quality and transparency of
interactions between people, rather than the technology itself. It draws on a combination
of management and marketing approaches and processes related to innovation,
knowledge and group decision-making. It is about involving the outside world in a new
way, resulting in innovative and compelling concepts.
Page | 42
Contemporary models of user involvement
Customer-oriented companies pride themselves on their ability to understand
the experiences and insights of the marketplace and then integrate the best ideas into
future products (S.Cooper, 2007). Organizations that take the risk of involving the user
into the design process, can also obtain the benefit of happier customers, faster
problem resolution, consistency in measurement, all at a lower cost (Kerravala, 2012).
In his book “Running Lean: Iterate from Plan A to a Plan That Works”, Ash Maurya
says:
“Your customers may well be your most important asset, and if you’re not
listening to them, you’re likely limiting your company’s growth much more than you
think”
(Maurya, 2012)
Customers know what needs to be fixed, and what the product needs in order
to be improved. And they also may have a good idea about what is missing from the
market, perhaps better than the researcher. As Maurya claims – “Think about this: if 10
people all say the same thing, they may be right”. The insights coming from the
customers can shape a new product, entirely different from what the manufacturer first
had in mind. The customers could also tell the “why” behind data points and trends, and
they may also be more objective. Giving customers a preview of products under
development could also generate an atmosphere of excitement and expectation, thus
advancing future sales.
Organizations are constantly looking for ways to improve the business
processes, lower the costs, and increase the profitability at the same time. Therefore, it
is critical to understand the users’ needs. Researchers have found out that involving the
users into the design process is not only beneficial for the company for generating new
ideas, but also affects and lowers their research budget.
Even though there are various ways or motives for involving the users, there
exist a few pre-defined models of user involvement, which are widely used, and which
will be explained with examples in the following section. Some of the most well-known
companies around the world are using these user involvement models for their
products, which is not only a tool for product improvement, but also could be perceived
as a major marketing campaign, which strengthens the company’s position on the
market. Some of the names of the companies, which rely on the users for their input
and use it actively, are Coca-Cola, Lego, Nike, Puma, Fossil, Adidas, Scion and many
others.
Page | 43
Model 1: Product customization
This model is highly popular when it comes to online-shopping. It allows the user
to use a pre-defined set of options and tools for customization, in order to create a
unique creation before buying it. Popular shoe brands such as Nike and Adidas are
using this way of attracting customers. They are involving the user into designing and
changing almost every single detail on the shoe before purchasing – from basic details
such as color of the base, collar, tongue, shoe laces color, through lining color, to even
putting your name or country flag on the shoe (as shown on Fig. 11).
Figure 71: A look at the Adidas' Personalization System, allowing the user to write his name or put his
country flag on the shoe
Another organization, which goes even further into the area of product
personalization, is Scion3. This company has its own target group of young customers,
knows as “Generation Y”. The age of the target group, which the company seeks to
attract varies from 16 to 30 years old. On the Scion’s official website, the users have the
ability to “build their own Scion”. They have 5 models to choose from and use as a
base. Each of them could be completely equipped with various sets of extras –
depending on the user’s preferences, he could change the type of transmission, the
colors of every detail in the interior or exterior, install different body parts, such as
mudguards, spoilers, bumpers, fog lights etc., and even install parts which affect the
3
Scion is a brand of vehicles produced by Toyota for the North American market
Page | 44
overall performance of the car – such as improved exhaust system, lowering springs
and many others4.
All these examples had the objective to show the companies’ drive to include the
user by giving him a choice. By having all these options for personalization, the
customer acts like a co-designer himself, and has the power to decide depending on his
own taste how he wants the end product to look like before buying it. The phenomenon
of product customization strengthens the relationship between manufacturers and
users, because it allows the latter to identify themselves as part of the process. The sole
fact that the users are able to buy a product with their own “signature” on it immediately
brings it one step higher than the competition’s products.
Model 2: Workshop with specialists
Participatory Design Workshops are one of the most well-known examples for a
successful user involvement model. They give the user a voice and challenge his
creativity. Researches who use Participatory Design workshops believe that involving
the people who will be using the end product or service makes for a better final result.
The participatory activities most often include collaborative prototyping, card sorting,
scenario and concept testing. Participatory processes have provided inspiration and
input for many projects and deliverables, including websites, fashion projects, mobile
application concepts, pharmacy services, sustainable events and services and many
more. The areas, in which Participatory Design workshops are used the most are the
built environment and more recently – in software, web development, and all other sorts
of the digital industry.
One of the examples, which became well known at the time it was presented to
the mass public, is known under the name “Puma Mongolian BBQ”, conducted by the
German shoe and sportswear company Puma (Fig. 12). It is a one-day Participatory
Design workshop, involving 12 participants, with different backgrounds, coming from
different countries, and having a diverse influence in the society – clothing designers,
musicians, fashion editors, dancers, art designers and others. Since those people are
representatives of a specific social group, namely the more artistic ones, they are
considered specialists in that area. They were asked to design and assemble 2 unique
shoes, using the various supplied fabrics and components. After the process of
collaboration, they had the opportunity to launch the shoes to the public and to be
judged by it. The winning shoe was produced in retail for the PUMA store.
Another example for Participatory Design workshop, which is widely used, is
when researchers seek to create a design for disabled people. This example illustrates
4
The type of parts available for personalization differ from model to model
Page | 45
the need of collaboration between users and researchers, as it constitutes an enormous
difficulty for the researcher to view the problem from the disabled person’s perspective.
Naturally, the disabled people are “specialists” in that area, as nobody knows better
what it is to be disabled than they do. Therefore, they could contribute with their ideas
significantly, if they take part in the design process of a service or product, and their
input is put into consideration. Personally, I have been a part of a Participatory Design
workshop, conducted for young students with learning disabilities, when writing a project
in 7th semester, called “Facilitating transportation - a Participatory Design project
focused on young students with learning disabilities”. In this case, we organized a
workshop with young students, having trouble taking the public transportation by
themselves, and asked them about their problems and opinions, in order to create a
smartphone application, facilitating their transportation process (Fig. 13). Their feedback
was from an extreme value, because we learned a lot about their habits and problems
from the discussion. The workshop also made it possible for us to see the way they
interact with their smartphones, what kind of difficulties they have, and in which area we
should put our focus more, when creating a prototype of the smartphone application.
Figure 82: Puma Mongolian BBQ Participatory Design Workshop
Page | 46
Figure 13: Participatory Design Workshop for young students with learning disabilities (Part of my 7th
semester project)
Model 3: “The LEGO-model”
Lego users have a long tradition of innovation and sharing their innovations with
one another — activities that the Internet has made much easier. As Lego managers
became more aware of innovations by the company’s adult fans, the managers realized
that at least some of the adult fans’ ideas would be interesting to the company’s core
target market of children. In 2005, Lego created the Ambassador Program. This is a
Lego community-based volunteer program, made up of representatives from Lego User
Groups globally, made to provide a fast and direct way for the company and its fans to
get into contact with one another. The Lego Ambassador Program has currently 100
members from over 30 different countries all over the world. Every 6 months, Lego User
Groups can add, withdraw or change their representative to the Lego Ambassador
program. With the Ambassador Program, Lego has opened up a channel for
conversation with its biggest fans. The program has provided considerable value to both
sides:


For the Lego Group, the program has offered exposure to new ideas, new
technologies and new business partnerships. The company has found ways to
expand into new market areas without having to sustain long-term fixed costs.
