Layered scenario mapping: a multidimensional mapping technique for collaborative design

Abstract Making use of insights gained through field research in design can be challenging. Some issues that design teams may face are making sense of fragmented data collected, sharing insight among the design team and presenting the data in ways that support the situated design work. This paper introduces layered scenario mapping, a technique aimed at meeting such issues when designing a ship’s bridge. The technique builds on and expands traditional techniques for representing user data in design and results in a map describing a typical scenario along several dimensions and at different levels of abstraction. It highlights the spatial and temporal aspects of the situation, and emphasises the use of visual presentations. This paper describes why and how the layered scenario mapping technique was created, it critically assesses the technique and discusses experiences with using it. The technique proved to be valuable in making sense of fragmented data, and supported the design team’s collaborative work when designing a ship’s bridge. It is expected that the technique can also prove valuable when designing for other contexts where the spatial and/or temporal dimensions are of importance.

[1]  A. Shepherd,et al.  Guide to Task Analysis , 2003 .

[2]  Maaike Kleinsmann,et al.  Why do(n't) actors in collaborative design understand each other? An empirical study towards a better understanding of collaborative design , 2007 .

[3]  Susanne Bødker,et al.  Scenarios in user-centred design-setting the stage for reflection and action , 1999, Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences. 1999. HICSS-32. Abstracts and CD-ROM of Full Papers.

[4]  Guy H. Walker,et al.  Human Factors Methods: A Practical Guide for Engineering and Design , 2012 .

[5]  Birger Sevaldson,et al.  Discussions & Movements in Design Research , 2010 .

[6]  Eva Brandt,et al.  On designing open-ended interpretations for collaborative design exploration , 2011 .

[7]  Sigrun Lurås,et al.  Radical design processes for systemic change , 2013 .

[8]  Sigrun Lurås,et al.  Field studies informing ship's bridge design at the ocean industries concept lab. , 2014 .

[9]  R. Hutton,et al.  Applied cognitive task analysis (ACTA): a practitioner's toolkit for understanding cognitive task demands. , 1998, Ergonomics.

[10]  Warship,et al.  The Royal Institution of Naval Architects , 1960, Nature.

[11]  Merlijn Kouprie,et al.  A framework for empathy in design: stepping into and out of the user's life , 2009 .

[12]  Lucy Suchman,et al.  Human-Machine Reconfigurations: Plans and Situated Actions , 2006 .

[13]  Peter Tolmie,et al.  The `adequate' design of ethnographic outputs for practice: some explorations of the characteristics of design resources , 2003, Personal and Ubiquitous Computing.

[14]  Pieter Jan Stappers,et al.  Contextmapping: experiences from practice , 2005 .

[15]  Jeanette Blomberg,et al.  An ethnographic approach to design , 2002 .

[16]  Barry Kirwan,et al.  A Guide To Task Analysis: The Task Analysis Working Group , 1992 .

[17]  Henry Mainsah,et al.  Reaching hard-to-reach users using online media to get a glimpse of work in marine contexts , 2013, INTR.

[18]  Lene Nielsen,et al.  From user to character: an investigation into user-descriptions in scenarios , 2002, DIS '02.

[19]  W. Kim,et al.  Value innovation: the strategic logic of high growth. , 1997, Harvard business review.

[20]  Kingsley Hendrick,et al.  Investigating Accidents with Step , 1986 .

[21]  Tuuli Mattelmäki,et al.  What Happened to Empathic Design? , 2014, Design Issues.

[22]  Luke Feast,et al.  Professional perspectives on collaborative design work , 2012 .

[23]  G. Button The ethnographic tradition and design , 2000 .

[24]  Bill Buxton,et al.  Sketching User Experiences: Getting the Design Right and the Right Design , 2007 .

[25]  L. Suchman Human-Machine Reconfigurations: Plans and situated actions (2nd edition). , 2007 .

[26]  Margareta Lützhöft,et al.  “The technology is great when it works” Maritime Technology and Human Integration on the Ship’s Bridge , 2004 .

[27]  D. Schoen,et al.  The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action , 1985 .

[28]  Deana McDonagh,et al.  Empathic Design: User Experience in Product Design: I. Koskinen, K. Battarbee And T. MattelmäKi (Eds) , 2004 .

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

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

[31]  R. J. Bogumil,et al.  The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action , 1985, Proceedings of the IEEE.

[32]  William Ion,et al.  Digital information support for concept design , 2010 .

[33]  J. Rayport,et al.  Spark innovation through empathic design. , 1997, Harvard business review.

[34]  Karen Holtzblatt,et al.  Contextual design , 1997, INTR.