‘from the lab into the real world’ [a user-centered approach]
DESCRIPTION
This presentation aims to understand and promote benefits of user-centricity and user-cantered innovation in industries. This approach is transforming the value chain and business models traditional with an offer that is towards “instant custom” for the consumer on the one hand, and an allocation of value between institutional and private. This is not just a living lab approach (although some lessons can be learnt) but a complex endeavour requiring deeper technology integration, business models with broader range of stakeholders and user populations with socio-economic diversity representing communities across Europe and beyond. Future Internet Assembly Dublin 2013 http://www.fi-dublin.eu/bringing-users-inTRANSCRIPT
‘When we learn all the answers,
they change the questions…’ @cristobalcobo oxford internet ins1tute
Old Paradigm
New Paradigm
consumer
consumer
company
company
“Any customer can have a car painted any colour that he wants so long as it is black “
*(h.ford,1922)
Remark about the Model T in 1909, published in his autobiography My Life and Work (1922)
“individual playing both roles consumers of services as well as creators of added value services”.
Challenge: alignment of engagement
hEp://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=user&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=
hEp://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=user%2Ccommunity&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=
hEp://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=user%2Ccommunity%2C+experience&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=
hEp://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=user%2Ccommunity%2Cexperience%2Cuser+-‐+driven&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=
A
B testbed
The Documentary Network by Windows Phone Design Studio youtube.com/watch?v=lciYKwVLTuk
Connecting - Trends in UI, Interaction, Experience Design
User- center design (‘pull’)
Domain Landscape of the Living Lab Research Map
(Pallot et al., 2010)
User-centricity User-centred Design Tools in FI Projects
ques9onnaires
focus groups
interviews
prac9cal workshops
shadowing
cultural probes pen & paper mock-‐ups
fully func9onal prototypes
in-‐home observa9on
think-‐aloud sessions
user diaries
field studies
personas or scenarios
eye-‐tracking studies
scenario-‐based focus groups
s9mulus material like comic strips, videos, theatre performances, drama9sed stories usability tes9ng
longitudinal evalua9on weekly teleconferences beta launch
Source: 29 0f 55 respondents (working on 35 different Future Internet projects) use this tools (2012).
bottom up innovation (‘push’)
• ICT change power relations in (almost) all domains. • Technologies can be understood as a trend amplifier. • Can empower users of all kinds: citizens, consumers,
workers, patients, audiences...
(van Dijk, 2010)
2011
How to engage with users in order to adopt an active role in co-creation & co-design?
• SOPA & PIPA protest [2012] • English Wikipedia +~7,000 websites coordinated a service blackout, to raise awareness. • 160 million people viewed Wikipedia's banner. • Google collected +7 million signatures. • BoycoEs of companies and organiza1ons that support the legisla1on.
Network Type: Architecture Openness Control Modulariza9on
3.0 Collabora1on Many-‐to-‐Many Managed High High
2.0 Contribu1ng
Many-‐to-‐Many Networked Moderate (i.e. reputa1on)
Moderate (i.e. simple task)
1.0 Sharing One-‐to-‐many Open Low Low
(DuEon, 2008)
3 Levels of Collabora9ve Networks Organiza9ons
Clay Shirky's Cogni1ve Surplus: Crea1vity and Generosity in a Connected Age
reCAPTCHA is a type of challenge-‐response that ask users to enter words seen in distorted text images on screen (it helps digi1ze the text of books, while protec1ng websites from bots). The system has been reported as displaying over 100 million CAPTCHAs every day.
New ideas that can be turned into
applications and add added value.
The ability to collaborate between people:
a) of different backgrounds (micro-contexts),
b) with different perspectives, and
c) possessing different knowledge.
Human centric systemic innovation
instruments (encouraging the interaction
between all stakeholders).
Eriksson et al.,2005
co-creation/co-innovation
Khan Academy Lite Raspberry Pi
hLp://kalite.learningequality.org
(Pallot e
t al., 2010) Contextual & social based adoption & adaptation of ICT:
• Living Labs + User Driven Innova9on + User Centred Design + User Created Content + User Group Experience (socio-‐emo1onal)
…BUT • The principles (usability, accessibility or technology customiza9on) are more
manifested in theore9cal considera9ons rather than in prac9ce. • Significant number of “one-‐size-‐fits-‐all” paradigm is common in the market.
40,000 solu1on submissions [200,000 solvers -‐200 countries] Awards: $5,000 to $1+M
problems and challenges
Communications tools don’t get socially interesting until
they get technologically
boring (Shirky, 2008)
Interesting social
innovations may
not be interesting
technically
(Bernstein, et al, 2011)
Flash mobs strike again for the 9th annual ‘no pants’ subway ride
Social Media’s Influence on the Arab Spring
Privacy or data protec1on?
(Bernstein, A
ckerman, Chi & M
iller, 2011).
Conflation of usefulness and usability Usefulness: asks whether a system solves an important problem. Usability: asks how users interact with the system.