For the adult fans, collaborations have allowed them to influence Lego’s business
decisions and encourage the company to develop products targeting teens and
adults. In some cases, Lego has decided to back businesses that produce
products related to its own.
Lego made its official foray into the world of social media with Lego Click. Click is
a collaborative website that encourages fans, artists, designers and inventors to share
Page | 47
their own Lego creations. The site encourages users to share content, including photos
and videos created with Lego, with friends. What the purpose of this website is, that it
opens new channels for fans and is an innovative way to use the people’s opinions and
creations with Lego, and simultaneously acts as an advertisement for the company.
According to Jake Mckee, who works as a global community relations specialist in Lego
(http://www.communityguy.com/), the company has never seen such tremendous
success, as they have in the past few years, since they began taking advantage of their
most valuable resource – their customers. They have received more coverage on the
internet, through the circulation of Lego pictures and fan-made videos, and have also
turned feedback into new products. They have begun selling more products geared
towards adults, such as a $500, 5,000-piece Lego set, and an option for users to design
and purchase their own original sets. Lego is becoming more and more popular, as
customers, kids and adults alike, are embracing the company’s new outlook, and as
Lego continues to embrace their fans from all ages.
What could be used as an inference from this model is acknowledging the
importance of having a conversation between the manufacturer and the customer –
something that the model proves brings undeniable improvement of the overall
experience. Nowadays with the enormous popularity of Social Media such as Facebook
and Twitter, companies have the chance to easily communicate with their customers
online, listen to their feedback and plan their future products and campaigns
accordingly. That brings the company to a prospect of maximizing the brand’s potential
and revenue.
Model 4: Crowd-sourcing and crowd-funding
The term crowd-sourcing first appeared in 2006, from the writer in “Wired”5
magazine Jeff Howe. It is the practice of obtaining needed services, ideas, or content by
soliciting contributions from a large group of people and especially from the online
community rather than from traditional employees or suppliers (Webster, 2014). The
term is a combination of the words 'crowd' and 'outsourcing'. The idea is to take work
and outsource it to a crowd of workers. Crowdsourcing is predominantly distributed
problem solving. By distributing tasks to a large group of people, you are able to mine
collective intelligence, assess quality and process work in parallel.
Possibly the earliest example of crowdsourcing is the collection of words for the
Oxford English Dictionary. In 1858, a group called the Philological Society contracted
with over 800 volunteer readers to collect words from all available books and document
5
Wired is a magazine that reports on how emerging technologies affect culture, economy and politics
Page | 48
their usages. Subsequently, the group solicited broader public input and received over
six million submissions over the 70 years of the project.
As another example of crowd-sourcing, in 1936, Toyota held a contest seeking a
new logo design. The winning design from over 26,000 entries remained the company's
corporate logo until 1989. In modern days, a crowd-sourcing project for a logo design
receives between 50 and 300 entries of finished logo designs. By doing design this way,
crowd-sourcing actually increases the quality and decreases the price, compared to
online freelancing.
As another example, revolving around modern technology – one of the most
used web encyclopedias, namely Wikipedia, launched as a collaboratively written and
edited online encyclopedia in January 2001. Free registration enabled anyone to submit
or edit an entry. The multilingual site now hosts several million entries in English alone
and studies have shown that Wikipedia is as accurate as traditional volumes like
Britannica (Goodin, 2005).
What is best when using crowd-sourcing is the ability to receive higher quality
results, since there are many people, who are offering their best ideas. That leads the
researcher to a substantial choice, as opposed to receive a design or an entry from a
single provider. Another advantage for this method is the speed of delivery, which
differentiates significantly from traditional methods.
The term “Crowd-funding” is a term, which is gaining significant popularity
recently. It involves asking a large crowd of people to donate money, in order to fund a
project. Crowd-funding is mostly used by start-up companies, which have an innovative
idea, but not enough means to provide support for it, as well as charity projects and
researches, but also for another purposes – such as medical bills, volunteer trips,
special events and others. This method of raising funds is particularly widespread,
because it could be used as a web-platform, in order to reach to a large number of
people. The input of the individuals from “the crowd” defines the outcome of the crowdfunded project. In some cases individuals can be in the role of a “donor”, when providing
help on social projects, or act as contributors. The main motivation for participating in a
crowd-funded project is social identification with the specific project, the feeling of being
a part of the success of an initiative, or the desire for social participation.
There are many platforms for crowd-funding projects, but according to the
website crowdfunding.com, the 3 most well-known as of April 2014 are “GoFundMe”,
“Kickstarter” and “Indiegogo” (Crowdfunding, 2014). Those platforms are the link
between the “crowd” and the person, who created the fund project, and charge a fee for
providing their services. The most successful crowd-funded campaigns managed to
Page | 49
raise hundreds of millions of dollars, and include production of video games,
smartphones, the “Pebble Smart Watch”, movies, gaming consoles and a space
telescope (Crowdfunding blog - Most successful crowdfunding campaigns, 2014).
The most beneficial feature of using a crowd-funded campaign is that if a project
is appealing and well-formulated, it can raise the needed capital very quickly and
become profitable and efficient. Another positive aspect of this model is the forum,
where project initiators can engage with their audiences. Audience can engage in the
production process by following progress through updates from the creators and sharing
feedback via comment features on the project's crowd-funding page.
Page | 50
Review of existing smart technology
In this chapter I will present the capabilities of the current Samsung Galaxy Gear
Smart Watch. This is done with the sole purpose of introducing the technology for the
reader, and presenting its capabilities. Please note that a second-generation Galaxy
Gear Smart Watch was introduced by Samsung, and it is expected to launch in late
April 2014. Because of insufficient time and inability to test the product, it will not be a
part of this investigation.
What is the Samsung Galaxy Gear Smart Watch?
The Samsung Galaxy Gear Smart Watch (Fig. 14) is the latest development on
the smart watch market, created by Samsung. It was released on September 23, 2013.
It is a second-screen companion to a Samsung branded smartphone or tablet, and
features a 1.63 inch touchscreen display. The smart watch launched on the European
market with a price tag of £299.
Figure 94: A look at the Galaxy Gear, a companion to the Note3 smartphone. Source:
http://www.samsung.com
List of features and review of the technology
Features and built-in apps:

A 1.63 inch Super AMOLED touch screen display, with very good viewing
angles
Page | 51






Android operating system
Bluetooth Low-energy connectivity, for a connection to the smartphone
Configurable notifications (for SMS, E-mail, Social media messages) from the
screen of the watch
S-Voice (a voice recognition app, which lets you send a text message, call
someone, check your schedule or find the weather forecast)
Calendar app (displays the schedule for the day)
Dialer and contact apps (allowing users to place calls from their watch) (Fig.
