Configuring and Reconfiguring the User

CONFIGURING AND RECONFIGURING THE USER:

HOW DESIGNERS PROCESS USER INFORMATION

ISIL OYGUR

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY Individual Interdisciplinary Doctoral Program

AUGUST 2012

To the Faculty of Washington State University:

The members of the Committee appointed to examine the dissertation of ISIL OYGUR find it satisfactory and recommend that it be accepted.

______Jo Ann Asher Thompson, Ph.D., Chair

______Janetta McCoy, Ph.D.

______Forrest W. Parkay, Ph.D.

______Elizabeth B.-N. Sanders, Ph.D.

______Suprateek Sarker, Ph.D.

______David Wang, Ph.D.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Although people refer to doctoral study as a lonely process during which you long to find

people to talk to about your research, mine was mostly a collaborative adventure. I could have never

completed my dissertation and graduate study without the help and support of so many people.

I have many heroes that I cannot name here because of confidentiality reasons, but they will

know themselves. First come my main contacts in each design consultancy; without their support,

help, and arrangements, I would have never got to observe the design consultancies I had studied.

This study would not have been possible without the generous help of the designers, design

researchers, engineers, developers, staff, and executives of the seven design consultancies who

welcomed me, gave me their time, shared their projects and knowledge with me, were patient with

my endless questions, and taught me their design approach and process. People who knew my

dissertation and the proprietary nature of design projects were worried about how I would actualize

my research and observe design consultancies. These consultancies showed me and those others that

dreams can come true. I am so grateful to these consultancies for opening their doors and letting me

experience their distinct design cultures.

I have seen myself as one the luckiest doctoral students because of my irreplaceable committee members. I want to thank my committee chair, Jo Ann Asher Thompson, for her

tremendous help, support, and feedback throughout my doctoral education and especially in the

course of writing this dissertation. I am so grateful for her commitment to working with me even in

her retirement years.

Distinct from the other dissertation stories I had heard and witnessed, I have had the chance

to thoroughly work and interact with each of my committee members throughout my graduate

education. Two of these committee members, David Wang and Jeanette McCoy, have been involved

with my study from early on. These professors not only provided invaluable feedback for my

iii dissertation, but they also taught me how to be a better scholar, writer, and instructor. They were very patient with me while we were writing papers together and I was puzzled about how to develop stronger arguments. I am very grateful for the learning that these two wonderful people provided to me.

Even though I did not know her personally back then, Dr. Sanders’s influence on my academic and professional life dates back to my master’s education. Dr. Sanders’s work on design research and her perspective on co-designing with users made me raise several questions as a design practitioner and a design researcher. I am grateful to her for agreeing to work with me prior to being one of my committee members and in spite of the long distance between us. She has been one of the quickest people that I have known to respond to my work with comments. I thank her for her contributions to my study and for working with me.

Two of my committee members, Dr. Sarker and Dr. Parkay, joined my committee later in the process, but their input reshaped my dissertation. Without hesitation, Dr. Parkay kindly agreed to be on my committee, directed me to appropriate resources on education theories, and supported me to finish my dissertation. My history with Dr. Sarker started long before he joined my committee. I had wished to be a student of Dr. Sarker after attending a seminar of his on qualitative research methods. When I knocked on his door once again a few years later, he generously agreed to work with me. Within a short span of time, he had invaluable input to offer to my study and to me.

He introduced me to new areas of literature; he always asked tough but very important questions; and he helped me reframe my study. From my experience, I know that all his graduate students are very lucky to work with such a wonderful person.

There are some other professors who guided and supported me through my doctoral education. Two of these are Bob Scarfo and Nancy Blossom. I had permission to knock on their doors whenever I needed help. They listened to my academic and non-academic problems, gave me

advice, and encouraged me. When I was stuck on my research, they sat with me, listened to me, and

shared areas of literature that I had no idea about. I am grateful to have been the student of these

giving professors.

I would also like to acknowledge Pam Medley and Jaime Lynn Rice, two wonderful people

from the Interdisciplinary Design Institute. They have answered all my stupid questions throughout

my doctoral education with patience. As a student, I know they are doing much more than they are

required to in order to help students. I was very lucky to meet them, get to know them, and eventually become friends with them. I am thankful that I got to finish my doctoral study while having such great people in my life.

Two people who joined my life within the last few years, my parents-in-law Hulya Ilhan and

Kemal Ilhan, cherish my life with their smiley faces. I want to express my gratitude for their support and love.

My biggest luck in my life has been my parents, Nihal Oygur and Nezih Oygur. I have no idea how they supported me and made me feel like they are behind me despite the thousands of miles between us. I could not have been who I am without their love, friendship, moral help, and financial support. I love both of them so much and I am thankful to them for being my mom and dad.

My final thanks go to my love, Ali O. Ilhan. Ali walked with me in every step of this journey.

He has been my best friend, my biggest critic, and my moral support. I know I could have never made it to the United States and finished my dissertation without him. He was with me during all my good and bad times and as my doctoral education comes to an end, he also shows me that he will sacrifice his dreams and bigger opportunities to be with me in the future. I am sure, as long as we are together, we will find happiness and peace no matter where we are around the world.

CONFIGURING AND RECONFIGURING THE USER:

HOW DESIGNERS PROCESS USER INFORMATION Abstract

by Isil Oygur, Ph.D. Washington State University August 2012

Chair: Jo Ann Asher Thompson

In recent years the design community has explored ways to design for user experiences and to better utilize user information collected via user involvement methods. While the efforts have been extensive, progress toward the true integration of user information and user involvement methods in the design process has been slow. One of the reasons for this gap is the application of user involvement methods without a holistic understanding of how designers process user information.

This study focuses on designers’ user knowledge processes at six design consultancies—both with and without research departments—in the fields of architecture, industrial design, and interaction design. Knorr Cetina’s theory of epistemic cultures is used as the theoretical lens to study the machineries of user knowledge production in these consultancies. The theories of boundary objects and constructivist learning are integrated with epistemic cultures to reveal the black box of how designers process user information at the integration stage of design. The research design was informed mostly by an adapted version of grounded theory.

Analysis of data illustrates that there are diverse epistemic cultures of the user in each consultancy. The user informs the design process through the designers’ user models and prescriptive input.

Designers construct either a composite or an experiential user model. Participation of designers in the user involvement processes help with the development of experiential user models. In comparison to

other design professionals, architects further reconfigure the user into an ideal model that focuses on

flow and feel.

The user models are utilized in the integration stage of design through referring to the self as

a testing device. In contrast, designers directly address the prescriptive user input. As a result of user knowledge utilization in the process, the integration stage of design is composed of solution- problem cycles. In this process, design outcomes and the user become the boundary objects that enhance client-consultancy collaboration and design team interaction.

It can be concluded that in the design consultancies studied, designers did not utilize the user information directly. Designers configured and reconfigured the user information to make it meaningful in the design process.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ………………………………………………………………………..iii

ABSTRACT ……………………………………………………………………………………….vi

LIST OF TABLES ……………………………………………………………………………….xiii

LIST OF FIGURES ………………………………………………………………………………xv

CHAPTER

1. INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………1

1.1. Theoretical Framework of the Study …………………………………………….5 1.2. Purpose of the Study …………………………………………………………….8 1.3. Guiding Research Questions …………………………………………………….9 1.4. Research Approach ……………………………………………………………..10 1.5. Limitations of the Study ………………………………………………………..11 1.6. Operational Definitions ………………………………………………………..13 1.6.1. User ………………………………………………………………………13 1.6.2. User-centered design ……………………………………………………14 1.6.3. User involvement …………………………………………………………14 1.6.4. Design researcher …………………………………………………………14 1.6.5. User information versus user knowledge ………………………………….15 1.6.6. Design fields versus design discipline …………………………………….15 1.7. Outline of the Chapters…………………………………………………………16

2. EPISTEMIC CULTURES OF THE USER IN DESIGN ……………………………...18

2.1. Designing Experiences: Some Background on 21st Century Design Context …………………………………………………….19 2.2. A Taxonomy of User Involvement Methods in Design………………………… 23 2.2.1. Intuitive involvement ……………………………………………………..25 2.2.2. Semi-systematic involvement ……………………………………………...26 2.2.3. Systematic involvement …………………………………………………...26

viii

2.3. The Stages of Design Process …………………………………………………...27 2.4. The Gap in Design Literature …………………………………………………...30 2.5. The Theoretical Framework for the Study of Users in Design …………………..31 2.5.1. The notion of epistemic cultures ………………………………………….31 2.5.2. Transcending the boundaries ……………………………………………...37 2.5.3. Learning through collective construction…………………………………. 39 2.6. Epistemic Cultures of the User in Design……………………………………….41

3. METHODOLOGY……………………………………………………………………. 42

3.1. Research Process……………………………………………………………….. 42 3.2. Preliminary Survey…………………………………………………………….... 44 3.3. The Pilot Study………………………………………………………………….46 3.3.1. Justification for the pilot study ……………………………………………46 3.3.2. Conduction of the pilot study ……………………………………………..46 3.4. Research Design………………………………………………………………... 48 3.4.1. Selection of cases………………………………………………………….49 3.4.2. Data collection…………………………………………………………….51 3.4.2.1. Participant observation…………………………………………… 52 3.4.2.2. Semi-structured interview …………………………………………53 3.4.2.3. Project walkthrough……………………………………………….54 3.4.2.4. Free listing exercise……………………………………………….. 54 3.4.2.5. Survey…………………………………………………………….. 55 3.4.2.6. Feedback workshop………………………………………………. 56 3.4.2.7. Website analysis …………………………………………………...57 3.4.2.8. Document analysis ………………………………………………...57 3.4.2.9. Photographs ………………………………………………………58 3.4.3. Data Analysis ……………………………………………………………...58

4. SIX DESIGN CONSULTANCIES, SIX USER CULTURES ………………………….62

4.1. Arch1: “Action-Reaction”………………………….…………….……………...64 4.1.1. Overview of the consultancy…………….…………….…………………..64 4.1.2. Product development process…………….…………….…………………67

4.1.3. User approach and user involvement methods ……………………………74 4.1.4. Processing the user…………….…………………………………………. 82 4.1.5. Summary of the main findings…………….……………………………… 84 4.2. Arch2: “An Ideal Day in Life”………………………………………………….. 87 4.2.1. Overview of the consultancy ……………………………………………...87 4.2.2. Product development process……………………………………………..92 4.2.3. User approach and user involvement methods ……………………………98 4.2.4. Processing the user ………………………………………………………106 4.2.5. Summary of the main findings from Arch2 ……………………………...109 4.3. ID1: “Constraints Make Us Creative”………………………………………….111 4.3.1. Overview of the consultancy……………………………………………..111 4.3.2. Product development process …………………………………………...114 4.3.3. User approach and user involvement methods…………………………...117 4.3.4. Processing the user ………………………………………………………121 4.3.5. Summary of the main findings from ID1 ………………………………...124 4.4. ID2: “Research as a Means to an End” ………………………………………...126 4.4.1. Overview of the consultancy …………………………………………….126 4.4.2. Product development process……………………………………………129 4.4.3. User approach and user involvement methods…………………………...135 4.4.4. Processing the user ………………………………………………………138 4.4.5. Summary of the main findings from ID2 ………………………………...142 4.5. IxD1: “Staying True to Client’s Properties”……………………………………144 4.5.1. Overview of the consultancy……………………………………………..144 4.5.2. Product development process……………………………………………146 4.5.3. User approach and user involvement methods…………….……………..150 4.5.4. Processing the user ……………………………………………………..153 4.5.5. Summary of the main findings from IxD1 ……………………………….156 4.6. IxD2: “The Post-it Culture” …………………………………………………...157 4.6.1. Overview of the consultancy …………………………………………….157 4.6.2. Product development process……………………………………………160 4.6.3. User approach and user involvement methods…………………………...166 4.6.4. Processing the user ………………………………………………………171

4.6.5. Summary of the main findings from IxD2 ……………………………….174

5. CROSS-CASE ANALYSIS ……………………………………………………………176

5.1. Analyzing the Similarities: How Designers Process the User in Design ……………………………………179 5.1.1. Construction of the user model at the fuzzy-front end of design ………………………………………………...179 5.1.1.1. Reconfiguring user information into epistemic objects of user ………………………………………...180 5.1.1.2 Constructing user models from user information via mediators …………………………………...185 5.1.2. The impact of user involvement service on the design process……………………………………………………. 189 5.1.3. Designing based on user models and prescriptive user input……………………………………………………196 5.1.4. Communicating with the client over design outcomes and the user ……………………………………………………………...200 5.2. Analyzing the Differences: Epistemic Cultures of User in Design Fields …………………………………...202

6. CONCLUSION………………………………………………………………………. 205

6.1. Summary of the results ………………………………………………………...205 6.2. Implications for Design Theory, Practice and Education………………………212 6.3. Recommendations for Future Research ………………………………………..216

BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………………………………………………. 219

APPENDIX

A. PRELIMINARY SURVEY INSTRUMENT…………………………………………..234

B. PRELIMINARY SURVEY RESULTS………………………………………………... 239

C. THE BUILDING AS A PUZZLE: PILOT STUDY REPORT………………………. 251

D. INTERVIEW QUESTIONS…………………………………… …………………….268

E. FREE LISTING EXERCISE………………………………………………………….272

F. SURVEY FOR DESIGNERS…………………………………… ……………………274

G. SURVEY FOR DESIGN RESEARCHERS…………………………………………...279

H. LOG SHEET FOR WEBSITE ANALYSIS…………………………………… ……...283

I. ARCH1: FREE LISTING AND SURVEY RESULTS………………………………...284

J. ARCH2: FREE LISTING AND SURVEY RESULTS………………………………...292

K. ID1: FREE LISTING AND SURVEY RESULTS ……………………………………304

L. ID2: FREE LISTING AND SURVEY RESULTS ……………………………………310

M. IxD1: FREE LISTING AND SURVEY RESULTS …………………………………...317

N. IxD2: FREE LISTING AND SURVEY RESULTS …………………………………...322

xii

LIST OF TABLES

1.1. An overview of design literature on users………………………………………………………3 1.2. Disciplines and theories that informed this study ………………………………………………6 1.3. Research questions ……………………………………………………………………………10 2.1. The overview of the stages of some of the design process models…………………………….27 2.2. Important terms and their definitions from Knorr Cetina’s (1999) work that are used in the current study ………………………………………………………..32 3.1. The labels given to the studied design consultancies………………………………………….. 51

3.2. Research methods and their application in this study………………………………………….52 3.3. The analysis process………………………………………….………………………………. 60 3.4. The types of data analyzed……………………………………….……………………………60 4.1. The summary of the descriptive information of studied consultancies ………………………...63 4.2. The amount of data collected from Arch1…………………………………………………….64 4.3. The general services offered by Arch1 and their expertise within each service area ………………………………………………………...65 4.4. The profile of the survey respondents……….…………………………….…………………..66 4.5. The milestones and leaders in the product development process……………………………... 67 4.6. The amount of data collected from Arch2 ……………………………………………………87 4.7. The general services offered by Arch2 and their expertise within each service area …………....88 4.8. The profile of the survey respondents……….…………………………….…………………..90 4.9. The milestones and leaders in the product development process ……………………………...92 4.10. The amount of data collected from ID1 ……………………………………………………110 4.11. The general services offered by ID1 and their expertise within each service area …………...111 4.12. The profile of the survey respondents……….…………………………….……………….. 113 4.13. The milestones and leaders in the product development process…………………….……...116 4.14. The amount of data collected from ID2 ……………………………………………………126

xiii

4.15. The general services offered by ID2 and their expertise within each service area …………...126 4.16. The profile of the survey respondents……….…………………………….…………… …..128 4.17. The milestones and leaders in the product development process …………………………...130 4.18. The amount of data collected from IxD1…………………………………………………...144 4.19. The general services offered by IxD1 and their expertise within each service area…………..144 4.20. The profile of the survey respondents……….…………………………….……………….. 145 4.21. The milestones and leaders in the product development process…………………………....147 4.22. The amount of data collected from IxD2…………………………………………………...157 4.23. The general services offered by IxD2 and their expertise within each service area…………..157 4.24. The profile of the survey respondents……….…………………………….……………… ..159 4.25. The milestones and leaders in the product development process…………………………....161 5.1. The summary of the main research findings from each consultancy …………………………177 5.2. Categories from the main research findings are listed in alphabetic order…………………….178

xiv

LIST OF FIGURES

1.1. Outline of the chapters ………………………………………………………………………..17 2.1. The user involvement methods continuum …………………………………………………...24 2.2. The design process model used in the current study …………………………………………..29 3.1. The steps of the research process…………………………………………………………….. 43 4.1. The work environment at Arch1 ……………………………………………………………...66 4.2. From the workspace of interior designers……………………………………………………..68 4.3. Sketches and notes from early design process…………………………………………………69 4.4. The illustration of a product development process of a school by a principal architect …………………………………………………………….70 4.5. The feedback from the user was mostly noted on plans at user meetings……………………...71 4.6. The product development process illustration from a principal architect in healthcare………………………………………………………...73 4.7. Designers giving comments to each other and working together ……………………………...73 4.8. An architect’s sketch including the student that he attaches to the building design……………………………………………………………...78 4.9. Design outcomes are significant to the collection of information from users …………………81 4.10. Design outcomes are the main instrument for collecting and storing user information …………………………………………………....83 4.11. The work environment at Arch2. ……………………………………………………………90 4.12. The workstations of a designer and a design researcher. ……………………………………..91 4.13. An architect’s design process diagram for a specific project …………………………………93 4.14. A design researcher’s explanation of his job …………………………………………………94 4.15. An architect’s explanation of the effect of systematic user involvement on the design process ……………………………………………95 4.16. A healthcare architect’s design process diagram ……………………………………………...96

4.17. A portion of a project calendar ……………………………………………………………...97 4.18. Representation of flow in drawings via arrows ………………………………………………99 4.19. Designers conceptualize buildings to meet an ideal flow……………………………………101 4.20. Diagrams of two design researchers and an architect illustrating the different definition of research among these groups. ……………………………………..103 4.21. A dedicated project space. ………………………………………………………………….107 4.22. The work environment. …………………………………………………………………….114 4.23. The project team structure.…………………………………………………………………114

4.24. The depiction of the product development process by an engineer…………………………115 4.25. The user, industrial designer, and engineer interaction at ID1 and the amount of user information transfer ………………………………………………...119 4.26. Industrial designers and engineers are discussing over a concept sketch ……………………119 4.27. An industrial designer’s depiction of product development process ………………………...122 4.28. The work environment. …………………………………………………………………….129 4.29. The information flow between the client and the project team……………………………...129 4.30. A project room of a traditional design project. ……………………………………………..131 4.31. A project room of a collaborative project with designers and design researchers …………...133 4.32. Depiction of design processes from an industrial designer and an interaction designer. ………………………………………………………………….134 4.33. A designer’s diagram explaining his design process. ………………………………………..135 4.34. The process diagram of a project illustrated by a design researcher ………………………...137 4.35. Sticky notes making journeys all around the office …………………………………………138 4.36. Project rooms enhance collaboration ………………………………………………………142 4.37. The work environment. …………………………………………………………………….146 4.38. Inspirational elements. ……………………………………………………………………...148 4.39. The process diagrams of creative directors …………………………………………………149 4.40. Collaboration takes place both at desks and at project team meetings………………………150 xvi

4.41. Diagram of the consultancy user interaction ………………………………………………..151 4.42. The diagram of a project process by a developer …………………………………………...152 4.43. A designer in action. ………………………………………………………………………..155 4.44. The work environment ……………………………………………………………………..160 4.45. The fast paced nature of projects …………………………………………………………...160 4.46. An art director’s product development process diagram. …………………………………...163 4.47. Project room of a research process. ………………………………………………………..164 4.48. The designers’ dependence on imagery ……………………………………………………..165

4.49. Notes and post-its at the development phase of product development processes …………..166 4.50. The processing of user involvement data …………………………………………………...168 4.51. A creative director’s depiction of a product development process. …………………………169 4.52. User information flow among the members of a project team. ……………………………..170 4.53. The desks of designers. ……………………………………………………………………..171 5.1. Construction of the user model ……………………………………………………………...180 5.2. Mapping the user information available to designers ………………………………………...183 5.3. Illustrating the construction of user models from user information ………………………….186 5.4. The processing of user information through mediators ……………………………………...188 5.5. The impact of user involvement service……………………………………………………...191 5.6. The increase in number of mediators when there is a user involvement service ……………...193

xvii

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

Everything we interact with, be it a toy or an application for our smart phones, is designed to

satisfy a human need. Human need is central to our material and digital culture. Still, the people who develop the products, services, interfaces, and environments have not always been successful in addressing human needs in their design solutions. This is why designers must be constantly reminded that everything they create is “going to be ridden in, sat upon, looked at, talked into,

activated, operated, or in some way used by people individually or en masse” (Dreyfuss, 2003, p. 80).

This is the very essence of the 21st century design culture and of this study, which explored how

designers process user information within the design process.

Design has always been about users, but implicitly rather than explicitly. Nowadays, this

focus on users has become explicit and trendy. The users’ tangible and intangible needs and wants,

among many other factors, have gained priority in contemporary design solutions (Bruseberg &

McDonagh-Philp, 2001; Desmet & Hekkert, 2007; Kouprie & Sleeswijk Visser, 2009; McDonagh-

Philp & Lebbon, 2000; Melican, 2004; Sanders, 2002). Experience has become the new buzzword

for creative industries, and the success or failure of design solutions has increasingly been associated

with the experience they deliver to users (Cagan & Vogel, 2002; Desmet & Hekkert, 2007;

Klingmann, 2007; Mitchell, 1993; Pine & Gilmore, 1999; Schifferstein & Hekkert, 2008; Suri, 2001).

Consequently, various design practice models, user involvement approaches, and user research

methods have dominated the design world. Although the ultimate goals of these strategies are

similar, that is, to bring the “user” into the design process to ensure that the design outcome will

deliver pleasant user experiences and be successful on the market (Cagan & Vogel, 2002; Green & P.

W. Jordan, 2002; P. W. Jordan, 2000), the focus of each is different. Some designers rely on their

intuition to develop design solutions for a specific audience, while others favor using systematic 1 research to target users. In still other cases, designers prefer designing in collaboration with the users. In any case, the positive impact users may offer to a final design outcome is usually taken for

granted.

Users have been an intense area of study in academic and professional design fields over the

past 30 years. Many books, articles, theses, and dissertations have been written (see Table 1.1 for

some of these resources); workshops and conferences have been held;1 and practice models2 have

been developed on the topic. An increasing number of firms (e.g., DEGW, Gensler, IDEO, Smart

Design) now have in-house research departments that conduct studies on users, both at the fuzzy-

front end of design and throughout the design process. User involvement scholars and practitioners

have established communities.3 Courses on user research and user-centered design are increasingly

offered at the undergraduate and graduate levels, and educational programs focusing on user

involvement in design have been launched around the world.4

Despite these efforts and resources invested in the notion of the user in design, relatively

little is known about how designers process user information while designing (Boztepe, 2007;

Melican, 2000; Sleeswijk Visser, 2009). Too often, the emphasis is on the design researchers and users as subjects, and the collection and interpretation of user information as topics (Table 1.1).

1 Some of the annual and bi-annual events that have had international recognition are CHI (Human- Computer Interaction Conference), Design and Emotion Conference, EDRA’s (Environmental Design Research Association) Conference, EPIC (Ethnographic Praxis in Industry Conference), and Participatory Design Conference. 2 Some of these models are avaliable from Zeisel (2006), Holtzblatt, Wendell, and Wood (2005), Kuniavsky (2003), Vredenburg, Isensee, and Righi (2001), and Becker and Steele (1995). 3 Design and Emotion, EDRA, and AnthroDesign (an online email platform for people working within the intersection of anthropology and design) communities, to name only a few. 4 Examples include Institute of Design at Illinois Institute of Technology, Design Anthropology graduate program at Swinburne University of Technology, and Human-Centered Design and Engineering Department at University of Washington. 2 Table 1.1. An overview of design literature on users. The exemplary studies are from architecture, human-computer interaction, industrial design, interaction design, interior design, management information systems, and computer-supported cooperative work. The table is not exclusive; rather, it reflects only the literature that informed this study. In some cases the exemplary studies address more than one topic; therefore, their assignment in the table was based upon their main argument.

Stage in design Topic of study Exemplary studies Programming User involvement Aldsersey-Williams, Bound, & Coleman (1999), Budd (2000), Danko, (pre-design methods Meneely, & Portillo (2006), Dickinson & Marsden (2009), Gaver et al. (2004), including data Gaver, Dunne, & Pacenti (1999), Hasdogan (1996), Holtzblatt, Wendell, & collection Wood (2005), Jones (2006), Kumar (2004), Kuniavsky (2003), Laurel (2003), processes) Luck (2007), Mariampolski (1999), McFall & Beacham (2006), Poynor (2008), Rohrer (2008), Salvador, Bell, & Anderson (1999), Sanoff (2000), Schuler & Namioka (1993), Spinuzzi (2005), van Rijn et al. (2011) Input of user and user Baroudi, Olson, & Ives (1986), Beers & Whitney (2006), Bruseberg & involvement to design McDonagh-Philp (2001), Burley, Scheepers, & Owen (2009), Garrety & Badham (2004), Hadjiyanni (2007), Nelson (2006), Kristensson, Magnusson, & Matthing (2002), Park (2011), McDonagh, Bruseberg, & Haslam (2002), Squires & Byrne (2002), Suri & Howard (2006), Woolgar (1991) Ideation Designer-researcher Forsythe (1999), Sleeswijk Visser (2009), Sleeswijk Visser, Lugt, & Stappers (Research interaction (2007), van Veggel (2005) analysis and Innovation and the Cagan & Vogel (2002), Flowers et al. (2010), Iivari (2010), Kelley & Littman concept fuzzy-front end of (2005, 2001), Khurana & Rosenthal (1997), Leonard & Rayport (1997), development design Sanders (2005), von Hippel (1994) processes) Perspectives on what Arnold (2006), Balka (2006), Boztepe (2007), Buchanan (2001), Cain (1998), should be/Critique of Cama (2009), Cooper (2004), Deasy & Lasswell (1990), Dickinson (2004), non-user-centered Fisher (2004), Grønbæk & Mogensen (1997), Kouprie & Sleeswijk Visser design practices (2009), Margolin (1997), Martin & Guerin (2006), Norman (2002), Pena, Parshall, & Kelly (1987), Rapoport (1977), Robinson & Parman (2009) User (product) Desmet & Hekkert (2007), Green & P. W. Jordan (2002), P. W. Jordan experience (2002), Margolin (1988), McDonagh-Philp & Lebbon (2000), Mitchell (1993), Norman (2005), Nurkka, Kujala, & Kemppainen (2009), Redström (2006), Schifferstein & Hekkert (2008), Schifferstein & Zwartkruis-Pelgrim (2008), Suri (2003) Review of user Battarbee & Koskinen (2005), Byrd, Cossick, & Zmud (1992), Cefkin (2009), involvement Frascara (2002), Grudin (2005), Hanington (2003), Hummels, Redstrom, & approaches/ Koskinen (2007), Ives & Olson (1984), A. T. Jordan (2002), Kaulio (1998), territories Kujala (2003), Mao et al. (2005), Melican (2004), Hamilton (2003), Rapoport (2008), Roth (1999), Rothstein (1999), Rothstein & Shirey (2003), Sanders (2006, 2008), Sanoff (2008), Sato (2003), Swanson (1974), Veryzer & Borja de Mozota (2005), Wasson (2000), Wener (2008), Winter (2008) Integration Utilization of user Melican (2000), Zeisel (2006) (development of involvement findings design solutions in problem solving and detailing User-centered design Becker and Steele (1995), Buurman (1997), Buxton (2007), Dreyfuss (2003), processes) process Goodwin & Cooper (2009), Vredenburg, Isensee, & Righi (2001) Evaluation Post-occupancy Anderzhon, Fraley, & Green (2007), Preiser, Rabinowitz, & White (1988), (assessing the evaluation Zimring & Reizenstein (1980) design solutions) Usability studies Buur & Bodker (2000), Charlton & O’Brien (2002), Davis, Bagozzi, & Warshaw (1989), Dolan & Matthews (1993), Doll & Torkzadeh (1988), Hall (2001), Hanna, Risden, & Alexander (1997), Nielsen & Mack (1994), Wichansky (2000)

3 These studies mostly focus on user involvement methods, the outcomes of the research

process, the transfer of findings from design researchers to designers, the effect of user involvement

on the fuzzy-front end of design, and the assessment of the design solutions from the users’

perspective. These topics cover the programming, ideation, and evaluation stages of the design

process, but infrequently examine the designers’ processing of user information at the integration stage.

Processing corresponds to the interpretation and the application of user information by

designers. Thus, processing is central to the development of user-centered design solutions. Despite

such significance, the designers’ use of user information while problem-solving (designing) is under-

researched and nearly neglected. The existing user studies on the integration stage mostly focus on

sharing prescriptive process models (e.g., Buurman, 1997; Vredenburg et al., 2001) without offering a thorough investigation of designers in action. Furthermore, current studies mostly use research

methods such as protocol analysis that require collecting data from designers at isolated laboratory

settings (e.g., Melican, 2000). These studies focus primarily on a single design field and do not use

the comparative lens offered by different design fields as a methods of analysis. Thus, a holistic

understanding of how designers process user information, as a design factor, is incomplete. As a

result, user information collected at the fuzzy-front end of design is not always meaningful to designers and is often either not fully implemented or neglected during the design phase (Boztepe,

2007; Melican, 2000; Mitchell, 1993). Without a better understanding of how designers integrate user

information into their process, user involvement efforts cannot be targeted to provide the

information designers need. Since the knowledge generated at the fuzzy-front end of design may not

meet the designers’ needs while problem-solving, a “knowing-doing gap”5is created.

5 The term knowing-doing gap is adopted from Pfeffer and Sutton (2000). In design, Mitchell (1993) uses the term applicability gap as synonymous with knowing-doing gap. 4 This study was conducted to analyze this gap and to try to gain a better understanding of

what happens to user information at the “black box” integration stage of the design process. The

focus is on designers and their use of the user and user information as design factors while solving

problems.6 This phenomenon was studied using the theoretical lens offered by Karin Knorr Cetina

(1999), the epistemic cultures, and with two supporting theories, boundary objects and constructivist learning.

In so doing, more clarity to Knorr Cetina’s theory was gained within the context of design.

The investigations took place in the everyday work context of designers from three design fields—architecture, industrial design, and interaction design—that produce three different products as a design outcome. The user involvement and design practices of two consultancies from each field, one with an established research department and one without, were observed for a total of six consultancies from United States. Observations across multiple design professions enabled comparative analysis that resulted in an understanding of the epistemic cultures of the user in design.

1.1. Theoretical Framework of the Study

The intersection between user and design has been studied by many disciplines under various names. These disciplines include architecture, industrial design, interaction design, interior

design, graphic design, engineering design, human-computer interaction, computer-supported

cooperative work, and management information systems. Each discipline investigates similar issues

in regard to users—in most cases without being informed by studies from other disciplines. This

lack of an interdisciplinary focus slows down development on the subject. In order to compensate

for this, the current study is interdisciplinary. While the research data were collected from three

design fields (i.e., architecture, industrial design, and interaction design), the literature from

disciplines other than design informed the study (Table 1.2).

6 Previous literature describes using the user as a tool for inspiration (e.g. Sleeswijk Visser, Lugt, & Stappers, 2007; Sanders, 2005) and for requirements analysis (e.g. Chatterjee, Sarker, & Fuller, 2009; Don & Petrick, 2003). 5 Table 1.2. Disciplines and theories that informed this study

Discipline Theory Insight User-centered design Designers should give the attention to end-users while solving design problems. Design-related disciplines User involvement User involvement in design has positive input on the (architecture, industrial design, success of the design outcome from the viewpoint of interaction design, interior design, users. engineering design, human- Design process Design process is not linear; it is iterative. Still, the design computer interaction, computer- process models are helpful in studying what happens while supported cooperative work, and designing. management information systems) User/product Designing is more than the development of a physical or experience digital outcome. Designers should design the experience to be delivered with a design solution. Epistemic cultures There are multiple ways of knowing in any single setting and practice. The knowledge production in a culture can be Sociology studied through the machineries of knowledge production. Boundary objects Abstract and concrete malleable objects aid in the interaction of different parties. Constructivist learning Learning is a knowledge construction process. Prior theory knowledge, experience, the context in which the learning Education occurs, as well as collaboration, aid in the construction of knowledge.

Three theories from two disciplines, sociology and education, emerged as the framework for

this study. Among these three theories, the theory of epistemic cultures as defined by Karin Knorr

Cetina (1999) was the theoretical lens that was used for studying the research questions.7 Knorr

Cetina (1999) defines epistemic cultures as “amalgams of arrangements and mechanisms—bonded through affinity, necessity and historical coincidence—which, in a given field, make up how

we know what we know” (p. 1) What we know is inseparable from how the knowledge is inquired, how

it is constructed, and the machineries used in the construction process. In this respect, the notion of

epistemic cultures helps researchers to define how cultures “create and warrant knowledge” (Knorr

Cetina, 1999, p. 1). Furthermore, epistemic cultures are context (field) dependent. Therefore, they

also help researchers to define the similarities and differences among fields. Knorr Cetina (1999)

actualized such an investigation into epistemic cultures within two science laboratories (a high

physics laboratory and a molecular biology laboratory) using ethnography. The comparisons

7 Knorr Cetina’s (1999) theory was not used in a purist fashion in this study. That is, not all the concepts and perspectives of her theory were followed. Instead her overall approach to the machineries of knowledge production was applied. 6 between these two cases exemplified the fact that there is not a unique epistemic culture that is

applicable to all science disciplines. Instead, high physics and molecular biology have different ways

of producing and processing knowledge. Thus, this theory offered a valuable perspective for the

study of how designers process user information (i.e., the epistemic cultures of the user in design).

Important concepts such as reconfiguration,8 epistemic subjects, and the care for the self serve as

pieces of a puzzle to describe and explain the journey of user information in design.

While uncovering this journey, boundary objects and constructivist learning serve to fill the gaps

left by epistemic cultures in the unique context of design. It is important to reiterate that the theory

of epistemic cultures came from the study of two science disciplines (high energy physics and

molecular biology), with laboratories being the main venues where knowledge is constructed in these

disciplines. While distributed collaboration among scientists and different institutions does play a

role in the production of knowledge, its character is different from the client- and user-intensive

social character of design. Therefore, epistemic cultures fall short of explaining the knowledge

exchange and collaboration among different parties with different interests.

At this point, the theory of boundary objects, a term coined by Starr and Griesemer (1989),

offers a valuable perspective. Boundary objects are abstract or concrete objects shared by different

communities. Boundary objects are flexible enough to meet the epistemic needs of each community

while still creating a common ground where different communities can interact and unite.

Consequently, this concept adds the perspective necessary to study the interaction between

designers, design researchers, and clients.

8 Suchman (2007), Voss et al. (2009), and Woolgar (1991) previously studied configurations or reconfigurations within the context design. In fact, the title of Woolgar’s study is very close to that of this dissertation: “Configuring the User: The Case of Usability Trials.” Different from Suchman’s, Voss et al.’s, and Woolgar’s work, this dissertation focuses on the larger impact of user involvement on design process at different design settings. 7 The last theory, constructivist learning theory, helped to explain the designers’ construction

of user models and the significance of experience, collaboration, and situated-learning within this

construction process. The nature of knowledge processing in design is distinct from knowledge

processing in the sciences (Cross, 2001; Lawson, 1990), which is the subject of Knorr Cetina’s

(1999) work. The act of design is not easily articulated and is characterized by abductive reasoning

(Kolko, 2010; Rowe, 1987), tacit knowledge (Friedman, 1997), and reflective practice (Schön, 1983).

Consequently, the study of how designers process user information required a framework for the

interpretation of designers’ learning from users.9

Constructivist learning theory highlights the constructivist nature of knowledge

development, rather than the old inscriptive approach to teaching. Since the inspirational work of

Piaget (1977), Dewey (1938), Rorty (1991), von Glasersfeld (1989), and many others, constructivist

learning theory has been applied in various pedagogical settings. According to constructivist learning

theory, knowledge is individually constructed, current knowledge and experience are integral to new

knowledge construction, construction of knowledge is situated, and collaborative learning is

significant in knowledge construction (Resnick, 1989; Savery & Duffy, 1996).