“In the technology industry
many time features &
functionalities is prioritized
rather than usefulness”
www.leapmotion.com
hEp://theamazingios6maps.tumblr.com
‘The most beau1ful, powerful mapping
service ever’
iOS6 Google Map
Challenge: How to create meaningful synergies between users & technology?
Problems in the complex innova1on systems.
• Suboptimal degree of interaction with users (i.e. only a few companies effec1vely involve users in their innova1on process).
• Discrepancy between theory and practice. (i.e early involvement of users par1cularly in early stage of the projects.)
• Mechanisms to integrate increasingly multidisciplinary knowledge (gathered in diverse interac1on contexts)
• Adequate translation and transformation of user insights (into more technical requirements).
• Path dependency& lock-in (i.e difficult to break into new grounds/paradigms).
(Eriksson et al.,2005 and De Moor, et al 2010)
(Fiedler, 2011, Offenberg & Pipek, 2008; Seserv.Org ).
Future Internet
research towards an
“Open Development
Model” different stakeholders combining
efforts and benefit.
conclusion Users at the center of the Internet Ecosystem
Vtbcjmjuz jt nou fnovhi uo jnqsowf toguxbsf qoosmz eftjhnfec
1. High-flexible software architectures (from feedback to
co-creation + cognitive surplus).
2. Legislation need to keep pace with the ever-increasing
speed of user-driven change (i.e. 3D printers)
3. Systematic participation of users (iterative loop).
4. Cross-disciplinary methodologies (and knowledge
integration tools to deal with complexity).
5. Adopting various IPR
models (providing more flexible
uses).
6. Clear incentives (combining
extrinsic with intrinsic
motivation) I.e. pull-push
7. QoE matters more
than QoS to users.
8. Open to different
cultures, languages
(but localisation‐friendly, context
based).
9. Increase transparency (but also awareness
and simplicity) about data uses.
@cristobalcobo hEp://1ny.cc/ppts
Oxford Internet Ins1tute Research Fellow.
References • Almirall, E., & Wareham, J. (2008). Living Labs and open innova1on: roles and applicability. The Electronic Journal for Virtual
OrganizaDons and Networks, 10(3), 21–46. • Bernstein, M. S., Ackerman, M. S., Chi, E. H., & Miller, R. C. (2011). The trouble with social compu1ng systems research. In
Proceedings of the 2011 annual conference extended abstracts on Human factors in compuDng systems (pp. 389–398). Retrieved from hEp://dl.acm.org/cita1on.cfm?id=1979618
• Coetzee, H., Du Toit, I.-‐M., & Herselman, M. (2012). Living Labs in South Africa: An analysis based on five case studies. Retrieved from hEp://researchspace.csir.co.za/dspace/handle/10204/6082
• De Moor, K., Berte, K., De Marez, L., Joseph, W., Deryckere, T., & Martens, L. (2010). User-‐driven innova1on? Challenges of user involvement in future technology analysis. Science and Public Policy, 37(1), 51–61.
• DuEon, W. (2008). Collabora1ve network organiza1ons: new technical, managerial and social infrastructures to capture the value of distributed intelligence. Retrieved from hEp://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1302893
• Eriksson, M., Niitamo, V.-‐P., & Kulkki, S. (2005). State-‐of-‐the-‐art in u1lizing Living Labs approach to user-‐centric ICT innova1on-‐a European approach. Lulea: Center for Distance-‐spanning Technology. Lulea University of Technology Sweden: Lulea. Online under: hSp://www. cdt. ltu. se/main. php/SOA_LivingLabs. pdf. Retrieved from hEp://www.vinnova.se/upload/dokument/verksamhet/1ta/stateozheart_livinglabs_eriksson2005.pdf
• Nicolas nova. (2009, October 15). Field research and interacDon design. Retrieved from hEp://www.slideshare.net/nicolasnova/field-‐research-‐and-‐interac1on-‐design
• Pallot, M., Trousse, B., Senach, B., & Scapin, D. (2010). Living Lab Research Landscape: From User Centred Design and User Experience towards User Cocrea1on. Presented at the First European Summer School “Living Labs.” Retrieved from hEp://hal.inria.fr/inria-‐00612632
• Paul Isakson. (2008, March 22). What’s Next In MarkeDng & AdverDsing. News & Poli1cs. Retrieved from hEp://www.slideshare.net/paulisakson/whats-‐next-‐in-‐marke1ng-‐adver1sing-‐318143
• J.A.G.M. van Dijk. “Conceptual Framework”. In: Study on the Social Impact of ICT (2010), pp. 1–30. • Hess, J., Offenberg, S., & Pipek, V. (2008). Community driven development as par1cipa1on?: involving user communi1es in a
sozware design process. In Proceedings of the Tenth Anniversary Conference on ParDcipatory Design 2008 (pp. 31–40). Retrieved from hEp://dl.acm.org/cita1on.cfm?id=1795240
• Fiedler, M., et al. Future Internet Assembly Research Roadmap–Towards Framework 8: Research PrioriDes for the Future Internet. Technical report, Future Internet Assembly Working Group, 2011.