15)
Figure 105: View at the Incoming call screen. Source: http://www.trustedreviews.com/samsung-galaxygear_Mobile-Phone-Accessory_review#tr-review-summary



Weather forecast app
Media Controller (allows the user to control the music player of his phone
from the screen of the watch)
Built-in 2 megapixel camera with video-recording (Fig. 16)
Figure 116: Taking a picture with the Smart Watch. Source: http://www.trustedreviews.com/samsung-galaxygear_Mobile-Phone-Accessory_review#tr-review-summary



4GB of storage space
512 Mb memory
Gallery (a photo gallery of pictures taken with the watch’s camera)
Page | 52




Pedometer (a technology, which counts the steps you have walked)
Timer and stopwatch apps
Voice-memo app for recording voice memos
Different types of watch faces, ability to customise the way the time is
displayed on the screen of the watch
Besides these apps, the user can install a few more using the companion phone.
The most notable are:








eBay (an app which displays notifications for various eBay events - e.g.,
auction ending soon, being outbid on an item)
Evernote (a simplified version of the Windows application “Evernote”, which
lets users store pictures or voice memos to their Evernote account)
FBQuickview (a very minimalistic Facebook app)
Glympse (a location-sharing app)
My Fitness Pal (an app that helps you keep track of your caloric intake)
Pocket (gives you access to the stories that you have previously saved)
Vivino (an app which scans wine labels and provides additional information
about the wine)
Zite (a news reader app)
The various apps for the smart watch are installed and managed through an
application called Gear Manager, which runs on the companion smartphone. Here is the
time to mention that the smartphones, which could be used with the Galaxy Gear smart
watch are limited to just a few models, all produced by Samsung. Some of the other
competitors on the smart watch scene are taking advantage of this fact, and are
producing their watches with support to all Android-based smartphones.
The Gear Manager app lets users install Gear apps, decide what apps get
prioritized on the Gear screen and which apps can send notifications to the smart watch
(Fig. 17)
Page | 53
Figure 127: Look at the Gear Manager app
Receiving a text message or an e-mail triggers a notification on the watch. Text
messages are fully displayed on the screen of the watch, however, only a notification is
shown on the display when an e-mail is received, and the user has to read the e-mail
from his smartphone. (Fig. 18)
Figure 138: E-mail notification on the Smart watch
Other apps such as eBay, Facebook, and Glympse can also send notifications to
the watch. The content available in these notifications varies in complexity; for instance,
the Glympse notification gives access to a full map, however, the map is static: users
cannot zoom in or move around it. (Fig. 19)
Page | 54
Figure 1914: A look at the Glympse map app
Gesture controls
The smart watch has a touchscreen, but no keyboard. Which means inputting
information happens with the help of the built-in camera, or by voice input. That
tremendously restricts the use of applications, as well as their complexity and
innovation. Because the screen is so small, there is less room for displaying
information, as well as less room for interface widgets. This is why the smart watch
replaces the interface controls with gestures. Swiping is the general way of navigating
through the interface of the Galaxy Gear watch. I will now briefly explain how the
gesture system in the smart watch works: (Fig. 20, 21 and 22)









Swiping up takes the user back to the previous screen
In many apps, swiping horizontally is the way to move to the next “page”
The two-finger pinch to zoom can be used within the photo gallery
Swiping down on the homescreen from the top edge provides quick access to
the camera (this action is configurable from the Gear Manager app)
Swiping up from the bottom edge on the homescreen takes the user to the
phone app.
Double tapping the power button (the only physical button on the watch)
opens the voice app.
Pressing and holding any screen with 2 fingers brings up the list of recent
apps.
Double tapping with 2 fingers on any screen shows a control panel displaying
the battery status and the volume and brightness controls.
Beside these touchscreen gestures, the Gear Watch can be woken up if you
raise your arm.
Page | 55
Figure 150: Swiping horizontally on the homescreen loops through the list of available apps
Figure 161: The Settings app allows users to select the type of information which is displayed on the screen.
Users can swipe horizontally between the various available options
Figure 172: Double tapping displays the brightness and volume controls, as well as the battery and
Bluetooth status
Advantages and disadvantages of the watch
As it is the first model into production in this area of products, the watch is still far
from being perfect. It has many problems, some of them small, some of them rather big.
There are advantages of using gestures in a technology such as the smart watch
– they save a lot of screen space, and most of them come naturally and intuitively for
the users (after a short learning-period). However, the gesture-control system is still a
subject of improvements. Unfortunately, although there are only a few apps available for
the Samsung Gear, some of these apps do not use the standard gestures in standard
ways. For example, in the Pedometer app, swiping down from the top of the screen
takes the user back to the previous screen. However, in the S-Voice app, this gesture
doesn’t work; instead, users have to swipe horizontally on the left edge to navigate
back. This without a doubt shows a lack of perseverance and consistency in the area of
user interface, and could lead to confusion from the users.
Also, the S-voice app, which allows the users to use voice command to control
the watch, is far from the saving time option, which was originally intended to be. In
most cases, it does not recognise the given commands or takes too long to execute
them. Also, the apps, which are available for the Galaxy Gear watch, are under 100.
Page | 56
Most of them do not provide a quality experience for the user, or just do not work
properly. Another negative aspect is the battery life. The watch needs to be charged
every night, due to the constant Bluetooth connection between the watch and the
companion phone. However, it only needs one hour to be recharged completely.
On a positive note, there are a few aspects, in which the watch shows its strong
sides. The fitness tracker, for instance, with the integrated accelerometer and gyrosensor help the user track his steps or sport progress. The information is synchronised
with the Fitness app on the companion phone, and the user is able to see his results,
progress charts and he can also set his personal goals. Another advantage is the
camera, whose quality could be compared to a modern-day smartphone’s front-facing
camera. It also records video at 30 frames per second in 720p HD resolution. With the
built-in 4GB memory, there is storage for many photos and videos.
Having said that, the results of the critic reviews, shown earlier, speak for
themselves. There is a room for improvement, which is why I find a user involving
participatory workshop to be an adequate solution of the problem.
Page | 57
Page | 58
Smart Watch Workshop
In this section, I will demonstrate one of the methods to involve users into the
design process of a product. By doing so, I will give an example from the real life of one
of the most-used models of innovating through users – Participatory Design.
Furthermore, I will present the type of workshop that I chose to conduct, the way it
proceeded, and the results from it. This will be followed by analysis of the results, as
well as a discussion about the future of the technology and the contribution of the users
in the design process.
Overview
For this workshop, I chose to conduct a Future Workshop. It is a technique,
developed by Robert Junkg in the 1970’s, which permits a group of people to interact
with each other, in order to contribute with ideas and suggestions for solving a certain
problem. It allows critique, team work, learning, democracy and empowerment (Vidal,
2006). I chose this type of workshop because I believe it is aligned with the necessary
steps, which need to be taken, when it comes to improving an existing technology, such
as the Smart Watch. I took the role of a company, and invited users, who can share
their unbiased opinion about what could be improved in the product in question. This
particular workshop was made with the intentions of having a flowing discussion and to
collaborate together, in order to reach new ideas and suggestions. The freedom, which
this workshop gives, is also one of the factors for choosing it, since it allows the
facilitator to communicate with the users and to encourage them express their thoughts,
therefore allowing a closure of the gap between the 2 parties. The workshop concluded
with short personal interviews with each of the participants, in order to receive their final
opinion on the technology in question, as well as their thoughts on user-involvement
during the design process.