1.2. Purpose of the Study

While this study looks at the user from the perspective of designers, the results of the study

will be of interest to design scholars, design researchers, design educators, and design practitioners

from a broad range of design fields. The purpose of the study was to address the following three

objectives:

1) To examine how designers approach users and user information in the design process: User

involvement in design has been proven to be useful and valuable (Cagan & Vogel,

9 This learning is the transformation of user information (the unprocessed user data) into user knowledge (the user information that is tacit to the designer). 8 2002; Thomas Kelley & Littman, 2005); however, the information collected through

user involvement methods is not always successfully transferred into design

outcomes (Boztepe, 2007; Melican, 2000). One reason for the inapplicability of user

information within design development is incompatibility between the collected

information and the designers’ needs. Therefore, to better target user involvement

efforts, we need to have a better understanding of the designers’ conceptualization

and processing of user information.

2) To shed light on the act of designing: Even with the long histories of the design

professions (especially architecture), we still know very little about “designing” and

how design happens (Lawson & Dorst, 2009). While design is differentiated as

another way of knowing from hard sciences and social sciences, the unique

characteristics of “designerly ways of knowing” (Cross, 2001) have not been fully

uncovered. The existing literature focuses mostly on a description of design in a

holistic sense, rather than on the individual components of the act of designing. To

develop a keener understanding of the act of designing, we must pay attention to its

components. The user is one such component.

3) Interdisciplinarity: In an attempt to deepen the interdisciplinary conversation about

user involvement in design, this study purposefully crossed disciplinary boundaries.

While users, user involvement, user research, and user-centeredness have been

studied independently by various disciplines for many years, interdisciplinary studies

on these topics are limited.

1.3. Guiding Research Questions

This study was structured around the primary question of “How do designers process user information in the integration stage of the design process?” Finding an answer to such a broad

9 question was possible only by defining sub-questions. As shown in Table 1.3, two sets of sub-

questions were defined for this study. The first set of questions (left column of Table 1.3) targets

uncovering the utilization of user information in the design process. The second set of questions

(right column of Table 1.3) focuses on the existence of differences among the professional design

fields that were studied.

Table 1.3. Research questions

1) How do designers process user information in the integration stage of the design process? First Set Second Set 2) What are the types of user information of interest to 7) Are there differences among each design field’s designers? utilization of user information in their process? If there are differences, how does each design field differ in terms of 3) What are the sources of designers' knowledge on users? the utilization of user information? 4) What type of user information and knowledge do 8) Is there a unique way in which design as a discipline designers depend on the most while designing? integrates user knowledge in the design process? If there is 5) How does the user knowledge inform the designer, and a unique way, what are its characteristics? thus the design process, and the design outcome? 6) What are the differences in terms of the utilization of user information based on the different modes of user- involvement?

1.4. Research Approach

This study is informed by many qualitative research traditions. Similar studies to this one on

user-centered design, user involvement, user research, and design process were previously

investigated by other scholars using research methods such as protocol analysis (e.g., Melican, 2000),

ethnography (e.g., Cuff, 1992), case studies (e.g., Sleeswijk Visser, 2009), and interviews (e.g.,

Lawson, 2004).

Melican’s (2000) study is very similar to this study in terms of topic and research questions.

Using protocol analysis, Melican (2000) analyzed the contribution of systematic user research results

to the creative process of design teams. The data from two hour long protocols with teams

composed of design students were coupled with direct observations conducted by the researcher

10 during the protocol sessions. This research design led the researcher to describe the use of user

information by the observed teams.

Because protocol studies are mostly successful in collecting data that designers articulate

within a limited time span, the results from such studies have been criticized for not reflecting how designers work in everyday life; that is, the reality of design (Davies, 1995; Melican, 2000). By using a more ethnographic approach, I overcame this problem in my study.

Multiple case studies (six design consultancies) were used as the basis for this study.

Ethnography, participant observation, and fieldwork from anthropology defined my research approach. Prior to the collection of data, a preliminary online survey was conducted in order to test the validity of the research topic. In addition, a pilot study with an architectural consultancy was used to test and refine the research design.

The final research was conducted at six design consultancies during ten business-day visits to each consultancy. The studied design fields were architecture, industrial design, and interaction design. For each design field, one of the consultancies had an established research department.

Multiple research tools including participant observation, semi-structured interview, and survey were used to collect data from each consultancy. Grounded theory as defined by Charmaz (2006) guided the definition of my research question and the analysis of the data. Sarker, Lau, and Sahay’s (2000) adapted grounded theory approach illustrated how an existing theoretical lens can aid in the development of a new (grounded) theory. The qualitative research software Atlas.ti was used for the coding and analysis process.

1.5. Limitations of the Study

Data collection and analysis—from the initial visit to each consultancy to the submission of

their final case reports—required a significant time commitment of approximately a year and a half.

Within this timeframe, changes were made within each of the consultancies. For example, one

11 consultancy (ID1) was in the process of establishing a research department and had hired their first

design researcher at the time of my initial visit. By the time this study was completed, their design

research department had grown and become profitable. This type of change was observed and

discussed with the consultancy when I presented my results at a feedback workshop during a later, final visit to each consultancy. Therefore, it is important to note that the results of this study are limited to the state of each consultancy at my initial point of visit.

As with any qualitative study, the generalizability of research findings is always a concern. My

study is based on a snapshot of 10 business days within six consultancies. Therefore my findings do

not represent a general population of design consultancies. In addition, this study does not, and

could not, address the wide variety of projects carried out within each of the consultancies studied.

Although I had the chance to observe a wide variety of projects and practices within the 10 days I

was at each consultancy, I was not able to observe and document each designer’s process at each

consultancy. Therefore, although my findings do not reflect the design approach of each designer within each consultancy, they do reflect the user-centered design culture in action at each

consultancy.

This study is also limited by the very nature of the phenomenon I was exploring. My main

research question addresses a cognitive issue, the problem solving process of designers. This type of

information is neither easily articulated by designers nor easy for a researcher to observe. In an

attempt to neutralize this limitation, I used multiple layers of data collection and research methods

to enable the examination of the phenomenon from various and different perspectives, rather than a

singular and more limiting approach.

Lastly, my research offers only limited insights into the phenomenon of how designers

integrate users and user information into the design process. In my study, the size of the consultancy

(i.e., number of employees) is not considered as a variable, but the size might have affected the

12 existence of an established in-house research department and the design process practiced by the team. It is recommended that in order to uncover more precisely how designers integrate user information while designing and to deepen our understanding of this process, my research study should be repeated with different consultancies with different sizes. It is further suggested that other, similar research projects that refine the data collection and methodologies used in this study should be developed and instigated. As the volume of research studies on this topic increases, we will gain greater clarity and understanding regarding how designers process user information in their design process.

1.6. Operational Definitions

A few terms used in this study require definition since, in many cases, they carry different meanings in different disciplines or other terms are used to convey the same meaning in different disciplines. Therefore, the following terms have been defined for the purposes of this study: user, user-centered design, user involvement, design researcher, user information, user knowledge, design field, and design discipline.

1.6.1. User

For purposes of this study, the term user corresponds to the end-user; that is, all people who will use or interact with the design outcome in one way or another. In some cases, especially for architecture, user also corresponds to client, but it is not synonymous with the term. It has been argued by some researchers and designers that the application of the term user means separating a group of people from others (Sanders, 2006). Instead, they encourage the use of the term people.

While these are valid concerns, for the purposes of this study, the term user was deemed more appropriate.

13 1.6.2. User-centered design

In this study, I specifically tried to minimize the use of the term user-centered design. There is no consumer product, service, technology, or space that is not designed for users (Norman, 2002).

However, in the 21st century, the phrase user-centered design is commonly used to define design

processes. In this study, user-centered design is not evaluated as a unique practice or action; instead, the

term is used very broadly and covers all varieties of design approaches that prioritize the user.

1.6.3. User involvement

According to Kujala (2003), “User involvement is a vague concept covering many

approaches” (p. 1). In the context of this study, the term user involvement includes the following:

addressing user issues intuitively in design processes, conducting research on users, and designing

collaboratively with users. The taxonomy of different user involvement methods is defined in the second chapter. It is important to recognize that this study did not focus on co-designing with users.

1.6.4. Design researcher

I make an ontological distinction between designer and design researcher. While conducting

my preliminary survey, one of the comments I received from respondents was related to how I

define the term design researcher. Often, during my visits to the various consultancies, I encountered designers who considered themselves to be design researchers, that is, self-trained design

researchers, and many times I was critiqued as being biased because of my research education.

I believe that design researchers are neither designer nor researcher; they are both.

Therefore, for the purposes of this study, design researchers are defined as professionals who have acquired a formal research education. During my visits to the various consultancies, I argued (and continue to maintain) that design researchers are professionals who have acquired either academic or practical training on how to conduct systematic research. This being the case, not all designers are designer researchers, and vice versa.

14 Within the consultancies I visited, design researchers were in special departments, which I

call design research departments. The services of these departments were not always in line with the use

of the term research in academia. These research departments transform the research methods for the

needs of the corporate settings. For example, ethnographic studies at these consultancies take days

or weeks rather than months (Wasson, 2000).

1.6.5. User information versus user knowledge

Two terms are used frequently throughout this document: user information and user knowledge.

These terms are not interchangeable. The term user information means the data that the designers have about the users; for example, the functional and space requirement lists of users on an architectural project. Designers receive user information directly from the user and can collect pre-processed user information from design researchers, clients and others. User knowledge, on the other hand, “is the understanding of how information can be used to come to conclusions or take action” (Blackmer,

2005, p. viii). Thus, user knowledge corresponds to the designer’s interpretation of user information.

1.6.6. Design fields versus design discipline

As described previously, design has been analyzed in this study using two different scales.

On one scale, architecture, industrial design, and interaction design are examined as individual professions, while on another scale, the three individual professions are examined as a single area of study. In order to differentiate between these two scales of design, the term design field is used whenever referring to individual professions of design such as architecture, industrial design, or interaction design, while the term design discipline is used to correspond to any discussion about the design professions as a whole; that is, Design with a capital “D.”

15 1.7. Outline of the Chapters

In this chapter, I explain and discuss the framing of my study and set the stage for the following chapters. Neither the review of literature nor the collection and analysis of my case data were straightforward processes. Figure 1.1 illustrates how the process eventually evolved.

Chapter Two provides a review of literature on user (product) experience, user involvement methods, and design process. The sociological theories of epistemic cultures and boundary objects and the educational theory of constructivist learning are introduced. These areas of literature are interwoven in the last section of Chapter Two in order to bring light to the analysis of the epistemic cultures of the user in the design consultancies.

Chapter Three describes the research design, procedure, and research methods. Data collection and analysis methods are introduced together with an overview of the design consultancies that were observed for this study. The lessons learned from two initial phases of research (preliminary survey and pilot study) are discussed in terms of how they affected the research design, data collection and analysis methods, and theoretical framework.

Chapter Four is a collection of individual case reports and the findings from my visits to each design consultancy. The findings introduced in Chapter Four are the basis for the discussion and comparative case analysis in Chapter Five. The data were analyzed from two different perspectives: 1) as separate design fields and 2) as a part of a single discipline. In either case, the discussion centers on the designers’ processing of user information, cultural similarities, and cultural differences among these processes in the three design fields.

The last chapter, Chapter Six, offers an overview of the study, its implications for design theory and practice, and recommendations for further research on and around the topic.

Figure 1.1. Outline of the chapters

17 CHAPTER TWO

EPISTEMIC CULTURES OF THE USER IN DESIGN

For several years, the design community has been discussing ways of designing for user experiences and utilizing user information collected via social science research methods (see Conway

(1973), Dreyfuss (2003), Jacques (1981), Korobkin (1975), Rapoport (1977), Reese (2002), Rothstein

(1999), Suchman (2007), for examples of early studies). While these efforts have been impressive, the progress towards integrating user information, social science research, and design has been slow.

One of the reasons for this gap is that user-oriented approaches have been applied without a holistic understanding of how designers process user information. Only a few studies have focused on how designers process user information (e.g., Buxton, 2007; Melican, 2000; Sleeswijk Visser, 2009; Zeisel,

2006). For the most part, these studies have been conducted from the perspective of a single discipline or at remote laboratory settings with methods such as protocol analysis.

This chapter explains why it is important to examine how designers’ process user information in their natural settings and why it is important to look at this phenomenon across multiple professional design fields using epistemic cultures as a theoretical lens in conjunction with the boundary objects and constructivist learning theory. An examination of the design literature that gave rise to the research questions in this study is introduced. An overview of the contemporary design culture of the user experience is followed by the description of a taxonomy of user involvement approaches.

The way designers process user information at the integration stage is framed as the main area of focus. Through the review of the design process models, a common ground was developed for the labeling of design stages that is applicable to all the professional design fields studied (i.e., architecture, industrial design, and interaction design). In order to help explain the “black box” of the design process, the application of epistemic cultures (Knorr Cetina, 1999) as a theoretical lens is introduced. Lastly, the theories of boundary objects (Star & Griesemer, 1989) and constructivist 18 learning (Duffy & Jonassen, 1992; Merrill, 1991) are integrated with Knorr Cetina’s theory in order

to define the theoretical framework for the study of epistemic cultures of the user in design.

2.1. Designing Experiences: Some Background on 21st Century Design Context

The literature characterizes 21st century design as the design of user experiences (Bruseberg &

McDonagh-Philp, 2001; Cain, 1998; Desmet & Hekkert, 2007; Diller, Shedroff, & Rhea, 2006;

Klingmann, 2007; Kuniavsky, 2003; Mitchell, 1993; Pine & Gilmore, 1999; Schifferstein & Hekkert,

2008; Sleeswijk Visser et al., 2007). In most cases, experience is used as an umbrella term that covers

all aspects–from the tangible to the intangible–of user-product10 interaction (Desmet & Hekkert,

2007), and the professional act of design is portrayed as more than the development of a physical or

digital outcome (Buxton, 2007; Rapoport, 1977).

Although the user has always been a design factor that has helped guide design solutions,

over the course of years the role of the user has gradually become more prominent. In addition to

the users’ tangible needs (such as function and usability), their intangible needs (such as emotions

and values) have begun to dominate design thinking (Boztepe, 2007; McDonagh et al., 2002;

McDonagh-Philp & Lebbon, 2000; Norman, 2005; Nurkka et al., 2009). Today, designing

experiences has become the new norm for 21st century design.

The contemporary focus on the user experience is a result of socio-cultural, economic, and

technological transformations that impacted market competition over the last few decades. Starting in the mid 20th century, designers and companies offered design solutions with equal quality and

price (Margolin, 1997; Norman, 2002). However, the products were full of functionality and usability

problems that caused user dissatisfaction (Norman, 2002). As a result of fast-paced technological

10 Here the use of the term product is not in reference to industrial design alone. All sorts of design outcomes–buildings, interfaces, digital games, services, and so forth–are evaluated as products of the design process. 19 developments, the complexity of products increased and, with the invention of personal computers,

the problem grew (Grudin, 2005).

Originally, computers were too complex to be used by people who did not have a

background in computer science. Through professionalization, designers gradually became further separated from the users of the products they designed (Margolin, 1997; Norman, 2002).

Globalization has further decreased designer-user interaction (Boztepe, 2007). The products designed at one locale have increasingly been used worldwide, and cultural differences have brought new challenges for both companies and designers.

As a result of this continuing struggle between users and products, designers have focused their efforts on increased user satisfaction and sales by solving the problems users were having with the products they were designing (Davis et al., 1989; Grudin, 2005; Schuler & Namioka, 1993). At first, this focus was limited to solving functionality and usability problems—in other words, tangible user needs. When products began to have better functionality and usability standards, designers and companies once again turned to users, this time with a focus on intangible user needs.

Intangible user needs (e.g., expectations, wants, dreams, emotions) have become central to user-product interaction (McDonagh-Philp & Lebbon, 2000; Norman, 2005; Sanders, 2005).

Consequently, a broader understanding of user-product interaction has developed in the

professional design fields, and it is understood that designing for all aspects of user-product

interaction requires design solutions that are developed with a better understanding of users and the

user experience.

While the user experience plays a crucial role, designing products with pleasurable outcomes

is not an easy task. Voss et al. (2009) explained that “‘design’ and ‘use’ are often separated in time

and space as well as undertaken by different people with different skills, concerns, and under

20 different sets of constraints” (p. 32). Bruseberg and McDonagh-Philp (2001) added to the discussion

from the perspective of industrial design and wrote:

The incorporation of user needs into a design is challenging, as gathering and analyzing such intangible and qualitative data requires considerable skill and expertise. With conventional industrial/product design training, undergraduates often do not have the opportunity to obtain and/or develop such skills. (p. 435)

In order to overcome the problems related to understanding and incorporating users, starting in the late 20th century, designers increasingly collaborated with researchers from the social

sciences (named as design researchers in this study) (van Veggel, 2005; Wasson, 2000). Companies

and design consultancies all around the world launched design research departments with a focus on

different user involvement strategies (Cefkin, 2009; A. T. Jordan, 2002).

In these work environments, professionals with a background mostly in anthropology,

sociology, and psychology have brought various user involvement strategies to the context of design

to study what users “say,” “do,” and “make” (e.g., the conduct of research on users through

ethnography and action research) (Sanders, 2002). They have also developed new user involvement

strategies in collaboration with designers (e.g., cultural probes (Gaver et al., 2004) and participatory

design exercises (Sanders, 1999)).

In these user involvement approaches, the degree of user involvement ranges from passive

to active.11 At the passive involvement end of the spectrum, designers do not have direct contact

with users; for example, mind mapping is conducted by designers in isolation. Active involvement is

characterized by users’ active participation in the design process. Some examples of active

participation can be seen at participatory design and co-design sessions (Sanders & Stappers, 2008;

Sleeswijk Visser et al., 2007).

Independent of the degree of involvement, the involvement of users in the process is

11 This classification of the degree of user involvement is a version of classifications made by Tétard, Patokorpi, and Kadytė (2005), and by Ives and Olson (1984). 21 generative or evaluative (Hanington, 2003).12 The aim of generative involvement of users13 is to develop an understanding of users prior to the development of design concepts and solutions (Hanington,

2003; Squires, 2002). Generative involvement takes place at the fuzzy-front end of design. As Cagan and Vogel (2002) noted, “The Fuzzy Front End is the part of the product development process that starts with the general goals of the program and cover the early stages of new product development”

(p. 3).

The investigation of users is very open ended at the fuzzy-front end of design. Users are approached as a source of inspiration (von Hippel, 1994; Sanders, 2005; Sleeswijk Visser, 2009). The user involvement at the fuzzy-front end has been found to be helpful for designers in the development of mental user models (Pruitt & Adlin, 2006; Suchman, 2007). User models have been studied by many scholars from different design fields (e.g., Dagwell & Weber, 1983; Hasdogan,

1996; Krippendorff, 2005; Rich, 1983).14 Suchman (2007) explained the user models in reference to how they are used in the design of machines as follows:

In the design of interactive machines the most common substitute for access to the user and her situation has been the incorporation into the machine of a preconceived representation of the user and her situation or a “user model.” User models, constructed in advance as the template against which the user’s actual actions are mapped, comprise propositions about the domain, the task, the typical user, and the like. (p. 179)

In studies of influential designers and design researchers at the fuzzy-front end, the user has

increasingly been associated with innovation (Cagan & Vogel, 2002; von Hippel, 1994; Leonard &

Rayport, 1997). In contrast, towards the later stages of the design process, user involvement is

targeted on evaluating and testing proposed design concepts and solutions (Squires, 2002). This

12 Some researchers prefer making other classifications regarding the character of research. For example, Squires (2002) defined three types of user research: discovery, definition, and evaluation. 13 Some other terms used for generative research are formative research and discovery research (Hanington, 2003). 14 The term user model has been used with different meanings in design literature. Here, the term user model means the designers’ mental conception of users. 22 involvement is called evaluative, and one of the most common methods used is usability testing

(Charlton & O’Brien, 2002; Wichansky, 2000).

Both the generative and evaluative involvement of users in the process have distinct

applications in professional design practices. Because of these differences in application, the

contemporary design literature is populated with many terms, strategies, and methods that are used

in different fashions and correspond to different meanings (Desmet & Hekkert, 2007). An

overarching taxonomy of the landscape of user involvement that is used across design fields has yet

to be devised.

2.2. A Taxonomy of User Involvement Methods in Design

As a means of analyzing the landscape of user involvement in design, a limited number of

scholars have mapped user involvement methods. Each of these topographies built upon different

variables. Sanders (2006, 2008) differentiated methods based on impetus15 and mindset.16 Arnold

(2006) analyzed where design research fits on the bigger research spectrum ranging from

“art/intuitive based design” to “scientific research.”17 From a third perspective, Rohrer (2008) used

three classification variables: “altitudinal vs. behavioral”, “qualitative vs. quantitative” and “context

of website or product use.” A fourth scheme takes a closer look into ethnography in design and its

research tools (Plowman, 2003). The mapping is based on research methods’ being visual or verbal,

and quantitative or qualitative.

Although all four approaches to the classification of user involvement methods are valid,

they do not include the user involvement methods applied by designers in the absence of design

researchers in the product development process (e.g., self-modeling, role playing). Furthermore,

15 Based on being design-led or research-led. 16 Based on expert and participatory mindsets. People with expert mindsets see users as passive informants, whereas people with participatory mindsets use active user involvement approaches. 17 According to Arnold (2006), design is trying to ground itself in the middle of art/intuitive based design and scientific research. He labels this location as “research based design.” 23 some user involvement methods have various applications, which make it hard to map them at any

single point on a map. For example, Intel’s Proactive Health Project lasted several months, and

shadowing was used as one of the several research methods conducted by trained design researchers

(Dishman, 2003). In another example, St. Pierre (2002) used shadowing while designing kindergarten

furniture, but the duration of shadowing was much shorter and she had had no prior training on

conducting research with this method.

In order to address the different application of various user involvement methods, a

classification scheme in the form of a continuum was developed.18 This continuum consists of three points: intuitive involvement, semi-systematic involvement, and systematic involvement (Figure 2.1). In this classification scheme, the poles of intuitive research and systematic research should not be seen as binary opposites. Rather, these are complementary components that are necessary in every design process. In this sense, each point of the continuum is an ideal type that cannot be observed in isolation in real settings. More complete user involvement can be achieved with a combination of intuitive, semi-systemic, and systematic involvements. Furthermore, a design project may make use of all three types simultaneously.

Figure 2.1. The user involvement methods continuum

18 This continuum was previously shared as a conference paper (Oygur, 2010). 24 The mapping on this continuum is case specific and is based on the rigor of the user

involvement method. Cases can be mapped either on the points or in between them. For example,

the shadowing conducted in the Proactive Health Project of Intel (Dishman, 2003) is an example of

systematic involvement, and the shadowing conducted by St. Pierre (2002) is semi-systematic

involvement.

The main differentiator of this continuum is rigor in the application of methods. From left to right

on the continuum, the rigor in the application of user involvement methods increases.

Consequently, cases that are mapped on the left side of the continuum are more prone to

developing unpleasant user experiences and unexpected failures. The user involvement methods on

this side are more designer-centric (i.e., the designers’ intuition and experiences as users are the main

contributors in the design process). In this sense, the left side of the continuum resembles the traditional design model that requires little to no direct user involvement. On the other hand, as we move to the right side of the continuum, design researchers participate in the process and the number of systematic research methods that are used increases. On the right side of the continuum the expectation is that more in-depth and systematic study of the users in the process will increase the probability of designing pleasant user experiences and decrease unexpected failures.

2.2.1. Intuitive involvement

Intuitive involvement is placed at the left end of the continuum and represents the designers’ investigation of users based on intuition and experiential knowledge. Although systematic involvement of users is the state-of-the-art in design research, the numbers of firms that can employ specially trained design researchers is still limited (Hummels et al., 2007). This being the case, the designers compensate for this gap by either conducting their own research on users or using their intuition and experiences to represent users’ experiences.

25 2.2.2. Semi-systematic involvement

The user involvement methods closer to semi-systematic involvement are neither fully

intuitive nor systematic. They are either ad-hoc methods or condensed systematic methods. For

example, even though a designer may not have in-depth knowledge of how to systematically conduct

observations, they often perform user observations in the field. In their untrained process, they rely

on ad-hoc research methods and have a tendency “to overlook things that anthropologists see as

important parts of the research process” (Forsythe, 1999, p. 127). Or, because of time and budget

limitations, the design team may conduct a condensed and concentrated version of ethnographic

research within the course of a few hours. This condensed version of a systematic method might

have several flaws and the results are not generalizable to larger populations.

2.2.3. Systematic involvement

Systematic involvement requires rigorous methods and the design of the user involvement

processes. Designing rigorous user involvement protocols requires special training. As a result, the

collaboration between designers and specially trained design researchers is a more common

approach for this type of user involvement. Most systematic involvement types are planned in advance, are recorded, and can be explained. Consequently, the user involvement is more explicit with a systematic approach.

All user involvement types can be applied at different stages of the design process; however, contemporary applications of user involvement are concentrated at the fuzzy-front end of design. In recent years the design community has been searching for ways to expand the involvement of users and studying meaningful ways to increase user involvement in the later stages of design (Melican,

2000, 2004; Sleeswijk Visser, 2009).

26 2.3. The Stages of Design Process

Starting with the Design Methods Movement of the 1960s, several scholars offered models for a prototypical design process. Table 2.1 summarizes some of the most referenced design process models. Most of this literature has come from engineering design and building design (Austin,

Baldwin, Li, & Waskett, 1999). These models are either descriptive or prescriptive and define the structure of the design process in the form of consecutive stages with iteration loops among them

(these loops are not included in Table 2.1).19 Each author divides the design process into a different number of stages and labels each stage with a different name.20

Table 2.1. The overview of the stages of some of the design process models. The table continues on the next page.

Author(s) Stages of the design process Archer (1984) Programming Æ Data collection Æ Analysis Æ Synthesis Æ Development Æ Communication Asimow (1962) Definition of need Æ Preliminary design Æ Detailed design Æ Production planning Æ Production Buurman (1997): User- Problem, analysis, criteria [List of criteria] Æ Main problems, functions and structures, centered design principles, and concepts [Concepts, sketches] – [Observation, testing] Æ Overall form process specific to refinement [Preliminary design models/dummies] – [Observation, testing] Æ Optimization, smart products costprice, description [Design/prototypes] – [Observation, testing] Æ Detailed engineering production [Realization] Cagan & Vogel (2002): Product planning User-centered iNPD Concept generation (integrated New Fuzzy-front end: Identify opportunities Æ Understanding opportunities Æ Conceptualizing Product Development) opportunities Transition Realizing opportunities Program approval Product refinement Protecting innovation Production prototypes Launch preparation Product launch Cooper (2009): Discovery Æ Scoping Æ Build business case Æ Development Æ Testing and validation Æ Stage-gate process Launch Æ Post-launch review Cross (2008) Clarifying objectives Æ Establishing functions Æ Setting requirements Æ Determining characteristics Æ Generating alternatives Æ Evaluating alternatives Æ Improving details Darke (1979) Generator Æ Conjecture Æ Analysis French (1985) Analysis of problem Æ Conceptual design Æ Embodiment of schemes Æ Detailing

19 Schön’s (1983) reflective practice model and March’s (1984) models are two of the exceptions that do not define the design process in stages. 20 Cross (2008), Lawson (1997), and Roozenburg and Eekels (1995) offer detailed comparisons of design process models. 27 Author(s) Stages of the design process ISO 9241-210 (2010): Plan the human-centered activities Æ Understand and specify the context of use Æ Specify Human-centered user requirements Æ Produce design solutions Æ Evaluate design against user requirements Æ design process Meet requirements Jones (1992) Analysis Æ Synthesis Æ Evaluation March (1984) Production – Deduction – Induction Pahl and Beitz (1984) Clarification of the task Æ Conceptual design Æ Embodiment Æ Detail design Rhea (2003): Discovery Æ Forecast Æ Identify opportunities Æ Prioritize the opportunities Æ Model the Innovation process benefits Æ Generate a product concept Æ Create models Æ Refine the concept Æ Prototype RIBA (2007) Assimilation Æ General study Æ Development Æ Communication Roozenburg and Analysis Æ Synthesis Æ Simulation Æ Evaluation Æ Decision Eekels (1995) Sandivo and Norton Acquire design projects/works Æ Plan and control design Æ Acquire resources and services (1994): Integrated Æ Perform design [Understanding functional requirements Æ Explore concepts Æ Develop Design-Process Model systems schematics Æ Develop design] Æ Communicate design to others Ulrich and Eppinger Exploration Æ Concept development Æ System level design Æ Detail design Æ Testing Æ (2004): New product Production ramp-up development process VDI (as cited in Cross, Clarify and define the task Æ Determine functions and their structure Æ Search for solution 2008) principles and their combinations Æ Divide into realizable modules Æ Develop layouts of key modules Æ Complete overall layout Æ Prepare production and operating instructions Vredenburg, Isensee, Product development process User-Centered Design and Righi (2002): Market planning Study & define users, tasks, & competition The integration of Develop product concept Concept checkpoint user-centered design Create concept design of user experience and product Develop product definition and plan Plan checkpoint development process Develop and verify Iteratively develop detailed design with users Qualify and certify Availability checkpoint Ramp-up and launch Validate product against user expectations Life-cycle management Zeisel (2006): Programming research Æ Design and design review Æ Construction Æ Use and adaptation Æ Design-process cycle Evaluation research

Differences in the number of stages and the language used to describe the design process models are present partly because of the professional design fields from which they originated

(Cross, 2008). Because of this, most of the models are devoted to a specific design field and are not applicable to other design fields. In addition, these design process models have been criticized by other scholars for isolating the act of design and for not being directly applicable to design practice

(Cross, 2001).

The act of designing utilizes tacit knowledge. Polanyi (1967) described tacit knowledge as the knowledge “we can know more than we can tell” (p. 4). Creative knowledge in design involves tacit knowledge that depends upon reflective practice (Schön, 1983) as well as explicit knowledge

(codified and easy to articulate knowledge) (Friedman, 2000). Because of its tacit nature, the act of

28 designing is not easy to explain, share, and teach. Cross (2001) describes this tacit and non-explicit character of design knowledge with the phrase designerly ways of knowing. The existing design models fall short of addressing the tacit character of design and have been criticized for not being directly applicable to design practice (Cross, 2001).

Among the models summarized in Table 2.1., Buurman’s (1997), Cagan and Vogel’s (2002),

ISO 9241-210 (2010), and Vredenburg et al.’s (2002) are specific to a user-centered design process.

These models, as well as other models not summarized here, are also specific to different professional design fields and not applicable to the idea of design as a discipline.

Through a comparative analysis of the design process models included in Table 2.1, another design process model was proposed for the purposes of this study. After the existing models were synthesized, a staged-process model resulted (Figure 2.2). This model is applicable to all three design disciplines studied. The activities at each stage in this model are a combination of user involvement activities and design activities. The purpose of this model is to provide a background for the comparative analysis of architecture, industrial design, and interaction design.

Figure 2.2. The design process model used in the current study

It is important to note that not all the activities listed in Figure 2.2 are practiced in every design project (i.e., user involvement is not included in every case study of a consultancy, on every project). Thus, some of the activities listed under each stage are optional.

29 2.4. The Gap in Design Literature

As mentioned earlier, the majority of the contemporary studies on user involvement in

design are conducted at the fuzzy-front end of design (e.g., Cagan & Vogel, 2002; Khurana &

Rosenthal, 1997; Rhea, 2003; Sleeswijk Visser et al., 2007). These studies focus on user involvement

methods, the development of insights and concepts from user involvement processes, and the

transfer of user information from design researchers to designers. However, the utilization and

conversion of user information generated through various user involvement methods is actualized

by designers at the integration stage. Studies focusing on how designers use (process) user

information at the integration stage are very limited. Consequently, the information collected at the

fuzzy-front end of design is not always meaningful or useable by designers later in the process. This

situation causes a “knowing-doing gap”21 (Pfeffer & Sutton, 2000) (Mitchell (1993) calls this problem

the “applicability gap”) in design.

Previous studies have tried to address this gap and analyze how designers process user information (e.g., Melican, 2000; Sleeswijk Visser, 2009). However, these studies either have focused on a single design field, or were conducted at controlled laboratory settings (which do not always reflect how designers perform in natural settings). In studies that examined designers in their everyday work environment, the focus has not been on how designers process user information

(e.g., Cuff, 1992; Hargadon & Sutton, 1997; Molotch, 2003). Consequently, in this study it was important to include multiple professional design fields in order to further our knowledge and understanding of how designers process user information across professions and in their natural settings.

21 The term knowing-doing gap is adapted from Pfeffer and Sutton (2000). Pfeffer and Sutton used the applicability gap in the context of management to explain the inability of organizations to implement certain issues. From their perspective, the professionals who learn and develop knowledge through doing do not have the knowing-doing gap. They gave the practice of doctors as an example of professionals who do not have knowing-doing gaps. 30 2.5. The Theoretical Framework for the Study of Users in Design

After the literature was examined closely, the theoretical framework that was found to be most appropriate for studying how designers process user information came from sociology and education. This critical theoretical framework was built upon the theory of epistemic cultures (Knorr

Cetina, 1999) and augmented by the theories of boundary objects (Star & Griesemer, 1989) and constructivist learning (Duffy & Jonassen, 1992; Merrill, 1991). The main building block of this framework is the study of machineries of knowledge production, “methodologies, techniques, tools and instruments used in our knowledge production and distribution” (Mørk, Aanestad, Hanseth, &

Grisot, 2008, p. 15). Although “knowing” in design is studied through a focus on knowledge production, its machineries of user knowledge production have not been thoroughly explored.

Knorr Cetina’s theory of epistemic cultures brings the theoretical lens to study the machineries of user knowledge production in design. This theory was developed based on the study of two science disciplines. Within the context of design, two other theories provided valuable perspectives.

Boundary objects were helpful in studying the interaction between designers, design researchers, and clients. Constructivist learning theory framed a structure to investigate the designer’s cognitive process while solving design problems.

2.5.1. The notion of epistemic cultures

Long before design, other disciplines studied knowledge production in the context of laboratory science (e.g., Latour & Woolgar, 1986; Lynch, 1985; Pickering, 1984, 1995). Starting in the late 1970s, researchers focused on the “practice” of science, the science as it is performed in laboratories and other venues, and the study of scientists in action (e.g., Collins, 1992; Knorr Cetina,

1991; Pickering, 1992; Traweek, 1988).

The importance of Knorr Cetina’s work to this study lies in her distinct focus on the subject.

Knorr Cetina (1999) was the first to study knowledge production in science with a focus on “the

31 machineries of knowledge construction” rather than “knowledge construction” itself (p. 3). This approach helped Knorr Cetina to explain the diversity in knowledge production in science and is built into her theory of epistemic cultures.22

Epistemic cultures are “amalgams of arrangements and mechanisms—bonded through affinity, necessity and historical coincidence—which, in a given field, make up how we know what we know” (Knorr Cetina, 1999, p. 1). What is known in a culture is closely linked to how the knowledge is constructed and the machineries used in the construction process. Thus, “the notion of epistemic cultures simply refers to the different practices of creating and warranting knowledge in different domains” (Knorr Cetina, 1999, p. 246). Here, the use of the term culture refers to the culture of practice in a domain (see Table 2.2 for the definition of culture). The argument is based on the transformation of Western societies into knowledge societies. In knowledge societies, understanding expertise (processes and systems) and how it functions in practice is becoming more and more important. Thus, Knorr Cetina (1999) related epistemic cultures to “cultures of knowledge settings” that “appear to be a structural feature of knowledge societies” (p. 8) and that look at reflective practices of experts in knowledge societies.

Table 2.2. Important terms and their definitions from Knorr Cetina’s (1999) work that are used in the current study. All the quotations are from Knorr Cetina’s seminal book Epistemic Cultures if not otherwise noted. The table continues on the next page.

Term Definition Blind variation “Variation … is not based on the kind of scientific investigation and understanding of the problem that was popular among high energy physicists. … molecular biologists will not embark … on an investigative journey whose sole purpose is to understand the problem. Instead, they will try several variations in the belief that these will result in workable evidence.” (p. 91) Culture “Culture, as I use the term, refers to the aggregate patterns and dynamics that are on display in expert practice and that vary in different settings of expertise. Culture, then, refers back to practice, in a specific way” (p. 8). Distributed cognition “ a stream of (collective) self-knowledge ” (p. 173) Epistemic object Epistemic objects are the resources from which the knowledge is produced. Epistemic subject “Epistemic subjects (the producers of knowledge) are derivatives of these [epistemic] machineries” (p. 11).

