Radical Innovation by Theoretical Abstraction – A Challenge for The User-centred Designer

Abstract It is generally accepted that scientific disciplines such as psychology, sociology, and anthropology contribute beneficially to design by providing understanding of users’ needs, experiences, and desires. Arguably, however, these disciplines have more to contribute, because they include theories and models that can be applied as design frames and principles. More specifically, goal-setting, visualization, thematization, and conceptual reconfiguration are general mechanisms through which theories translate into design contributions. Actualizing radical design solutions via these mechanisms is discussed: theories provide appropriate means of abstraction, which allows ‘distance’ from user data; departure from the existing design and user paradigms toward ‘what has not yet been imagined’ is thereby possible. These suggestions draw from and are exemplified by a ship bridge design case.

[1]  Clay Spinuzzi,et al.  Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction , 1997 .

[2]  Nigel Cross,et al.  Design Thinking: Understanding How Designers Think and Work , 2011 .

[3]  Nancy J. Nersessian,et al.  Abstraction via generic modeling in concept formation in science , 2002 .

[4]  Erik Hollnagel,et al.  Joint Cognitive Systems , 2006 .

[5]  Gordon Baxter,et al.  Human factors and ergonomics in consumer product design: methods and techniques , 2012, Ergonomics.

[6]  H. Sharlin,et al.  Bell: Alexander Graham Bell and the Conquest of Solitude by Robert V. Bruce (review) , 1974 .

[7]  Richard Buchanan,et al.  Design Research and the New Learning , 2001, Design Issues.

[8]  Hendrik N.J. Schifferstein,et al.  INTRODUCING PRODUCT EXPERIENCE , 2008 .

[9]  Donald A. Schön Designing as reflective conversation with the materials of a design situation , 1992, Knowl. Based Syst..

[10]  Alain Findeli Rethinking Design Education for the 21st Century: Theoretical, Methodological, and Ethical Discussion , 2001, Design Issues.

[11]  Leena Norros,et al.  Design of joint systems: a theoretical challenge for cognitive systems engineering , 2009, Cognition, Technology & Work.

[12]  Monika Richter,et al.  Cognition In The Wild , 2016 .

[13]  Jussi P. P. Jokinen Emotional user experience: Traits, events, and states , 2015, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[14]  Tomasz Miaskiewicz,et al.  Personas and user-centered design: How can personas benefit product design processes? , 2011 .

[15]  Jorge Frascara,et al.  Design and the Social Sciences : Making Connections , 2002 .

[16]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  The Sciences of the Artificial , 1970 .

[17]  Udo Arend,et al.  Software-Ergonomie '99, Design von Informationswelten, Gemeinsame Fachtagung des German Chapter of the ACM, der Gesellschaft für Informatik (GI) und der SAP AG, 8.-11. März 1999, Walldorf, Baden, Deutschland , 1999, Software-Ergonomie.

[18]  Erik Stolterman,et al.  Concept-Driven Interaction Design Research , 2010, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[19]  Eija Kaasinen,et al.  Designing User-Oriented Future Ship Bridges: An Approach for Radical Concept Design , 2016 .

[20]  P. Carayon,et al.  Human Factors and Ergonomics , 2013 .

[21]  Susan Leigh Star,et al.  Institutional Ecology, `Translations' and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39 , 1989 .

[22]  Alan Cooper,et al.  The Inmates are Running the Asylum , 1999, Software-Ergonomie.

[23]  Donald A. Norman,et al.  Incremental and Radical Innovation: Design Research vs. Technology and Meaning Change , 2014, Design Issues.

[24]  Busayawan Lam,et al.  Design-Driven Innovation , 2014 .

[25]  Fehmi Dogan,et al.  Architectural Design Students' Explorations through Conceptual Diagrams , 2013 .

[26]  Y. Engeström,et al.  Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research , 2014 .

[27]  Nancy J. Nersessian,et al.  Generic abstraction in design creativity: the case of Staatsgalerie by James Stirling , 2010 .

[28]  Li Jun-peng,et al.  What are Social Mechanisms , 2012 .

[29]  Jonathan Littman,et al.  The Ten Faces of Innovation , 2005 .

[30]  Susan Gasson,et al.  A genealogical study of boundary-spanning IS design , 2006, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[31]  Leena Norros Developing human factors/ergonomics as a design discipline. , 2014, Applied ergonomics.

[32]  Marc Hassenzahl,et al.  User experience - a research agenda , 2006, Behav. Inf. Technol..

[33]  Donald A. Norman Technology first, needs last: the research-product gulf , 2010, INTR.

[34]  Karel Vredenburg,et al.  A survey of user-centered design practice , 2002, CHI.

[35]  P. Hedström,et al.  Social mechanisms : an analytical approach to social theory , 1999 .

[36]  Antti Pirhonen,et al.  Future Interaction Design , 2010 .

[37]  Pertti Saariluoma,et al.  Explanatory frameworks for interaction design , 2005 .