Participants
6 participants with different backgrounds were invited to engage in a Future
Workshop (Fig.23). I tried to select various people with different age, social activities,
life and country of origin. Among them, there are students and workers from different
European countries – Bulgaria, Lithuania, Italy, Romania and Spain, with their age
varying from 20 to 35 years old. This variety of age, cultures and beliefs ensures many
different points of view, which was my ideal goal, because it is a good base for a rich
discussion. The participants were all very eager to contribute with their thoughts and
ideas for a better collaboration between users and manufacturers and a better end
product.
Page | 59
Future workshop stages
Originally, the Future Workshop is defined by 3 main stages, which I am going to
describe in the following section. The main stages are called “Critique”, “Fantasy” and
“Implementation”, but there are also 2 secondary stages - “preparation” and “follow-up”
(Jungk, 1987).
Figure 183: The participants of the Future Workshop pose with the Galaxy Gear watch
Preparation
In this stage, I, as workshop facilitator, started a casual presentation about the
technologies around us, and more precise, about the wearable technologies. Then I
proceeded with an introduction about the Smart Watches, and their capabilities. I
ensured every participant had a clear idea about the goal of the workshop and what
their role was in it, as well as their knowledge about the technology in question. Most of
them have already had experience with different Smart watches (other than Galaxy
Gear), and also one of them was the owner of the Galaxy Gear watch. During the
preparation stage, the participants had the opportunity to watch a 3-minute long “handson” clip about the capabilities of the watch. Right after it, the actual watch was
demonstrated to each of them, performing some simple tasks. All of these tasks were
organized into 3 different groups of scenarios, which are the foundation of what the
watch is mostly used for. They had the opportunity to test the watch in those scenarios
for themselves, and navigate through the user-interface.
Scenario 1
Scenario 1 was to use the watch, in order to read a message on it. There were 2
messages sent to the watch – an E-mail, and a regular SMS message.
Page | 60
Scenario 2
The second plot was to use the watch’s voice commands, in order to initialize an
app. Also, another part of the scenario was to call somebody from the watch
itself.
Scenario 3
The last scenario was to take a picture and a video with the built-in camera.
Stage 1 – Critique
This stage is characterized by discussing and investigating the problem. The
objective is to reach a mutual understanding about the theme and what the issue is
(Vidal, 2006). Normally, the problem is formulated within the first couple of minutes of
discussion, then comes the brainstorming process, which allows the participants to write
down all their mental pictures about what is connected to this theme. After a couple of
minutes of brainstorming, all the writings are collected and through discussion and
mutual agreement, they are put into different groups (Fig.24 & 25).
Figure 194: Brainstorming process
Page | 61
Figure 205: Discussion and brainstorming
Those are the main groups, which will serve as “problem themes”. During the
first stage, the main problem themes which the participants fabricated were:




Comfort
Usability
Appearance
Camera capabilities
I will begin by explain the critique, which came after the execution of the 3
scenarios, followed by other problems, which the users found relevant from the themes
above.
In scenario 1, the users did not know that they are not able to read the e-mail
message straight from the screen of the watch, and they had to go to the smartphone’s
screen in order to read the e-mail content. They were disappointed, saying
“It seems pointless to just receive a notification on your watch, without being able
to see what it is.”
The other message was a regular SMS message, which was received as it
should, but the participants were unhappy about the reply possibilities, which consist
only of pre-set templates for quick answers, such as “I will call you back” , “I’m in a
meeting”, “I’ll be there in 10 minutes” and few others, and no other personal messaging
capabilities are provided (such as responding to the message by yourself, with a
keyboard). Both those problems are listed under the “usability” group.
Page | 62
In the second scenario, which constituted of launching an application via voice
commands and calling a person from the watch, the users found many flaws in the
operating system of the watch. First of all, even the owner of the watch, who has a lot of
experience with it, encountered some difficulties to launch an application via voice
commands, as first he had trouble finding the way voice commands are launched. After
a few minutes of going through the user-interface, he finally did it – but with no luck,
since the voice recognition did not work. He tried with a couple of different commands,
all of which failed. It seemed the S-voice application, which is responsible for the voice
recognition was not responding, and we had to restart the watch in order to successfully
manage to launch an application from the watch. The other part of the scenario was to
call a person from the watch. This worked fine, but the owner of the Galaxy Gear
mentioned that he is having a problem with the synchronisation between the
smartphone and the watch, when adding a new number to the contact list. In case the
person wants to call a number which was just added to the phonebook of the
smartphone, straight from the watch, he cannot, because it takes a lot of time for the
watch to synchronise the new contacts from the phone to the Galaxy Gear. This caused
a bit of confusion among the participants, which were unable to understand why this
happens, since every other type of data between the watch and the phone is
synchronised immediately.
In the third scenario, the users pointed out as weaknesses the ability of the watch
to only record a 15-second video clip, and also the low-resolution of the display, which
does not allow to fully enjoy the video. Another weakness which was identified was the
poor quality of the photos. In a medium-illuminated environment, the watch seemed to
struggle to take a decent photograph. Those flaws go into the “Camera capabilities”
group of problems.
As part of the “Comfort” theme, the participants were able to distinguish a couple
of problems. Since a large part of the comfort of using the watch comes during driving,
when the customer is able to use it as a “hands-free” device, it is unclear why both the
speaker and the microphone of the watch are placed on its bottom, near the wristband
buckle. This makes the process of talking through the watch very uncomfortable, as the
user has to twist his arm upside-down, in order to hear what the other person says, and
also – in order to be close to the microphone when speaking. As another usability issue,
it was mentioned from the participants that they feel the watch is too dependent of the
phone, as it requires it for a lot of actions, and the autonomous capabilities of the watch
are very limited.
Lastly, there were identified some issues in the “Appearance” group. The
participants mentioned that they do not find the watch particularly good-looking. They
expressed their concerns that If a person is going to use this watch as a “personal
assistant” (as it is intended to be used), they would like to have the ability to change the
Page | 63
wrist straps of the watch, depending on their own taste. Another aspect, which they
found valuable, was that there is no female-version for the watch, and since this one is
quite heavy and big, it eliminates almost all of the women, who would use such a
product.
Those were the main problems, which the participants were able to formulate
after their contact with the smart watch. I will now elaborate more on the next phase –
which is the Fantasy stage.
Stage 2 – Fantasy
The goal of this stage is to make the participants use their imagination and
propose constraints-free suggestions, without having to think about the possibility of
their successful execution. It is proven that what seems rather unrealistic today, could
very well be possible within the range of few years, due to the change of the economic,
social or political environment (Vidal, 2006). This stage provokes a positive discussion
and flowing ideas. During this stage, it is recommended that the critique and the
problems are inverted into positive statements, by using utopian wishes and having an
affirmative attitude towards them. Central question during the fantasy stage is “What
would we do, if there were no constraints for our wishes?”. The recommended
techniques during this stage of the Future Workshop are group discussions, sketching,
categorization, ranking and brainwriting. Brainwriting is a group creativity technique,
based on the concept of brainstorming. In this technique, the quantity of ideas is more
important than their quality. By trying to turn the critique into positive statements and
ideas, the participants are thinking about the possible solutions of the problems and
therefore, are more creative. Lastly, the facilitator’s role is to process the proposed
ideas, and structure them, in order to have a better overview on the various suggestions
(Vidal, 2006).