22 The theory’s name uses the plural rather than the singular (epistemic culture) in reference to the multiple ways of knowledge creation in science. 32 Term Definition Liminal phenomena “knowledge about phenomena on the fringe and at the margin of the objects of interest” (p.63). Machineries of “methodologies, techniques, tools and instruments used in our knowledge production and knowing/Machineries distribution” (Mørk et al., 2008, p. 15). of knowledge production Negative knowledge “Negative knowledge is not nonknowledge, but knowledge of the limits of knowing, of the mistakes we make in trying to know, of the things that interfere with out knowing, of what we are not interested in and do not really want to know” (p. 54). Reconfiguration In laboratories, objects are mostly not found as they are found in nature (including the scientist themselves); “rather, one works with object images or with their visual, auditory, or electoral traces, and with their components, their extractions, and their ‘purified’ versions. … Laboratory practice entails the detachment of objects from their natural environment and their installation in a new phenomenal field defined by social agents” (p. 27). These installations are called reconfigurations. Self-other-things “The system of self-other-things from Merleau-Ponty is not the objective world independent of human actors or the inner world of subjective impressions, but the world-experienced-by or the world-related-to agents. What laboratory studies suggest is that the laboratory is a means of changing the world-related-to-agents in the ways which allow scientists to capitalize on their human constraints and sociocultural restrictions” (Knorr Cetina, 1992, p. 116). The care of the self “the preoccupation of the researchers with the experiment itself, with observing, controlling, improving, and understanding its components and processes. Confronted with a lack of direct access to the objects they are interested in, caught within a universe of appearances, and unwilling to trespass the boundaries of their liminal approach …, they have chosen to switch, for large stretches of the experiment, from analysis of the objects to the analysis of the self” (p.56). Unfolding “the continuing unraveling of the features of physical and technical objects, of their details, composition, hidden sequences, and behavioral implications, through the reflexive redeployment of the approach to the data points generated.” (p. 71)

Using comparative ethnography, Knorr Cetina (1999) actualized an investigation into epistemic cultures within two science laboratories: a high energy physics (HEP) laboratory (CERN), and a molecular biology laboratory (a Max Planck Institute group). These two science settings were selected because of their significance in contemporary science and because of the contrast between them. The comparison of the machineries of knowledge production in the two laboratories revealed the defining features of each epistemic culture. In addition, multiple machineries within each setting were identified and, as such, multiple epistemic cultures were found within HEP and molecular biology.

For example, in HEP, experiments took place over years through widespread institutional collaborations, which Knorr Cetina (1999) called a communitarian structure. As there was not a

33 traditional hierarchal structure, the discourse was carried among individuals through different

channels that resulted in distributed cognition (see Table 2.2 for the definition of distributed cognition).

The positive knowledge (the knowledge that is to be created) is not easy to grasp. The

knowledge was developed through defining the liminal knowledge (see Table 2.2 for the definition of liminal phenomena) and thereby, continuously minimizing the region of positive knowledge. The data were collected as signs from very small particles that could not be observed without detectors.

Knowledge was created via processing these signs and recording them by simulating nature in the laboratory. Physicists did not have direct access to the subjects of the study, so they applied the care for the self (defined through self-understanding, self-observation, and self-description) as a method of analysis.

In contrast, in molecular biology, experiments were more individualistic and lasted a much shorter period of time. The creation of knowledge happened through blind variation (see Table 2.2 for the definition of blind variation), a trial-and-error process of variations in an experiment. The scientist’s experience was central to knowledge production because most tasks involved the scientist’s body as a device of measurement, an “information-processing tool” (Knorr Cetina, 1999, p. 99). The dependence of molecular biologists on their experience and body is in line with Polanyi’s

(1958) concept of tacit knowledge.

Knorr Cetina also found some concepts were common to both cultures. One of these concepts is reconfiguration.23 This concept is of the utmost importance in epistemic cultures.

According to Knorr Cetina, reconfiguration is central to the understanding of the machineries of

knowledge production in all cultures and they bring social, cultural and technical differences to

fields. Merz and Knorr Cetina (1997) explained,

23 The title of this dissertation, Configuring and Reconfiguring the User, is in reference to reconfiguration concept as the phrase is used by Knorr Cetina (1999). 34 In order to understand a disembodied object in the kind of universe studied …, one may have to change or reconfigure it, a process through which one also manipulates one's chances of success [success in terms of creating the knowledge] with the object. [Emphasis added] (p. 75)

This ontological transformation and “enculturation” of objects in the laboratories redefines

the social and natural order (Knorr Cetina, 1999, p. 28). It is not only the objects that get

reconfigured, but also “the relationship between scientist and the object,” the self-other-things (Merz &

Knorr Cetina, 1997, p. 75). Consequently, the lines between objects and subjects are erased. The objects and subjects are malleable in the laboratory context; in fact, there are no objects or subjects, there are only agents. Thus, “In the laboratory, scientists are methods of inquiry; they are parts of a field’s research strategy and a technical device in the production of knowledge” (Knorr Cetina, 1999, p. 29). For example, in the HEP experiments, nature was reconfigured into “mechanically, electrically, and electronically produced negative images” (Knorr Cetina, 1999, p. 46). In contrast, in molecular biology the objects are reproduced in controlled settings and manipulated by scientists and chemicals. Researchers were reconfigured into instruments that record data from epistemic objects through the use of their body acting as sensory and experienced objects. In both cultures,

HEP and molecular biology, the study of reconfigurations is the basis for the analysis of the machineries of knowing.

Knorr Cetina (1999) proposed that the notion of epistemic cultures is applicable to “expert cultures outside of science” (p. 246). Several researchers from a wide variety of domains have met her challenge. While some researchers cite her work in their studies,24 others have gone further and

have used the idea of epistemic cultures as a theoretical lens. For example, Wagner and Newell

(2004) applied epistemic cultures to study of the effectiveness of a “best practice” enterprise

resource planning software package targeted for a higher education setting. Mørk et al. (2008) used

24 As of April 2012, the Google Scholar search engine showed 2313 citations for Knorr Cetina’s book, Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge. 35 epistemic cultures in management by studying a medical R&D project built upon cross-disciplinary

work. Guile (2010) used epistemic cultures as one explanation for how the knowledge economy has

been reshaping education in every aspect of life. In design, Ask (2009) applied epistemic cultures to

the design of games, focusing on the game experience and the players’ interaction with the game

World of Warcraft. Suchman (2007), Voss et al. (2009), and Woolgar (1991) used the concepts of

configuration or reconfiguration to study different aspects of design and user.

Although Knorr Cetina is cited in many studies, the use of her theory as a theoretical lens by

scholars is limited. Epistemic cultures is a thought-provoking notion, but Knorr Cetina does not

offer a structured framework for the study of epistemic cultures. In her work, she describes how

knowledge is constructed specifically in two laboratory settings, HEP and molecular biology.

Although she introduces several new concepts (on mechanisms, processes, and organizational

structures of an expert setting) in her discussion, the argument that holds these concepts together is the notion of epistemic cultures. In this sense, the theory does not offer a guided perspective to researchers who want to apply epistemic cultures in other settings.

Some scholars have criticized certain aspects of Knorr Cetina’s theory. Giere (2002) criticized her work because of the limited focus on distributed cognition—expressing concern that there are no references to the cognitive literature on distributed cognition, that there is no differentiation between distributed cognition and collective cognition, and that there is no definition or illustration of the categorizations of distributed cognition as it applies to HEP. From a different perspective, Ruetsche (2001) proposed that some of the concepts Knorr Cetina used for illustrating the distinctions among HEP and molecular biology can be evaluated as commonalities if the phenomenon is studied from a different angle.

Not all scholars agree with all features of the theory of epistemic cultures, but they all acclaim the conceptual framework offered by Knorr Cetina. This theory offers a new perspective for

36 the study of knowledge production in design. To date, the design process and the professional act of design have been studied with a focus on the machineries of knowledge production—mostly via protocol studies, participant observations, and interviews (e.g., Cross, 2008, 2011; Dorst & Cross,

2001; Kokotovich, 2008; Lawson, 2004; Schön, 1983). The studies on design epistemology are primarily based on logical argumentation (e.g., Bertelsen, 2000; Carvalho, Dong, & Maton, 2009;

Cross, 1999; Love, 2002). An exhaustive review of the literature revealed that a limited number of studies looked at the machineries of knowledge production in the larger context of design.

Consequently, using epistemic cultures as a theoretical lens to study design has the potential to reveal new knowledge about the act of designing and the role of the user—as a design factor—in this process.

2.5.2. Transcending the boundaries

Contemporary design practices have increasingly relied on the collaboration of multiple parties. These parties might have different areas of expertise, roles, statuses, and viewpoints that make it difficult to come to an agreement. In spite of the tensions that arise in the collaboration process, decisions are made and projects are developed. According to Star and Griesemer (1989), boundary objects play important roles in the development of a common understanding between different groups of people:

Boundary objects are objects which are both plastic enough to adapt to local needs and the constraints of the several parties employing them, yet robust enough to maintain a common identity across sites. They are weakly structured in common use, and become strongly structured in individual-site use. (Starr & Griesemer, 1989, p. 393)

The theory of boundary objects was developed in reference to the interessement (interposition) concept of the actor-network theory. The term was first used in association with translation and the formation of networks. In the interessement phase of a translation process, various devices can be used to strengthen the association between actors and support the structure of the network (Callon,

37 1986; Latour, 1987). Star and Griesemer (1989) built upon the single “passage point” oriented interessement concept and proposed the theory of boundary objects to address the multiple points and different directions of interactions in the cooperation processes, noting, “These objects may be abstract or concrete” (p. 393).

Star and Griesemer (1989) explained the role of boundary objects in cooperative networks through an examination of a natural history museum (Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology). In this museum setting, four types of boundary objects were defined: repositories, ideal types, coincident boundaries, and standardized forms.

The library of the natural history museum was identified as an example of the repository type. Books are indexed according to a standard in this context, and they are modular so that everyone can use (share) them based on their interests. The ideal type in the museum was composed of diagrams, schemes, and other classifications. For example, a specimen was classified as an ideal type of boundary object. Specimens served to spark the same image and meaning for individuals and served to explain a species in detail. The third type, coincident boundaries, was explained by how the museum’s artifacts were related to the state of California. Each scientist in the museum was focused on some object from different parts of the state of California. The final type, standardized forms, was attributed to the methods that enabled a common recoding of the collected data in zoology research.

The concept of boundary objects has been adopted by design scholars and has been used to explain cooperation between different parties in design processes (e.g., Bertelsen, 2000; Bødker,

1998; Fischer & Ostwald, 2005; Fleischmann, 2006a, 2006b). It has also been used for studying user involvement in design. For example, Tunstall (2008) explained ethnography as a boundary object in between design, anthropology, and marketing. Tunstall reported that ethnography is used in the translation of information between these groups and that it enables trans-disciplinary work.

38 The theory of boundary objects addresses the idea of cooperation and knowledge exchange between heterogeneous groups—a gap in Knorr Cetina’s theory when applied to design. The

concept of boundary objects adds the perspective necessary to study cross-disciplinary design

settings and the cooperation and knowledge translation among designers, design researchers, and

clients.

2.5.3. Learning through collective construction

Learning involves transformation of information into knowledge. Information is out there, it is explicit, and it is not processed (in the sense of knowledge) (Blackmer, 2005). On the other hand, knowledge is the processed information (Blackmer, 2005). Consequently, knowledge is constructed.

In education, the central feature of the constructivist epistemology is the constructivist learning

theory. Contradictory to prior instructional perspectives that favored objectivist tradition, the

constructivist learning theory has been structured on the idea that learning happens through

knowledge construction (Duffy & Jonassen, 1992; Merrill, 1991; Resnick, 1989; Savery & Duffy,

1996). This epistemological perspective has transformed teaching, learning, and teaching/learning environments. There is no single founder of this theory. The theory has been developed over the

years by building upon the work of such influential scholars as Piaget (1977), Dewey (1938), Rorty

(1991), and von Glaserfeld (1989). Since the publication of two special issues on constructivist

learning theory in the journal called Educational Technology in 1991 (volume 31 issues 5 & 9), the

theory has gained increased significance and has stirred discussion.

Constructivist learning is not a particular instructional approach (Kang, Choi, & Chang,

2007); rather, there are several types of constructivist learning approaches (e.g., problem-based

learning,25 case-based learning, and situated learning). Some of the commonalities among these

25 The studio environment in design education is evaluated as a form of problem-based learning (Hmelo-Silver, 2004; Kolodner, 1995; Smith & Smith, 2012). 39 pedagogical approaches and the main features of constructivist learning theory can be summarized as follows:

1) Knowledge is constructed based on a person’s prior knowledge and experience (Merrill,

1991; Resnick, 1989). What people have already known and experienced affects what

they will know in the future. Thus, learning is personal: “learning is a constructive

process in which the learner is building an internal representation of knowledge, a

personal interpretation of experience” (Bednar, Cunningham, Duffy, & Perry, 1992,

p. 21).

2) Knowledge construction and use is context dependent. Context is very inclusive and

covers all the elements existing within the learning environment and how the

instruction takes place (Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt University,

1991; Spiro, Feltovich, Jacobson, & Coulson, 1991). Situated knowledge is central to

constructivist learning theory (Resnick, 1989).

3) Learning is a collaborative process and requires active involvement. Additionally, “The

social environment is critical to the development of our individual understanding as

well as to the development of the body of propositions we call knowledge” (Savery

& Duffy, 1996, p. 136).

4) Difficulties foster learning. In this sense, puzzlements and conflicts work as a stimulus

for learning and define what is learned (Savery & Duffy, 1996).

5) Instructor/teacher is the facilitator (Brownstein, 2001). As instruction is not based on

didactic lectures, the instructor’s responsibility becomes limited to being a facilitator

and guide in the students’ learning process.

As with other theories, some scholars do not agree with the constructivist learning theory.

These arguments focus on the effectiveness of constructivist learning theory. These critics argue that

40 there is not enough evidence to claim that constructivist instruction methods are more effective than traditional approaches to teaching and learning (Mayer, 2004). They also criticize the minimized role of the instructor in the learning process (Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006).

In spite of the critiques, the constructivist learning theory has been followed by many, and this theory offers another perspective in the study of how designers process user knowledge with a focus on converting information into knowledge: “To learn about something, to come to understand it, is, in current cognitive science parlance, to construct a mental model” (Resnick, 1989, p. 4). The constructivist learning theory casts light on designers’ mental models of users, that is, user models.

In the context of design, the constructivist learning theory speaks to an area not covered by Knorr

Cetina’s theory of epistemic cultures.

2.6. Epistemic Cultures of the User in Design

This study uses the theoretical lenses offered by epistemic cultures in conjunction with the boundary objects theory and constructivist learning theory to study how designers process user information in their design process. The literature points out that there is a “knowing-doing gap”

(Pfeffer & Sutton, 2000) in design. Often, even when users are part of the fuzzy-front end of design, user information is not fully incorporated into the problem-solving process of designers (Melican,

2004; Sleeswijk Visser, 2009). I believe that part of the reason for this is a lack of understanding about how designers process user information. Distinct from previous studies on the topic, this study examines multiple design fields—architecture, industrial design, and interaction design—to inform our understanding of how user information is processed in the integration stage of design by designers working in their natural settings.

41 CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY

This qualitative research study focuses on how designers process user information. The primary methodological constructs underpinning the study are an adapted version of grounded theory and multiple-case studies. Quantitative data analysis is limited to descriptive statistics.

The data were collected via field visits to six design consultancies. Various research methods were used in the field to study the research questions from different perspectives and to triangulate the data. Grounded theory informed the study with its open-ended approach to the research topic and the inductive analysis of research data. Before the case studies were conducted, the validity of the research topic was tested with a preliminary survey. Further refinements in the research design and instruments were made after a pilot study was conducted.

3.1. Research Process

This study included several interwoven steps (Figure 3.1). Grounded theory method supports the idea of an open-ended approach, thereby allowing the researcher to avoid getting stuck in a predefined concept (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss, 1987). This approach further encourages researchers not to begin with a “deep dive” into the literature prior to data collection and to avoid developing a set research question or hypothesis at the beginning of a research study. In keeping with this approach, the parameters of my research question were defined prior to the field visits; however, a specific hypothesis was not. This allowed for more flexibility in the field, as well as in the analyses of the data that were collected. In order to become more knowledgeable on the topic of interest, it was necessary to delve into the literature in some depth prior to the proposal of the

42 research topic.26 However, the theoretical lens and the theoretical framework became clear in the

process of the data collection and analysis cycles.

Figure 3.1. The steps of the research process. While the steps are illustrated as consecutive and straightforward, the actual research process was iterative and had overlapping stages.

The initial literature review helped me to analyze the problems on user information

processing, to define the area of study, and to frame my research questions. In order to verify the

relevance and the significance of my main research question, I conducted an online survey; that is,

the preliminary survey step in Figure 3.1. The descriptive analysis of this survey supported the need for studying the proposed research question and helped in the construction of a similar survey instrument that was used during the case study visits. Before the case study visits were begun, a pilot study was conducted to test the appropriateness of the case study protocol and the data collection instruments.

The main data collection phase required more than a year to complete. During and after the six consultancy visits, initial and focused coding was done and emerging findings were presented to each consultancy. At least one senior-level designer (and one senior-level design researcher for the consultancies with a design research department) was present at each presentation. At this point, I received verification from each consultancy that my description of their user approach, user involvement methods, and design process was representative of their firm. During these

presentations, I conducted brainstorming sessions regarding my working study conclusions with the

26 In this literature review process, I was very careful to keep an open mind as suggested by Charmaz (2006), Strauss (1987), and Glaser and Strauss (1967). 43 participants. These brainstorming sessions provided further data that were incorporated into my study. Final research findings for each consultancy, including the analysis of the data collected at the

brainstorming sessions, were once again reported back to the consultancies via individual case

reports. Performing cross-case analysis and presenting written documentation were the last steps in

the research process.

3.2. Preliminary Survey

The preliminary survey was composed of multiple-choice questions, Likert scale questions,

and open-ended questions divided into three sections (a copy of the survey is available in Appendix

A). These three sections were on the respondent’s professional background (section 2), user and

user research approach (section 3), and design process (section 4). The sections were introduced

with a page explaining the scope of study (section 1 of the survey) and finalized with a thank-you

message and my contact information (section 5 of the survey). The survey was designed using

SurveyMonkey. The survey’s design and the structure were based on Dillman, Smyth, and Christian’s

(2009), Leeuw, Hox, and Dillman’s (2008), and Weiss’s (1995) suggestions. Similar surveys,

conducted on user-centeredness by The Center of Health Design (Taylor, 2009) and Vredenburg et

al. (2002), served as exemplars. The survey was pre-tested with a very small number of people (10

people) and was revised based on the feedback received.

Since there was no intent to make statistical inferences from the survey, the sampling

strategy was convenience sampling. The respondents targeted were design practitioners and

academicians from architecture, design research, industrial design, interaction design, interior design,

and landscape architecture. The link to the survey was distributed to online e-mail platforms specific

to practitioners and scholars from various design fields. These platforms were AIGA, Anthrodesign,

ASID, EDRA, ID forum, IDEC, L-Arch, and PhD Design. A week after the distribution of the

survey, a reminder was forwarded to each platform. The return rate from each e-mail platform

44 ranged from 1% to 5.5%. It is recognized that, because of the small return rates and use of

convenience sampling, the results of the survey are not generalizable to all subscribers of each e-mail

platform or the larger design community.

The descriptive analysis of each section of the survey is available in Appendix B. These

results were previously shared and discussed at a conference (Oygur & Thompson, 2011). Overall,

465 responses were received to the survey. Among these responses, there were 366 usable responses

for section 3 and 254 usable responses for section 4 of the survey.27

The findings of the preliminary survey (survey results are available in Appendix B) supported

the need to conduct the proposed study. In particular, the survey results indicated statistically significant differences in the amount of user information that was integrated at each design stage—

verifying, as suspected, that user information has the most input at the fuzzy-front end of design.28

This finding reinforced the need to examine the effectiveness of the transfer of user information to design outcomes and the importance of exploring how designers process user information in their problem-solving activity.

The results from the preliminary survey also emphasized the different languages and terminologies used among the various design fields. Of special importance was the recognition that a single terminology—garnered from the existing design literature29—was inadequate for defining the

stages of the design process. In order to address this deficiency, the languages of the surveys used in

the case studies were updated based on the design consultancy being studied and the professional

27 The respondents who did not complete the sections were eliminated from the study. 28 Friedman test showed statistically significant differences in designers’ level of user information use at different stages of a design process, X2(5) = 49.128, P = 0.01. Post-hoc analysis with Wilcoxon signed-rank tests was conducted. A Bonferroni correction applied for these tests, resulting in a significance level set at P < 0.0007. There are statistically significant differences between programming and development (Z=-5.025, P=0.001), data collection and development (Z=-3.722, P=0.001), analysis and development (Z=-5.203, P=0. 001), synthesis and development (Z=-5.113, P=0.001), and development and communication stages (Z=-4.448, P=0.001). 29 Archer’s (1984) design process model and the names of the stages in this model were used in the second question of the fourth section of the preliminary survey. 45 design field of the consultancy. Each consultancy’s own labeling for the stages of the design process was used.

3.3. The Pilot Study

3.3.1. Justification for the pilot study

The pilot study was conducted for the following reasons:

1) It provided a forum to closely examine my research approach and the potential to

gain new knowledge from the proposed research design.

2) It allowed me to test the case study protocol and to refine the data collection

instruments.30

3) It gave the chance to test whether 10 business days was a sufficient amount of

time to spend at each consultancy to garner enough information about the epistemic

cultures of the user.

4) It provided an opportunity to analyze the data analysis strategy and helped

identify areas upon which to focus attention.

3.3.2. Conduction of the pilot study

The pilot study was conducted at a small architectural consultancy over the course of

10 business days (the pilot study report is available as Appendix C). While the pilot study was informative to the overall research design, the scale of the consultancy was small and the scope of the consultancy’s work was different from that of the targeted consultancies.

Therefore, data from the pilot study were not included in the final results, but used only to inform the study’s research design and instruments.

The initial case study protocol included a collage-making exercise as a data collection tool. After the pilot study was conducted, the collage-making exercise was eliminated

30 Semi-structured interview questions, survey, and free listing exercise were revised. 46 because the designers found it too time consuming. Project walkthroughs were added in

place of collage-making. According to case study protocol, the methods of collecting information on project specific user involvement methods and design processes were not sufficient. The project walkthroughs filled this gap.

The pilot study also confirmed that the duration of 10 business days was a sufficient amount of time to spend at each consultancy. Minor changes were made to the free listing exercise, survey, and interview questions. Based on preliminary survey analysis, it was decided that the segmentation and the names for the stages of the design process listed in the survey should be taken from the design consultancy’s documents so that the respondents would be familiar with the conceptualization of the design process. In the pilot study survey, this change in the survey instrument was tested. Designers from the pilot study consultancy confirmed they had no problems understanding the survey questions.

The pilot study was analyzed without a theoretical lens and theoretical framework from the literature. The resulting report was mostly descriptive and lacking explanatory discussions on how designers process user information. In order to better address the research questions, it was necessary to examine the literature from other disciplines and identify a theoretical lens through which to study the phenomenon. This led to my introduction to Knorr Cetina’s (1999) theory of epistemic cultures, Star and Griesemer’s

(1989) concept of boundary objects, and the constructivist learning theory from education.

Furthermore, rather than Glaser’s (1978), Glaser and Strauss’s (1967), Strauss’s (1987), and

Strauss and Corbin’s (1990) grounded theory approaches and procedures, Charmaz’s (2006) approach to grounded theory in conjunction with the utilization of a theoretical lens as explained by Sarker et al. (2000) was found to be more applicable to the study.

47 3.4. Research Design

This study was designed as a multiple-case study informed by ethnographic research traditions.

Among different qualitative methodologies available, a multiple-case study was selected for the following reasons:

1) Yin (2008) defines case study as “an empirical inquiry that investigates a

contemporary phenomenon in depth and within its real-life context, especially when

the boundaries between the phenomenon and context are not clearly evident” (p.

18). The goal of this research study is in keeping with Yin’s definition where

designers’ processing of user information (a contemporary phenomenon) was

investigated while they were going through their everyday design practice (in-depth

analysis in a real-life context).

2) The main research question of this study is a “how” question. Case studies are

especially valuable for studying “how” and “why” questions (Yin, 2008).

3) In his study at a microcomputer manufacturer, Woolgar (1991) analyzed how the

user is configured at usability trials. He stated, “It is [thus] possible to argue that

participants’ notions of the user are available to us, if only implicitly, through an

inspection of, say, the day to day work of the hardware designer” (Woolgar, 1991, p.

75). The research question of the current study also required the analysis of day-to-

day work of designers practicing different user involvement methods and problem-

solving processes. To my knowledge, the studies with similar research questions were

conducted mostly in controlled laboratory settings (e.g., Melican, 2000), and the

studies that investigated designers in their natural settings did not focus on the

designers’ processing of user information (e.g., Cuff, 1992). Thus, in order to address

48 this gap in the design literature, it was important to investigate designers in their

natural settings.

4) An exhaustive review of the literature revealed that studies that address similar

research questions to those in this study focus on a single design field (e.g., Melican,

2000; Sleeswijk Visser, 2009; Zeisel, 2006). A comparative analysis of different

professional design fields offers the opportunity to gain new information on the

research topic (Knorr Cetina, 1999; Yin, 2008). This study is designed as a multiple-

case study in order to do a comparative analysis of each professional design field in

the study.

3.4.1. Selection of cases

The fieldwork was carried out in Northwest USA. Design fields to be studied were selected based on their design outcome (e.g., building versus product). The aim was to include design fields with a range of design outcomes (e.g., building, consumer product, interface). Examining a diversity of design fields was expected to uncover different aspects of user information processing within design. Among the design fields that focus on the design of spaces (e.g., buildings, interiors), architecture was selected because of its long history as a recognized design profession. In comparison, interaction design, the youngest professional design field, was selected because of its focus on human- computer interaction. Industrial design was selected as the last design field to be studied because of its focus on user involvement and its leadership in the development of the topic (Sanders, 2006).

The research was conducted at design consultancies rather than in-house design departments of companies such as banks or retail stores. Projects are more dispersed in terms of number and variety at design consultancies compared to in-house design offices (Julier, 2008). Therefore, I had the chance to observe several projects within the short duration of my visits at the design consultancies.

49 Possible design consultancies for this study were determined through an internet search on

the websites of architectural, industrial design, and interaction design consultancies in the USA. The

consultancies that highlighted user-centeredness as their strength were included in the initial list. The

final selection of consultancies from this list was based on convenience sampling.

Because of the confidentiality of projects, design consultancies are often unwilling to open

their doors to researchers (Sleeswijk Visser, 2009; Wasson, 2000). Furthermore, consultancies are

concerned that such research studies might disrupt designers, take too much of the employees’ work

hours, and cause delay on projects. For these reasons, a random sampling approach to determine

which consultancies to include in the study was not viable. Instead, specific consultancies were

targeted based on the firm’s size (the target was medium- or large-sized consultancies), the profile of

the firm, and the portfolio of projects.

A booklet introducing me and my study was emailed to a manager or a department director

from each targeted consultancy as an initial introduction. I visited the consultancies that had a

positive reply and met with designers (and design researchers in consultancies with design research

departments) prior to the collection of data.

The study included a total of six cases from three design fields (two consultancies from each

field). All the studied design consultancies have the international reputation of delivering state-of-

the-art design practices. They all won several international and national design awards.

Purposefully, three of the consultancies selected had an established31 design research department32 conducting studies on users at the time of the study, and three did not. Studying

31 Here, I offer a caveat about the word established. One of the consultancies (ID1) was in the process of launching its research department at the time of my visit. The consultancy was within its early days of working with a design researcher, and the work of the research was not reflected in their design process yet. 32 There are consultancies with research departments that are not practicing user involvement methods. In this study, the term design research department is used to refer to research departments that focus on user involvement. 50 consultancies with and without design research departments was necessary to observe different user

approaches and to compare the impact of different user involvement methods on product

development processes. The consultancies showed differences in terms of their number of

employees. While the size of the consultancy might have affected the existence of an established

research department and design process, consultancy size was not considered as a variable while

selecting the consultancies to be studied. The only aim was to study consultancies with more than 20

employees.

Each consultancy was assured that information about their firm would be kept confidential,

and that generic categories, rather than names of firms, would be used in the final dissertation.

Therefore, the discussion of such things as the exact number of employees, consultancy location,

and their founding year is non-specific. Any information that can be easily connected to the consultancy was avoided. Each consultancy was given a label and is referred to by that label throughout the dissertation. The consultancy labels that include 2 are the consultancies with established design research departments, and the labels with 1 are those without established design research departments (Table 3.1). The pilot study consultancy was labeled as Arch0.

Table 3.1. The labels given to the studied design consultancies

Architecture Industrial design Interaction design Does not have an established Arch1 ID1 IxD1 design research department Has an established design Arch2 ID2 IxD2 research department

3.4.2. Data collection

Data were collected from designers, design researchers (for the three consultancies with the

established design research departments), engineers, developers, executives, projects, work contexts,

documents, and official websites of the consultancies. The list of methods together with the source

51 of data, case protocol requirements, how the data were recorded, and the analysis tools are summarized in Table 3.2.

Table 3.2. Research methods and their application in this study

Method Participant/Source Protocol requirement Recording of data Analysis tools Participant Minimum 40 hours over Product development teams Diary Diary observation 10 business days Minimum 2 interviews Designers (40 minutes to 1 hour) Semi- Audio recording Design researchers (when there Transcripts structured Minimum 1 interview Drawing of process is a design research Process diagrams interview (40 minutes to 1 hour) diagram department) Owner/President/Manager 1 (40 minutes to 1 hour) Minimum 1 Designer (40 minutes to 1 hour) Audio recording Project Transcripts Design researchers (when there Drawing of process walkthrough Minimum 1 Process diagrams is a design research diagram (40 minutes to 1 hour) department) Qualitatively Æ Pdf For designers, design document Free listing researchers, developers, and Return rate target 50% Free list handouts exercise Quantitatively Æ engineers Frequency distribution Qualitative answers For designers, creative Æ Pdf document Survey directors, and design Return rate target 50% Survey handouts Quantitative answers researchers Æ SPSS document At least with one senior level Feedback designer (and one senior level Audio recording Transcripts workshop design researcher) Website Consultancies’ websites Log sheet Log sheet analysis Hard copy or digital Brochures, marketing materials Pdf document Document copy analysis Hard copy or digital Project-related documents Pdf document copy Office environment, teams’ Minimum 5 photos for Photographs clustered Photography Pdf document working sessions, artifacts each category in categories

3.4.2.1. Participant observation

Participant observation is the foundation of ethnography, a research method that originates in anthropology (Agar, 1996; Bernard, 2006; Fetterman, 1998). A participant observer immerses himself or herself into a culture and participates in the daily activities of the local while still

52 maintaining enough distance to draw an objective understanding of that culture. The amount of

participation is determined by the researcher, as is the duration of observation. Ethnographic

fieldwork requires long-term immersion, at least 6 months (Bernard, 2006; Fetterman, 1998). During

this period, the researcher develops both emic (representing the implicit perspective of informants) and etic (representing the objective perspective of outsiders) perspectives about a culture. The recording of the observation is as important as the observation itself (Emerson, Fretz, & Shaw,

1995; Van Maanen, 1988) for the development of a “thick description” (Geertz, 1973) on the topic.

While my research was not ethnography in the anthropological sense, I used short-term participant observation as a method for data collection. During my 10-day visits, I observed design development teams (including designers, design researchers, developers, and engineers) in action at their desks, project team meetings, client meetings, internal brainstorming sessions, informal desk critiques, and daily conversations around the office. I conducted informal interviews with employees whenever possible. I took my field notes during my visits and at nights in diaries following Emerson et al.’s (1995) suggestions for the inscription of field notes. These field notes were composed of facts and my understanding of what was happening in each consultancy.

3.4.2.2. Semi-structured interview

“In situations where you won’t get more than one chance to interview someone,” Bernard noted in 2006, “semi-structured interviewing is the best” (p. 212). The interviewer has an interview guide, but is also flexible to follow any lead that might be valuable for the study.

In my study, I conducted at least three interviews at each consultancy: two with designers and one with an executive who was able to explain the history and the vision of the consultancy. For the consultancies with design research departments, I conducted interviews with a minimum of one design researcher on user involvement methods, user involvement processes, and designer-design researcher interaction. Each interview lasted 40 minutes to 1 hour. Weiss’s (1995) and Bernard’s

53 (2006) guidelines were followed for the interview guide, the interview questions (Appendix D), and the probing techniques. Each interview was audiotaped and transcribed. One of the interview questions asked the designers and the design researchers to sketch their design or research processes. These drawings were also analyzed.

3.4.2.3. Project walkthrough

In order to collect project-specific information, I conducted unstructured interviews on projects with designers and design researchers. The following criteria were applied for these interviews:

1) The design process for the selected project had been finalized. The designed

outcome was either in the manufacturing/construction phase or had already been

manufactured or constructed.

2) The interviewee had played a major role in the project as a team member.

Interviewees were allowed to select a project based on these criteria. For the consultancies that had a design research department, I conducted project walkthroughs with two designers on two different projects: one project that involved input from the design research department and another one that did not. Each project walkthrough lasted 40 minutes to 1 hour. During this period, designers and design researchers explained the project in detail by drawing their process diagram, and showing presentations related to the project and design outcomes. The project walkthroughs were audio recorded and transcribed.

3.4.2.4. Free listing exercise

Free listing is used in anthropology to define the content of a cultural domain, such as disease or kinship (Bernard, 2006; Weller & Romney, 1988). This method of data collection is especially valuable when the research involves uncovering a new domain. The informants are asked to “list all the ___s” that they can think of. Free listing helps the researcher to learn how informants

54 define a domain within their language. This avoids the danger of the researcher imposing his or her

language on a domain. For this reason, free listing is applied mostly as an initial step. The output of

free listing is in the form of frequencies. Free listing “provides a strong source of cognitive data in

terms of frequencies and the order properties of individual lists” (Weller & Romney, 1988, p. 16). A

coherent understanding of a domain requires a minimum of 20 to 30 informants.

In my study, the free listing exercise was distributed on the second day of my visits to

consultancies. As an introduction to my study and to be more open-minded about the roles of

individuals, I distributed free lists to engineers and to developers, and to designers and to design

researchers. Not all designers, design researchers, engineers, and developers working at each consultancy were given free listing exercises because some of these people were not in the office during my visit, and for some consultancies I focused only on certain studios of the consultancy.

The free listing exercise included two questions asking the respondents to list all types of user information of interest to them and the methods they used to collect this user information

(Appendix E). Because of the small number of employees at some consultancies, it was not possible to collect 20 to 30 free lists from each consultancy. Therefore, I targeted collecting free lists from half of the designers and half of the design researchers at each consultancy. The results from free lists were analyzed qualitatively and were converted into frequency distribution tables. More importantly, based on the free listing results, questions B-3 and C-1 of the survey (Appendix F and

G) were revised for each consultancy.

3.4.2.5. Survey

While surveys are mostly used in quantitative studies in different disciplines, they can also be used as a tool to collect qualitative data (Bernard, 2006; Creswell, 2009). In my research, I used the survey to secure input from a wider population. Conducting one-on-one interviews with the majority of designers and design researchers at each consultancy was not possible. The survey

55 helped address this issue. The results from the surveys were used to describe the characteristics of each consultancy.

Surveys were distributed to designers, creative directors, and design researchers.33 Not all designers, creative directors, and design researchers working at each consultancy were given surveys because some of these people were not in the office during my visit, and for some consultancies I focused only on certain studios of the consultancy.

Survey questions were developed based on Leeuw et al.’s (2008), Dillman et al.’s (2009), and

Weiss’s (1995) guidelines. Questions were pretested with the preliminary survey and with the pilot study. Questions that were not relevant for design researchers were eliminated in their version of the survey. Questions B1 (please rank order the following factors on their significance for solving design problems in a project), B3 (which of the following sources do you use to gain an understanding about users), C1 (please rate the following according to what you learn from users in a project), C2

(please rank order the following stages of a typical design project according to the amount of user information you use), and C4 (please rate the following components of a design outcome based on how much they are affected by the information you gain from users) were revised for each consultancy based on their discipline, services, and language. The surveys that were distributed to designers and design researchers at Arch2 are available in Appendix F and Appendix G.

