Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
User involvement in living lab research: experiences from an interdisciplinary study
on future mobile applicationsDe Moor, K. Berte ,K, De Marez, L., Joseph, W., Deryckere, T. & Martens, L.
MICT - WiCa - IBBT Ghent University
Third International Seville Conference onFuture-Oriented Technology Analysis (FTA):
Impacts and implications for policy and decision-making
16th- 17th October 2008
User involvement in living lab research
Context and introduction
ICT sector
- Changing user roles
• growing pressure to innovate, to impress, ...
• shorter product life cycles
• innovation as commodity
• implications for research and product development
• active and dynamic (co-)production
• ‘push’ versus ‘pull’ approaches
• user as innovator
• 'user-driven and user-generated innovation
User involvement in living lab research
Theoretical perspectives
Technology and society
Traditional tension: user vs. technology
User involvement in living lab research
Paradigm shift
User-driven innovation
• more systematic + direct user involvement• specific type of knowledge• methodological reorientation (e.g. living labs)• focus on future technologies, users and experiences • interdisciplinary process • complexity
(Source: Sleeswijk Visser, Stappers et al., 2005: 123).
User involvement in living lab research
Integration challenges and objectives
Gap user- and technology-oriented approaches
1. continuous and adequate involvement of the user
2. integration and translation of knowledge from multidisciplinary process (bridging ‘the gap’)
Objectives:• illustrate how challenges might be tackled
• share results and experiences from own empirical research
• focus on 3 moments of ‘user involvement’ prior-to-launch
PRIOR-TO-LAUNCH
OPPORTUNITY IDENTIFICATION
R&D
TEST MARKET & PILOTING
CONCEPT DESIGN
CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT &
EVALUATION
INNOVATION DEVELOPMENT &
PRODUCTION
User involvement in living lab research
General methodology: ROMAS project
Research on Mobile Applications and Services
• goal: user-oriented assessment of (future) wireless city applications & services
• living lab setting of i-City Hasselt (www.i-city.be)
• panel of >1000 test users
• wireless application services (PDA, laptop, smart phones, ...)
• interdisciplinary approach for testing technological applications
• supported by Flemish Government and industry partners:
User involvement in living lab research
Results phase 1: opportunity identification
Goal: identification of current and future mobile opportunities
• challenge: user involvement in early stage
• users’ limited imaginary capabilities
• desk research + focus groups
• focus on time spending framework and archetypes
• e.g. Archetype Patricia and some of her daily activities
User involvement in living lab research
Results phase 1: opportunity identification
List of 80 (future) mobile applications
User involvement in living lab research
Results phase 1: opportunity identification
Integration of research results for archetype Patricia
• mapping of new ideas x daily activities of the archetype
• indication of origin and status of the mobile application
User involvement in living lab research
Results phase 2: concept evaluation
Goal: creation of workable concepts + evaluation
• based on wild ideas
• adoption potential was evaluated by large audience (N:312)
• two steps: 1. application clustering + ranking 13 clusters
2. user clustering 6 clusters
- e.g. mobile news: 3,11/5- not very appealing
- e.g. indication of parking spaces and availability: 4,23/5- very appealing
User involvement in living lab research
Results phase 3A: test market
Mobile news: assessment of adoption potential
• 5 working applications + 1 idea
• only accessed 1-2 times by majority i-City panel
• illogical choice (not appealing) but influencing factors
• PSAP-Scale technology specific adoption segmentation
• comparison with theoretical adoption segments (Rogers)
N: 269
User involvement in living lab research
Phase 3B: QoS optimisation vs. QoE
Challenge: ‘bridging the gap’ integration of knowledge
• context: importance of good ‘user experience’ (QoE) (e.g. iPhone)
• QoS: technical and performance parameters
• linking/translating subjective (social, contextual, ...) dimensions to technical QoS-parameters
• creation of new, interdisciplinary methodology
• Wapedia-application: case-study (N=10)
• controlled research setting
User involvement in living lab research
Phase 3B: 5-step interdisciplinary methodology
1. Pre-usage user research
- detection of relevant user experience dimensions and expectations: e.g. price, navigation, speed, display size, …
- multi-method approach (e.g. free listing, prioritizing, conjoint analysis, QoE-dimensions questionnaire,...)
2. Pre-usage translation workshops
- find optimal match between ‘user-indicated’ QoE dimensions and ‘measurable QoS parameters’ (e.g. Simulation exercises)
- social scientists + engineers
3. Monitoring during usage
- usage scenarios for test users
- different reception levels + monitoring of ‘signal strength’
- software probe model (cfr. Deryckere, Joseph et al, 2008)
User involvement in living lab research
Phase 3B: QoS optimisation vs. QoE
4. Post-usage questions on device
- after completion of usage scenario questions on device (general experience, frustration, speed, …)
5. Post-usage Comparison (expectations vs. experience)
- user experience gaps? Multi-method approach cfr. phase 1
reduction in speed (lower [dBm]
general experience drops
E.g. User 10 (male, 30)
User involvement in living lab research
Conclusion
User-driven involvement in living labs?
Discrepancy theory versus practice
• future-oriented technology research: role of the (future) user!
• continuous interaction (early phases)
• integrated and interdisciplinary approach
• methodological reorientation (e.g. more pull-driven living labs)
• push vs. pull debate
• different stakeholders different goals
• translation and interaction between disciplines as missing link
User involvement in living lab research
Questions and contact
Research Group for Media & ICT
IBBT / Ghent University
www.mict.be – www.ibbt.be
UGent