In this stage, the users were able to shift their focus from the problems and think
about the ideal solutions for them, as well as propose new features, which would
improve the overall experience with the Galaxy Gear watch. During the Fantasy
Workshop, the participants were very active in the discussion and they came up with
various ideas, applicable in different areas of the development of the watch. Some of
them affect the usability of the watch, making it easier to interact with and also more
utilizable, some are related to expanding its functionality, and some are connected to
the physical appearance of the watch. I will now describe the participant’s ideas and the
reasons behind them.
The first idea, which the users were able to come up with, was about the selfsustaining ability of the watch. This means less subordination to the main smartphone,
and potential for developing more applications, that run seamlessly even when the
smartphone is not within the bluetooth range. One of the proposals for such application
Page | 64
was the media player, combined with the internal watch memory, and bluetooth
headphones. The user who proposed it said:
“I don’t understand why the phone should be connected to the watch at all times, in
order to play music. Why not just listen to your music straight from the internal memory,
but also being able to connect to the watch your Bluetooth wireless headphones, for
example? That way you can go running in the park with just your headphones on your
head and the watch on your wrist, without the necessity to carry the huge phone in your
pocket.”
Some users even went into deeper thoughts about the watch’s independence
from the main smartphone, and offered that it has its own slot for a SIM-card, so the
user can choose which device he wants to use, depending on his schedule and needs.
The aforementioned proposal was also supported with the idea of expanding the
internal memory of the watch, so there can be more space for music files, videos and
pictures taken by the camera. The idea about memory expansion was divided by two
different opinions – support for memory expansion by memory card, or simply a bigger
internal memory. The participants were very clear that at this stage, the built-in 4GB
storage is not enough.
The camera was another one of the aspects, which need to be improved,
according to our participants. They found the photos and the videos, taken with the
watch’s camera not good enough, so they offered an improved camera, which the user
can use during extreme sports for example, similar to the GoPro video camera.
Moreover, since the pictures that were taken during the demonstration of the watch
were too dark, the users proposed a flash to be incorporated next to the camera lens of
the watch. The conversation about photo and video quality brought us to the topic of the
screen resolution, which was then suggested to be increased, in order to be reached a
higher pixel density and PPI6, leading to a better-looking display.
As we continued talking about the utopian features, which would exist on the
improved Galaxy Gear, we reached the topic of water-resistance and water durability.
The watch manages to work very well during rain for example, but is incapable to be
used during a more severe damping in water. Therefore it was proposed for the smart
watch to be fully waterproof, in order to escape the probability of drink spillage
complications or even reach the possibility to go swimming with it in the pool or in the
sea.
Additionally, the participants of the Fantasy Workshop were unhappy with the
number of available additional applications for the smart watch (which are around 100),
so that led them to the suggestion to organize a competition for developers all over the
6
PPI – Pixels per inch. Used as a measurement of the pixel density (resolution) of devices. The higher the PPI, the
better the screen looks for the human eye
Page | 65
world, for most innovative smart application, with highest chance of becoming the next
big, popular app for the Galaxy Gear. According to them, this would bring the attention
of many more developers to the Smart Watch scene, therefore allowing more creative
solutions to appear in the near future.
Another proposal for improvement of an existing feature was the voice
recognition. Since the built-in “S-voice” application did not work properly during the
demonstration of the watch, and is also criticized by the online community, the
participants offered to include the increasingly-popular Google Now feature into the
watch. Google Now is an intelligent personal assistant, which provides the user with
useful information, recommendations, answers questions and redirects to webpages.
Google Now was named as the “Innovation of the year” for 2012 (Reed, 2012), and the
participants thought it would be beneficial to be included in the watch, as an improved
personal voice assistant.
The discussions about the voice recognition and voice commands led the talk to
another usability improvement, related to the voice – the speakers and the microphone.
In the previous stage, the users discovered that the microphone and the speakers are
placed under the dial, where the user straps the watch to his wrist (Fig26). This fact
contributes to poor speaker volume, especially in a medium-loud environment. In order
to improve the hearing from the speakers, the users proposed a displacement of the
speaker and the microphone to the watch’s front side, which would possibly contribute
to more comfort when using the device as a “hands-free” while talking.
Figure 216: Current position of the microphone and speaker of the Galaxy Gear. Source:
http://techmoblog.com
This is especially valid during driving process, because it limits the arm-twisting,
therefore it requires less movement from the driver, and less distraction from the road.
Page | 66
When talking about the functionality of the watch, a big part of its success is
expected to come due to its fitness tracker application. People are getting more and
more conscious about their activity, and being able to track it constantly is beneficial.
Therefore the users proposed an improved version of the Fitness application, which not
only counts the steps and calories, but also provides social media integration, useful
information such as user maps (showing the area in which the user has been doing
sports), pace chart, combined with a voice assistant, who gives audio feedback about
your metrics, as well as instructions during the sport activities.
Lastly, our discussion led us to the physical appearance of the watch, and its
appeal for the women. As it was stated in the previous stage, right now the watch does
not look particularly appealing, especially for the female audience. Because of that, the
participants came up with the idea of producing a female version of the watch with
different design, which would be generally dissimilar (by appearance) from the male
version – it would be more fashionable, not as big as the regular version, and will have
interchangeable straps, providing more variety for the female customers.
After this discussion, we continued to the next stage, namely Implementation
phase.
Stage 3 – Implementation
In this stage, the proposed solutions for product improvement are seen in a more
realistic light, allowing the users to reflect on the possible features, which could be
implemented (Vidal, 2006). The goal of this stage is to transform the ideas into realistic
solutions and outline how they can be realized. The suggested activities within this
stage are group presentations, discussions (negotiations), planning the resources, as
well as the time.
First, all the ideas are further discussed, in order to assess the probability of their
successful implementation. In case the ideas are too many, a selection of the most
important ones is made. After this process, the next step is to additionally investigate
more information about the outside factors, such as political, social, economic and
technical environment and their impact on the product, and then proceed by preparing
an action plan. This supplementary knowledge is added to the further evaluation of how
realistic and probable is the implementation of a given project (Vidal, 2006). During the
workshop, we did not analyze the outside factors and we did not develop an action plan,
as I figured this would be out of the participants’ competences, as well as mine, so I
preferred to simply follow the natural flow of the discussion and allow myself to break
the pre-defined workshop structure, as I believe a non-productive analysis would not
benefit in any way for the project.
Page | 67
During this stage of the workshop, we discussed further the proposed ideas, and
we reached a mutual agreement on which ideas should be incorporated into our
improved design proposal. Most of the features from the Fantasy phase and
Implementation phase overlap, which should not be a surprise, since in my opinion,
most of them are achievable in the near future. Below, I am providing a short list of the
features, which the participants in the Fantasy Workshop agreed are the most important
to be incorporated or improved:








Improved watch independence, allowing seamless functionality for many
applications, even when the user is not within the bluetooth range of the
smartphone
Larger internal memory, including a slot for a memory card
Google-Now implementation
Displacement of the microphone and speaker to the front of the device
Improvement of the fitness app
Better lens for the camera, allowing taking better pictures and videos
Flash for the camera
Larger number of applications available for the watch
We reached to the conclusion that if the watch possesses those characteristics, it
would be without a doubt a lot more appealing for the general public, therefore reaching
more sales and more popularity among the global audience.