3.4.2.6. Feedback workshop

In order to collect further data and verify that my description of their user approach, user involvement methods, and design process was representative of their consultancy, I conducted feedback workshops at each consultancy. A presentation of my working research findings specific to each consultancy was shared. These presentations were informal, and the workshop was planned as

33 Engineers at ID1 and developers at IxD1 were also given surveys. At these consultancies, the lines between designers and engineers/developers are not clear and engineers/developers do design work as well. 56 a brainstorming session regarding my working research conclusions. At least one senior-level

designer and one senior-level design researcher from each of the consultancies with a design

research department were present at each presentation. The number of attendants ranged from 1 to

18 in the feedback workshops. Each workshop session was audio recorded and transcribed. These

workshop sessions provided more data regarding the consultancies’ vision and processes of user

involvement and design.

3.4.2.7. Website analysis

What informants say, do, and make might not overlap every time (Bernard, 2006; Sanders,

2002). Drawing a more objective view of the reality requires collecting data of various types.

Corporate websites represent what consultancies say about themselves. While websites are used as

marketing tools, they are also an important resource of information about the image a consultancy

presents and therefore their corporate culture.

Each consultancy’s website was analyzed using content analysis. The code sheet for the

website analysis is available in Appendix H. The aim was to learn how the consultancy was

addressing users, the user experience, and user involvement publicly.

3.4.2.8. Document analysis

Documents related to consultancies and their past projects reveal information regarding

what they did and what they value. I did not have access to all documents of the consultancies because of their proprietary character. The documents that were provided to me included project binders, marketing materials of the consultancy, replies to request for proposals, and consultancies’ process models. These documents provided further insights into what the consultancies had said about themselves and what they had produced in the past. Important information from documents was recorded and used in the analysis process.

57 3.4.2.9. Photographs

Visual materials have been increasingly used for representing and analyzing cultures (Pink,

2007; Rose, 2007). While the utilization of tools such as film making, photography, and painting is

not new, scholars have focused on defining visualization as a systematic method of data collection

and representation within visual ethnography. The use of photography in my dissertation is in line

with these developments.

In order to represent the design culture at each consultancy, I photographed office

environments, teams’ working sessions, and artifacts. However, these photos are very few in number

because of the proprietary character of the design projects and work contexts.

3.4.3. Data Analysis

The analysis of case studies varies depending on the aim of the researcher (Eisenhardt, 1989;

Stake, 1995; Yin, 2008). Case studies can be used for describing issues, testing theories, or

developing theories (Eisenhardt, 1989). Corbin and Strauss (1990), Glaser and Strauss (1967),

Huberman and Miles (1994), Stake (1995), and Yin (2008) rendered different perspectives about the

analysis of qualitative case studies. Among the inductive and deductive methods of analyzing

qualitative research data, I preferred an inductive method, an adapted version of grounded theory.

Inductive methods of analysis are more useful when the research is conducted on an understudied topic (Sarker et al., 2000). Among the various inductive qualitative analysis approaches, grounded theory is known to be the most positivist way of analyzing qualitative data because of its systematic coding procedure (Charmaz, 2006; Strauss, 1987).

“Grounded theory methods consist of systematic, yet flexible guidelines for collecting and analyzing qualitative data to construct theories ‘grounded’ in the data themselves,” Charmaz (2006) explained (p. 2). Grounded theory is an iterative process; the data collection and analysis take place simultaneously. The results of theoretical sampling are used for to decide whether enough data has been

58 collected to comprehensively study the topic. The coding process is composed of three main steps:

open coding, axial coding, and selective coding (Corbin & Strauss, 1990; Glaser & Strauss, 1967;

Strauss, 1987). Within these three steps, coding moves from an open-ended exercise to a focused

activity where a new theory is developed based on defining the relationships between categories (the

codes given to data by the researcher) and properties of categories. Coding processes are finalized

based on theoretical saturation, which is accomplished when no new codes can be developed from the

data (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss, 1987).

The two founders of grounded theory, Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss, disagreed later in

their careers about how to code information (Charmaz, 2006; Grbich, 2007). While the two scholars

continued working on the methodology individually and in collaboration with others, a number of

other scholars also followed their lead and further developed the methodology. Some of these are

Birks and Mills (2011), Charmaz (2006), Bryant and Charmaz (2010), Clarke (2005), and Corbin

together with Strauss (Corbin & Strauss, 1990).

Among grounded theory scholars, Charmaz (2006) provides guidelines to strengthen the

interpretive analysis in grounded theory. Her approach to grounded theory was followed in this

study. Charmaz’s main coding steps are labeled as initial coding, focused coding, and theoretical coding. One of the main differences is the use of axial coding as an alternative step between initial and focused coding.

There are also examples of adapted versions of grounded theory. Based on the needs of their research, scholars make necessary adaptations to the way they apply grounded theory (e.g., Mitchell,

1994; Petrini & Pozzebon, 2009; Sarker et al., 2000). Some change the way they apply steps; others add an additional step to their analysis process. In my analysis, I followed Sarker et al.’s (2000) argument and used a theoretical lens in order to explain my substantive theory.

59 After determining the coding approach to use, I examined the knowledge construction literature.

This review led me to select “epistemic cultures” (Knorr Cetina, 1999) as my theoretical lens. I also determined that boundary objects (Star & Griesemer, 1989) and constructivist learning (Duffy &

Jonassen, 1992; Merrill, 1991) were helpful theories for the description of my substantive theory.

The theoretical coding phase was informed by these theories (Table 3.3).

Table 3.3. The analysis process

Analysis steps Intent of the step 1. Initial coding Immersion into data with an open mind to develop all possible codes. 2. Focused coding Defining the relationship between codes for each case. 3. Making connections Immersion into knowledge construction literature to find a theoretical lens and to develop a with existing theories theoretical framework to structure analysis. 4. Theoretical coding Defining the core categories, their properties, and the final relationships between them.

The coding process was conducted with the help of the qualitative analysis software Atlas.ti.

All interviews, project walkthroughs, and feedback workshops were transcribed. These transcriptions were not within the conversation analysis standards; they did not include length of pauses, interruptions, repeating words, and so forth. However, the transcriptions were adequate for the analysis of this study. All diaries, documents, surveys, free lists, and other research materials were transformed into digital format. A hermeneutic unit (case binder) was created for each case within

Atlas.ti. All verbal and visual data were coded (Table 3.4).

Table 3.4. The types of data analyzed. The table continues on the next page.

Data collection method Amount of data Type of analysis Participant observation 342.5 hours Qualitative Qualitative Semi-structured interview 31 Visual Qualitative Project walkthrough 21 Visual Qualitative Free listing exercise 143 Quantitative Qualitative Survey 134 Quantitative Feedback workshop 6 Qualitative Website analysis 6 Qualitative

60 Data collection method Amount of data Type of analysis Qualitative Document analysis Hundreds Visual Photography Around 120 Visual

The answers to the open-ended questions of the survey were analyzed using grounded theory. The quantitative findings from the surveys and free lists were used for descriptive purposes.

Inferential statistics were used only for the survey’s second question in Section C. The results from surveys and free listing exercises are reported in the Appendices.

The findings from each case and from cross-case analyses are reported in the next two chapters. The case-specific findings are reported at the end of each case report within Chapter 4.

Some of these findings overlap in cases; others are unique to each case. In Chapter 5, the relationships between categories are defined, and the resulting grounded theory from this study is explained. The findings and their implications for design theory, practice, and education are summarized in Chapter 6.

61 CHAPTER FOUR

SIX DESIGN CONSULTANCIES, SIX USER CULTURES

This chapter provides six case studies of design consultancies representing three different

design fields—architecture, industrial design, and interaction design—in the United States. Each

case study examines closely the consultancies’ design process, user approach, user involvement

methods, and the designers’ processing of the user. Those consultancies that included an established

research department at the time of my visit are designated by a “2” in their name, and those that did

not include an established research department are designated by a “1.” The narratives presented in

these case studies reflect a single point in time and should not be construed as reflecting the way

each consultancy practices today or how each project within the consultancy is done. Also, some consultancies had branches. The data and analysis in this dissertation do not reflect any branch of the consultancies other than the observed ones. Table 4.1 summarizes the descriptive information related to the studied consultancies.

In the following pages, the words and sentences that are presented in quotation marks are excerpts from semi-structured interviews, project walkthroughs, daily conversations, and the written responses to the free listing exercise and the survey questions. The professions and/or the position of the individuals34 quoted are included as footnotes. In order to assure anonymity, the consultancy

and/or project-specific words are replaced with three lines (---) within these quotes. The icon [ ] is used to express where the interviewee paused during the conversation. Three dots (…) means that certain parts of the conversation have been taken out of the quote. The words in brackets are my additions to quotations to bring clarity to sentences.

34 For purposes of clarity and consistency, all the people with an executive position are labeled as manager in this document. 62 Table 4.1. The summary of the descriptive information of studied consultancies. The information does not reflect any branch of the consultancies other than the observed ones.

Design Research Engineering/ Founded Service Size department department technology department in Types of projects Education Arch 1 Architectural design Medium >30 0 0 1960s Healthcare Healthcare Civic Architectural design Arch 2 Large >200 11 0 1940s Corporate Research & strategy Science Education Consumer electronics Industrial design ID 1 Medium <5 1 >10 1990s Medical devices Engineering design Industrial products Consumer Industrial design >10 8 electronics ID 2 Interaction design Medium 0 1980s Consumer goods Research & strategy <5 creative directors Transportation Flash games >5 0 Websites IxD 1 Interaction design Medium >10 2000s Online advertising <5 creative directors Applications Videos Websites >10 10 Online advertising Applications Interaction design IxD 2 Large >40 1990s Social media Research & strategy <5 creative & art campaigns directors Environmental installations

Each case is presented using the same structure. The data from the consultancies are provided in the first three sections: 1) overview of the consultancy, 2) product development process, and 3) user approach and user involvement methods. The fourth section, processing the user, includes more information from the consultancy, together with the analysis of the designer’s integration of the user into the design process. The last section, summary of the main findings, lists the main findings that came out of the focused coding process of each consultancy’s data. An appendix (Appendix I to N) is devoted to the free listing and survey results of each consultancy.

63 4.1. Arch1: “Action-Reaction”

The following report on Arch1 is based on the collected data listed in Table 4.2.

Table 4.2. The amount of data collected from Arch1

Semi-structured Free listing Feedback Method Observation interview Project walkthrough exercise Survey workshop Data 64 hours 4 3 25 27 1 (2 hours 37 minutes) (2 hours 20 minutes) (return rate: 74%) (return rate: 81%) (41 minutes)

4.1.1. Overview of the consultancy

Arch1 is an architectural design consultancy with more than 50 years’ experience. Most of their work is in the area of education (higher education and K-12) and healthcare. Their portfolio also includes residential, civic, public, corporate, recreational, and historic preservation projects.

Most of the educational projects are publicly funded, whereas the majority of the healthcare projects are privately funded. The consultancy does three types of projects: design-bid-build, design build, and GCCM (general contractor, construction manager). Not all projects involve constructing a brand-new building. Some of the projects are remodeling or designing additions to existing buildings.

The consultancy has two core studios: education and healthcare. However, the education studio also works on other building types. The education studio is older than the healthcare studio.

Architects who work on the exterior of the building were observed working for both studios.

Interior design is a separate unit, and the interior designers do not specialize in any project type.

While not all projects include interior designers, for those that offer this service, the interior designers are assigned on an availability basis.

The expertise of Arch1 is focused on traditional architecture services (Table 4.3). The research service Arch1 offers is focused on conventional architectural programming. The design support ranges from master planning and conceptual design to development of construction drawings. Arch1 stays involved in the projects through the construction stage via construction

64 administration service. As the building is finalized, Arch1’s services come to an end. Employees of

Arch1 only do a limited amount of post-occupancy evaluation (that is why this expertise is not included under evaluation service in Table 4.3).

Table 4.3. The general services offered by Arch1 and their expertise within each service area

The architects of Arch1 see themselves as the “experts” for the building types they design.35

According to a manager, expertise comes as a result of gaining experience through designing multiple projects for the same building type:

What we found is, in areas where we have done multiple projects, we become the expert and often we write the program for the client, telling them what they need, and test it with them to see if it really … complies with their thinking. Often we know more what the client is trying to accomplish than the client knows because of the deep experience in the market niche. … things like an elementary school, we probably know all the options there are and what has been done all around the country and what has worked and what has not worked, what works in certain situations and what does not work in other situations and can give a lot of guidance.36

In addition to having specialized expertise, another advantage cited by the principal

architects was that they employed skilled designers. A principal architect in healthcare explained,

“Our skill is our people.”37 The consultancy has more than 60 employees, with the majority being

architects. Within the group of architects,38 there are principals, associate principals, project managers, staff architects, programmers, healthcare programmers, and interns. There are also

35 Architects 36 Manager 37 Principal architect in healthcare 38 Most of the architects are LEED accredited. Developing eco-friendly and sustainable solutions is one of the focuses of the consultancy.

65 construction administrators and CAD drafters. All the interior designers are female, whereas the majority of architects are male. According to survey results, the team employs people with more than 16 years of experience on average (Table 4.4).

Table 4.4. The profile of the survey respondents

Work experience Work experience at Number of (in years) Arch1 (in years) Profession respondents Mean Range Mean Range Education 9 masters Architect 24 17.2 1-39 11 0.5-34 15 bachelors Interior designer 3 13.2 3.5-32 7 3.5-13.5 3 bachelors 9 masters Design team 27 16.8 1-39 10.6 0.5-34 18 bachelors

There is not a definitive hierarchical structure within the consultancy; however, the private offices of principal architects reflect an untold hierarchical structure. The interior of the office resembles the interior of a corporate office (Figure 4.1). The main difference is the plan plots that are spread all around the space (on desks, shelves, and conference rooms). The desks of designers have pin-ups of their previous project renderings and inspirational images. Bookshelves are filled with binders for codes, brochures and catalogs on sustainable building components and materials, and magazines. There are no dedicated project spaces in the office. Conference rooms are used for project team meetings.

Figure 4.1. The work environment at Arch1. From left to right: an architect’s desk, a bookshelf located at the center of workspace, and materials on sustainability and LEED.

66 4.1.2. Product development process

A project team is assigned for each project. This team is composed of the principal(s)-in-

charge, the project architect, the project manager, the CAD drafter, and different architects working

on plans, exterior design, and elevations. The involvement of a construction administrator and an

interior designer is optional.

The principal-in-charge is the facilitator and is responsible for dealing with contracts and

client relationships. Based on the complexity of the project, more than one principal-in-charge can

be assigned to a project. The project architect is responsible for the “big concept” of the building

and all major design decisions.39 For some projects, the principal-in-charge also works as the project

architect. For others, a separate project architect is assigned. The principal-in-charge’s and project architect’s responsibilities decrease at the later stages of the process, whereas the project manager’s increase as the project approaches the construction drawings stage (Table 4.5). The project manager is responsible for the consultant and client coordinations, as well as solving issues regarding complex design problems. Within the construction administration stage, the principal-in-charge, the project manager, or a construction administrator becomes the main point of contact for the consultants and the client. Not all projects have an assigned construction administrator. A construction administrator is assigned mostly to large-sized projects.

Table 4.5. The milestones and leaders in the product development process

39 Architect 67 The inclusion of an interior designer in projects is based on project needs and clients’

expectations. Interior designers defined their involvement with the interior space as more “intimate”

compared to that of architects.40 Interior designers do not always get the chance to be involved with

the project early on; they are engaged mostly in the design development stage. Their responsibilities

range from solving interior plans to defining materials, finishes,41 and furniture. There is a library

filled with material samples within this consultancy (Figure 4.2). Design magazines are also readily available within the space allocated to interior designers. For the projects where an interior designer is not included, architects take over that role.

Figure 4.2. From the workspace of interior designers

Independent of the project type, the steps of Arch1’s product development process follow a prototypical architectural design process. However, based on project needs, changes are made to the stages. For example, one of the remodeling projects observed during my visit had a single stage that combined schematic design and design development. This project did not require the construction of any additional buildings. The scope of work was interior focused and required the rearrangement of the landscape (including the parking lot). For another project, the client had already had the programming document completed. Even though Arch1 was not conducting programming, they still needed to go over the programming document and validate it. In fact, within this validation process, some problems were identified and space allocations were revised.

40 Interior designer 41 Architects explained that for some projects, they had interior designers selecting the materials and finishes for the exterior of the buildings, which is normally the architect’s responsibility. 68 According to architects, the first step in the design of a space is to develop an understanding of what the client wants, “defining the project scope and requirements”42 and finding out “what is unique about the project.”43 A major part of this understanding comes from the programming process or by studying the client’s program that has been developed by another consultancy.

Programming documents not only list the space allocations, but also describe the needs and wants of the client and the users from each space of the final design. The architects explained that although they do not review each and every detail within the program often during the design process, they use the square footage data to double-check if they are on the right track or not. A principal architect from the healthcare studio added that “with all the research, what we are trying to build is this building program and that kind of becomes the bible we use going forward; that guides the design.”44 The process by which they put together the program helps the project team to see the

“bigger picture” of the project.45 This bigger picture was not always translated into a concept in the form of a metaphor and parti; in fact, very few of the projects during my visit were being designed around a design concept.46 Instead, as Figure 4.3 illustrates, architects define their own design criteria after this initial research stage. The summary of the design principles in Figure 4.3 and the basic site diagrams were readily available on these architects’ desks throughout my 10-day visit to Arch1.

Figure 4.3. Sketches and notes from early design process. Architects were using rough sketches and verbal lists while developing an understanding of the project at early design stages.

42 Healthcare architect 43 Principal architect 44 Principal architect in healthcare 45 Architect 46 This might be because of the stage of the projects I observed. 69 Designers at Arch1 believe in not “committing to a solution prior to full investigation.”47

The investigation is spread over a very long time; in fact, it does not end until the building is

constructed. There are always changes with the project. Consequently, Arch1’s product development process is an incremental process. The depiction of a principal architect’s product development

process in Figure 4.4 is a good example of the incremental design process of Arch1. The pieces of

the building and best possible solutions for each space in that building slowly come together with

the addition of more detail to the solution at each stage in the process.

Figure 4.4. The illustration of a product development process of a school by a principal architect. As the project progresses, the architect’s focus shifts from the bigger concept to individual parts of the building; thus the solution becomes more detailed.

The designers at Arch1 start drawings as soon as possible because drawings and diagrams form the basis for client/user and designer interaction:

We are trying to sit down with them, face to face the first time, something for them to react to, not just a totally blank slate because it is just too hard to get people to

47 Principal architect 70 give you information that you need without showing them something to respond to. It is more effective to start with something.48

Designers prefer developing at least two alternatives “to illustrate options for their [client’s]

reaction.”49 For example, interior designers “show them [clients] several color schemes and narrow

in on what they [clients] want.”50 Similarly, architects prefer showing different layout alternatives to

the users and the client early in the design process in order to evaluate their reaction to each

solution: “Propose ideas, even if they may not like it. A negative reaction sometimes helps me find

what it is they do want.”51

As the project moves into the design development stage, designers’ focus on details (e.g.,

room layouts and materials) increases. In this stage, designers and users/clients converse a single plan. A principal architect explained that “as a rule of thumb,” they have three meetings with each user group and go over the parts of the building together.52 In these meetings, most of the

comments received from users are in the form of “what is not working for them.”53 After each

meeting, the comments of the users on a plan become items for the designers to revise (Figure 4.5).

This cycle takes place several times for each space in a building.

Figure 4.5. The feedback from the user was mostly noted on plans at user meetings

48 Principal architect 49 Architect 50 Interior designer 51 Architect 52 Principal architect 53 Architect 71 This comment-based development of design solutions characterizes the product

development of Arch1 as action-reaction cycles. Designers perform actions on design, present them to

the client and users, get their comments in the form of a reaction to the plan, and designers once

again act and revise the plan accordingly. Even in the absence of readily available user reaction,

designers role-play and engage in a conversation with themselves as if they are the users. For

example, two architects were observed asking each other questions. One of the architects was

pretending to be the main client contact, trying to think like that contact, and asking design

questions. The other architect was answering. They were trying to uncover possible solutions to

design problems that the client might identify.

An issue that was highlighted by some designers in this action-reaction cycle is the inability

of some users to read plans, or their misinterpretation of drawings. In order to overcome this problem, Arch1 uses 3D design programs such as SketchUp and Revit and shares renderings with

clients and users.54 However, mostly the exterior of the building and significant interior locations are

being modeled. Consequently, not all the problems regarding the users’ and clients’ inability to read

and their potential to misunderstand plans are addressed through 3D modeling. This situation

occasionally causes problems in the construction administration stage because, as one construction

administrator explained:

Changes occur during construction—especially those the owner requested. Most owners and users are not able to fully interpret drawings and specifications—most are 3D intuitive (which is why 3D modeling is becoming a useful tool in interaction with owner/users) … During construction, weekly meetings are used to address owner/user issues that arise as they see the 2D drawing representation come to life.55

The interaction with the client and users with drawings and plans, and their possible misinterpretation of these design outcomes, illustrates the significance of drawings for solving problems at Arch1. The details within the drawings increase as designers move from schematic

54 Physical models are not developed for projects at Arch1. 55 From a construction administrator’s response to free-listing exercise. 72 design to the development of construction documents. A principal architect in healthcare explained

that it feels like looking at the drawings with different zoom lenses at different stages. Whereas the

focus is on 1000 square feet in schematic design, it becomes 100 square feet in design development,

and microscopic in construction drawings (Figure 4.6).

Figure 4.6. The product development process illustration from a principal architect in healthcare The architects said it becomes harder to see the big picture of the project as they get further

into the design process. Various forms of collaboration take place to highlight individual issues.

Architects and interior designers were observed giving comments to each other at their desks,

having team discussions throughout the day, and working as a team on plans (Figure 4.7).

Figure 4.7. Designers giving comments to each other and working together

Project teams occasionally have charrettes as well. They invite architects who are not working on the project to these charrettes. A charrette that was observed during my visit was for a project that was late in the design development stage. Photos of the client’s existing building and the new site, the working plans, and 3D renderings of the project were shared with the participants. The

73 conversations were not detail oriented. Instead, discussions revolved around the concept, the overall

layout, and the reasoning behind the major design decisions.

The ability to present and defend design decisions based on a “story” or robust reasoning is

valued at Arch1. Without any explanation to support the design decisions, the design outcomes are

seen as mere ideas. For example, for an educational building, an intern architect was assigned to

develop the façade of a section of the interior corridors of the school. This intern architect was

observed developing several different alternatives using SketchUp over an 8-day period. Team

members assigned to the project were making comments on alternatives every now and then. By the

end of the eighth day, the team had come together and selected one of the alternatives because it integrated the character of the exterior and the other corridors of the building. This reasoning was defined as “having a story” for the suggested design solution.56 One architect put it this way: “We

can only present it as our thought and ask them what they [client] think.”57

4.1.3. User approach and user involvement methods

For the designers of Arch1, the user is “not anonymous … the user is quite well-known.”58

When the designers were asked to define these well-known users, the first people they listed were the clients (owners) and the occupants. The duration of people’s interaction with the building defines their priority in the design process. For example, within the occupant category, designers defined two groups: full-time occupants and part-time occupants. In a school, teachers, administrators, and facilities maintenance staff are defined as full-time occupants,59 and students are part-time occupants. Families of the students are the visitors to a building. Similarly, in a hospital, staff (doctors, nurses, administrators, facilities maintenance staff) are full-time occupants, and

56 Principal-in-charge 57 Architect 58 Manager 59 A principal acknowledged that the full-occupants they interact with are not always the end-users of a design solution: “It is common for us to talk to a teacher who is not there when the building opens. And we tell them when we meet with them, ‘You might not be here in two years.’” 74 patients are part-time occupants. Visitors to hospitals are mostly the patients’ relatives. While

developing solutions, the focus of the designers of Arch1 is mostly on the client and then the full-time

occupants of a space since they have the most opportunity to interact with these people.

Designers at Arch1 “always encourage” the involvement of full-time occupants in the design

process; however, “it is up to the owner” to decide whether to include these people in the process.60

The client has the control over whom the architects will interact with and the duration of interaction. Some clients do not want the architects to interact with the occupants of a space; the client assigns a limited number of people (mostly administrators) as ultimate contact people with the designers. Some prefer having building committees composed of representatives of the client, administrators, full-time users, part-time users, community members, and so forth. Other clients give permission for the designers to interact with all occupants. One thing to note is that although architects try to collect information from a wide range of users at the early stages of design, starting with the design development stage they prefer not to meet with too many (more than four or five) full-time occupants of each space in a building.61 According to the architects, if too many occupants

are involved in the later stages of a design process, then there will be too many opinions for the

same space. This same idea applies to the number of architects who interact with the client and the

users. It was highlighted that when “more people are involved, [the] more interpretations you get;

that is risky and can be an issue.”62 In order to overcome possible problems, the consultancy prefers

assigning a single decision maker for each project, and this person also becomes the user advocate

for the project to be designed.

Because they consider themselves to be experts for the building types they design, the

designers stated that they do not start a project on an empty page. In other words, the designers feel

60 Principal architect 61 Principal architect 62 Principal architect in healthcare 75 comfortable starting to develop solutions without collecting in-depth information from the users.

This was explained in the following ways by principal architects who had been designing schools for more than 15 years:

Principal architect: Schools generally need the same things. You do not need to start from scratch. It is more effective and more efficient to start with a conceptual model based on historical school uses rather than just say we are going to start from scratch and invent a brand new school. That makes sense, because education has not changed; even though they talk about educational change constantly, nothing has changed. … There are still teachers standing in classrooms, talking to students. That may change. But in terms of designing schools right now, there are very little places educationally that would suggest that you build something drastically different from what is being done currently.63

Principal architect: Everyone is different, all clients want something a little bit different. But there are enough similarities that we sort of hit the ground running already. We know a lot of the issues, and so there is not a lot of research to do in that kind of a setting.64

Even through designers start working on projects based on their prior experience with

similar user groups and similar building types, they also highlighted that they are careful not to

provide “a cookie-cutter design” for every project.65 The design differences between the projects

they had worked on were believed to come from the client and the user of that project. Each

building is seen as a “customized thing,” a customized design solution built around the client and

the occupants of the building.66 Five architects explicitly explained the role of the client and the user

(they were referring to full-time occupants) as being the resource for the uniqueness of the design

solution:

Principal architect: We have been through so many school projects, we have a pretty good sense of what the basics are. And then what you are trying to find out, what are the nuance things that they need. They are different from everybody else.67

63 Principal architect 64 Principal architect 65 Architect 66 Manager 67 Principal architect 76 Principal architect: Each design is unique because of the user input.68

Architect: You cannot innovate without user influence.69

Principal architect: Every client has got their own sort of personality… it is really just spending time with them.70

Manager: The idiosyncrasies or the special interest of the client becomes [the] driving force in the design statement.71

While solving design problems, the designers’ focus is not limited to the user as a human being; designers aim to understand more comprehensive aspects that surround the user. Designers at

Arch1 mostly spoke of three types of information in order to define the uniqueness of the client and the user, and thereby solve the design problem that will make the users feel and perform at their best. These three types of information were 1) the client’s image, 2) the numbers, and 3) the function and the workflow (these categories are based on the interviews and on the grouping of the information listed by designers in Appendix I, Tables 4-6).

The client’s image is composed of intangible information that helps designers understand who the client is, how the client is different from other clients, what the client likes, and what the client does not like. While making aesthetic and functional design decisions, designers compare their proposed solution to the image of the client. A client’s comments may include references to their own image, such as “that is not really us.”72 The client’s image comes out of “knowing the client.”73

This image is developed through interaction with the users of the client’s existing facilities, studying the client’s institution, analyzing the aesthetic of their existing buildings, and reviewing the goals of the institution and how this institution is being marketed (Figure 4.8).

68 Principal architect 69 Architect 70 Principal architect 71 Manager 72 Client 73 Architect 77 Figure 4.8. An architect’s sketch including the student that he attaches to the building design

The second type of information, numbers, comes from the building program. As evidenced in the following quote from a principal architect in healthcare, designers are interested in different types of numbers such as square footage, number of patients, number of nurses, and the duration of service:

A lot of healthcare is about numbers. … what we really need to understand is how many patients they see, what kind of services they provide, what type of support services they have in their hospital, whether they are in the hospital or outsourced, the number of caregivers, the doctors, and nurses that are there.74

These numbers are mostly derived from the desired experience to be delivered to the users of the building. An example might be defining the required space for a patient room that will aid in the healing process of a patient so that the patient’s duration of stay in the hospital will be reduced.75

The third type of information designers are interested in is the function and the workflow of the client and the users. This has two components: first, to learn the existing function and workflow of the client and the users; and second, to define the issues that can be addressed. In the case of healthcare, defining inefficiencies is especially important.76 When a work process is new for the architect and for the client, then the designer has to learn the workflow before developing solutions.

For example, in an educational project, a client once wanted a studio for students to design and

74 Principal architect in healthcare 75 Manager 76 Healthcare architect 78 produce original jewelry. The client had not had such a studio before and the architect had never

designed one. To learn how the space should be designed, the architect made a trip to one of the

corporate centers that designs jewelry and observed the people working in that environment. He was

able to transfer what he learned about the workflow into the design of the jewelry studio for the

school.

At Arch1, the collection of necessary information from the client and the user takes place

through traditional methods (see Appendix I, Tables 1-3). The most used are client and user

meetings, tours of clients’ existing facilities or similar facility types with clients, and observations of

the users of the existing facilities. Architects listed “being good listeners”77 as their most important

differentiator from other architectural design consultancies: “We became known for our ability to

listen really well, and then to guide the client in the right decisions and ultimately to be their advisor

and often their decision maker.”78 Thus, listening is not limited to being a receiver of information; listening is evaluated as the main ingredient for learning. The knowledge developed through listening is utilized to develop the best possible design solution for the client and the users.79

The most information is collected over client and user (full-time occupant) group meetings

in the form of questions and answers. Most of Arch1’s clients are well-known to the consultancy, as

the designers have worked on multiple projects with them. However,

If it is a new project type, then the user and the client are instrumental in defining what that characteristic is that they are looking for and in the end defining a program, a needs list or criteria which the design needs to implement.80

At Arch1, collecting information from users and clients is a never-ending process and at

each stage of the process, designers learn new information. One architect explained that “during

design development, we conduct multiple sessions of user meetings to iron out all design details and

77 Architects 78 Manager 79 Manager 80 Manager 79 fill in any gaps not covered by the program.”81 Early in the process, when there are not design

outcomes yet, both the designers and the client/users use existing design solutions to communicate

and share their ideas with each other. They take tours of client’s existing facility together and collect

information, “usually as a result of loving or hating their [client’s] current conditions.”82 They often

tour similar building types together “to see how other users have designed similar projects”83 and communicate their vision with each other. Designers share their past projects and lessons learned from past projects with the clients and users “to help a user see potential”84 and “often use previous

projects as a precedent in determining the needs of a new client.”85 They exchange images from the

internet, brochures, and books to illustrate ideas. Later in the process, “most interaction with clients

involves drawings, diagrams or tables.”86 At every stage of the process, designers “need to show

things to people in order to collect more information.”87 Clients and users might utilize drawings to

explain what they want to the designers. For example, in one instance, a teacher presented the

project architect her hand drawings to better communicate what was wanted.

At Arch1, design outcomes (especially drawings but also 3D renderings) are important in the

design process and either represent design solutions or serve as instruments for collecting

information from users (Figure 4.9). The information collected is mostly characterized as a reaction

to the design outcomes.

81 Architect 82 Intern architect 83 Architect 84 Project manager 85 Architect 86 Architect 87 Architect 80 Figure 4.9. Design outcomes are significant to the collection of information from users. Users’ comments on drawings are interpreted by architects and are built into design solutions.

Because of the continuous interaction with the client (and in some cases with the user), designers see the client as a collaborator. The participation of the client helps in the design process and acceptance of the design decisions:

They [client] are participatory all the way through the project with us … they buy in to the project. It becomes theirs. They believe they contribute to it as much as we do. And the outcome is shared. So we are part of the same success story.88

At Arch1, collecting information does not include any ethnographic perspective or

participatory design methods. A principal architect explained, “That type of research [participatory

workshops] is more than what our client is asking for.”89 Furthermore, from some architects’

perspective, being expert is contradictory to the need to conduct research. Two architects explicitly

explained that they would not feel comfortable communicating to the client that they need to

conduct user research and charge the client for this service. Because they consider themselves

experts, these architects felt they should already know the necessary user information. Also, from

the perspective of a manager, they do not learn anything new when conducting surveys or

interviews. He cited as an example a graduate student who had conducted her research in

conjunction with the consultancy. She was studying the design factors that impacted student learning

at schools. He felt that the findings from this study did not include any information that the

designers in the consultancy had not already known.

88 Manager 89 Principal architect 81 4.1.4. Processing the user

For the designers at Arch1, the users and the client are interconnected concepts. Questions I

asked about users were answered mostly with references to clients. Although the client is not seen as

the sole user, the client is the most important user because the client is the ultimate decision maker

in the architectural design process. Designers are the “facilitators” in the process.90 They share their

knowledge with the clients to help clients make better decisions. However, the client is the ultimate

authority, and designers cannot override a client’s decision—even if the designer feels it is wrong.

For example, in a client meeting the designer warned the client’s representative about inefficient use

of a space in one area. Even though the client’s representative agreed that it was not the best use of

space, he instructed the architect to make the space the way the full-time occupant wanted it to be.

Being facilitators might be seen as contradictory to the architects’ self-image as experts. The

architects see their expertise coming from their experience working on the same building types. On

the other hand, the client and the users are experts in regard to their own work processes. The

design process becomes a venue for these two areas of expertise to blend together in the creation of

a building.

At Arch1, “the real value is doing the work, is going and being part of the evolution of a

91 project, seeing how different people’s input works in the setting” Another principal architect from healthcare further explained the focus on work as follows:

We are process oriented, I would say. We are design oriented too, but we are very focused on process, how do we do our job, the steps, making sure we fulfill 92 programmatic issues, all that kind of stuff.

Thus, the most common concrete reconfiguration of user information at Arch1 is the work

itself, the drawings, the plans (done either by hand or by computer). Users’ and clients’ comments

90 Architect 91 Principal architect 92 Principal architect in healthcare 82 are directly transferred to the drawings (Figure 4.10). In this sense, there is not a stable

reconfiguration of the functional user information; this type of information is dynamic and

changing. The evolving character of the users’ functional information characterizes the design

process as an action-reaction process. Every time this information changes, a new action is required

for designers. Consequently, user reconfiguration and designing are interwoven.

Figure 4.10. Design outcomes are the main instrument for collecting and storing user information. Designers draw and redraw plans to achieve the best possible solution for the clients and the users.

In addition to drawings, photographs, images from design exemplars, existing buildings, and programming documents are other reconfigurations of user and client at Arch1. Like drawings, these also have significance as an instrument for collecting information from users. Designers observe people’s reactions to these entities to understand what the client and users want. Therefore, the quality and character of these entities (including drawings and diagrams) are significant for healthy communication between the client/users and designers.

In addition to these tangible forms of information from users, there is intangible information that designers collect. It was difficult for the designers to explain how this intangible information affected their design process and design solutions. One architect reported:

We try to use all the information related to users that we gather. Sometimes this information is obvious to the user and can be translated directly into geometry or a tangible element, and sometimes it is less tangible and a little more impalpable. For example, it is easy to list rooms, square footage, space adjacencies, cost, etc., but there is also information which is not so easily conveyed and really is project dependent.93

93 Architect 83

It was observed at Arch1 that the intangible information from the user informs the design process through the creation of a client’s image. This image is used as a brand guideline for the client. While making design decisions, designers assess the appropriateness of the solution compared to the client image they created. Although architects do not have contact with part-time users or visitors of a building, they envision these people in relation to the client. For example, the student drawn by an architect in Figure 4.8 is an example of how the client’s image and the user are connected. For that architect, that student is not a random student, but rather conveys a portrait of a relaxed, sporty, and easygoing student.

Developing solutions based on a client’s image is not always sufficient to convince the client that the proposed solution is the best one. Designers search for different reasoning strategies to defend their design proposals. The success of the reasoning depends on its overlap with the client’s expectations. Even though a design solution may be presented with a story or reasoning, it is not always accepted by the client. For example, in a project meeting, a client commented on a design solution by saying, “I am not buying it yet.”94 Rather than explaining the reasoning further, the architect began to search for other solutions. This could be interpreted to mean that the presentation of a “story” or reasoning behind the design solution is not always an effective communication tool between designers and the client/user.

4.1.5. Summary of the main findings from Arch1

• The client determines the user involvement: The client is the ultimate decision maker regarding the involvement of users (mostly full-time occupants) within the design process. The people with whom the designers interact, and the frequency and duration of their interaction, is determined by the client.

94 Client 84 • The client and users are the differentiators in projects: The architects develop an image of the client and the users of the building and develop their design solutions according to this image.

This image is a reflection of the unique qualities of the client and the users. The client and the users are the sources that make each design different.

• Architects are the experts: Although architects define themselves as facilitators within the design process, they also clearly feel they are the experts in the development of solutions for specific building types.

• The focus is not the human being; it is on the context: Architects’ focus is not limited to users themselves. Instead, while interacting with users, architects study the users’ context that is more comprehensive than the human being, such as the space-human interaction.

• The architects present ideas with a story or reasoning: In order to defend their design decisions, architects present their design solutions to clients together with a story and/or the reasoning behind their proposed design solution.

• Drawings are instrumental for collecting client/user information: Drawings (e.g., plans, 3D renderings, sketches) are more than a tool to represent the design solution. Drawings also are the instrument architects use to collect information from users. Most of the information necessary for architects is collected through users’ feedback on design outcomes.

• Existing spaces, examples, and outcomes of design processes are central to client/user and consultancy collaboration: Exchange of information between client/user and architect happens over conversations about existing design solutions, buildings, images, and drawings. Therefore, the quality of the solutions, buildings, images and drawings, which are used for interaction, is central to a healthy collaboration among parties.

• The design process is composed of action and reaction cycles: The architectural design process is characterized by the architects’ design revisions based on client and user feedback.

85 Designers present design outcomes to the client to get their comments. The comments are composed of reactions to the design outcomes that the people see. Based on people’s reactions, designers act and make revisions to the design solution. This action-reaction cycle repeats several times until the client/user does not have any negative reaction to the design outcomes.

86 4.2. Arch2: “An Ideal Day in Life”

The following report on Arch2 is based on the collected data listed in Table 4.6.

Table 4.6. The amount of data collected from Arch2

Semi-structured Feedback Method Observation interview Project walkthrough Free listing exercise Survey workshop Data 66 hours 8 4 45 42 1 (5 hours 48 minutes) (2 hours 25 minutes) (return rate: 75%) (return rate: 74%) (62 minutes)

4.2.1. Overview of the consultancy

Arch2 is an architecture consultancy that tries to communicate that design means more than

a built environment and that design is an important factor in any organization’s success. Arch2’s

philosophy is that a space can be either an enabler or a disabler in an organization’s performance. A

manager explains their perspective on design as follows: “We are about what happens within the

building, but it is not about the building. It really is about the experience: How does the building

become a business tool to enhance the client’s enterprise?”95 Arch2 employs this perspective for its

national and international projects. Although they have established expertise in all building types

over their 60-year history; the primary sector they serve is the healthcare industry.

The organization is composed of several studios specializing in different service sectors.96

Healthcare is the largest sector they serve; thus, more than one studio is devoted to healthcare. Each studio works on multiple projects simultaneously and provides a variety of architectural design services to the clients through its architects, interior designers, programmers, CAD drafters, construction administrators, and project managers. The consultancy’s involvement with construction is limited to construction administration (Table 4.7).

95 Manager 96 Some projects are shared among studios based on human resource needs. During my visit, I observed projects that included people from more than one studio. 87 Table 4.7. The general services offered by Arch2 and their expertise within each service area

The consultancy’s research and strategy service is structured as a separate studio.97 Based on the project needs, design researchers are staffed on various project teams. In addition to being assigned to a project that is overseen by one of the various studios, the design research studio conducts independent research projects and can be separately contracted by clients.

The design research studio is composed of people with a background in management, design, anthropology, economy, and nursing.98 The design research studio is the youngest studio and

has been in existence about 4 years. However, Arch2’s engagement with user research has a longer

history than the establishment of the current studio, and the consultancy has a record of hiring long-

term design researchers as consultants. These consultants conducted user research for projects and

served to “bring research into the design process and helped to discover more information, so that

the [architectural] work is better.”99

At the time of my visit, the design research studio worked mostly on healthcare projects;

however, they also provided a limited amount of service for corporate building projects. The design

research studio offers a variety of research services including user research, simulation, workplace

strategies, change management services, and post occupancy evaluations.100 They assist clients in

their adjustment to the new buildings, support the clients’ move-in process, manage clients’ change

97 Research and strategy studio is referenced as design research studio in this report. 98 All members of the design research studio are called design researchers in this report. 99 Manager 100 Although design research department have the expertise to provide post-construction services, their main focus is supporting the design process. 88 and transformation processes, and collaborate with the clients in the optimization of the new

facility’s performance. Design research expertise includes both generative research (at pre-design,

schematic design, and design development stages101) and evaluative research (at pre-design,

schematic design, and design development stages, and after the construction of the building).

Generative research methods included interviews, observations, workshops, ethnography, mock-up

patient journeys, and elicitation methods (see Appendix J, Table 4 for the list of all methods used by

design researchers). The evaluative research included workshops for feedback and decision-making

on concepts, design solutions, materials, and furniture.

The majority of Arch2’s projects are new buildings and campuses that last for several

years.102 A smaller portion of Arch2’s work is in additions and remodeling projects. Arch2 staff

members pride themselves on the long working relationships they have established with many of

their clients.

In some instances, Arch 2’s projects are secured through an open competition with other consultancies. For these projects, the designers have either limited or no conduct with the client

while they are developing the initial design proposals.

Arch2 is a large consultancy. Among the respondents to my survey, the average number of

years of work experience was 16.8. Design researchers have the least work experience and healthcare

programmers have the most with 13.6 and 18.4 years of average work experience respectively (Table

4.8).

101 A design researcher explained that “the later you do the [generative] research, the less value it has” because all the major design decisions have been made by then and research has less impact. 102 For example, one of the teams had been working on a project for 5 years at the time of my visit. 89 Table 4.8. The profile of the survey respondents

Work experience Work experience at Number of (in years) Arch2 (in years) Profession respondents Mean Range Mean Range Education 12 masters Architect 22 15.1 2-33 8 1-17 10 bachelors 1 masters Interior designer 7 17.6 9-34 7.8 0.5-20 6 bachelors Healthcare 5 masters 7 18.4 5-40 9.9 4-19 programmer 2 bachelors 3 masters Design researcher 6 13.6 2.5-43 4.3 0.5-11 3 bachelors 21 masters Design team 42 16.8 2-43 8.5 0.5-20 21 bachelors

Arch2 is in a continuing search to advance its services. Several boards were observed that were filled with analyses of Arch2’s current services and possible ways to enhance them. The work environment resembles the interior of a corporate office (Figure 4.11). The newest and the oldest methods live side-by-side at Arch2. Designers equally depend on state-of-art 3D modeling, hand drawing, and t-squares in the design process.

Figure 4.11. The work environment at Arch2. From left to right: one of the studios with the project schedule board placed at the center, a table from a dedicated project area, and materials from a studio space.

Although the consultancy has a hierarchical structure based on work experience, it is not reflected in the workplace environment, where everyone sits side by side. The desks of architects have a hectic character and are filled with plans, sketches, physical models, material samples, and project binders (Figure 4.12). Design researchers’ desks are covered with papers, notes, and books.

Nearly half of the desks are generally empty during a typical workday, as people run to meetings and

90 work in other areas of the office. Some projects have dedicated project areas. There are several

meeting rooms for teams to collaborate and conduct conference calls with clients and consultants. A

library, a material resource room, and a workshop are present within the office. Construction

components and material samples are also spread around in all the studios (the photograph on the

right in Figure 4.11).

Figure 4.12. The workstations of a designer and a design researcher. From left to right: an architect’s desk covered with hand drawings, and a design researcher’s shelf containing books on healthcare, design, and research.

Four of the most frequently heard terms at Arch2 are lean,103 sustainability, performance (client’s

organizational performance), and patient journey. These terms also play a significant role in how the

consultancy evaluates the success of projects, which are defined mostly according to the

performance goals of the clients. For example, a healthcare project, the success was measured in

terms of reduced patient stay in the institution, increased patient satisfaction, increased start of on-

time procedures, increase in the number of performed cases, reduced amount of electricity use, and

increased amount of day lighting use.

103 The lean approach was developed by Toyota and is based on increasing customer satisfaction while decreasing the amount of waste (Liker, 2004). 91 4.2.2. Product development process

Several people work on Arch2’s projects. The most common positions are project manager,

project designer, (healthcare) programmer, project architect,104 CAD drafter, technical designer

(detail specialist), and interior designer. How much an individual is involved changes based on the

stages of a project (with the exception of the project manager, who is involved in each stage) (Table

4.9).

Table 4.9. The milestones and leaders in the stages of Arch2’s design process. The items listed in parentheses do not apply to all projects.

The product development process does not differentiate based on building type. Instead, the

building type affects the knowledge base necessary to solve the problem. As one architect noted, “A

hospital requires expertise that is highly technical and serves critical functions where lives are at

stake. For museums, the functional adjacencies are less critical and less technical.”105

Although building type does not change the process, I observed three different approaches to user involvement: 1) the designers interact with developers of the building with no direct contact with the end user, 2) the designers conduct their own user research with a focus on developing functional and space relationships, and 3) the design researchers take the lead and there is a longer user involvement stage.

104 Project architects are involved in the construction documents stage and the digital modeling of the space. 105 An architect who is not designing healthcare projects 92 The project stages defined at Arch2 are in line with the stages of a prototypical design

process; however, the designers at Arch2 have added “occupancy” to their design process where

appropriate (Figure 4.13). Designers help with the move-in of people and equipment106 and with

their adaptation to the new space. For example, in order to illustrate the new flow that will take place

in an emergency room, the design researchers at Arch2 planned a live simulation. They hired actors to perform as patients in an emergency room. In addition, some of the designers from Arch2 acted

as patients or patient relatives. Through role-playing, designers experienced what it was like to be a

patient, seeing the space from a patients’ perspective and observing different aspects of an

emergency room. The clients’ staff performed their everyday procedures during this role-play and

were able to test how the new space would work.107

Figure 4.13. An architect’s design process diagram for a specific project. The project had an integrated project delivery strategy in which the contractor had been involved with the process starting from schematic design rather than at the construction stage (which is more common for Arch2). The architect listed occupancy as a stage in the design process.

The programming stage requires several meetings with the client and users. The main goal in

the programming stage is to understand not only what is happening at the client’s enterprise

106 When required, designers or design researchers draw diagrams explaining the path used for moving the equipment to its final location within the new building. 107 This story was told by an interior designer in healthcare. 93 “today,” but also to explore what might happen in the “future” (Figure 4.14). Studying the “today”

of the client involves collecting information on flow, program, adjacencies, and the client

organization’s mission, vision, and strategic plan (see Appendix J, Tables 5-8 for the information of

interest to designers and design researchers). As the focus is on designing the future, the information

collected at this stage is not used directly in the design process. Designers and design researchers

question the information they collect and ask the clients, “Why are you doing it that way? Best practice does it this way”108 and ask themselves, “How can the client’s work flow be optimized and

how can a new space support this?”109 User involvement and studying the client’s current state is

instrumental in the search for the future:

That is why I think it is important to document how they [client] do it now … where is the gap, where is the change that is going to happen to get them where they [client] need to be … things we do to understand how further they have to move off the dime to get to the new state, the future state.110

Figure 4.14. A design researcher’s explanation of his job. While design researchers study the “today” of the client, they do it in order to inform the client’s “future.”

Independent from the involvement of the design research studio, most projects have

“visioning” workshops at the programming stage. These workshops focus on defining the goals of

the project and prioritizing these goals. When the design research studio is involved, the

programming stage takes longer because of the more in-depth study of the design problem

(including users). According to a programmer, “Researchers bring freshness to the project and they

articulate aspirations. They use different types of tools and outcomes.”111 Another architect had a

108 Healthcare architect 109 Interior designer 110 Design researcher 111 Programmer 94 different point of view: “That kind of research is important, but it wasn’t always separate; it used to

be contained. … it is no different than what we did before.”112 According to this architect, the involvement of research decreases the amount of time spent on iteration later in the process. This architect explained the following reasoning while drawing the image in Figure 4.15:

Design is iteration. You do something, then you learn something, your circle gets a little tidier, you do something, it gets a little tidier, you start to spiral in and pretty soon you start to get to that place which is a good bull’s-eye. You start with a larger ... you try to go from here [beginning] to here [end]; you can shorten it if you have done research. If you have not, the reason you are iterating is because you are actually doing research while you are doing [designing] … You go back, change it, what about this. You are doing research, it is just not formal. People do not see it that way, but it is like everybody touching the elephant with the blindfold on … it must be the trunk, that must be leg; you learn from it, it is not very efficient. If you want to shorten this piece [iterations], you end up doing research and your target is narrower, more direct, more right on.113

Figure 4.15. An architect’s explanation of the effect of systematic user involvement on the design process. The amount of time spent on a project is always the same. The first line segment on the top right of the image represents the research, and the second represents the time spent on design. When you do not have systematic research, you spend the time for research on making more iteration. When you conduct research, the total amount of cost (in fees, time, energy) is less; therefore, according to this architect “Doing research is good … from a business standpoint.”

The programming stage is defined as “immersion” into the context, behaviors, opinions, and client’s business.114 This stage prepares the designers by “getting [them] into the mindset” for

developing the design solutions.115 Designers tend to cognitively differentiate this first stage from the rest of the process. The image in Figure 4.16 is an illustration of this mental separation between

predesign and other stages. While describing the design process, the healthcare architect, who

112 This architect is not from healthcare studios. 113 Architect. This architect had joined the consultancy about a year ago and had limited experience working with design researchers. 114 Architects, interior designers, and programmers 115 Architect 95 diagrammed the image on Figure 4.16, drew a line between the first three steps and the rest of the process.

Figure 4.16. A healthcare architect’s design process diagram. This architect separated the first three stages from other stages with a line. The first three stages are devoted to research. The dashed line after the first three stages illustrates the metal separation between early user involvement process and the following stages.

The immersion into a project leads to concept development at Arch2. All of the observed

projects at Arch2 had a concept that included a metaphor and a narrative. Not all projects had a

parti.116 Instead, there were inspirational images in line with the concept on the walls of the project

rooms. Most of the concepts made reference to nature, such as using the ocean as a metaphor while

designing an intensive care unit. The concept, metaphor, narrative, images, and partis are major

components of early design booklets that are shared with the client.

As projects move from schematic design to design development, the details on the plans

increase. The design development stage is characterized by several user group meetings (Figure

4.17). A healthcare programmer explained: “We look at one room at a time, but we are looking at all

those parts and pieces at once for the most part.”117 The comments of users are marked with red on

116 A geometric sketch that depicts the concept. 117 Healthcare programmer 96 the plans at this meetings, and this process is called “red lining.” Before the next meeting with the user group, the red lines are transferred into plans. The meetings, the red lining, and the updating of plans based on user comments are repeated when necessary.

Figure 4.17. A portion of a project calendar. The blue post-its are the user group meetings.

The level of teamwork changes from stage to stage. The earlier stages involved more teamwork than the later stages (starting with design development). Architects working in teams were observed while designing the mass (the exterior and the interior without details) of a building. On the other hand, programmers were observed working alone in front of their computers as they updated the plans based on the feedback they received at user group meetings at the design development stage. For some very large projects, the building was divided into sections, and different teams were working on different sections. For example, the interior designers were working on the plans of public spaces of a hospital while the healthcare programmers were developing the medical units. These groups had weekly project meetings where they shared their progress. The consultancy also had monthly design meetings that were open to everyone. The aim of these meetings was to get feedback from designers who were not working on the project and share lessons learned from other completed projects.

97 4.2.3. User approach and user involvement methods

Projects at Arch2 require special attention to be paid to the user, as “most of our [their] buildings are very user intensive buildings … they are programming rich.”118 While designers and

design researchers at Arch2 interact with a wider group of people (e.g., stakeholders, community), an

architect (in his response to free listing exercise) defined two types of users that they need to focus

on while designing: 1) organization (client) and 2) individuals. Individuals are mostly the full-time

occupants of a space, such as doctors and teachers. Clients decide on the users’ interaction with the

designers, and “each client is different as to who they want to put in front of you.”119 Even though

the designers do not always contact part-time users, the consultancy has a special focus on this user

group, especially the patients. It was observed that the design research studio serves to remind the

designers of the important role of these part-time users. For example, at a monthly consultancy

meeting in which a studio shared one of its on-going projects, it was the design researchers who

brought up the questions regarding the patients’ experience in the space.

However, not all project teams have design researchers, and not everyone in a project team

has equal contact with the client and the users. Some of the architects returned the free-list sheets

empty, explaining that they do not have user contact: “Often times we do not have contact or input

from the user. Decisions come from the owner’s project manager. They judge our design.”120 Some others explained that data collection from users were the programmer’s responsibility: “I don't usually participate in ‘structured’ interviews - I leave that to programmers.”121 Consequently, the

programmer takes over the role of being the user’s advocate on projects that do not have design researchers on the project team.122

118 Manager 119 Healthcare programmer 120 Exterior designer. The emphasis is the designer’s. 121 Architect 122 After explaining my project subject, the architects in most studios directed me to programmers. 98 Designers listed the equipment and need-based information as their focus while collecting

information from users (see Appendix J, Tables 5-7 for the information of interest to designers).

However, it was observed that the daily conversations of designers concentrate on the flow that will take place in the new space; for example, the flow of staff, patients, students, materials, and information. The observed project team meetings were structured around the flow of the users in the space. The information on requirements and needs also translates into flow requirements. The design proposal documents explained the proposed design solution through the narration and illustration of user journeys. When communicating design suggestions or solutions, each designer referenced the desired flow. The sketches of designers included arrows representing the possible flow of spaces (Figure 4.18).

Figure 4.18. Representation of flow in drawings via arrows. These arrows help designers to think through the flow that will happen in a space and to communicate the design solution to others.

The term flow is comprehensive in its use in Arch2. While the user experience in a space is defined as a blend of context, emotion, journey, and touchpoints,123 designers were observed to

distill these four items into the flow of a space. Furthermore, the client’s organizational process and

performance was envisioned through flow. Healthcare designers gave special attention to flow, as

efficiency becomes a big factor in the design of these buildings:

123 These items are taken out of a project document. 99 Healthcare architect: Hospitals and medical equipment are complicated and changing. On every project, we need to understand the processes of the particular owner/user and the requirements of the equipment they use.124 [Emphasis is added]

Healthcare programmer: We are gonna talk about the flow for imaging and any changes that happened as far as imaging and the patient flow.125

Healthcare architect: [We are] thinking of everything as a flow because it is an experience, which is a flow of time and if you even think of materials as a flow of experience, how do they… so everything is about the flow.126

Design researcher: You are designing for a change and design the environment to enable that change. You definitely do not design for how things are functioning now because they are broken. You are designing a new space for a new way of functioning. Therefore, there is this gap between how people currently work and the ideal way they want to work, more efficiently.127

While designers evaluate most of the user information in terms of flow, they do not simply rely on what the users tell them about the flow. The designers explain that they need to keep the

future occupants in mind while developing design solutions: “Keep in mind that with typical churn,

50% of the office users may be gone when the new facility opens.”128 Furthermore, different user

groups working in a space might have conflicting flow expectations, and meeting the flow

expectations of all user groups might be impossible. As one healthcare architect explained,

In healthcare specifically, the goals of the patient are often in conflict with the goals of the care team. You want to maximize privacy for patients; you want to maximize visibility for the care team. Those are inherently in conflict.129

In order to overcome these problems, designers explain their efforts to create an “ideal

flow,” (Figure 4.19), noting: “In some ways training new staff to an ideal facility may be more

effective.”130 The “ideal” is defined based on the “best practices” and the state-of-the-art information on the processes and procedures taking place in a space: “not all projects have end users

124 Healthcare architect 125 Healthcare programmer 126 Healthcare architect 127 Design researcher 128 Healthcare architect 129 Healthcare architect 130 Healthcare architect 100 on staff during design; and when they do, often “best practices” wins over user preferences.”131

According to one healthcare architect, the design of a building cannot make people perform the right flow. The design can only “cause wrong behaviors not to happen,”132 and best practices aid in

this process.

Figure 4.19. Designers conceptualize buildings to meet an ideal flow. This image is a portion of a representation of a healthcare architect’s design process steps. One of the steps in the process was listed as “understanding the ideal flow” and the word “ideal” was underlined by the architect.

The ideal flow is dependent on the project, the organization, and the user. The most common information collection takes place via user group meetings at Arch2 (see Appendix J,

Tables 1-4 for the sources of user information listed by designers and design researchers). The user

information is collected at the fuzzy-front end of design and specifically during the design

development stage.133 An interior designer in healthcare explained that the designers have regular

“meetings with staff to review how they [users] work and what they need in their space. As the

meetings progress, so does the information.”134

The information exchange at user group meetings depends heavily on design-related objects

available at the meeting. The most frequently used design-related objects are plans, imagery,

sketches, physical models, 3D renderings, material samples, project proposals, client’s existing

131 This quote is from a healthcare programmer’s response to the free-listing exercise. The quotation marks are the programmer’s. 132 Healthcare architect 133 A healthcare programmer reported that they have around 2-3, 3-4, and 6-8 user group meetings in the programming, schematic design, and design development stages respectively. 134 Interior design in healthcare 101 facilities, consultancy’s previous projects, and buildings from around the world that exemplify best practices. All these design objects are the entities for designer-client/user interaction. The client and users make comments on the design objects, and the designer interprets these comments in order to understand the ideal flow. As a result, the design objects are not only for performing tasks at Arch2, but also serve as instruments for designers to collect information from the client and users. The following quotes exemplify this dual role of design objects.

Healthcare programmer: We take the client on tour of our projects with similar programs and ask for a response.135 Interior designer: We show them plans, elevations, casework details, furniture layouts, equipment lists and locations, lighting, finishes, etc. They review and we update per their requests.136 Architect: [We] show them something and get feedback; this clarifies the ambiguity/interpretation of earlier concept/program material by making it “real.”137 Architect: [We use] drawings to help describe and get opinions.138 Architect: [We use] models, physical and virtual, to elicit comments … data sheets to collect and trigger comments … material and hardware samples for comments.139

Among the many design objects used in designer-client/user interaction, imagery was observed to have a special significance at the fuzzy-front end of design when there were no design solutions to share with the client or the users. Early design proposal documents were imagery heavy.

In order to communicate the user journeys to be designed, several photographs were used in conjunction with user flow charts. In early client meetings, interior designers showed users several different interior photographs and observed the client’s reaction. This helped the interior designers to design a similar feel for the client’s new spaces. In this respect, the imagery helped designers to define another ideal to target: the ideal feel of the space.

135 Healthcare programmer 136 Interior designer 137 Architect. This quotation is from an architect’s answer to the free-listing exercise. Quotation marks are the architect’s. 138 Architect 139 Architect 102 When the design research studio was involved, the design researchers led the user-designer interaction. The design researchers’ focus on the users and user research was much boarder than that of the designers. The diagrams in Figure 4.20 exemplify the difference between the designers’ and the design researchers’ approach to research. While design researchers studied the larger system ecology, architects focused on building a “common language” and a program through research. A project manager explained that the involvement of design researchers in the process helps designers to develop a holistic understanding of the users: “They remember questions that we might have forgotten to ask. They bring depth to the design decisions we have and they develop much better results, [and]…help us gain a deeper understanding.”140

Figure 4.20. Diagrams by two design researchers and an architect illustrating the different definition of research among these groups. For the design researchers, users cannot be separated from the larger system ecology to which they belong. Researching the user also means studying the different aspects of the ecosystem, such as environment, behaviors, mindset, organization, and services. In contrast, the architect’s viewpoint is that research helps to facilitate understanding of what the client and users want and need, and to develop a “common language” with these groups.

At the end of their process, design researchers developed insights, design suggestions, prescriptive applications, concepts, design and service standards, and defined areas for development.

These outcomes were reported and shared in the form of presentations, reports, or booklets with the client and with the designers. While the designers who collaborated with the design research

140 Project manager 103 studio valued design researchers’ input, they stated that they did not use the design research studio’s

outcomes directly in the design process.141 The designers thought the final documentation of the

research process were for the client rather than for them.142 In fact, the final research deliverable was

not always ready by the time the designers started developing concepts and schematic design

solutions. Instead of using the experiences and user journeys defined by design researchers,

designers processed this information based on their own experiences with the building type, work

experience, and best practices.143 Two architects explained their tendency to reprocess previous work

experience as follows:

Architect: Every project, you bring your own past with you. You do have your own filters of what you have done in the past, what you have seen, what you have learned from all of your clients. Then, it always affects how you filter the information you get the next time, the next time and the next time.144

Architect: [The] designer refuses to take everything that research had done as the final brief that we [architects] somehow implement … you always have your own notions, you kind of rely on precedents. That is a lot of intuition in place.145

When designers were asked what they had learned through the user research stage conducted

by design researchers, they talked about their own user observations, interactions, and conversations,

and the effectiveness of methods used by design researchers as well as the broader perspective the

design researchers brought to the research process. One architect explained that designers “tend to

141 In feedback workshop, two architects commented on the consultancy’s structure (being organized as a studio) and size as possible obstacles for the seamless integration of the design researchers’ user involvement results into the design process. 142 A project manager explained, “It is for the client,” referring to the research booklet put together by the design research studio. 143 At one of the observed monthly design meetings, the project under discussion was a healthcare building regarding which the research studio had done the research and published a booklet reporting the research results. In this meeting, rather than referencing the information in the booklet, designers preferred sharing their own experiences and evaluating the design proposal based on their experience with similar building types. 144 Architect 145 Architect 104 be integrative, tactile learners” and they need to be in the field to learn.146 While working with design researchers on user involvement processes, designers explained that they learn from design researchers as much as they learn from users:

I think anytime you involve the user in the design process it has a positive impact on the design. Our collective knowledge, if it can be incorporated, can improve a project and involving the client creates a feeling of ownership.147

Consequently, the process of research is more significant than the research results for the designers. A design researcher also explained the learning through process: “We are educating our team on how to talk with them. And it is through the communications and relationships that you are going to move towards a better answer.”148 Thus, at Arch2, user research is a collaborative learning

process. Designers, client, users, and design researchers all learn from each other, “and you learn

together. You expect to learn together with the client, that is what the interaction does for us, it

keeps our skillset sharp.”149

Although the designers felt the process of research was of the most value, they also stated that the research outcomes helped them to defend their design decisions. For example, in a project

meeting, a healthcare architect referenced a result from the research booklet when he was

questioned regarding his material selection. Similarly, a manager explained what clients expect from

systematic user research: “What they expect is a critical look at what the problem is and back it up

with some data and research so it is not somebody saying, ‘Here is what I think is the issue.’”150

Although legitimizing design solutions through research is the most referenced benefit of systematic research, the architects/designers listed several other reasons to conduct systematic research:

146 Architect 147 Architects 148 Design researcher 149 Architect 150 Manager 105 Manager: [to] have a happier client … help facilitate better decisions … make sure that we are truly solving the right problem.151

Design researcher: I do need to do the research so that the client understands that they have been cared for, studied appropriately. So when their design recommendations come forward, they are coming from a point of confidence. Without actually doing the work, you cannot instill confidence [in the client regarding the design solutions].152

Architect: [for] developing evaluation criteria.153

Architect: [for] articulating what design must accomplish.154

Architect: [for] defending solutions.155

4.2.4. Processing the user

There is not a single epistemic culture of user within Arch2. Furthermore, the designers’

attitude towards user research and design researchers varies. One of the reasons for these

differences is the designers’ nonstandard interaction with the users and the design researchers within

projects. Not every project team interacts with users and design researchers. For example, designers

who specialize in the digital modeling of spaces believe that “user experience does not affect” their

job,156 and they do not see a need to interact with users. Some healthcare architects do not find it

necessary to have contact with part-time users of a space, even if they are designing a space for

another culture in another country. On the other hand, some designers believe in the positive impact

of continued interaction with users at every stage of the design process.

Overall, the design research offered by Arch2 is a service for the client. The research deliverables are structured for the client. This is not unexpected, as it is the client who pays for this service. If the client does not buy the service, then design researchers are not involved in the project.

151 Manager 152 Design research 153 Architect 154 Architect 155 Architect 156 Architect 106 Project team and design researchers have the responsibility of communicating the value of user

involvement processes to the client.

The designers also evaluate the deliverables from user involvement processes as a resource

for the client. During my visit, there was not any systematic system whereby user research results

were pinned up on the walls of project spaces (Figure 4.21). The designers and design researchers

had been internally and collaboratively discussing ways to increase the impact of research findings

on design processes and design solutions. According to a manager, the language difference between

designers and design researchers and the organizational structure of the consultancy were two of the reasons for the limited implementation of user research results in-house:

I think also that a lot of times [ ] the translation of the language from the research and discovery to the design, to the implementation [ ] Because a lot of times, the research people do not talk the same language as the design people and that is why we move the design people upside and then move the researcher people that way so there is more overlap and then so that there is more seamless transmission of the information. And how is the organization designed to enhance that [ ], you know, in terms of how it is organized.157

Figure 4.21. A dedicated project space. The space did not include any user information. Instead the walls were covered with images describing the design concept (metaphor), inspirational images, photographs from the site, plans, and notes on the needs and requirements to be met by the new building.

The design objects played a central role as an instrument to collect information from users in

the design process. Furthermore, the design objects developed by the designers were the

157 Manager 107 reconfigurations of users. These reconfigurations represented users in the office space. The most

common reconfigurations were full-size mock-ups, physical models, 3D models, plans, elevations,

flow diagrams, imagery, concepts, meeting notes, presentations, and conference sheets. Because

these objects were used as instruments for collecting and sharing information, they reminded

designers of the client’s and user’s comments.

Among the user reconfigurations, the flow diagrams and imagery had a special role at Arch2.

Even though Arch2 designers conducted research on users, the priority of designers was not current

user needs and wants, as these users were not always the users of the new building. According to

one document, “Through observation …. we [the project team] are able to gain tacit knowledge

regarding what people are actually doing, how they behave, how they interact with the environment

and with others around them.”158 This tacit knowledge blends (or “filters,” to use the term that an

architect used) with personal experiences, work experience, and best practices and forms the basis of an ideal user model for designers. This ideal user was a representation of the ideal flow and feel that is distilled at the end of the programming stage. It is a patchwork user model, as it is a combination of

user information coming from different channels. Most referenced channels were user involvement

processes, designers’ own experiences, best practices, previous projects, intuition, client, co-workers,

and design researchers. The design solutions were developed and tested to meet the requirements of

this ideal patchwork model.

This ideal user model, in the form of ideal flow and imagery, had a second role within Arch2.

Most of the internal design meetings and client meetings made reference to the ideal. Designers,

users, and clients used the ideal in order to communicate their thoughts to others. Although all the

project members did not interact with users or clients, they all knew the ideal that needed to be

158 From a project document 108 accomplished with the space. Therefore, ideal user models became a communication and interaction

entity at Arch2:

I think another reason we design to the ideal is, … that is the benchmark that we [use to] identify tradeoffs. If you do this, you will get this part of the ideal, but if you do this, you won’t. It almost serves as a benchmark to help us define what we are able to deliver if we cannot do the whole thing and help the client make decisions about which part of the ideal is most important.159

4.2.5. Summary of the main findings from Arch2

• The client determines the user involvement: The client defines whom the architects

interact with and how long the interaction lasts in a project. As the client is the ultimate decision maker on project budget and schedule, the client also has control over the user involvement strategy, as the client has control over everything else in a project.

• Systematic user involvement is a service for the client: The deliverables and the findings of the systematic user research are primarily structured for the client and used by designers as well.

• The focus is not on the human being; it is on the context: While conducting user research, the designers and design researchers do not limit their study to the user as a human being. Instead, they study existing flow, environment, behaviors, requirements, and user-space interaction. Thus, the aim is to develop a holistic understanding of users’ context.

• Flow is associated with user experience: The designers define the user’s interaction with the built environment mostly in terms of the user’s flow within the context. Flow is evaluated as the main component of user experience.

• Imagery is the reflection of feel: Photographs from existing interiors and exteriors are used to communicate the targeted feel of an environment to the client.

• The designers’ user model is a patchwork: Multiple channels provide user information for

designers. Designers process all the available information and develop their patchwork user model.

159 Healthcare architect. This comment was recorded at the feedback workshop. 109 • Designs are developed for the ideal user: The flow and the imagery are the main ingredients for the development of pleasant experience within the space. This ideal is the basis for the design solutions. Designers constantly compare their design solution with the flow and the imagery attached to the ideal user and describe the design solution utilizing the ideal and the user.

• The user, user involvement findings, and ideal user model enhance client-consultancy interaction: The ideal user is used as an instrument of communication within Arch2. Designers, users, and clients use the ideal for as a common ground that enhances interaction between parties.

• The user approach is individually defined: Designers have distinct perspectives on the role of the user and systematic user research within the design process.

• Participation in the user involvement processes aids in the processing of user information by designers: Designers who had collaborated with design researchers on previous projects have a more positive approach to the user and the impact of systematic user research. These designers explained they learned as much from users as they learned from design researchers.

110 4.3. ID1: “Constraints Make Us Creative”

The following report on ID1 is based on the collected data listed in Table 4.10.

Table 4.10. The amount of data collected from ID1

Semi-structured Free listing Feedback Method Observation interview Project walkthrough exercise Survey workshop Data 53 hours 6 2 12 14 1 (4 hours 18 minutes) (58 minutes) (return rate: 63%) (return rate: 78%) (49 minutes)

4.3.1. Overview of the consultancy

ID1 is an industrial design consultancy that specializes in the design and development of consumer electronics, medical devices, and industrial products. As a consultancy, ID1 enjoys solving complex design problems that blend design and engineering details.160 Research, strategy, design, and

engineering are listed as the services they offer (Table 4.11). However, during my visit, the focus of

the consultancy was on the last two. While it is made clear to the clients that they prefer working

from the very beginning to the very end of projects for various reasons,161 ID1 also offers each of

the service areas separately to its clients. For example, clients may choose to get mechanical

engineering support only.

Table 4.11. The general services offered by ID1 and their expertise within each service area

160 The title of ID1, constraints make us creative, references the role of constraints in complex problems. The consultancy’s focus on constraints is explained in the following pages. 161 Manager 111 The consultancy had more than 20 employees at the time of visit. Engineering is their largest department and is composed of mechanical, electrical, and software engineers.162 Additional engineers are contracted on a project basis. The consultancy was in the process of growing their industrial design department, which had fewer than five industrial designers, and was establishing a research and strategy department.

Founded in the 1990s as a product design consultancy, the consultancy was composed of mechanical engineers. Since this time, clients’ requests for other engineering and industrial design services have shaped the consultancy’s development pattern. At the time of the visit, the consultancy’s first design researcher had been with the firm for 1 month. While other engineering disciplines and industrial design were added at the request of clients, the consultancy’s executives made the decision to establish the design research department without client input. Prior to the establishment of their design research department, the consultancy’s industrial designers served as design researchers whenever necessary. When the projects required systematic research, human factors analysis, and formal user testing, the consultancy outsourced research capabilities through contractors. The research department was added because of a perceived need for qualitative research data in most of their projects, and they felt the addition of research expertise made it possible to

“offer state of the art in product development services.”163 Consequently, a design researcher with expertise in qualitative research was hired.

The information in this chapter and the analysis in this study cover this consultancy’s product development praxis before the design research department was added. It is important to note, however, that this consultancy recognized the importance of adding research expertise to their

162 Although engineers have different titles, all the engineers in ID1 are working as design engineers; thus, they do design work. This is why, for this consultancy, the engineers were also observed. In the following pages, the term designer refers both to industrial designers and engineers of ID1. 163 Manager 112 overall portfolio of services and were aiming to advance its research and strategy offerings at the time of my visit.

In ID1, project teams are composed of industrial designers and engineers led by a project

manager. Project managers are mostly chosen from among the engineers. A hierarchical structure

does not exist at this consultancy. The founder, the president, directors, industrial designers,

engineers, and the design researcher all sit side by side. The work experience is the main aspect that

defines seniority and authority. The average number of years of work experience for the engineers

who participated in the survey was 21. The industrial designers were younger, with an average of 13

years of work experience (Table 4.12).