The follow-up phase
This is the final stage of the Fantasy Workshop, and it consists of a report, which
contains the complete set of ideas, visions and objectives produced by the participants,
as well as an evaluation of each participant and his experience for the workshop (Vidal,
2006). In this stage, I decided to again break the frame of the typical Fantasy
Workshop, and rather finish it up by having a quick personal interview with each of the
participants, in order to generate an idea about their thoughts for the workshop as a
whole. I chose to ask a couple of questions about the smart watch technology, as well
as a few for the Participatory way of working. With the answers of those questions, I
sought to acquire the user’s final thoughts about their involvement process.
The questions, which I asked each of the participants at the end of the workshop, were:

“Do you find this technology innovative? How do you think it will develop in the
future? Would you use a smart watch?”
Page | 68

“How do you specify the experience of participating in the design process? At
what level do you think the user’s opinion matter for the final product? What do
you think about companies, who use the customer’s input in their products?”
Analysis of the respondents’ answers
The replies to the first questions were very similar, as all the users shared their
points of view of the smart technology being highly innovative. Some were a bit doubtful
about the future of the technology, stating:
“The technology is innovative and I think it would be mostly used by businessmen who
need to be constantly in contact, however, I do not think it is quite relevant in everyday
life.”
“It is without a doubt innovative, and I think people who are more into technologies
would be strongly interested. Maybe in the beginning more people would be doubtful,
the same thing happened with the smartphones some years ago, but in the end I think
many people will possess smart watches. I think it’s a good idea, especially if you have
a phone with a large-screen, which makes the watch easier to use.”
These answers clearly show that the respondents believe that the technology is
still not widespread, nor has it reached its peak, and the target audience is still mostly
people, who are strongly interested in technologies. That poses the question “What
needs to be done, in order for this technology to reach a global audience, and not
remain strictly demographic?”. As the development is still in its early stages, the ground
is yet to be explored and investigated completely. Surely, the future of this technology is
promising, in case the manufacturers take into consideration the people’s input and use
it in order to ameliorate their inventions.
As for the last question of the 1st part, “Would you use a smart watch?”, the
results were quite interesting. Some of the users were fascinated by the technology and
without a doubt wanted to test it for longer periods, others were not impressed at all,
because they did not see anything new that the watch offers, and the rest were
affirmative they would like to try the Smart watch, but in case it meets some conditions:
“Yes, I would use a smart watch, and I’m following closely the smart-watch area,
because I’m very interested in it. I’m even considering buying the new Galaxy Gear 2
soon.”
Page | 69
“No, I wouldn’t use it because it’s too big and too dependent on the phone, which is
connected to it. I think I would get confused by the technology, and for now I prefer to
use only my smartphone.”
“I’m not quite interested in using a smart watch at the moment, however maybe if there
are more sport apps, I would use it, otherwise I find the smartphone is enough.”
Once again, the overall results from the question, regarding the technology, show
that the users are still quite confused about the smart watch usage, and their decision
about operating with the smart watch depends on its future development, and
implementation of more features and improvements of the current ones. Out of all 6
participants, only 2 had a definite “Yes” or “No” answer, the rest were wondering and
said there is a possibility for them to use the watch, in case it meets their conditions and
needs (Fig.27). Most of them said that the reason they would not use it now, but in the
future instead, is that currently the watch is not developed enough, too dependent of the
phone, and it does not provide sufficient advantages, which are not present in the
smartphone technology at the moment. This brings us to another interesting reflection,
namely “What should the watch do differently than the smartphone, in order to provoke
the customers to use it?”.
Would you use a smart watch?
Yes (1)
No (1)
Probably, depending
on some conditions (4)
Figure 227: A chart, showing the participants responses about using a smart watch
As for the second part of questions, regarding the user involvement in the design
process, the participants were very clear about their opinions. Their answers pointed in
the direction that they think their feedback should matter in the design process. All of
them thought that when it comes to improving a product, which is still new to the public,
the participatory approach is the right way to go.
Page | 70
“It’s a good way to improve the product’s quality and make the product more oriented
towards the people’s needs.”
“I think utilizing the users’ opinions on different matters is a step in the right direction,
because customer’s input is important in any product development. Besides, the end
product has to meet the customer’s demands in order to be successful, so it’s definitely
beneficial.”
“I personally believe that including the user and asking for his opinion is a very
successful way of working. In this way, the customers can identify both the strengths
and weaknesses of a product and the manufacturers can benefit from that when it
comes to improving the concept and the quality of the product.”
Page | 71
Page | 72
Conclusion
All the data and reflections from the previous chapters bring us to the final
chapter of this thesis – the conclusion. This is the place where I would like to refine and
clarify what are the common points and resemblances of the three practices, but also to
discuss what is it that stands out between them.
This thesis had as a goal to understand user involvement in its many variations,
and to provide a better comprehensive and nuanced understanding of these
differences, as well as the reasons for user inclusion in the design process. As I have a
keen interest in the way the users participate in the creation of new products or
services, I initiated this project by asking myself how these three approaches for user
involvement differ one from another.
Participatory Design is the user involvement approach, which creates the
connection between designers and users, as it values the collaborative aspect of the
communication process and serves as a link between users and researchers, allowing
both parties to exchange their knowledge and experience in their area of expertise, in
order to create a useful end product or service. This practice focuses on providing the
user with a voice, which is why its main value is the mutual understanding between user
and researcher and their ability to learn from each other, by having a discussion,
conducted in such a language, in which both sides feel comfortable. Additionally, what
is believed to be one of the strongest characteristics of PD is the ability to catch the
participant’s tacit knowledge, and having the ability to provoke his creativity and
participation. It relies on methods and techniques such as observations, interviews,
workshops, and provokes the users’ participation not only through discussions and team
collaboration, but also by allowing them to use mock-ups and prototypes.
User-driven innovation refers to a practice, in which the users are considered as
a resource in the innovation process. This practice relies on tapping the users’ hidden
knowledge, which they are not aware they possess, in order to achieve the stage of
creating an innovation. In its various forms and phases, the users contribute to the
design process by testing products and providing their feedback, making sure that
response about a specific product is the same as the one the manufacturer intended or
by being actively involved in the design process, by creating innovative products as
“expert users”. All this is achieved by multiple ways of collecting data, such as
observations, interviews, expert-user collaboration or other types of techniques, such as
provotypes, cultural probes, experience prototyping and props. In this practice, it is also
common to have users, developing for users, as they realize their needs are not being
satisfied by the manufacturers, therefore they develop their product themselves. Open-
Page | 73
source products are also a part of this approach, making it widely popular among
regular users, which have knowledge that they would like to share and benefit from.
Co-creation focuses on creating a product with the user, rather than creating for
the user. The key aspect of co-creation is to create a collaborative environment, in
which the users and the designers can work together and exchange ideas and
knowledge. This could be done by many ways, but the most widespread is by creating a
co-creation platform, which will take the role of a place, where the stakeholders can
engage with the customers. There are a few principles, which are in the root of cocreation: to inspire participation, to select the best team possible, to allow creative
environment, to share results, and to continue development. Crowd-sourcing, which is
one of the most well-known models for manufacturing innovative products, is a typical
example for co-creation. In this tradition, different users from different contexts
collaborate together. What is more valued within Co-creation is not the user context, but
his personal knowledge, ideas and ability to communicate with others. This practice
relies mostly on verbal or written types of mutual communication, in order to achieve its
results.
My research led me to believe that there are 4 major models for user
involvement, which act as a foundation of the whole user inclusion practice. Those are
Product customization, Workshops with specialists, “The Lego model”, and crowdsourcing and crowd-funding. Even though they are all representing user involvement,
they also constitute different parts of the process, with different approaches to the
users, and with different end goals. For example, customizing a product, before buying
it, differs significantly from being a part of the design process of product creation, and
actively participating by giving ideas or suggestions. Therefore, it is important to
underline the variations, which all the models possess, and also to understand each of
them, in order to reach a more general knowledge about the new ways of user
inclusion.
Furthermore, the research had me become aware that the three studied
practices of user involvement – Participatory Design, User-driven Innovation and Cocreation, are strongly connected one to another, by sharing similar characteristics, and
in some cases – sharing the same values. All three of the user involvement approaches,
studied in this project, put the user to the fore and provide him with the opportunity to
express his insights. Each of them possesses many of the characteristics of the other
two, and in some occasions, it is difficult to set a strict line of difference between them.
In the modern days, the limits of those approaches are indistinct – their field of use and
the methods and techniques for gathering valuable data are becoming less and less
strict, and allow mutual interrelationship between all of the three. What I mean by that is
that the approaches do not replace each other, but they rather supplement each other.
In order to broaden the perspectives on how to include the user in the design process,
Page | 74
the three approaches are starting to “borrow” some of their characteristics or specific
traits from the others, which actually means that they are building on features from
different traditions. That leaves the researchers with more freedom and a bigger sense
of “openness” during their work with users, as different features of the practices might
be relevant in different situations. At the same time, I am aware that the borders are
overlapping and some of the researchers I refer to in this thesis are not necessarily
interested in these differences. When applied in a real-life scenario, the limits of the
approaches are not as distinct, and allow more freedom for the researchers. The
contribution of the aforementioned practices is significant, as the development of
projects, aided by or run by users, increased dramatically in the past years. As stated
earlier, most of the biggest companies in the world today are heavily relying on users, in
order to retain a high level of user satisfaction for their products or services. It is very
clear to see that some of the methods and techniques, which those approaches use,
represent an old way to include users in the design process of a product or a service.
Some of the techniques, which lie in the foundation of those approaches, were used in
the 70’s and 80’s in the past century, but are still applicable today. This can only show
that the idea of user involvement has been around for many years.
Nevertheless, it is important to state that even though those practices have their
similar approaches to user involvement, they also have their distinctive goals and
purposes for user inclusion, which make them unique. Participatory Design aims to
include the users in the design process, by tapping their tacit knowledge and learn from
them. At the same time, User-driven Innovation also seeks to include the users, but it
counts on expert users, which will bring innovative solutions to the enterprise. It also
counts significantly on products “for users from users”. Additionally, it could be said that
Co-creation shares equal powers between users and researchers, by making the former
co-inventors of the product, and allowing them to have a significant impact on its
development and after-development process. This goes to show that even though the
three approaches share many similarities, they also possess unique characteristics,
which make them exclusive.
With that being said, I believe one of the conclusions, which could be drawn
based on this research, is that there are many different reasons for including users, but
the main focus has switched over the time – from providing the users with a voice,
which they did not have before, to the phase of letting them participate, not only for an
improvement of the product or service in question, but also in order to reach a higher
level of company’s publicity and as a better marketing strategy. It could be argued
substantially about the reasons behind user involvement in modern technology, as it
offers many diverse points of view, but I believe this goes beyond the scope of this
thesis, and therefore I will not elaborate more on it.
Page | 75
In addition to the theoretical foundation of the project, the findings from the
Future workshop showed that when given the opportunity to do so, users are able to
distinguish the weaknesses of a product, and quickly propose ways for improving it,
even if they are not familiar in depth with all its features and capabilities. The workshop
proved that it represents a successful way of mutual communication between
researchers and users, and provided valuable information for the type of input, that is
expected from the participants.
It could be argued that one of the limitations of this thesis is that perhaps the
division between the three approaches of user involvement is artificial, in a way,
because of the fact that they do not differ significantly. However, I could of course
argue, that exploring each of them deeper have given me the opportunity to have a
more comprehensive understanding of user involvement, which could very well serve as
a foundation for discussing the new ways of user inclusion.
Another aspect, which could be seen as a limitation for the project is that the
research represents a “desk study”. The restraint consists of relying strongly on
theoretical prospects, rather than counting on gathering data from the outside world. It
could be seen as a shortcoming, that the research of the user involvement models has
not been developed enough, by being backed up with facts and statistics, acquired from
field studies. Doing more empirical work on modern models of user inclusion could have
perhaps added to a deeper understanding of how user involvement takes place. This
gives a prerequisite for further exploration of the theory of user inclusion and for a future
research, in order to explore to a greater extent the knowledge of other models of user
involvement.
Page | 76
Bibliography
Telecompaper - News . (2010, August 18). Retrieved 05 13, 2014, from Telecompaper:
http://www.telecompaper.com/news/orange-france-acts-on-7600-staff-suggestions-in-3-years-751761
Netcraft - News. (2013, June). Retrieved 05 12, 2014, from Netcraft:
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2013/06/06/june-2013-web-server-survey-3.html
(2014, 3 23). Retrieved 3 23, 2014, from Wearable Devices:
http://www.wearabledevices.com/2014/02/07/90-million-wearable-devices-expected-ship2014/
Crowdfunding. (2014, 04 19). Retrieved 04 19, 2014, from Crowdfunding: http://crowdfunding.com/
Crowdfunding blog - Most successful crowdfunding campaigns. (2014, 03 18). Retrieved 04 19, 2014,
from Crowdfunding blog: http://crowdfundingblog.com/most-successful-crowdfundingprojects/
Engadget - Galaxy Gear Reviews. (2014, 03 25). Retrieved 03 25, 2014, from Engadget :
http://www.engadget.com/products/samsung/galaxy/gear/
Ackoff, R. (1981). Creating The Corporate Future: Plan or Be Planned For. New York: John Wiley & Sons,
Inc. .
Ackoff, R. L. (2006). Idealized Design: How to Dissolve Tomorrow’s Crisis Today. New Jersey: Wharton
School Publishing.
Arnstein, S. (1969,1996). A Ladder of Citizen Participation. The City Reader, 244-255.
Benkler, Y. (2006). The wealth of networks: How social production transforms markets and freedom.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Blomberg, J. (2012). Ethnography: Positioning Ethnography. Routledge International Handbook of
Participatory Design, pp. 86-116.
Bødker, S. E. (1987). Computers and democracy: A Scandinavian challenge.