Table 4.12. The profile of the survey respondents

Work experience Work experience Number of (in years) at ID1 (in years) Profession respondents Mean Range Mean Range Education Industrial designer 3 13 6-26 6.5 4.5-10 3 bachelors Engineer (mechanical, 3 masters 11 21 2.5-33 4.7 0.5-14 electrical, and software) 8 bachelors 3 masters Design team 14 19.3 2.5-33 5.1 0.5-14 11 bachelors

The work environment reflects the engineering design focus of the consultancy (Figure

4.22). A workshop within the office enables construction of quick mock-ups and working

prototypes. Mock-ups and materials sit all over the office space. While there are project rooms

devoted to some projects, the industrial designers and engineers of those projects spend most of

their time at their desks, in front of their computers. Team discussions take place mostly around

desks. Working areas and relaxation areas are differentiated. The working areas are quiet most of the

time. Daily conversations not related to work take place in the relaxation environments that also

offer games to play in groups or alone.

113 Figure 4.22. The work environment. From left to right: a collection of exemplar products and components for inspiration; a prototype was in progress on the table; materials and mock-ups stored on shelves.

4.3.2. Product development process

At ID1, a project team is assigned for each project. The disciplines and the number of people in a team are determined based on the needs of the project. A project manager coordinates each team. Project managers are not responsible for the day-to-day design and engineering duties,

although they can contribute if they wish. The project managers’ main responsibility is to make sure

that the project is moving forward the way it should, both logically and financially, as well as in

terms of product development. Most of the communication with the client takes place through the

project manager (Figure 4.23). The industrial designers and the engineers interact with the client

mostly at project meetings that are held over the phone.

Figure 4.23. The project team structure. The arrows represent the paths of information exchange. The proximity illustrates the amount of interaction between parties.

114 While each product development process is designed based on the project requirements, one

of the engineers defined ID1’s overall product development process as a journey from the client-

oriented “where you are” now to “where you want to be”164 (Figure 4.24). This was “never a

straightforward journey.”165

Figure 4.24. The depiction of the product development process by an engineer. The vertical lines represent the milestones in the process.

Table 4.13 lists the important milestones in the product development process of ID1. While

all team members work on every stage, the leaders of the stages shift. At the fuzzy-front end of

design, the information on “where you [client] are” and “where you [client] want to be” helps the

project team to get “into the right mindset for the project.”166 Being in the “right mindset” means

interacting with the world through the lens of this new project and experiencing the objects in daily

life as a component of the project. These experiences become the inspiration for the solution of the

project. For example, while designing a consumer product, one of the industrial designers shared his

excitement with a colleague. The industrial designer had recently thrown something into a trash bin.

While using the trash bin, the way the bin operated gave the industrial designer the idea to apply the

same mechanical system to the product he was designing. Thus, an existing design solution from

another product category became the inspiration in the design of another product.

164 Engineer 165 Engineer 166 Industrial designer 115 Table 4.13. The milestones and leaders in the product development process

The trash bin anecdote provides clues about the problem-solving behavior of the project

team. ID1’s product development process starts with finding solutions, “hypothesis.”167 These solutions are tested and the problems defined. The designer moves on with trying to solve these problems with the next solution. In this process, “sketching helps to see what is not working.”168

Trials continue through sketching, building mock-ups, 3D modeling, and developing prototypes. All

these processes create new problems and new solutions: “Some of it is just going really quickly

through ideas to try and test. It helps you build an understanding because you run into things that

do not work.”169

At ID1, the boundaries between job descriptions of industrial designers and engineers are

blurry. Engineers were observed developing concepts and physical forms. While pinning up concept

sketches on project boards, one of the engineers commented that his sketch might not have been as

aesthetic as an industrial designer’s, but the idea in the sketch could inspire an industrial designer

who could further develop the engineer’s proposed concept. Similarly, industrial designers were

welcome to suggest engineering solutions. However, no industrial designer was observed

contributing to the engineering part of the process. The industrial designers’ role was mostly at the

initial stages of the projects, commencing again at the end at the point of the finalization of a final

167 Manager 168 Industrial designer 169 Engineer 116 physical form. Engineers were observed seeking industrial designers’ input throughout the design process when there were issues regarding the physical form of the product.

Rough mock-ups are used as a communication tool between the industrial designers and engineers, with several versions of mock-ups for each project throughout the office. The human factors issues regarding the products are internally tested through mock-ups. When required by the client, user testing is conducted through mock-ups and prototypes as well.

4.3.3. User approach and user involvement methods

The user definitions of ID1 industrial designers and engineers are very broad. While the company noted that all the stakeholders are considered when making decisions on a project, they referred to the person who “operates the design outcome”170 as the main user. Different terms were used interchangeably to describe this group. For example, an engineer listing the users of a medical device preferred the term customer rather than the term user to highlight that the device interacts with some people who will never directly operate the device, such as patients and hospital administrators.

While every industrial designer and engineer stated that he or she values the user as a determinant for the design solution, all of their examples of significant user information were mainly clustered around the contexts of users and products. As one engineer put it, “To me it is all about context. I have believed for a long time, the more I understand about the context for the product, better the job I will do as a product designer.”171 Similarly, while explaining the design process of a medical device, the industrial designer described the environment the product was going to be used in, the existing procedure, and the problems with operating the product as the necessary user information that had guided the design outcome. In this sense, context was evaluated as a component of the user and had the most prominent significance.

170 Engineer 171 Engineer 117 The client is seen as the most important source of industrial designers’ and engineers’ user information (Appendix K, Tables 1 & 2). As one engineer noted, “Clients determine the inclusion of user research in a project and the degree of project teams’ interactions with users”172 through the control over project budget and schedule.

For most of the projects, industrial designers and engineers do not have direct contact with the users. Thus, most projects are client-centered and the client becomes the user representative for projects. On the other hand, all the industrial designers and engineers found talking with potential users (although not necessarily through structured interviews) in their own context invaluable. For complex product categories (especially medical products) and for the products that they were designing for the first time, the client arranged users for the project team to interact with, observe during procedures, and ask questions. In those projects, the industrial designers interacted with the users more, and as a result they are seen as user advocates on projects. There are two primary reasons for this distinction. First, for the projects on which ID1 conducted its own informal user involvement process, the industrial designers were responsible for this task. Second, the human factors issues are seen as the industrial designers’ responsibility. In this respect, the industrial designers were positioned between the users and the engineers. The user information collected through direct user interaction was transferred to engineers with some loss (Figure 4.25). Within project walkthroughs, it was observed that engineers had less of a grasp of the existing user conditions than industrial designers. For example, an engineer directed me to the industrial designer of the product to ask my questions regarding the user.

172 Engineer 118 Figure 4.25. The user, industrial designer, and engineer interaction at ID1 and the amount of user information transfer. The thicknesses of the arrows illustrate the amount of user information transferred.

Whether or not the industrial designers and engineers have the chance to interact with the users, they rely on their own experiences, their colleagues’ experiences, and knowledge from prior projects as important sources of user information. The brainstorming sessions on projects are seen as venues for such experience and project-knowledge exchange (Figure 4.26). Most of the time, the brainstorming sessions are conducted by small groups composed of two or three people. In other cases, all the employees of the consultancy, not only the project team, are welcome to provide input.

Figure 4.26. Industrial designers and engineers discussing a concept sketch

The user information of interest to industrial designers and engineers of ID1 (Appendix K,

Tables 3 & 4) can be grouped into three categories: human factors information, usability testing information, and information from generative research.

1) Human factors information: Clients are seen as a resource of human factors information.

More importantly, industrial designers are known for their expertise in this area:

119 The industrial designer will be keeping an eye on the appearance of the product—is it consistent and attractive? Also, the more difficult part is that they check that the physical interaction that the user will have with the product is intuitive and all the features of the product will support the way it is going to be used.173

2) Usability testing information: User testing is done in three different ways. The employees can test the mock-ups and prototypes and give feedback to each other or, as in many cases, either the client conducts user testing or ID1 hires a contractor to do so. User testing is seen as especially significant for medical devices to meet FDA (U.S. Food and Drug Administration) requirements.

The results from user testing are used for either design verification or correction.

3) Information from generative research: The generative research information was described as the consultancy’s weakest strength among the three user information categories. The establishment of the in-house research department was expected to address the generative research needs. Mostly, clients provide information about their users to ID1. However, it was noted that clients had a tendency to share user information “in the form of solutions.”174 Rather, the industrial designers and engineers preferred to learn the problems and the needs of users because of concerns that some clients misinterpret users’ problems and needs. As a result, the products developed were unsuccessful in the market. In order to minimize the risk of misinterpretation, industrial designers and engineers of ID1 start each project by asking the client as many questions as possible. The interpretation of the client’s answers and the user information the client shares with the project team leads to “creating meaning from user research that is very important and based on past experience.”175 The self-interpretation of user information by the industrial designers and engineers is valued and assumed as necessary to avoid problems with the finished product.

Although the interaction with the newly hired design researcher at this consultancy was limited at the time of the study, the industrial designers and engineers acknowledged that this design

173 Engineer 174 Engineer 175 Engineer 120 researcher asked different questions that were very valuable for the project and that the answers to

design researcher’s questions helped the project team to see the project from different perspectives.

Regardless of the source of the user information, this information is reconfigured into

several different forms within ID1. The most observed forms of these reconfigurations were project

briefs (mostly provided by the client), mock-ups, prototypes, photographs of the users, comparative

products, point of view documents,176 design criteria printouts,177 research documents that were provided either by the client or by the research consultancies that worked for ID1 on a project basis, and inspirational images found by industrial designers. These materials were made readily available to industrial designers and engineers throughout the product development processes.

4.3.4. Processing the user

In ID1, the user is evaluated as one of the many factors (similarly to other factors such as technology and materials) that influence the design outcome. One of the industrial designers explained that the user, together with the other design factors, helps them “understand” the project178 (Figure 4.27). Another industrial designer defined the user as a phenomenon that helps

them “get into the right mindset for the project.”179

176 A document that is put together within the programming stage with the aim of putting the client and the project team on the same page. 177 Lists of design criteria were pasted on the walls of project rooms. 178 Industrial designer 179 Industrial designer 121 Figure 4.27. An industrial designer’s depiction of the product development process. The bubbles centered on a main bubble on the left represent the influencers of a project. User is listed as one of these influencers. The investigation into these influencers is the way the industrial designer explores the design problem and develops various solution alternatives. Eventually, the best possible solution proposals are selected and developed. The arrows on the right represent the selection of solutions that are to be further developed and condensed into a single solution.

As evidenced in industrial designers’ comments, the user plays a role as a designer’s instrument within the product development process. The information collected on and from users assists industrial designers and engineers at ID1 in solving design problems. For most of the observed cases, user information, and therefore the user, helps the project team with setting constraints.

Industrial designers and engineers mostly described the problems of users while they were explaining what they had learned through user interaction. For example, in the context of designing a household product, an industrial designer observed the messy environment that the cables of the existing products created. This industrial designer set it as a goal to address this cable issue with the new product. In another example, regarding the design of a personal care product, the industrial designer felt uneasy about the possibility of users’ contact with chemical components and therefore set as a goal that the new product would avoid any such possibility of contact.

While the input of user information through constraints might be evaluated as a negative effect for some, for the industrial designers and engineers of ID1, constraints had a positive input

122 and were even described as inspirational. “Constraints breed creativity”180 for ID1. The challenges from constraints bring excitement to projects, as evidenced in the following quote from an engineer’s interview: “The fun part is knowing what the constraints are, knowing what the vision is, and then coming up with a way to solve the problem and get a really good product within those constraints.”181

Each of the industrial designers and engineers of a project team develops a best-case scenario182 that addresses the constraints. The scenarios of team members are not necessarily the same, but the goals to be accomplished with the scenarios overlap. Team members target actualization of their scenarios with the design outcome. The industrial designers’ and engineers’ project walkthroughs are based on the stories from their scenarios. In these scenarios, the main characters are the products that they designed, not the user. The users are seen as actors who make the products operate properly. The following excerpt exemplifies the role of users in the best-case scenarios. The first except is from the industrial designer, and the second is from the engineer of the same product, a medical device.

Industrial designer: This thing works running through this tube. You can see a bunch of different little tubes in there and each one of those has a separate little … So you pull those, and when you pull that string, you basically release … This guy deploys the … The next thing is to twist this guy and you pull this off and that thing will travel all the way down here and out into there. And what I do would be to pull out this first, little bit here, so that this thing would open up.183

Engineer: The whole premise of the product was that it forces the surgeon to do everything in the correct order. So, we were basically forcing them to use the product the way it is supposed to be used. They did not come to us and tell us how they wanted to use the product. We knew the proper steps that had to be done in a procedure. But it was really up to us to force the surgeon to use it the way it is supposed to be used.184

180 Industrial designer 181 Engineer 182 These scenarios were not scenarios regarding user experiences. Instead, these scenarios were composed of best solution ideas. 183 Industrial designer 184 Engineer 123

In ID1, best-case scenarios do not only guide the designers while solving problems. Best-

case scenarios that are built around user and user information also aid the interaction between the

client and the consultancy. The user helps to develop a common language, and the client and

consultancy collaborate with the help of this instrument. A manager from ID1 explained the positive

input of the user as a communication instrument with the client in the following way:

If you are having a conversation with the client, or even when you are trying to collaborate with each other as a team, and if the discussion becomes about whose idea is right or better, then what you are setting up is a situation where someone has to win and someone has to lose. It sounds like an argument and usually it is tearing down our relationship … what I often suggest is, “Let’s focus the conversation to what is best for the product” or “what is best for the user.” … What that does is, it depersonalizes the conversation between us and the client. So we are now not talking about who is right or wrong; we are talking about what is best for the user. The user then sort of becomes the referee in that discussion and takes some of the emotion out of it and helps the team focus differently and move forward instead of getting stuck. [It] helps collaboration become better.185

4.3.5. Summary of the main findings from ID1

• The client determines the user involvement: Clients have the ultimate say on the user

involvement in the design process.

• The focus is not the human being; it is on the context: Context is mentally attached to the

user by designers and engineers. The elements of context have higher significance for the project team than the user as an individual human being.

• Constraints are good: Constraints enhance creativity and designers focus on the negative issues related to users in order to define user constraints in a project.

• The user is instrumental in the product development process: The user becomes an actor in best-case scenarios that are built by industrial designers and engineers while solving design

185 Manager 124 problems. Industrial designers/engineers use this scenario to explain their design solution. The main

character in the scenarios is the product; the user’s role is the operation of the new product.

• The designers’ user model is a composite model: Designers were explaining different

aspects of a design solution in reference to possible human behaviors. Neither developed products nor best-case scenarios were user-experience based and were defined with an integrated user story.

• The user enhances client-consultancy interaction: The user is the common interest for

both parties. Using the user as the point of discussion enables health client-consultancy communication.

• Designing starts with a solution: Industrial designers and engineers at ID1 focus on developing solutions as soon as they immerse themselves in a project.

125 4.4. ID2: “Research as a Means to an End”

The following report on the design consultancy referred to as ID2 is based on the collected

data listed in Table 4.14.

Table 4.14. The amount of data collected from ID2

Semi-structured Project Feedback Method Observation interview walkthrough Free listing exercise Survey workshop Data 58.5 hours 5 5 17 16 1 (3 hours 48 minutes) (4 hours 49 minutes) (return rate: 81%) (return rate: 76%) (46 minutes)

4.4.1. Overview of the consultancy

ID2 is composed of professionals from three areas: industrial design, interaction design, and

research and strategy (Table 4.15). A different department serves each area. There is also a separate

department for creative directors, most of whom have a background in industrial design.

Table 4.15. The general services offered by ID2 and their expertise within each service area

Clients are mostly from consumer electronics, consumer goods, and transportation

industries. At the time of the visit, research and strategy was the largest department within the

consultancy. The user involvement and strategy services offered by this department focus on

generative research and innovation programs. Employees are titled either as a design researcher or as

a strategist; however, both utilize user involvement methods in their process.186 They all explained

186 In this report, all members of the research and strategy team are called design researchers; and their department is called a design research department. 126 that they see the user as a partner and utilize methods such as participatory design tools and behavioral prototyping to better collaborate with users.

The job description of interaction designers is broader than is generally understood. For example, one interaction designer described a part of his or her job as “storytelling.”187 In ID2, the interaction designers not only design user interfaces for consumer electronics, but they also design the interaction between the products and the users: e.g., an out-of-box experience for a toy.

One of the biggest strengths of ID2 is concept development. The outcomes of design process are mostly “high level design solutions”188 in the form of short videos or visually intensive presentations explaining the proposed concept. The designers of ID2 do not work on detailed engineering solutions for most of their projects. Whenever necessary, designers collaborate with their clients’ engineers on engineering and manufacturing services. Clients can borrow designers from ID2. In these cases, designers temporarily move to the clients’ facilities for better collaboration with the clients’ designers, engineers, and other employees.

Most of the projects are developed with a team composed of more than one department.

When a department needs expertise from another department, they partner with co-workers from that department. For example, “interaction designers would go on the research and help them to craft a message and create the deliverables.”189 The project managers and department directors decide whether to employ people from other departments in a project. In addition to coordinating with other departments within the consultancies, the department directors also actively work on projects. Every employee has the opportunity to be a project manager; however, seniority and work experience at the consultancy are important determinants.

187 Interaction designer 188 Interaction designer 189 Interaction designer 127 In addition to a project manager, a creative director is assigned for each project. The creative

directors oversee projects, supervise project teams on important decisions, make sure that the

projects are in line with client expectations and user needs, and provide design, user involvement,

and strategy support when necessary.

ID2 has more than 30 employees with a variety of international backgrounds. Designers,

design researchers, and creative directors make up more than 20 of these employees. The remaining

employees have administrative and executive responsibilities. Since its initiation in the 1980s as a

product design consultancy, ID2 has seen gradual growth. The design research department is the

latest addition to the consultancy.190 Among the survey respondents, the mean for the year of work experience is largest among design researchers (Table 4.16). Overall, the employees responding to the survey have 9.8 years of work experience on average.

Table 4.16. The profile of survey respondents.

Work experience Work experience Number of (in years) at ID2 (in years) Education Profession respondents Mean Range Mean Range 2 masters Industrial designer 5 9.8 1.5-173.9 0.5-9 3 bachelors 3 masters Interaction designer 5 8.4 5-14 2.3 0.5-4 1 bachelors 1 masters Design researcher 4 11.5 2-20 2.8 0.5-9 4 bachelors 6 masters Design team* 16 9.8 1.5-20 3.3 0.5-9 10 bachelors *Also includes responses from some of the creative directors

The office has a playful and chaotic environment (Figure 4.28). Desks are filled with design-

related books, magazines, inspirational images, action figures, and designer products. Regular office

objects (e.g., light switches and telephone receivers) are decorated and given characters. Most

projects have dedicated project rooms. Teams actively use these rooms. Desks are used for work

190 At the time of my visit, the design research department was around four years old. 128 that requires computers, such as digital modeling or rendering. The disciplines are situated side by side. The executive and administrative people sit together with everyone else.

Figure 4.28. The work environment. From left to right: books sitting on an interaction designers desk, a decorated light switch, the board filled with funny sketches and inspirational printouts at the main work area, and a collection of monthly magazines that are readily available for employees.

4.4.2. Product development process

ID2 has several projects running simultaneously at any given time. A team is assigned to each project. Project mangers lead teams and serve as a main point of contact for the client (Figure

4.29). Other members of the project team interact with the client mostly at project meetings held over the phone.

Figure 4.29. The information flow between the client and the project team. The proximity from the client represents the amount of interaction between these parties and the amount of information transferred.

129 Designers and design researchers at ID2 explain that they do not have a definitive design process. Instead, they have a “design approach.”191 Using the term approach rather than process reflects the non-linear character of the design process and how flexible they are in order to meet project and client needs.192 Another commonality of projects is that there are certain deliverables at certain stages of the product development process (Table 4.17).

Table 4.17. The milestones and leaders in the product development process. The design researcher(s) is/are in parentheses in the programming stage, as not all projects require user involvement or strategic development.

ID2 uses three different project types based on the integration of user involvement into design: traditional design projects (i.e., projects without semi-systematic or systematic user involvement); projects in which designers serve as design researchers; and collaborative projects with designers and design researchers. Industrial designers and interaction designers commented that they have been practicing the first two types more in the past, but lately more and more projects involve collaboration with the design researchers:

This experience [surveys and interviews] is something that we are becoming expert in. However, most industrial design projects are still far too fast moving and frankly too inexpensive to afford the time and money investment required by these exercises.193

191 Industrial designers, interaction designers, and manager 192 Manager 193 Industrial designer 130 Traditional design projects focus on gathering requirements for the programming stage. For

this type of project, designers generally have prior experience designing the product category. Clients

share their previous user research results and user information with the design team. The designers’ research is mostly product/interface based. Designers analyze the competitive and comparative design solutions and design trends. Search engines such as Google and Flickr are used to find photographs that show the contexts within which the products are used.194 The findings from these

visually oriented research processes are used to evoke inspiration. Furthermore, exemplary design

solutions are purchased and used for analyzing the product category and for testing different usage

scenarios throughout the design process. The project rooms for such design practices are filled with

inspirational images, magazines, markers, sketches, and the tiered-down examples from the product

category (Figure 4.30). Statements made during the discussions between designers included

references to designers’ intuition, observations, personal experiences as users, and prior work

experience within product category: “I have not seen anyone using these buttons, why don’t we put

them aside,” “Graphically this is more interesting,” and “I believe we are trying to be too generous

to the user; this should be sufficient space for them.”195

Figure 4.30. A project room of a traditional design project

Some project briefs are very open-ended and the product or the interaction to be designed is

not clear. Others require designers to develop a design solution in an area in which they lack

194 Industrial designers 195 Industrial designers 131 sufficient knowledge regarding existing user experiences. These two situations require semi-

systematic or systematic user input. When there is not enough money196 and time, or the user

experience to be studied is not very complex, designers conduct their own research. These user

involvement processes are generally semi-systematic. In these cases, the project team mostly

observes co-workers who are not working on the project, or friends, as they are going through the

experience. The outcomes of the research (videos clips, photographs, etc.) are not always shared

with the client.

When the project is complex and requires defining an opportunity space, a strategic plan, a

roadmap, or an in-depth analysis of user experiences, the design research department plays a role in

the process. Based on the leadership of the departments, there are two types of these projects.

Either the design research department has the leadership and employs designers, or a design

department has the leadership and seeks input from the design research department. The level of collaboration changes in these projects.

At the time of the visit, I observed projects in which design researchers conducted the research and shared their findings with designers, and projects in which designers and design researchers collaborated thoroughly. When design researchers conducted research by themselves, they shared the research outcome with the designers in the form of video clips, presentations, personas, scenarios, design guidelines, insights, and opportunity spaces. These documents were also shared with the client.

When design researchers and designers conducted the user involvement processes together, the design researchers did not worry about sharing the outcome with the designers since the designers were part of the process and they experienced the research themselves. Instead, they worked together to transfer what they learned from the user into post-it notes, sketches, affinity

196 Projects are charged according to a fixed budget. 132 maps, insights, actionable insights, and so forth (Figure 4.31). The deliverables of the user

involvement process (e.g., videos, presentations) are mainly for the client.

Figure 4.31. A project room of a collaborative project with designers and design researchers

In addition to user research and strategic development, the design research department also

supports designers and the design process via trend analysis. It was observed that although the

number of projects that included user involvement was limited, a majority of the projects had trend

analysis input. Trend analysts conduct their research individually and share the findings with the

designers in the form of presentations with general categories and supporting visuals. Design

researchers and interaction designers explained that “it is very easy for designers to incorporate

trend work.”197 Designers use this information for inspiration, making design decisions, and

validating their design decisions for the client.198

I did not observe major differences between the design processes of industrial designers and

interaction designers working at ID2. Both processes involved tunnel vision: moving from

brainstorming to solving details. One advantage of interaction design over industrial design is the

ability to test design solutions quickly. Interaction designers quickly visualize ideas, create non- interactive images, and “test if the solutions work or not internally.”199 The results of these tests are

the most common sources of iterations. In this sense, design iterations in interaction design focus

on solving usability problems.

197 Interaction designer 198 Industrial designers and interaction designers 199 Interaction designer 133 The images in Figure 4.32 are design process diagrams of an industrial designer and an interaction designer from ID2. The left diagram of the industrial design process includes a bump at the manufacturing stage because of the revisions that need to take place prior to the manufacturing of the design concept. User testing is not easy in industrial design. If the client decides to manufacture the concept developed by ID2, the design concept might require another round of revisions to address manufacturing constraints, usability issues, and so forth.200 In interaction design, the revisions are spread throughout the process and the process is depicted more straightforwardly.

Figure 4.32. Depiction of design processes from an industrial designer and an interaction designer. The left diagram is an industrial designer’s depiction of a design process based on a diagram he had seen. “Understanding user” is noted as a first step in the design process. As the project progresses, the design solution becomes clearer. However, if the client decides to manufacture the product, more problems resulting from manufacturing methods and usability issues arise. In contrast, addressing the usability and production issues are more spread out to the whole design process as it is diagramed by the interaction designer.

On several occasions designers were observed starting a project by jumping directly to developing solutions. For example, at the end of an insight development stage of a project, a designer shared his design suggestions with the team. This designer had developed these design suggestions prior to the development of insights and actionable insights. In his self-critique, the designer evaluated his design suggestions based on the research insights and defined alternative design solutions.201

200 Industrial designer 201 Industrial designer 134 Another industrial designer drew the diagram in Figure 4.33 in order to explain his solution

development cycle. After the development of each solution, the designer (or the design team)

evaluates the proposed solution based on his knowledge of the project (the rectangle at the bottom

of Figure 4.33 represents this pool of knowledge) and makes revisions to the solution based on his

evaluations. The knowledge of the user is one of the evaluation criteria:

You cannot segment research input and quantify it. The input from user research decreases as you move along the design process. However, you always tap into research knowledge to answer the questions that appear throughout the design phases. There is a hierarchy of problems and you need to work your way around them. Research is mostly used to answer high level questions.202

Figure 4.33. A designer’s diagram explaining his design process. In order to solve the problems that the designer faces along the design process, he taps into a pool of research knowledge and finds answers to the questions that arise in the process.

4.4.3. User approach and user involvement methods

Various factors affect the design teams’ decisions at ID2. According to designers, the most

significant factors that provide the most input into design are “user, business, technology, and

brand.”203 For design researchers, the user is one of the four main themes upon which they focus

(the other three are market, client and their brand, and culture). Among all the survey respondents of this study, the end-users took the first place among these factors (Appendix L, Table 7).

The “primary user is considered to be the end-user”204 for ID2 employees, and “the client is

NOT the user.”205 However, the phenomenon of the user is attached to the client as the “user is the

202 Industrial designer 203 Interaction designer 204 Design researcher 205 This quotation is from an industrial designer’s answer to the free-listing exercise. 135 client’s consumer in most cases.”206 When considering the users, the designers are not specifically

focused on the user as a person (see Appendix L, Tables 4 & 5). For example, in an insight

development session, a designer explained what he learned from the research results in this way:

“These insights are great. They enlightened me about the context.”207 Similarly, in project

walkthroughs, when designers were asked to explain what they had learned about the user, the issues they listed clustered around users’ contexts, the products they use, users’ process flow, existing

experiences around the product/interface category, pain points, and motivations—rather than the

user as a person or human being.

The sources of designers’ user information vary from project to project (see Appendix L,

Tables 1 & 2). The most listed sources include the designers’ own observations, conversations with

users, intuition, personal experiences, internet, and self-modeling (Appendix L, Table 8). Any type of

secondary information (such as the user information shared by the client) is considered less than

ideal: “Most information gets lost until it comes to us.”208 Designers also consider the information

from the design research team in the form of reports, presentations, or videos as not as effective as

the information they gain while collaborating with design researchers in the user involvement

processes.209 For the collaborative projects, designers referenced their own user observations as the

primary source of user information. A design researcher noted that “the [user involvement] process

they [designers] are going through is very enlightening” for them.210

Independent from the collaboration between designers and design researchers, the

deliverables of the user involvement process are created primarily for the client by the design

researchers. These deliverables are not necessarily prepared for the designers. In fact, on some

206 Design researcher 207 Industrial designer 208 Creative director 209 Industrial design and interaction design 210 Design researcher 136 projects, designers start their process prior to the finalization of the research process (Figure 4.34).

Design researchers even noted that they like seeing designers starting to develop solutions in the

research phase.211 The design process at ID2 is defined as not linear; designers do not wait for

researchers to finalize their process in order to start designing. Furthermore, design researchers do

not like using the term research to describe their work. They criticize this term as if it implies dictation, which is not what they do. Instead, the design researchers at ID2 prefer using the words insight and discovery while explaining their job.212

Figure 4.34. The process diagram of a project illustrated by a design researcher. The analysis of the research and design overlapped in this project.

Independent from the main source of user information, designers always reference their

personal experiences as a source of user information in each project. When designers have limited

experience or no experience with the product/interface category, they self-model themselves as

users and experience the product/interface.

The key user demographics are usually provided by the client. What comes next is a bit of role playing or getting into the headspace of the “user.” To do this I/we surround ourselves with the objects to be designed, purchase them as the user would, go through their open box experience as the user would, going through the use cycles, and always keeping the user demo in mind.213

211 Design researcher 212 Designer researchers 213 The excerpt is from an industrial designer’s response to free listing exercise. The quotation marks are the designer’s. 137 4.4.4. Processing the user

The user information is reconfigured into different forms at ID2. For the traditional design projects and the projects in which designers conduct their own research, the user information is represented in magazine pages, competitive and comparative products, books, printouts from the internet, mood boards, storyboards, photographs, video clips, and design guidelines. For the projects in which the designers and design researchers collaborate, the most common reconfigurations take the form of sticky notes, sketches, frameworks, insights, video clips, mock-ups, photographs, and design guidelines. These items are epistemic objects of the user in the office space and they serve as the tools to remind designers about the user information; one designer referred to “coming back

[from the field], using photographs to trigger the thoughts that we were having in the homes while taking the notes.”214 In addition to photographs, sticky notes are commonly used in user involvement-intensive projects. The project team groups, regroups, discards, and carries these sticky notes all around the office space based on their needs (Figure 4.35).

Figure 4.35. Sticky notes making journeys all around the office

The design researchers at ID2 explained that research was not meaningful without interpretation.215 Interpretations change from individual to individual. In general, it was observed that each party developed their own conclusions from the same user information. In this sense, both the phenomenon of the user and the user information are flexible in character. For example, while

214 Creative director 215 Design researchers 138 the client may evaluate the user research results based on their strategic placement within the

market, the designers may focus on defining functionality requirements for the new product.

Still, the user or the user involvement results helps these parties to find common ground and

collaborate more effectively. In this sense, the user and user involvement are business tools for

effective interaction between parties. For example, designers use the user involvement results to

legitimize their design solutions to the client; it “is about how you package the solution.”216 As one

industrial designer put it,

In general, when working with research findings from our research team, I find that it serves as a validation of our own secondary research and instincts as designers. It’s also useful as a way to frame the problem/solution to our clients.217

The designers at ID2 did not rely on any single user source while developing design solutions. While explaining a project, designers were referencing their observations in the field, their own experiences as a user, the client’s wants, the trends within the product category, and so forth.

Similarly, the designers did not develop their user models only from the user research information.

These user models are composed of collected user information, personal experience, experiences of co-workers, and so forth. Thus, the interpretation of the user by designers involved creating a patchwork user model. The creation of this patchwork model is also the representation of “getting into the headspace of users.”218 The following quotations represent the patchwork character of the user:

Industrial designer: The information that is collected is high level to frame a “target user”–a design target, not marketing-based persona. This is more visual than data driven, through [it] does include an age range. It mostly consists of elements to create a visual picture of them—products they own and use, where they live, etc.219

Industrial designer: If we catalog all issues in the user research, there were more issues than I identified here but a lot of them were unique to individuals. You kind of have to filter out what is really an issue versus what is just a pet peeve to this

216 Design researcher 217 Industrial designer 218 Industrial designer and interaction designer 219 The excerpt is from an industrial designer’s response to a free listing exercise. The quotation marks are the designer’s. 139 person that was part of why we felt like we needed to go test it by ourselves and make sure that we understood what the users were saying, and that gave us the perspective to understand, or interpret what their feedback was.220

The interpretation of the user is not sufficient for the design of successful user experiences.

It was observed that in some projects, designers’ user models were planned as best-case scenarios. The

best-case scenario is the ideal solutions (e.g., function, usability, usage scenario) that designers want

to develop. Probable design solutions were tested against the best-case scenario. When there were

mismatches between the best-case scenario and the design solution, the design solution was believed

to deliver a “broken user experience.”221

Best-case scenarios were explained both by industrial designers and interaction designers in the project walkthroughs. However, the character of best-case scenarios showed differences between two professions and between the designers who had worked with design researchers in the user involvement process of a project and those who had not. Interaction designers at ID2 were observed to develop more comprehensive scenarios than industrial designers. Industrial designers were more artifact focused. Independent from their profession, the designers who got the chance to interact with users explained the projects with a story that focused on the overall experience that the user would have with the product or interface. These designers were starting the sentences with

“The user.” On the other hand, the project walkthroughs of designers who had not interacted with users were focused on the solutions rather than the user. These designers were explaining the projects with sentences primarily in reference to the product: “This --- [a consumer product] will be operated…”222 These explanations did not necessarily unfold as a user story; instead, different

aspects of the product were described one-by-one.

220 Industrial designer 221 Interaction designer 222 Industrial designer 140 A design researcher explained that the integration of user information into design “does not

always happen perfectly” on every project.223 The consultancy has been experimenting with the most effective ways of “incorporating user research into design.”224 Lately, the design research team has

focused on making the findings and ideas concrete at the fuzzy-front end of design. The design

researchers and designers have increasingly utilized mediums such as scenarios, artifacts, and

sketches to store research findings in concrete forms. Another phenomenon that seemed to add to

the effectiveness of incorporating user research was identified as the designers’ active participation in the

user involvement process. The stories about the impact of user models and scenarios on the design

process varied between the projects that evolved through designer-design research collaboration and

those that did not. Designers described learning from each other as much as learning from users in

these projects:

Interaction designer: I think it is good for the interaction designers to be exposed to the research and strategy methodology and be able to think like a strategist and a researcher. So, it is partly just internal sharing of tools and learning.225

Industrial designer: We are always like informing each other, looking over each other’s shoulders.226

Projects rooms also played a role as enablers of collaboration. These spaces were not only central to designers’ collaboration, but also enhanced designer-design research interaction (Figure

4.36). The project rooms for collaborative projects included more direct references to users;

therefore, the designers were exposed to this information longer. Furthermore, the attitudes of

designers who had the chance to collaborate with design researchers were more positive towards the

users. The user models of the designers who were working on the same project were also similar

when they had participated in the user involvement process and collaborated with design

223 Design researcher 224 Design researcher 225 Interaction designer 226 Industrial designer 141 researchers. In their project walkthroughs, designers were using similar user scenarios to explain the

product. For example, all the members of an interaction design project, which involved designing an

out-of-box experience of a consumer product, started explaining the product in terms of its initial interaction with the user at a store and ended with the discarding of the box after the installation of the consumer product.

Figure 4.36. Project rooms enhance collaboration. Designers and design researchers meet in these spaces and work together on projects.

4.4.5. Summary of the main findings from ID2

• The focus is not on the human being; it is on the context: Even though they define the information as user information or the research as user research, designers are not specifically interested in the users as individuals. The designers’ focus is on issues that surround the user, such as users’ context, their work flow, and the products they use.

• The user and user involvement findings enhance client-consultancy interaction: The user and the collected user information are used by the design teams and clients as a tool to collaborate.

Neither the user models nor the user research results are used identically by each party. Each group interprets the available user information based on their needs, perspective, and experience.

• The designers’ user model is a patchwork: The designers’ knowledge about users comes from different channels. No one channel is individually responsible for the construction of the

142 designer’s user model. Designers mix and match the available information to develop new user models.

• User information translates into best-case scenarios: Designers reference best-case scenarios while developing and explaining their design solutions. They used the best-case scenarios as a comparison tool for the success of the design solution.

• Participation in the user involvement process aids in the processing of user information by designers: The existence of the research department is not the main determinant of effective user information integration in the design process. The collaboration between design researchers and designers brings a new perspective to the designers’ approach to users. The interaction between designers and design researchers enables these parties to learn from each other and enhances the learning experience from users.

• The design team develops a shared user model through participation in the user involvement process: The team members of a project utilized similar user scenarios to explain a project when they had the chance to participate in the user involvement process.

• Project rooms are vital for the immersion of designers into projects and user information:

The project rooms and the objects they contain are used often by designers at the fuzzy-front end of design. These spaces enhance collaboration. The reconfigured user information in these rooms reminds the designers to be cognizant of the user while they are developing design solutions.

• The user approach is individually defined: The existence of three different project types based on user integration and the patchwork character of user models illustrate that the user approach is not consistent within the consultancy.

• Systematic user involvement is a service for the client: The outcomes of user involvement processes are developed mainly for the client.

143 4.5. IxD1: “Staying True to the Client’s Properties”

The following report is based on the analysis of the collected data listed in Table 4.18.

Table 4.18. The amount of data collected from IxD1

Semi-structured Free listing Feedback Method Observation interview Project walkthrough exercise Survey workshop Data 43.5 3 3 18 19 1 (2 hours 27 minutes) (2 hours 15 minutes) (return rate: 82%) (return rate: 83%) (34 minutes)

4.5.1. Overview of the consultancy

IxD1 is an interaction design consultancy. They work as a third-party developer for clients from a wide range of sectors, including entertainment and communication. The expertise of IxD1 lies in the design and development of websites, games (built with Flash), online advertising, videos, and mobile applications (Table 4.19). Most of this design work includes developing interactive design solutions using clients’ existing brand/graphic identities or characters and assets (such as designing a Flash game for a cartoon). The majority of the IxD1’s games target young people. The shelf life of the games, online advertising, and videos is short, with most having a lifespan of around

6 months.

Table 4.19. The general services offered by IxD1 and their expertise within each service area

The projects of IxD1 can be design focused, development focused, or both. For some projects, the designers develop the visual design based on a concept they receive from the client; for others, they do both the conceptual design and the visual design work. IxD1 does not include research and strategy as one of their services; however, the account managers, designers, and developers study the client and brand as well as conduct competitive and comparative analysis for each project.

144 IxD1 was founded in the 2000s and has doubled in size in the last 2 years. At the time of my visit, IxD1 had more than 30 employees. The employees are designated as account managers, creative directors, interaction designers, and developers. Developers have different specialties such as programming, flash development, video editing, sound editing, and animation. Some of the interaction designers also do development work and some developers also design. It was sometimes difficult to understand which person was the designer and which person was the developer.

Creative directors oversee projects, decide on concepts, and approve projects before sharing them with clients. They also do design work on a limited amount of projects. Account managers follow client-consultancy relationships and manage projects. Account managers were also observed providing input on concepts and designs in project meetings or desk critiques.

There are no departmental separations within the consultancy. The workstations of interaction designers and developers are spread around the office. Creative directors and some account managers have open offices. Developers are the majority of employees in the consultancy.

Overall, the team is composed of young, enthusiastic, and energetic individuals. The average number of years of work experience among the survey respondents is 5.1 with a range of 0.5 to 12 (Table

4.20). The creative directors usually have the most work experience.

Table 4.20. The profile of the survey respondents

Work experience Work experience Number of (in years) at IxD1 (in years) Profession respondents Mean Range Mean Range Education Designer 5 4.5 0.5-7 2.1 0.5-6 5 bachelors 1 masters Developer 12 4.25 0.5-11 1.9 0.5-6 10 bachelors 1 self-educated 1 masters Design team* 19 5.1 0.5-12 2.1 0.5-6 17 bachelors 1 self-educated *Also includes responses from creative directors

The interior of the office seems like a scene from a graphic novel (Figure 4.37). Action figures, toys, stuffed animals, illustrations, posters, and magazines fill the space. There is constant

145 movement, music, and sound (from the characters of the games that are being developed) within the

office. The office houses a gym for the employees.

Figure 4.37. The work environment. Toys, action figures, and posters were sitting side by side with the design work at IxD1.

4.5.2. Product development process

IxD1 is action oriented.227 Projects are fast paced with the majority of projects designed and

developed in 6-12 weeks.228 In order to keep up with the fast-moving projects, the consultancy has daily status meetings in which they go over the status of each project. Everyone attends these

meetings that generally last about 15 minutes.

A team is assigned for each project. The number of designers and developers varies

depending on the complexity of projects. For projects that require concept development, more than

one designer is assigned at the beginning. Each designer works on different concepts to ensure

multiple (and equally strong and well-developed) ideas are presented to the client.229 The designer of

the concept that is selected by the client continues to work on the project. Based on the project

requirements, the others might join the project or drop off and move to other projects.

227 A manager defined the consultancy as being “execution” oriented. 228 Website projects take longer, from 12 to 24 weeks. 229 The managers experienced that when a single designer was expected to design more than one concept, not all the concepts were equally developed and well thought out. 146 The projects start with ideas that turn into flat images first and, then, to interactive solutions.

One developer defined the project development process of IxD1 as “experimenting.”230 Projects start with “gathering ideas”231 generated by designers at the programming stage prior to the first client meeting. These initial ideas and the questions that come out of the initial research are a part of the kick-off meeting (Table 4.21). The kick-off meeting is a conference call with the client and establishes the official start of the project. The account manager, creative director, and sometimes designers and developers attend these meetings. The account manager puts together a scope of work

(SOW) document based on the initial client information exchanges and the kick-off meeting. This document, together with the creative brief and the concept document, is used by designers and developers as the main source of project information. The creative brief explains concept alternatives. The concept document includes the detailed design and development guidelines of a single concept selected by the client. The account manager and/or creative director put together the creative brief and the concept document.

Table 4.21. The milestones and leaders in the product development process

230 Developer 231 Account manager 147 Designers are mostly involved in the ideation232 and early integration stages and contribute to the development of the creative brief and the concept document. Designers use client’s properties, client’s visual identity, the assets that the client shares with IxD1, all graphically related printed and interactive media, best practices, and previous projects for inspiration (Figure 4.38). Designers are responsible for developing the visual design elements (flat images) that the developers will use while producing the website, advertisement, game, or mobile application.

Figure 4.38. Inspirational elements. The magazines, books, graphic novels, illustration books, and client’s design-related works are used for inspiration and to ensure consistency with current trends.

The interaction is the last thing that is added to design solutions.233 Developers are the ones who turn the final art they receive from designers into interactive work. They use a trial-and-error approach to move from alpha to gold stages of production.234

Throughout the design and development process, there are many points for client feedback

(Figure 4.39). Based on the client’s comments, designers and developers make revisions. Some of the client’s comments are based on their usability testing results. The designers and developers also do informal usability testing internally among co-workers and friends. For children’s games, they might also ask their own children or the children of friends to try the game. Developers were also observed

232 A creative director explained that they prefer to limit the number of attendees to brainstorming sessions because they have had difficulties deciding on which concepts to include in the creative brief. 233 Creative director 234 Developer 148 asking children who were visiting the office to comment on projects and observe them interacting with the games. These comments and observations help the project team to refine the final deliverable to the client: “We fine tuned things based on his [friend’s son] comments. A kid’s game should not be too easy; it won’t be fun… But it should not be difficult either. It won’t be fun either.

Lots of trial and error.”235

Figure 4.39. The process diagrams of creative directors. Client feedback is included as a step in both diagrams.

Not all usability issues are resolved in every design solution. It was explained that the problems that users have with the delivered design solutions become the basis for the next design project: “Client’s goals will be met but if there is feedback from usability, like users findings [about] some of things after the build, then they will come back with another project and they will be like,

‘We want to change this because the user is saying this.’”236

235 Developer 236 Account manager 149 Designers and developers work mostly in front of their computers. Internal feedback from co-workers is constantly sought (Figure 4.40). Most of the collaboration, ideation, and information exchange happen at project meetings. The project team makes quick design and development decisions at these meetings.

Figure 4.40. Collaboration takes place both at desks and at project team meetings. On the left, developers are critiquing and helping each other at desks. The right photograph is a game flow diagram that was developed collaboratively during a design meeting.

4.5.3. User approach and user involvement methods

The term user corresponds to a wide range of audiences for the designers and developers at

IxD1. According to the survey respondents, the end-user is the fifth most important factor that affects the design (Appendix M, Table 5).237 The designers and developers are client-centered, as they do not have direct contact with the end-user: “We do not have any direct contact with the end- user so we built towards the client because they know who their end user is. We just rely on them to tell us.”238

The client is the most important source of user information (Appendix M, Table 1 & 2). In addition to the description of the target user group, the clients occasionally share statistical data related to users with the consultancy. These statistics are mostly the analytics from previous projects

(e.g., number of clicks). For the projects for children, designers and developers explain that they

237 Designers rated the end-user as the second and developers rated the end user as the fifth most significant design factor. 238 Developer 150 need to know the age of the children (Appendix M, Table 3 & 4) so that they can use their common knowledge regarding the mindset for children of that age while working on the design problem.

The consultancy conducts informal usability tests. They ask co-workers, friends, and their

kids to test the design solution. Many developers were observed constantly playing the games that

they are working on to test them. Clients conduct user testing as well. Some clients test things

internally. Others have user-testing experts to give feedback. Still others conduct usability tests with

the target user group. In all cases, the client shares the results of user testing in the form of

comments and issues to be resolved: “Most of the time it is the client filtering those user results

back to us as in changes, such as ‘We found that kids are experiencing this, make this thing

change.’”239

Throughout the project development, the client serves as a mediator between the consultancy and the users (Figure 4.41). At the fuzzy-front end of design, the client shares the information that is collected from the user. Later in the process, the client takes the prototypes from the consultancy, conducts user tests, and returns the results to the consultancy.

Figure 4.41. Diagram of the consultancy-user interaction. The information transfer from consultancy to user and from user to consultancy always happens through the client.

In order to ensure client satisfaction and to make sure that the project is developing in alignment with the users’ desires, the project development process of IxD1 includes several client feedback points (Figure 4.42). After each major point in design and development, the outcome has to be approved by the client before moving forward. The feedback from the client addresses mostly the usability issues of the design outcome.

239 Account manager 151

Figure 4.42. The diagram of a project process by a developer. Client feedback mostly covers issues on usability.

From the client’s perspective, the user has the ultimate say on how things should be

designed and developed. Sometimes the clients consult with users to help make decisions. For

example, in the development of a corporate website, the client wanted to have the website

composed of two columns. The designers tried to explain that two-column websites are harder to

interact with and best-practice tells them to avoid two columns. The client wanted to test this with

users first before making a decision. The test results verified the recommendations of the project

team and the website was designed with a single column.

For IxD1 employees, most of the user information used to solve design problems is

common sense and is learned through intuition, experience, and practice: “[For us] as

designers/developers, site/game interaction is second nature.”240 Even designing for children is

considered second nature by some designers and developers. The designers and developers think of

themselves “as a bunch of kids.”241 Thus, role-playing is a major method for getting into the mindset

of target user groups. Designers’ personal experiences as users are built into design solutions.242

A creative director gave the following answer to explain how he learned to design for children:

240 Interaction designer 241 Manager 242 Interaction designers and developers 152 I think learning to design for all this stuff is just exposing yourself to it a lot. … It’s [the children’s stuff] that interests me, so it is relatively easy. For me, the harder thing is to design for corporate.243

An interaction designer expressed the belief that “changes in interactive products are rare.

Such as we rarely see a new, extraordinary website or so.”244 The developments are attributed to

technology: “Technology is the main determinant for innovations in interaction design.”245

Consequently, the designers and developers follow technology and try to learn new software

programs to advance their skills.

4.5.4. Processing the user

In IxD1, the user information is mostly available to designers and developers in the form of

a scope of work document, project brief, creative brief, and game design document (GDD).246 The information in these documents comes from the client. Clients share the user information with the consultancy in the form of conversations, email exchanges, requests for proposal, and project brief.

Such information is already-reconfigured user information based on the project needs articulated by the client. Account managers and creative directors reconfigure this information once again and develop the internal documents for the consultancy to use. For some designers and developers who do not have direct contact with the client, these twice-reconfigured documents are the main sources of user information (most of which are a list of the client expectations/wants): “Everything I need to know is in this document [GDD].”247

At first, it might seem that the designers and developers at IxD1 are working only with project information rather than user information. However, further observations at the consultancy revealed that designers and developers have found an alternative way of securing user information

243 Creative director 244 Interaction designer 245 Interaction designer 246 The document that explains the outline, logic, and overall design of a game. 247 Developer 153 rather than through direct contact with users. IxD1 designers and developers “tailor the solution to

the client”248 to ensure that the end product will be a pleasant user experience. The client’s existing

properties, products, brand, and visual identities have already been developed for the target user

whom the IxD1 is trying to reach;249 therefore, if the client is successfully providing a pleasant user

experience, then using the same language with the client and staying consistent with their identity is

seen as a way to develop pleasant user experiences for the target user group. Thus, the client’s

existing properties serve as epistemic objects of the user at IxD1. These epistemic objects share

already-reconfigured user information with the designers and developers.

Studying the client, its products, and its visual identity is the first thing designers and

developers do for most projects. Designers and developers were observed watching the TV shows

of the client, surfing their websites, and analyzing their products. For example, while designing a

game for a cartoon, designers were able to draw the characters of a cartoon in every detail by heart

by the end of the programming stage. They were able to tell how that character moves, reacts,

speaks, and so forth. Based on this knowledge, the designers and developers can draw the characters

and make them move as they need to for the development of the game (Figure 4.43). The main goal

of the designers and developers is to make sure that the characters act the same way as they would act in the cartoon. The following quotations further explain the significance of understanding the client’s properties for the success of the design solution.

Developer: I watch and analyze how the characters move, talk, and act. I use slow motion to see every second of their movement.250

Developer: My main concern is to make sure I remain consistent with the TV show. I watch episodes of the show to get to know the characters and their world. I watch for very subtle motions, including gestures, stances, poses, and even eye blinks.251

248 Interaction designer 249 An account manager explained that “they [client] had already developed that whole brand to that exact user that they [the client] are trying to reach.” 250 Developer 251 Developer 154

Developer: You kind of look at the art style… try to match the look and feel to the property …. You kind of stay true to the style of whatever it is.252

Creative director: We work with their brand team a well as their producers to make sure everything is in line.253

Figure 4.43. A designer in action. The designer was using assets from the client and a book on character drawing and movement while drawing the different postures of a character for a game.

As a result of the need to understand the significance of client’s properties, a lot of the conversations with the client are in reference to their properties: “We go through several iterations of feedback from the client where they might make a suggestion: ‘The character doesn’t do that, it looks more like this,’ and they will provide an example.”254 This situation also highlights the increased significance of design outcomes (drawings, comps, mock-ups, prototypes) to continue the interaction with the client. Most of the client-consultancy interaction takes place after the consultancy’s submission of a design product for a project. Without a design outcome, the basis for discussion is not clear. Consequently, the design outcomes have added significance for a healthy line of communication between the client and the consultancy.

Another method that is used by the consultancy to ensure the development of pleasant user experiences is giving special attention to the office culture. The personalities of the employers affect

252 Developer 253 Creative director 254 Developer 155 both the office culture and the structure of the projects.255 One of the managers explained that they

“are very loose.”256 Employees are expected to have fun at work and to enjoy the work they do. The

interior of the office is used to reflect this understanding.

4.5.5. Summary of the main findings from IxD1

• The client determines the user involvement: The client is located in between the user and

the consultant and is the ultimate channel for user-consultancy information exchange.

• The user information is within the client’s properties: To ensure that they are designing

according to the target user, the designers and developers remain consistent with the client’s

properties. User issues in the project are brought up in reference to these properties.

• The outcomes of design processes are central to client-consultancy collaboration: In

addition to being the ultimate goal of both the consultancy and the client, the design outcomes of each stage are also the common ground for the client-consultancy communication. The health of client-consultancy interaction is dependent upon the design outcomes.

• Usability is addressed through revisions: Several client feedback points and internal

(informal) testing keep the project moving forward. The revisions that result from these feedbacks enhance the usability of the final product.

255 Manager 256 Manager 156 4.6. IxD2: “The Post-It Culture”

The following report on IxD2 is based on the collected data listed in Table 4.22.

Table 4.22. The amount of data collected from IxD2

Semi-structured Free listing Feedback Method Observation interview Project walkthrough exercise Survey workshop Data 57.5 5 4 26 16 1 (3 hours 3 minutes) (2 hours 28 minutes) (return rate: 52%) (return rate: 62%) (53 minutes)

4.6.1. Overview of the consultancy

IxD2 is an interaction design consultancy that offers research, strategy, design, and

development services (Table 4.23). All projects involve developing a solution for a type of digital

screen.257 The digital screens vary in size, being on various devices from phones to environmental

installations. The subjects of the projects are websites, online advertising, social media campaigns,

mobile applications, and environmental installations.

Table 4.23. The general services offered by IxD2 and their expertise within each service area

While the majority of the projects require all three areas of expertise (i.e., research & strategy, design, and development), some projects focus on one or two of the three. Each expertise area is structured as a department at IxD2. In addition to these three departments, there is also a department composed of project managers who are responsible for client relations and project team coordination.

257 IxD2 does not design print solutions. 157 Most of the employees in design research department258 have a background in information

architecture. The design research team’s major responsibility is information architecture, content

strategy, digital marketing, and web analytics. User involvement and strategic development had been

added about a year prior to my visit. During my visit, I observed design-research-heavy projects that

had around 6 months of user involvement processes. A design researcher noted the perspective

change as a result of research and strategic offerings to the client with the following words: “We

were implementers then. We were doing what we were asked to. Now we are shifting.”259 Similarly,

the executive creative director reported that this group was “doers” in the past and now they were

“thinkers and doers.”260

The design department focuses on the visual design of the projects with the majority of the

designers having degrees in visual communication, graphic design, and art. This team includes a

group that specializes in the design of motion graphics and 3D modeling/animation. There are also

creative directors and art directors in this department. The creative directors are not responsible for

the day-to-day design work, but rather serve as the mediator between the client, other departments,

and the design department. Creative directors attend early project meetings with the client

(sometimes prior to the assignment of a design team for the project), understand the design

problem, define probable solution paths, and share this information with the design team. Art

directors serve as the lead in design decisions and are focused on producing high quality design

solutions.

258 In this report, all members of the research and strategy team are called design researchers; and their department is called a design research department. 259 Design researcher 260 Executive creative director 158 The development team converts 2D graphics into interactive design solutions.261 This is the largest department and is composed of software developers, interactive developers, mobile application developers, technical analysts, and quality analysts. The technical analysts (TA) have the most contact with the client and other departments within the consultancy. TAs are involved in the early processes of a project. They evaluate and understand the feasibility of what the client wants, proposed solutions, and probable development strategies. They convert this information into technical specifications for the developers to work on later in the process. Quality analysts test the products for bugs and broken user experiences towards the end of the development process.

The consultancy was founded in the 1990s and has grown gradually over the years. At the time of my visit, the consultancy had more than 150 employees and several contractors working on a per-project basis. The average age of designers was observed to be younger than that of the design researchers (Table 4.24).

Table 4.24. The profile of the survey respondents

Work experience Work experience at Number of (in years) IxD2 (in years) Profession respondents Mean Range Mean Range Education 6 bachelors Designer 7 6.4 0.5-15 2.5 0.5-7 1 self-educated Design 4 masters 9 8.5 3.5-14 1.9 0.5-4 researcher 5 bachelors 4 masters Design team 16 7.6 0.5-15 2.2 0.5-7 11 bachelors 1 self-educated

Each department is located in different parts of the office. There are several project rooms and collaboration spaces where team members work together. The office is an open space, with only the executives having separate offices. The interior of the office has a modern and clean design

(Figure 4.44). Most of the walls (particularly those in the project rooms) are used as whiteboards.

261 The analysis in this study does not cover the work done by the development team in detail. For this consultancy, the development team is mostly focused on the execution of the interaction rather than defining the user experience. 159 From department to department, the objects on the desks, shelves, and walls differ. Design

researchers are surrounded by user experience books, wireframes, and research reports, while the

designers have magazines, design books, information architecture documents, action figures, and

toys in their work environment. Developers have project specification documents, books related to

development, and printouts submitted from the design and design research departments.

Figure 4.44. The work environment. From left to right: books and magazines sitting on a designer’s desk; a wall from a dedicated project room; another designer’s desk.

4.6.2. Product development process

The executive creative director of IxD2 defines their job as “solving business problems with

creative solutions.”262 For the majority of projects, the timeline for understanding the business problem and developing creative solutions is very tight (Figure 4.45). The information stored in

dedicated project rooms is replaced as soon as the project is over.

Figure 4.45. The fast-paced nature of projects. Project schedules are planned on a daily basis.

262 Executive creative director 160 The number of people working in a project team changes depending on the project

requirements. A project that requires input from three areas of expertise (i.e., research & strategy,

design, and development) is composed of a project manager, design researcher(s), a creative director,

an art director, designer(s), a technical analyst, developer(s), and quality analyst(s). The creative

director’s and technical analyst’s contributions decrease as the project nears completion. Most of the time, the creative director and technical analyst provide consulting services after the ideation stage.

After a project is initiated with a kick-off meeting, most of the time the design research department takes over the project and focuses on information architecture (Table 4.25). Design researchers deliver the wireframes and the site architecture to the design team. If there is a research or strategy component of the project, the design research department is also responsible for carrying out these services. For these projects, the user involvement process outcomes are mostly shared as experience strategy briefs,263 presentation documents, personas, and user journey reports with other departments.

Table 4.25. The milestones and the leaders in the product development process. The deliverables from user involvement processes (design research documents) are in parentheses as not all projects have user involvement service.

263 Experience strategy brief is a text-heavy document that explains the characteristics of the user experience to be delivered with the end product. 161 Based on the information provided by the design research department, the design team

works on the visuals and the “feel” of the project.264 The information from the design research department, together with the comps265 created by the design department, is the main resource for

the development department as they work on their part of the process. The project team comes

together at meetings to discuss issues. Some of these meetings are with the client through

conference calls, and some take place internally in dedicated project rooms or collaboration spaces.

Concept development may take place at one of two different points in the product

development process: either at the very beginning of a project, or after the design research team’s

work is completed. Concepting266 starts as early as the kick-off meeting where some members of the

project team are available. For some projects, the team agrees on a concept prior to information

architecture; for others, the design team works on a concept after receiving the information

architecture from the design researchers.

For a limited number of projects, concepting occurs at both points. For example, the

process depicted on Figure 4.46 is a mobile application development process. The design team

started the process by developing concepts. This early ideation process made them realize that to make decisions, they needed more information regarding the target user of the application. As a result, the design research team conducted research on users, “set a strategy, set a mission statement and then we [designers] can ideate under the umbrella of this bigger mission statement of what

people want.”267 Consequently, the second round of concepting was informed by the user

involvement information and was more focused.

264 Interaction designer 265 Final artwork that is two-dimensional 266 The designers of the IxD2 call the ideation process “concepting.” 267 Interaction designer 162 Figure 4.46. An art director’s product development process diagram. This project had two concept development steps.

A small but growing number of projects are user involvement intense. The lead in the user involvement processes is the design research department. Design researchers collect the user information, use affinity diagrams to group information, and define findings, problems, needs, and opportunity spaces (Figure 4.47). All sorts of post-its are used in this process (but not in the other stages of the design process). While creative directors, technical analysts, and project managers do not collect data, they spend time in project rooms, contribute to discussions, and drop by during the data collection processes. Similarly, the design researchers play minor roles later in the product development process. They commented that they have meetings with designers to make sure the work is developing in line with the user experience they designed.268 In this sense, design researchers are working as user advocates within the consultancy.

268 Design research 163 Figure 4.47. Project room of a research process. The post-its are central to the recording and the analysis of data in the user involvement stage.

The learning from user involvement is stored in a number of mediums. The most common

ones are personas, user journeys, experience strategy briefs, presentations, and reports. These

documents are primarily prepared for the client and shared with the rest of the project team.

Consequently, the user involvement results, and therefore the user, serve as a tool for client-

consultancy interaction. User involvement is evaluated as “a means of cementing in the client’s mind

who this person is.”269 When the client and consultancy agree on the user, the project discussions

happen around the user and user involvement information.270 Also, user involvement results are used for justifying design decisions:

What we try to do with the research is justify what we do…since design is so subjective and you can put buttons on a site because you feel it looks nice. If you do not have a reason, it is hard because you need to let the client know that the reason you have done something is for a strategic reason.271

In this sense, findings from the user involvement process take the pressure off the design

outcomes (e.g., sketches, 2D drawings) and serve as a means of communication between the

consultancy and the client. Design researchers and designers explained that they have had projects in

which the client was not able to visualize the proposed design solution. In order to better portray

the solution to the client, the consultancy needed to develop a section of the product even though

269 Interaction designer 270 Executive creative director and an interaction designer 271 Interaction designer 164 the design was not finalized.272 For projects where user involvement is included as a service, the user journeys and research data act as additional means of communication between the client and the consultancy.

Independent of the user involvement step, when the designers are immersed in a project, they rely heavily on visuals while developing solutions (Figure 4.48). Designers conduct their own research on visual design and study the competitive and comparative products. The post-its in the project rooms are replaced with inspirational images. Also, the main conclusions from the user involvement stage, the deliverables from the design research team, wireframes, and site architecture documents are referenced frequently by the designers. Discussions among the team members revolve around the information available in these documents: “Most feedback usually revolves around how a design is layered out, how we are using the brand style, how closely it connects with the IA [information architecture] docs, etc.”273

Figure 4.48. The designers’ dependence on imagery. The imagery was readily available on designers’ desks and in project rooms.

The development process is execution oriented. In addition to the visual design solution, designers share the documents they received from project mangers and design researchers with the development team. Technical analysts submit the technical specifications. The development team works on a plan to build the working product. Most of the time, this program is based on the criteria

272 Design researcher 273 Interaction designer 165 to be met in the end solution, such as the functional requirements and the tests to be conducted

(Figure 4.49).

Figure 4.49. Notes and post-its at the development stage of product development processes

In IxD2, it is believed that the “power is in the team, not in the person.”274 Projects have several internal testing steps. While most of the work is done in front of the computers, people give each other feedback within each department. This type of interaction is encouraged; however, it was noted that cross-departmental interaction does not take place as much as would be desirable: “We

[design researchers and designers] do not get together as much as we want.”275

The client also brings up the usability issues later in the design process. The discussion is focused on usability concerns in the increased number of meetings with the client in the integration stage (see Appendix N, Table 14). Whenever required by the client, the consultancy also conducts systematic usability tests in partnership with firms that offer this service.

4.6.3. User approach and user involvement methods

At IxD2, most projects are client-centered. The client is the ultimate decision maker on user involvement in a project, as they are the ones who pay for this service. Even on the projects that have user involvement processes, meeting client wants and needs has the utmost significance. For the situations in which the “client’s goals and vision was challenged by the user input”276 from the

274 Executive creative director 275 Interaction designer 276 Executive creative director 166 design research team, the client makes the ultimate call. From time to time, designers do not agree

with all of the client’s decisions. For example, the client is designated as the reason for having

“Frankenstein” solutions.277 Initially, the client is presented with more than one design idea—usually

two alternatives. Sometimes the client wants the design team to develop a third alternative that is a

combination of the initial two design proposals. The designers call this third, hybrid design solution

“Frankenstein.”

The majority of the projects observed during the site visit did not involve a user involvement

process.278 For the ones that did, not all designers had direct exposure to the user involvement

process. When designing products without user input, the designers envision themselves as

representing the target user. They depend on their personal experiences, logic, exemplary work, and

comments from coworkers (see Appendix N, Table 1):

Designer: More often then not the user information I find or explore has to do with myself. As a young designer in the interaction and web field, many projects I work on are targeted to users like myself. That makes designing for the user significantly easier because I can ask myself: is this an experience I would enjoy? etc. Plainly put, I rarely survey or ask others when designing ux [user experience] because most answers can be answered by looking at precedents (What is out there already? How does it work? Is it enjoyable? Does it accomplish certain objectives? etc.) and by using logic. I want to define experiences, not the other way around.279

Executive creative director: There are these personal preferences that we have about our design and it is our instinct. Some of us have been doing this for a long time; it is not human nature, but it is just, what we have learned in the past, we apply to now, and that is not necessarily the best intent for the user.280

According to design researchers, “User research is valuable as a tool to discover un-met wants

and needs.”281 [Emphasis added] Defining the un-met user wants and needs requires several steps.

277 Interaction designers 278 The projects with user involvement are generally larger projects that also take more time to finalize. 279 This quotation is from an interaction designer’s written response to free listing exercise. The emphasis is the designer’s. 280 Executive creative director 281 Design researcher 167 User quotations turn into post-it notes. These post-its are grouped and analyzed to define insights.

These insights might inform different aspects of a project. For example, for the project pictured in

Figure 4.50, insights were further grouped as likes, opportunities, challenges, frustrations/barriers, trends, innovations, motivations/goals, ways of learning, and success descriptions. Through a prioritization process, user information turns into guidelines/goals/opportunity spaces for the product to be developed. These guidelines can be in the form of design criteria, personas, user journeys, and so forth.

Figure 4.50. The processing of user involvement data. The user quotations on post-its are condensed into lists appropriate to the project.

The findings from user involvement processes make their way into the design process mainly in two ways. First, they work as a target (such as the “guidelines” as exemplified in Figure

4.51) for the design team:

Of all the research they did, they ended up with these five guidelines and this is where it starts to get very tangible for our team as we are concepting. Because then we can start saying: We need to come up with some design concepts and creative concepts for a campaign that is consistent with these give guidelines.282

Second, user involvement helps increase the credibility of proposed solutions from the perspective of the client. The findings from user involvement processes are used as an objective way to measure the possible success of design solutions. This information helps the design team to defend their design solution to the client: “If you do not have a reason, it is hard because you need

282 Creative director 168 to let the client know what that is.”283 In this sense, results from user involvement processes are for

“validating the design.”284 This validation tool is also utilized in client-consultancy interaction, as user involvement “puts everybody on the same page. It takes subjectivity out of the equation [ ] it tries to do.”285

Figure 4.51. A creative director’s depiction of a product development process. This project included a user involvement process with a focus on strategic development rather than discovery. From the perspective of the creative director, the outcome of the user involvement process was design guidelines.

In the projects with user involvement processes, not everyone on a project team has the same amount of exposure to the user involvement information (Figure 4.52). Design researchers have direct contact with users as data collectors, while creative directors and technical analysts have a limited amount of contact with users. Their role is to help the design research team with the design and technology specific interpretation of the user data that is collected. Designers sometimes get the chance to observe user interaction; however, most of the time they receive the information second- hand from the design researchers and creative directors. This information can be in the form of guidelines or attached to the structure and the content of the interactive product to be developed:

“On the design team we are typically provided with a general structure for a web experience based

283 Interaction designer 284 Interaction designer 285 Executive creative director 169 on testing and user research from the interactive architects for the majority of our site flow and wireframes.”286

Figure 4.52. User information flow among the members of a project team. The thicknesses of the arrows represent the amount of user information transfer.

Developers have the least contact with the user and the user information. When developers were asked to participate in the free listing exercise, they explained that user experiences and user information are provided to them by the design department.287 As explained by the following quotes, the information developers receive is mostly in the form of requirements, restrictions, and tasks:

Developer: As a developer, I mostly execute the needs of others and don’t have a whole lot of opportunity to do user studies myself.288

Developer: Often on the development side, it’s important to know how your users are consuming the digital content (i.e., what web browsers they use, what computers, if they view it on mobile devices). That information often sets the limitations/boundaries of design and development within a given budget.289

Executive director of development: By the time it gets to the interactive developers or the technology teams, it is usually loaded into our issue-tracking software. So, it is line-item sort of tasks.290

286 Interaction designer 287 Software developer 288 Developers 289 Developers 290 Developers 170 Lastly, it was observed that project rooms played an important role in providing different perspectives and easing the designers’ immersion into projects. With post-it notes, photographs, findings from user involvement processes, and inspirational images, these rooms remind the project team of the users and represent other ways analyzing design problems—especially with a more user- focused perspective. These gathering spaces were observed to become the foundation for information exchange between the members of project teams. Those projects with dedicated project rooms were called “ideal project processes” because most these projects have longer programming stages and are user involvement heavy.291

4.6.4. Processing the user

In IxD2, user information was observed to be integrated into the design process in the following three ways.

1) The designers have no interaction with users or are involved in any user involvement process. These designers model themselves as the target audience. Based on the information architecture they receive, they develop the best solution by modeling themselves as target users, depending on their and coworkers’ experiences and perspectives (Figure 4.53).

Figure 4.53. The desks of designers. The desks of designers are filled with information—architecture documents, sketches, and project briefs.

2) The project includes user involvement but the designer has no direct interaction with the user or does not participate in the user involvement process. This group of designers is given user involvement findings from

291 Interaction designer 171 the design researchers. Designers who have had this type of user information input defined the

effect of user involvement results in two ways. First, designers use the user involvement results to

confirm their understanding of the target user: “It was interesting that a lot of what they [design

researchers] said [about the user] I think we already knew or thought.”292 Second, the user

involvement results are used to set a direction for developing design solutions and to “go into

creative in a guided fashion.”293 In either case, the impact of user involvement on the design process is limited. For example, one designer found no difference between the user information he received

from the client and the information he received from the design research team and stated, “[Without

user involvement] we would probably end up with a document that the client gives us with their

own conclusions about who our audience is.”294 Another designer pointed out:

Sometimes there is a disconnect between the strategist and the designer if they are not working together … I feel like you are pushing these, the data, into … it does not seamlessly go together, it is not the seamless process, it is more organic.295

For the projects in which designers do not participate, the findings from the user

involvement processes are believed to be influential in ways that are not easily articulated.296

However, the influence of user involvement findings seem to decrease as the design team gets further into the design process:

[A design researcher] did almost a full year of research for the --- website. Then she presented that to the [design] team, to the --- [client] and we come up with personas or whatnot. Right now … we are getting into design and the deeper we get into the design, we get further away from the findings of the research … because our or the client’s personal attractions towards design aesthetics or functionality preferences or whatnot start to take control over all of that research and findings … There is nobody there enforcing, like “This is why we are doing these things” and it is not being backed up. What starts to happen is emotion takes over … there are all these

292 Interaction designer 293 Interaction designer 294 Interaction designer 295 Interaction designer 296 Executive design researcher 172 other things that come in, that definitely change the intent that we initially had with the first round of design.297

3) The designers directly observe the users and work with the design research team closely. This is a newer

and increasingly practiced project structure at IxD2. When this group of designers was asked to

explain what they had learned in the user involvement stage, they referenced their own user analysis

rather than the guidelines or findings developed at the end of the user involvement stage by the

design research team.298 For example, while explaining the learning from a user involvement process of an application project, the executive creative director stated:

I think the huge learning was that the --- [users] did not really care about each other at a personal level, like making a deep connection with people. We were initially thinking like we can have this app, … people can check in, … they can make friends. When we finally did the research and talked to these people, they did not actually care about that. They just cared about being part of the emotional journey … and that is what it is about… That changed everything on what our approach was. I think that was a huge find. I think with social media, we feel like we need to make these deep connections with everybody. But if you really think about it, it is just touchpoints, real high touchpoints.299

Designers also commented explicitly on the positive input of direct interaction with the user

and the participation in the user involvement process on the design solution: “I think it is definitely

more interesting to see them [users].”300 Design researchers described the designers’ excitement

when they see a “real person” through the user involvement process.301 The participation of the

designers enables interaction with the user, as well as a close working relationship with the design

researcher. This type of interaction gives the designers the chance to analyze the design problem

from different user perspectives and blend their learning into design solutions. This is also the goal

of the executive design researcher at IxD2:

297 Executive creative director 298 Designers did not list the deliverables from the design research department as a one of the most applied sources of user information (see the eight line items in Appendix N, Table 1). 299 Executive creative director 300 Art director 301 Design researchers 173 When I think about a creative [designer], it is that intuition [ ] I do not want to kill that … I think it is that lens, that knowing of how do I take the user information and how do I take my intuition, experience, and blend those together in a way that works … [referring to a design solution] that experience, that emotion is gorgeous and I do not think that you can pull that out from user research. I think that is that blend… It is your [designer’s] expertise to translate that into something that is compelling.302

There were differences between the project walkthroughs of those designers who had

participated in the user involvement processes and those who had not. The designers who had the

chance to contact users were explaining the design solutions via a scenario. These scenarios started

with the need for the developed design solutions and continued with user journeys detailing how the

solutions were working. On the other hand, the designers who had not participated in user

involvement process were focusing on the design solution. In their conversations, the product has

the central role. The user was brought in to explain how certain aspects of the product were

functioning.