Bogers, M. (2010). Users as Innovators: A Review, Critique,and Future Research Directions. Journal of
Managament, 857-875.
Page | 77
C. Postma, S. P. (2006, Vol.2 No. 3). A Vision on Social Interactions as the Basis for Design. CoDesign, pp.
139-155.
Crabtree, A. (1998). Ethnography in Participatory Design. Lancaster: Centre for CSCW Research,
Department of Sociology.
Damodaran, L. (1996). User involvement in the systems design process - a practical guide for users.
Behaviour & Information Technology, pp. 363-377.
Daniel Robey, D. F. (1982). User Involvement in Information System Development: A conflict model and
emprical test. Management Science, 28, 73-85.
Ehn, P. (1989). Work-oriented design of computer artifacts. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Eribaum Associates.
Emily Wise, C. H. (2008). User-Driven Innovation: Context and cases in the Nordic region. Oslo, Norway:
Nordic Innovation Centre.
Enos, J. L. (1962). Petroleum progress and profits: A history of process innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five Misunderstandings About Case-Study Research.
Goodin, D. (2005, 12 14). Usa Today Tech News. Retrieved 04 19, 2014, from Usa Today:
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/news/2005-12-14-nature-wiki_x.htm
Gregory, J. (2003). Scandinavian approaches to participatory design. International Journal of Engineering
Education 19 (1), 62-74.
Hedberg, B. (1975). Computer systems to support industrial democracy. In E. M. Sackman, Human
Choice and Computers. Amsterdam.
Hippel, E. v. (1976). The dominant role of users in the scientific instrument innovation process. Research
Policy, 5, 212-239.
Hippel, E. v. (2005). Democratizing Innovation.
Hippel, E. v. (2005). Democratizing Innovation. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Hirschheim, R. (1983). Assessing participative systems design: some conclusions from an exploratory
study. Information & Management, 6, 317-327.
Jungk, R. a. (1987). Future Workshops: How to create desirable futures. London, UK: Institute of Social
Inventions.
K. Bødker, F. K. (1994). Design in an Organizational Context - an Experiment. Scandinavian Journal of
Information Systems, vol.6, no 1.
Page | 78
Kensing, F. (1983). The Trade Unions Influence on Technological Change. Systems Design For, With and
By the Users.
Kensing, J. B. (1998). Participatory Design: Issues and Concerns. Computer Supported Cooperative Work,
vol. 7, 167-185.
Kerravala, Z. (2012). Collaboration is the next game changer in customer service.
Kuhn, T. (1987). What are scientific revolutions? In L. J. L. Kruger, The probabilistic revolution, Vol. 1:
Ideas in history (pp. 7-22). MIT Press.
Kujala, S. (2003). User Involvement: a review of benefits and challenges.
Maurya, A. (2012). Running Lean: Iterate from Plan A to a Plan That Works. O'Reilly Media.
N. Abercrombie, S. H. (1988). The Penguin dictionary of sociology.
P2P Foundation - Co Creation. (n.d.). Retrieved 05 13, 2014, from P2P Foundation:
http://p2pfoundation.net/Co-Creation
Pater, M. (2009). Co-creation's 5 guiding principles. Fronteer Strategy.
Pater, M. (2009, April). What Is Successful Co-creation Made of? Retrieved 05 13, 2014, from FutureLab:
http://www.futurelab.net/blog/2009/05/co-creations-5-guiding-principles-or-what-successfulco-creation-made
Preece, J. R. (2002). Interaction Design: Beyond Human Computer Interaction. New York: John Wiley &
Sons.
Reed, B. (2012, November 15). BGR. Retrieved 05 02, 2014, from BGR:
http://bgr.com/2012/11/15/google-now-wins-popular-science-award/
Rosted, J. (2005). User-driven innovation: Results and recommendations. Copenhagen: The Ministry of
Economic and Business Affairs' Division for Research and Analysis.
S.Cooper, P. G. (2007, April). The New Principles of a Swarm Business. MIT Sloan Management Review
48, no. 3, pp. 81-84.
Sanders, N. (2008, March). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign.
Schmookler, J. (1966). Invention and Economic Growth. Harvard University Press.
Spinuzzi, C. (2005). The Methodology of Participatory Design.
Sun, Z. (2013). User Involvement in System Development Process. Paris, France: Atlantis Press.
Tanja Bisgaard, C. H. (2010). Creating new concepts, products and services with user driven innovation.
Oslo, Norway: Nordic Innovation Centre.
Page | 79
Vidal, R. V. (2006). CREATIVE AND PARTICIPATIVE PROBLEM SOLVING - THE ART AND THE SCIENCE.
Informatics and Mathematical Modelling, Technical University of Denmark.
Weber, S. (2004). The success of open-source . Cambridge, Massachusetts: HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS.
Webster, M. (2014, 04 19). Merriam-Webster.com. Retrieved 04 19, 2014, from Merriam Webster:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/crowdsourcing
Page | 80
List of figures
Figure 1: French student poster. In English - I participate, you participate, he
participates, we participate, you participate, they profit ................................................. 10
Figure 2: Critic Reviews of the Samsung Galaxy Gear Watch. .................................... 15
Figure 3: User Reviews of the Samsung Galaxy Gear Watch. ...................................... 16
Figure 4: Arnstein's Ladder of Citizen Participation from 1969 ...................................... 20
Figure 6: Sources of innovation ..................................................................................... 29
Figure 7: Distribution of the forms of user-driven innovation. ........................................ 32
Figure 8: A look at the Innovation Wheel’s steps .......................................................... 33
Figure 9: Illustration of the differences between classical designing and the main idea,
standing behind Co-creation: collaboration and exchanging creative ideas .................. 37
Figure 10: Visual on the 5 principles of co-creation. ...................................................... 39
Figure 11: The 4 types of co-creation. ........................................................................... 40
Figure 12: A look at the Adidas' Personalization System .............................................. 44
Figure 13: Puma Mongolian BBQ Participatory Design Workshop ................................ 46
Figure 14: Participatory Design Workshop for young students with learning disabilities 47
Figure 15: A look at the Galaxy Gear, a companion to the Note3 smartphone. ............ 51
Figure 16: View at the Incoming call screen. ................................................................. 52
Figure 17: Taking a picture with the Smart Watch. ........................................................ 52
Figure 18: Look at the Gear Manager app .................................................................... 54
Figure 19: E-mail notification on the Smart watch ......................................................... 54
Figure 20: A look at the Glympse map app ................................................................... 55
Figure 21: Swiping horizontally on the homescreen loops through the list of available
apps .............................................................................................................................. 56
Figure 22: The Settings app allows users to select the type of information which is
displayed on the screen. Users can swipe horizontally between the various available
options........................................................................................................................... 56
Figure 23: Double tapping displays the brightness and volume controls, as well as the
battery and Bluetooth status.......................................................................................... 56
Figure 24: The participants of the Future Workshop pose with the Galaxy Gear watch 60
Figure 25: Brainstorming process ................................................................................. 61
Figure 26: Discussion and brainstorming ...................................................................... 62
Figure 27: Current position of the microphone and speaker of the Galaxy Gear. .......... 66
Figure 28: A chart, showing the participants responses about using a smart watch ..... 70
Page | 81
Page | 82