4.6.5. Summary of the main findings from IxD2

• Systematic user involvement is a service for the client: User involvement methods are

conducted only when the client agrees to pay for this service.303 The client owns the findings of the

research. The deliverables of the user involvement process are prepared for the client, but are also

used by the project team.

• The user and user involvement findings enhance client-consultancy interaction:

Discussions regarding the projects that included user involvement processes referenced the user

involvement results (e.g., the personas and user journeys). In the absence of user involvement

process, the design outcomes were not always understood by the client (e.g., clients commented that

they were not able to read wireframes). User involvement provides better communication between

302 Executive design researcher 303 This situation is not specific to this consultancy. It applies to all three consultancies with the design research departments. 174 the client and the consultancy and introduces the user as a medium for healthier client-consultancy interaction.

• Project rooms are vital for the immersion of designers into projects and user information:

Projects rooms are not only spaces for working. They are gathering points for the team and thereby provide cross-departmental interaction. In these spaces, members of project teams are surrounded with user information collected through user involvement processes. Post-it notes are a common medium for storing user information. While these post-its are used heavily in project rooms, the information in them might be forgotten by the designers as the design process progresses.

• Participation in the user involvement processes aids in the processing of user information by designers: When designers were asked to explain what they had learned from user involvement, they referenced their own interaction with the users and the excitement that interaction brought to the project. Thus, for designers, the process of user involvement was more important than the user involvement results.

• The designers’ user models are scenario-based when they participate in the user involvement process: Designers who participated in the user involvement processes used scenarios while explaining design solutions. On the other hand, designers who did not have user contact explained different aspects of a design solution via possible user behaviors.

175 CHAPTER FIVE

CROSS-CASE ANALYSIS

The case narratives in Chapter 4 provided insights into each consultancy’s culture, user

approach, user involvement methods, and design process, as well as how designers process user

information. The coding was limited to initial and focused coding of grounded theory. In this

chapter these insights are analyzed across cases using theoretical coding and the theoretical

framework. The cross-case analysis and discussion is divided into two sections. In the first section,

the findings from each case are merged in order to understand how designers (independent from

their background) process user information. The second section focuses on differences among

design fields.304 The comparative lens offered by each field was used to define the epistemic cultures of users both within each consultancy and across different design fields.

Table 5.1 summarizes the core findings from each consultancy. It should be noted that the findings from each case are not limited to the ones listed in Table 5.1. The results listed in this table are only the most important findings. Some overlapping findings have not been repeated for each case. For example, in each consultancy, design starts with a solution. While this observation was explained in each case narrative, it was not listed as a core finding for every consultancy when there were more important findings to discuss. As the analysis unfolds, evidence from cases is cited in footnotes305 in order to bring further clarity to categorical codes developed from Table 5.1.

304 The aim in this study was not to look at differences among the design consultancies studied. Instead, the goal was to analyze and compare different design fields in order to define epistemic cultures of users within the discipline of design. The studied consultancies are considered as representatives of their respective design fields. 305 Footnotes are used for supporting arguments with the information in Chapter 4. The codes in footnotes list the page number and footnote number (f) or page number and figure number (i) of the referenced evidence. For example, p.136-f.210 corresponds to the quotation of the 210th footnote on page 136. Similarly, p.103-i.4.20 refers to figure 4.20 on page 103. 176 Table 5.1. The summary of main research findings from each consultancy

Arch1 Arch2 ID1 ID2 IxD1 IxD2 • The client • The client • The client • The focus is not • The client • Systematic user determines the determines the determines the on the human determines the involvement is a user involvement. user involvement. user involvement. being; it is on the user involvement. service for the • The client and • Systematic user • The focus is not context. • The user client. user are the involvement is a on the human • The user and information is • The user and differentiators in service for the being; it is on the user involvement within the client’s user involvement projects. client. context. findings enhance properties. findings enhance • Architects are • The focus is not • Constraints are client-consultancy • The outcomes of client-consultancy the experts. on the human good. interaction. design processes interaction. • The focus is not being; it is on the • The user is • The designers’ are central to • Project rooms on the human context. instrumental in the user model is a client-consultancy are vital for the being; it is on the • Flow is product patchwork. collaboration. immersion of context. associated with development • User • Usability is designers into • The architects user experience. process. information addressed through projects and user present ideas with • Imagery is the • The designers’ translates into revisions. information. a story or reflection of feel. user model is a best-case • Participation in reasoning. • The designers’ composite model. scenarios. the user • Drawings are user model is a • The user • Participation in involvement instrumental for patchwork. enhances client- the user processes aids in collecting • Designs are consultancy involvement the processing of client/user developed for the interaction. processes aids in user information information. ideal user. • Designing starts the processing of by designers. • Existing spaces, • The user, user with a solution. user information • The designers’ examples, and involvement by designers. user models are outcomes of findings, and ideal • The design team scenario-based design processes user model develops a shared when they are central to enhance client- user model participate in the client/user and consultancy through the user involvement consultancy interaction. participation in process. collaboration. • The user user involvement • The design approach is process. process is individually • Project rooms composed of defined. are vital for the action and reaction • Participation in immersion of cycles. the user designers into involvement projects and user processes aids in information. the processing of • The user user information approach is by designers. individually defined. • Systematic user involvement is a service for the client.

In Table 5.1, 26 different findings are listed. Thirteen categories were developed from these 26 findings. These categories and the findings associated with each are listed in Table 5.2. Some findings explain more than one category; therefore, they are listed under multiple categories.

177 Multiple core categories were developed, and each of these core categories was utilized to explain different aspects of how designers process user information.

Table 5.2. Categories from the main research findings are listed in alphabetic order. Some findings are applicable to more than one category and are listed under multiple categories.

CARE FOR THE SELF CONTEXT • Project rooms are vital for the immersion of designers • Project rooms are vital for the immersion of designers into projects and user information. into projects and user information. • The user is instrumental in the product development LIMINAL KNOWLEDGE process. • The focus is not on the human being; it is on the COLLABORATIVE LEARNING context. • Participation in the user involvement processes aids in MEDIATORS the processing of user information by designers. • Architects are the experts. • Project rooms are vital for the immersion of designers into projects and user information. • The client determines the user involvement. • The designers’ user model is a patchwork. EPISTEMIC OBJECTS • Constraints are good. USER MODEL

• Flow is associated with user experience. • Designs are developed for the ideal user.

• Imagery is the reflection of feel. • The design team develops a shared user model through the participation in user involvement processes. • The user information is within the client’s properties. • The designers’ user model is a composite model. COMMUNICATION • The designers’ user models are scenario-based when WITH THE CLIENT they participate in the user involvement process. • Drawings are instrumental for collecting client/user • User information translates into best-case scenarios. information. • Existing spaces, examples, and outcome of design SERVICE processes are central to client/user and consultancy • Systematic user involvement is a service for the client.

collaboration. UNFOLDING • The architects present ideas with a story or • Designing starts with a solution. reasoning. • The design process is composed of action and reaction • The user, user involvement findings, and ideal user cycles. model enhance client-consultancy interaction. • Usability is addressed through revisions. WITH THE USERS • Drawings are instrumental for collecting client/user VARIATON information. • Designs are developed for the ideal user. • Existing spaces, examples, and outcome of design • Participation in the user involvement processes aid in processes are central to client/user and consultancy the processing of user information by designers. collaboration. • The client and user are the differentiators in projects. WITH CO-WORKERS • The designers’ user model is a patchwork. • Project rooms are vital for the immersion of • The user approach is individually defined. designers into projects and user information. • Usability is addressed through revisions. • The design team develops a shared user model through participation in user involvement process.

178 5.1. Analyzing the Similarities: How Designers Process the User in Design

As is the case for Leonard and Rayport (1997), Rhea (2003), and Sleeswijk Visser et al.

(2007), the design literature on the utilization of user information mostly focuses on the inspirational

aspect of the user at the fuzzy-front end of design for the development of insights and design concepts.

However, the qualitative and quantitative analysis in this study revealed that designers utilize the user for more than concept development.306 Designers see users as a design factor in all stages of the

design process; however, the impact of the user (and the way the user information is utilized by

designers) changes as the project progresses from the programming to the evaluation stage of

design.307 Furthermore, each consultancy contains multiple epistemic cultures of the users.

5.1.1. Construction of the user model at the fuzzy-front end of design

Dagwell and Weber (1983), Hasdogan (1996), Krippendorf (2005), Pruitt and Adlin (2006),

and Suchman (2007) discussed the designer’s mental user models and their significance in the

development of user-centered design solutions. In line with their arguments, in the design

consultancies observed in this study (regardless of the existence of research departments) the fuzzy-

front end of design was characterized by the reconfiguration of the user into a user model. This user

model was created through the processing of the user information into a designer’s mental model.

Multiple configuration and reconfiguration processes aided in the development of the user model. In these

306 The qualitative and quantitative analysis of the survey questions (Appendix F, Section C, Questions 2 and 6) showed that designers value user input and report that they utilize user information in all stages of the design process. 307 The analysis of the preliminary survey question that asks designers to rate the stages of a typical design process according to the amount of user information they use (Appendix A, Section 4, Question 2) showed statistically significant differences among some stages of the design process (these findings are available in Table 17 in Appendix B). On the other hand, the analysis of the answers to the same question (Appendix F, Section C, Question 2) given by the designers from each consultancy studied showed differences for each consultancy (each consultancy’s results for this survey question is available in Appendices I-N). However, for all consultancies, the user was determined to be an important design factor that affects all stages of a design process, and the order of the stages based on utilization of user information showed differences. These differences and the possible reasons for them are discussed later. 179 processes of multiple configurations and reconfigurations, the information is reconfigured initially in

more concrete (as epistemic objects), and then in more abstract (as user models) forms (Figure 5.1).

These configurations and reconfigurations start with the study of the user as a liminal phenomenon

by designers and design researchers to attain the information they need. This information, with the

help of mediators, is reconfigured into user models (the user knowledge that designers reference the most while designing) that affect the integration stage of design. Thus, understanding what happens in the integration stage of design is closely linked to what happens in the early stages of the design process. Therefore, it is important to begin this analysis with an examination of the reconfiguration process of designers at the fuzzy-front end of design.

Figure 5.1. Construction of the user model. The process of constructing the user model takes place through configuration and reconfiguration of epistemic objects (that store user information) and mediators at the fuzzy-front end of design.

5.1.1.1. Reconfiguring user information into epistemic objects of user

In Chapter 2, the contemporary focus on the user and user experiences was explained.

However, based on designers’ comments, it is not the individual person or human being that is the center of the designers’ attention. In all the design consultancies, when designers were asked to explain what they had learned from users, they gave examples from the context that the users live in,

180 the users’ workflow, user-product/space interaction, how users use existing products, or the

problems users encounter with existing products.308 In all cases, information about the

characteristics of the user, what the user wants, the future goals of the user, the user’s dreams, and

so forth were secondary to the designers’ interests (see Appendices I-N for the lists of user

information of interests to designers). In fact, some designers explicitly said they were not

specifically interested in the current users of a space, a product, or an interaction.309 Consequently,

designers were not focused on the users as real people—that is, as human beings. Instead, designers

were interested in the information that surrounds the users: the information that is larger and more

holistic than the users as individual human beings. In other words, while they were interacting with

the users, the information designers were trying to discover was tangential to understanding the

users as human beings. Designers were interested in the issues that surround the user, such as the

users’ environment, behavior, tasks, and space interaction.

The role of the user in this picture fits that of the liminal phenomena as described by Knorr

Cetina (1999). The user, the human being, defines the margin of the things that interest designers.

Through the utilization of the user as the liminal phenomenon, designers reach positive knowledge,

the knowledge that they really care about. Consequently, user is a catch phrase that defines a variety

of types of information that are clustered around the human being (it should be noted that it is in

this context that the terms user and user information are applied throughout this analysis). Thus, when talking about users, user research, or user involvement, designers and design researchers are interested in a more holistic understanding of the users’ contexts.

The information that designers collect through the utilization of users as liminal phenomena is not stored in design offices and utilized in the design process as is.310 First, this information is

308 p.78-f.76, p.95-f.114, p.117-f.171, p.136-f.207, p.168-f.282 309 p.74-f.59, p.100-f.128, p.167-f.279 310 p.104-f.145, p.140-f.220 181 configured into epistemic objects about users that designers can take back to their offices. These epistemic objects are examples of concrete reconfigurations of the users.

These epistemic objects of users were different in each consultancy. Some of the common epistemic objects of users in consultancies that had research departments were research presentations, research reports, video clips, post-it notes, and photographs.311 These consultancies,

as well as those without research departments, also referenced epistemic objects such as imagery

(including printouts from the internet), competitive and comparative products,312 user-related data

transferred from the client, client’s properties (all graphic, product, and organizational properties of

the client), books, and magazines.313 These epistemic objects served to store user information about

existing products, contextual information, constraints, and best practices (e.g., ideal flow, ideal

ergonomics). At Arch2, ID2, and IxD2 the project rooms were devoted to epistemic objects, while

in the other consultancies, the epistemic objects were distributed all around.314

The analysis of the user information available to designers within the design consultancies

(the epistemic objects of the user within the office context) showed that this information can be

grouped based on two qualities: nature and source. Based on the nature, the user information takes either concrete (the information based on real users) or abstract (the information that is not attached to

real users) forms. Based on the source, user information is either given (the information as is) or

interpreted315 (the information that is analyzed from the perspective of the project).

311 p.138-f.214, p.138-i.4.35, p.168-i.4.50 312 As explained in ID2, IxD1, and IxD2, the competitive and comparative products served as clues about the targeted users and represented the users’ likes or dislikes. 313 p.107-i.4.21, p.131-i.4.30, p.154-f.249 314 ID1 also had project rooms, but during my visit to this consultancy these spaces were devoted to storing confidential information related to projects and were not open to every employee of the consultancy. 315 The interpretation is done by the design team. For example, at ID1, most of the user information is handed to designers by the client in the form of market research reports. While these reports are the result of qualitative and quantitative analysis, the data do not list insights or define a concept for designers. Most of the information is in the form of requirements for the product to be designed. 182 When these two qualities are overlapped, it forms a diagram with four quadrants to map the

type of user information available to designers (Figure 5.2). Although this mapping is somewhat

abstract, it helps to explain how user information is processed by designers.

Figure 5.2. Mapping the user information available to designers

Each type of user information, based on its nature and source, can be mapped at any point

on this diagram. For example, the post-it notes of users’ quotes observed at IxD2 fall into the

concrete-given quadrant because these post-it notes stored the users’ statements in the concrete

form as it is (without any interpretation of the design researchers). The space programs (the list of space requirements) in the architectural consultancies can also be mapped to the same quadrant; however, the location is different. Space programs are developed through the allocation of square- footage to each space to be designed based on the available square-footage for the whole space.

Consequently, this becomes a list of concrete data for designers that is not fully interpreted, as this initial list does not give definitive clues about the possible design solutions. An example of

Therefore, this information is a given for designers. On the other hand, at IxD2, for projects in which designers do not participate in the semi-systematic or systematic user involvement process, design researchers collect user information, analyze this information, develop insights from it, and share this information. This type of user information is interpreted information, although it is not directly interpreted by designers. 183 interpreted user information is imagery (the images representing the feel of the space to be designed) as designers from Arch2 used them. Within this consultancy, designers and users/clients discussed the imagery to define the feel of the space to be designed. The selected imagery was defined by designers as the target of the specific client/user and therefore more than a random space example.

Since this imagery references some physical design possibilities, it is concrete as well.

The insights gained from user involvement processes in ID2 offer another example of interpreted user information. These insights were developed specific to each project based on user research; thus they become interpreted user data. At the same time, these insights are abstract since they represent a summary of the collected user information.

The personas given by the client to the designers of IxD2 offer yet another example that falls into the abstract side of the diagram. These personas contained information about fictional users that the client targeted; there was no real user that this information applied to directly.

Furthermore, these personas were used by the client to communicate their brand identity but were not specific to the project. Consequently, personas fall into the abstract-given quadrant of the diagram on Figure 5.2.

As explained in the examples above, the reconfiguration of user information into epistemic objects can also be orchestrated by people other than the designers of the project. For example, existing products of a client (e.g., properties, brand identity) were previously reconfigured by other people and were now being used by the designers as epistemic user objects—that is, objects that provided clues about the target user group.

IxD1 exemplified an environment where the designers and developers most explicitly utilized the clients’ properties as a means of understanding and learning user-related information.

This was because the clients’ properties provided already reconfigured user information that had been previously developed and based on user information. Similarly, at Arch2, ID2, and IxD2,

184 designers did not always participate in the user involvement process directly. Instead, the design researcher brought the user information to the office.

5.1.1.2. Constructing user models from user information via mediators

In several interviews and informal conversations with designers about the project or product they delivered, designers did not only reference the user information that they collected. Regardless of the existence of user involvement process in the project, designers most commonly referred to information from such sources as their personal experiences as a user, their intuition, their professional knowledge, previous projects they had worked on, their context (the office environment), and the input they receive from co-workers and the client.316 I have named these sources mediators. The information from the mediators was not user specific and it was not specifically collected for the project; rather, this information came from the designers’ repository of knowledge.

The construction of user models is a mental process; therefore, observing how user information and mediators aid in the development of user models is difficult. However, by referring to the constructivist learning theory, some insight can be gained about this phenomenon. According to constructivist learning theory, the explicit knowledge readily available to an individual is processed by the individual in order to be constructed into knowledge (Duffy & Jonassen, 1992; Merrill, 1991;

Resnick, 1989; Savery & Duffy, 1996). The development of knowledge from information characterizes the learning. Several other factors (i.e., context, interaction with others, instructor, difficulties encountered, prior knowledge) affect the construction of knowledge from information

(Merrill, 1991; Resnick, 1989; Savery & Duffy, 1996). It is this constructed and internalized knowledge (not the recorded information) that helps people solve future problems. This constructed and internalized knowledge is in line with what Polanyi (1958) describes as tacit knowledge. Tacit

316 p.65-f.36, p.75-f.60, p.76-f.63, p.118-f.172, p.152-f.240, p.152-f.242, p.167-f.279, p.167-f.280 185 knowledge is internal to human beings and it is not easily articulated. Thus, in reference to the dimensions diagrammed on Figure 5.2, tacit knowledge is abstract and interpretive in character.

In line with the constructivist learning theory and tacit knowledge, for designers to develop user-centered design solutions, the user information needs to be learned. In other words, it must be processed so that they will utilize this knowledge as a tacit act. While user information sits at any of the four quadrants of the diagram in Figure 5.3, the tacit user knowledge as defined is an abstract and interpreted phenomenon. Therefore, in order for the user information located in any quadrant to be used tacitly in the design process, designers must process this information and move it to the abstract and interpreted quadrant (this processing is illustrated with the arrows in Figure 5.3). This, in combination with the user information already located in the abstract and interpreted quadrant, is processed by designers, internalized, and incorporated into their user knowledge. The resulting tacit knowledge becomes the user model.

Figure 5.3. Illustrating the construction of user models from user information. In order to use the user information tacitly in their process, designers construct user models, which are forms of user knowledge that are located in the abstract and interpreted quadrant.

The mediators come into play when user information is reconfigured into user knowledge, and thus, they contribute to the user model. Within this learning process, many factors play a role in the construction of knowledge (Duffy & Jonassen, 1992; Savery & Duffy, 1996; Wilson, 1996).

186 Some of these factors listed by constructivist learning theorists are prior knowledge, the learning environment, collaborators in the process, and personal experience (Duffy & Jonassen, 1992;

Resnick, 1989; Savery & Duffy, 1996). In the context of design, it was observed that prior knowledge corresponds to professional knowledge and previous projects, the learning environment

to context, collaborators in the process to co-workers and clients, and personal experience to

intuition and experience as a user.

Some of these mediators are individually defined, whereas others are dependent upon the

organization of the consultancy. Context, client, and co-workers are the mediators that are

consultancy specific; thus they are defined organizationally. On the other hand, previous projects,

professional knowledge, experience as a user, and intuition are personally defined.

Information obtained from mediators was blended with the information obtained from the

epistemic objects of the user regardless of whether the mediators were organizational or personal

Information. For example, when explaining the concept of a consumer product, a designer from

ID2 started with the information he learned from the field. He used this information to justify why the product was needed within the context of the users. When he was explaining the specifics of the product, the designer shifted to his prior experience as a user of this product and applied this knowledge to define the experience that the new product had targeted. This designer also defined the success of the end product in comparison to the design guidelines developed as a result of a semi-systematic or systematic user involvement process. An architect from Arch2 explicitly stated the significance of mediators in the process:

Every project, you bring your own past with you. You do have your own filters of what you have done in the past, what you have seen, what you have learned from all of your clients. Then, it always affects how you filter the information you get the next time, the next time and the next time.

This blend of information from epistemic objects and the mediators illustrates the

construction of the designer’s user model. Mediators are central to the reconfiguration of user 187 information into a tacit user model. While the user information defines the baseline for the user

model to be developed, as evidenced by the above quotation designers process the user information

available to them with the help of the mediators and construct their user model (Figure 5.4).

Figure 5.4. The processing of user information through mediators. Designers process the user with the help of mediators to construct their tacit user knowledge; that is, their user model.

The epistemic objects that are project-specific are reconfigured together with the mediators

to build a user model that the designers can refer to as the design process continues through its

various stages. Thus, it was observed that users impact designers’ problem-solving approach through a constructed user model. In other words, the user model becomes the designer’s user knowledge.

The construction of user knowledge from user information, with the help of mediators, is composed of several configuration and reconfiguration processes at the fuzzy-front end of design.

Through these reconfigurations, the user becomes tacit knowledge for designers to utilize in the problem-solving processes. The abstract and interpreted character defines this tacit knowledge.

Each designer’s user model is located at a different point in the abstract and interpreted quadrant. The utilization of mediators while processing user information helps explain the differences among designers’ user models. Although the user information is equally available to

188 designers,317 the mediators are individually and organizationally defined. Because of these personal

and organizational mediators, there are differences among designers’ user models. For example, the differences among the user models that the designer and the engineer referred to while explaining a medical device that they designed at ID1 exemplifies the impact of professional knowledge, personal experience as a user, intuition, and previous projects as mediators on user models.318

The construction of a user model with user information and mediators also helps explain

why some users feel a project or product is a success and a failure. There are examples of successful

design solutions that were developed with little to no user contact; also, there are projects with

intensive systematic user involvement that are unsuccessful (Cagan & Vogel, 2002; Cain, 1998;

Veryzer & Borja de Mozota, 2005). This study revealed that at least part of the success or failure of a project can be explained by the designers’ user models and how much these user models become tacit and

match with the real users.

5.1.2. The impact of user involvement service on the design process

If the development of design solutions occurs via a mental user model rather than user

information, then why have semi-systematic and systematic user involvement methods been

increasingly practiced and studied in design? The answer to this question requires: 1) a more in-

depth examination of the user model construction, and 2) a focused look at client-designer

communication (which is addressed in section 5.1.4 of this chapter).

317 Although the user information was equally available, not every designer was making equal use of the user information. Furthermore, in all consultancies, the designers were less interested in the new user information in the latter stages of the design process. No barriers that prohibited designers’ access to user information were observed throughout the entire design process. 318 p.123-f.183, p.123-f.184 189 At Arch2, ID2, and IxD2, when designers were asked to explain what they had learned from

the user involvement service,319 their answers were different depending on how much they had

participated in a user involvement process. Designers who had not actively participated in a user

involvement process usually explained how their design solutions were in line with the user

involvement findings.320 For these designers, the user involvement findings defined the goals to be

met in the design outcome. Designers who had participated in a user involvement process included

their own observations/interactions with the user rather than relying only on explaining how their

design solution complied with the user involvement findings.321 These designers also stated that they

were impressed by design researchers’ approach to projects and the questions they asked about

projects.

This can be interpreted to mean that designers learn more from being part of the user

involvement process rather than being separated from the process and simply given the outcomes.

When participating in the user involvement processes, designers were not only interacting with the

users, but they were also exposed to the questions and methods applied by design researchers that

guided the user involvement process. Designers commented that the design researchers’ approach to

user and design problem was as valuable as interaction with the users.322 In contrast, when the

designers’ focus was on the user involvement outcomes, the impact on the designer was observed to

be limited. This can be interpreted to mean that regardless of whether there is a research department within a

consultancy, active participation and collaboration of designers in a user involvement process affects the designers’ user

model, the design process, and the design outcome.

319 In this section, the user involvement service refers to the service led by design researchers. Thus the term user involvement corresponds to semi-systematic and systematic user involvement, unless otherwise noted. 320 p.105-f.150, p.139-f.216, p.139-f.217, p.162-f.267, p.162-f.271, p.168-f.282 321 p.173-f.300, p.136-f.209, p.136, f.210 322 p.103-f.140, p.103-i.4.20, p.141-f.225 190 As described above, in the consultancies studied, the user involvement service conducted by design researchers was observed to impact the designer process through two components: user involvement process outcomes and the user involvement process itself. User involvement processes were explained and observed to support the design process through three main phenomena: collaborative learning, contextual information, and context (Figure 5.5).

Figure 5.5. The impact of user involvement service. The diagram illustrates the mechanism through which user involvement service informs the design process and transforms into mediators.

The constructivist learning theory explains that learning is a social and collaborative process

(Brownstein, 2001; Duffy & Jonassen, 1992). In design, the user involvement process led by design researchers helps designers learn collaboratively with users, design researchers, and clients. The user involvement process also aids in design team collaboration and information exchange. As the user information is shared with members of the design team who participated in the user involvement process, the baseline user information that these designers process into a user model is common to the members of the team. Designers use this shared user information and collaborative learning to develop a shared user model. For example, at ID2, the designers of the project used similar descriptions when explaining an out-of-box experience for the design of a consumer product. In this

191 process, the designers were actively involved in a user involvement process that they conducted. In

contrast, at Arch2, design researchers conducted a user involvement process without the architects’

participation. Even though the architects had access to the outcomes of the user involvement

process, they felt that the findings were developed primarily for the client rather than for themselves

or the design team.323 As a consequence, when the project was explained to other members of the

team, each architect referenced his or her own experiences rather than a shared user experience.324

In addition to enabling collaborative learning, participation and collaboration in the user

involvement process also helps designers see the larger context in which the design problem exists.

As reported by the president of ID1, design researchers ask questions different from those asked by designers. These questions not only focus on the collection of information from users, but also target understanding the larger system in which the design problem is located. A designer from ID2 explained how his perspective on the project changed through his collaboration with design researchers. This designer had come to the realization that understanding the product/project ecosystem was central to understanding the design problem.325 It can be concluded therefore that

through collaborative learning, designers gain from the design researchers’ broad approach to design

problems and are exposed to contextual information about the design problem.

Another way in which a user involvement service influenced the collaborative learning and

increased the designers’ exposure to user involvement outcomes and contextual information was

observed to be the utilization of project rooms. At ID2 and IxD2, project rooms aided the

collaborative learning process of designers. These rooms were gathering places for the project team

and therefore provided opportunities for increased information exchange. Different from the

project rooms seen at Arch2, these project rooms posted the user involvement process outcomes on

323 p.104-f.142 324 p.104-f.143 325 p.136-f.207 192 the walls of the room. These outcomes acted as epistemic objects about the user and reminded the designers of the user information. Thus, project rooms served as a context for storing user involvement outcomes and increased the collaboration between designers and design researchers.

This is in keeping with the literature from education that suggests that the environment has an impact on learning (Wilson, 1996).

While explaining projects and design solutions, designers who had participated in user involvement processes referenced what they had learned from design researchers, defined the design problem and solution within a larger system, and showed photographs from the project room.

These project process descriptions exemplify how collaborative learning, contextual information, and context serve as mediators in the development of a user model.

Figure 5.6. The increase in number of mediators when there is a user involvement service. Contextual information and collaborative learning are added as mediators, and context is enhanced as a mediator through user involvement.

The addition of new mediators and user information helps designers process user information into user models. More importantly, the active participation of designers in the

193 user involvement process (that enables the utilization of information from these new

mediators) contributes to the development of user models in the form of stories: stories

explaining the user, the usage scenario, and the bigger impact of the product on users’ lives.326 This scenario-based phenomenon is called here the experiential user model. As explained earlier, the experiential user model was observed to be shared by the project team. Thus, each member of the project team used similar (but not identical)327 stories in the description

of products. These stories were not limited to a description of certain qualities or functions.

Instead, designers explained the design solution by means of a story that focused on all

aspects of the users’ experience.

In contrast, when designers did not participate in a user involvement process, their

user models were not blended by a story. Instead, they referred to different aspects of the

user to describe certain parts of a design solution. For example, a designer at ID1 did not

explain the design of a medical product via a story.328 Instead, he referenced the users’

behavior when he needed to explain how the product functioned. This type of user model

does not explain how the product impacts the larger experience of the user and has therefore

been named the composite user model. The composite user model was referenced mostly by the

designers who had not participated in user involvement processes.

Some designers, who had not participated in user involvement processes, described their

design solutions with stories that referenced the larger context of users. For example, some

architects at Arch2 used patient journeys while describing their buildings. In these projects, members

of the project team differed in their perception of the journey. Some designers who were assigned

326 The development of story-based user models through active participation in semi-systemic or systematic user involvement processes are the result the role of the new mediators. Collaborative learning and contextual information aid in the development of shared user stories by project teams. 327 As explain earlier, some mediators used in the processing of user information are personal and cause differentiations between designers’ user models. 328 p.123-f.183 194 later to the project had no knowledge of the user journeys upon which the design solution had been

based. Thus, although some designers were able to develop experiential user models without

participating in user involvement processes, these models were not always shared among the project

team.

These observations suggest that that designers can and do develop experiential user models

regardless of whether they participate in a user involvement process. In these cases, the mediators

play a significant role in the development of experiential user models. The personal and

organizational character of mediators explains why some designers develop experiential models and

others do not.

To summarize, the active participation of users, rather than the existence of an in-house research department, impacts how designers process user information and the resulting user model.

The two types of user models observed in the consultancies were:

1) The composite user model: A user model developed when designers do not

participate in user involvement processes. In such instances the user model does not

have a story that holds all the pieces of the model together; each piece explains a

different aspect of the design outcome and is referenced whenever necessary to

explain the product.

2) The experiential user model: A user model mostly developed when designers do

participate in user involvement processes. Designers share experiential user models

and develop a common ground for the exchange of ideas. In the consultancies

without research departments, it was observed that even though the designers were

able to develop experiential user models with the help of mediators, this user model

was not necessarily shared among the members of the project team.

195 5.1.3. Designing based on user models and prescriptive user input

The development of a user model is not the end of the design process; in fact it is only the

beginning. To better understand how designers develop user-centered design solutions in the

integration stage of design, it is necessary to examine how these user models, along with other user information, are integrated into the design process.

In the integration stage, the designers were observed to have two different ideas about the user. One way was through their user model, as explained previously. The other way focused on prescriptive user input—that is, information that is factual and does not involve a learning process.

While the user models dominated the early integration stage of design, it was observed that prescriptive user data dominated the later integration stage.

Although the literature describes the design process as journey from a problem to a solution

(e.g., Cross, 2008; Jones, 1992; Lawson, 1990; Roozenburg & Eekels, 1995), within the design consultancies studied, the design process was characterized instead by several solution-problem cycles.329

In the cases observed, the design process started with a proposition for a solution rather

than a description of the problem as the literature has indicated. For example, at ID1 the designer

first proposed a mechanism for a trash bin as a solution. This designer discussed with a co-worker

how this trash bin mechanism could work for the product that they were designing. Because some

possible problems were identified in this discussion, the next solution the designer proposed

addressed these problems. This problem-and-solution generation cycle continued until a solution

was developed that satisfied the project team. This continuing evolution of solutions and problems

is similar to unfolding as defined by Knorr Cetina (1999).

In the context of design, the user aids this unfolding process through the designers’ user

models and prescriptive input. The roleplaying of two architects at Arch1 offers an example of the

329 p.116-f.167, p.116-f.169, p.124-f.201 196 unfolding of design solutions and problems via the designers’ user model. Prior to a client meeting,

two architects asked each other questions as if they were the client. The answers to these questions

brought more clarity to the design problem and the proposed design solution. In this roleplaying

process, they were using their user models as the measurement device to identify potential areas of concern.

Similarly, the architects’ sketches shown in Figure 4.18 on page 99 illustrate how the self becomes a measurement device and an information-processing mechanism. In this case, the arrows helped the architects test the flow within the spaces and evaluate it based on their user model.

Further reinforcement of the design solution through the designer’s user model is seen in the following quotes from a designer at ID2 and from another designer at IxD1: “You always tap into research knowledge to answer the questions that appear through the design phases”; “Stay true to the client’s properties”—with these properties being a reflection of the user.

When these data are examined in light of Knorr Cetina’s (1999) concept of the care of the self330 and Schön’s (1983) idea of reflective practice, they help explain how user models are used as

measurement devices in the unfolding of design solutions and problems. As explained earlier, most

of design takes place as a tacit act within the mind of the designer (Cross, 2011; Rowe, 1987; Schön,

1983). As with the physicists in the HEP experiments (Knorr Cetina, 1999), in most phases of the

design process, designers do not always have direct access to clients or users and do not have

physical devices that can test their design solutions. In the absence of such devices, designers turn to

themselves and apply their user models as measurement devices (in other words, as information-

processing devices). Designers utilize the user model they develop through the care of the self

throughout the design process.

330 In this context, the use of the term care of the self is not an exact match with Knorr Cetina’s (1999) definition of the phrase. 197 As explained earlier, in the consultancies observed, designing started with the development

of solutions. These solutions were tested against the user model that was established and problems

with that proposed solution were identified. Once again, utilizing the user model as resource, a new solution that addressed the problems identified with the earlier solution was proposed (Figure 5.7).

The utilization of the user model through the care of the self happened several times throughout the design process. Figure 5.7 and the designer’s sketch in Figure 4.33 on page 135 illustrate how a design solution continues to improve when the designer’s user model is integrated into the design process.

Figure 5.7. The utilization of user models and prescriptive user input within the integration stage of design

Another way the user impacted the solution-problem cycle of the design process was through prescriptive input. This prescriptive input was observed to take place mostly at client and user meetings in architecture and mostly through usability testing in industrial design and interaction design. In these instances, the users provided feedback about proposed design solutions based on drawings, prototypes, and other sorts of design outcomes they were shown. As an architect from

Arch1 explained, this feedback was composed of statements about what they liked and did not like

198 regarding the proposed solution.331 This prescriptive input helped designers refine the solution and

define the problem. In some cases the users were explicit about what they wanted and expected in a

solution, as was seen in the example of a sketch of a proposed solution that was handed to an

architect at Arch1 by a user.

It was observed that prescriptive user input can be given at any point in the design process.

Because of the increased number of user group meetings in the design development stage of the architectural process and the usability testing in the latter stages of industrial design and interaction

design, prescriptive user input was more dominant in the late stages of the design process. The goal

of the design team at this stage is to make final revisions and complete the project. For this reason,

Figure 5.7 shows the user input on the right side of the solution-problem cycles. At this stage of the

design process the prescriptive user input has little to no impact on the designers’ user models.

Consequently, the designers reference the user models that were developed at the fuzzy-front end of

design at the latter stages of the design process, and designers process the prescriptive input in light

of these user models.

Similarly, although the designers utilized the user model in every stage of the design process,

their user models were referenced the most to solve “high level questions”332 at the early stages of

the design process. Therefore, the user model is depicted with light gray on the right side of Figure

5.7 and eventually disappears as the design process becomes an exercise to address prescriptive user

input. The decreased focus on user models at the latter stages of the design helps explain why the

designers felt the amount of user information utilized decreased from the programing to the

implementation stages of the design process.

331 P.71-f.49, p.71-f.51 332 p.135-f.202, p.139-f.219 199 To summarize:

• Users impact designers throughout the design process; however, the nature and the

magnitude of the impact varies.

• Users influence the design process mainly in two ways: 1) through the designers’

user models and 2) through prescriptive user input.

• User models help designers with the bigger (more abstract) design issues via the

development of solutions and the identification of problems through the concept of

the care of the self. In contrast, the incorporation of the prescriptive user input into

the design solution resembles question-answer exercises.

5.1.4. Communicating with the client over design outcomes and the user

A common element observed at each consultancy was the use of design outcomes, user involvement process outcomes, and experiential user models as communication tools between the client and the designers. Start and Griesemer’s (1989) theory of boundary objects is central to the discussion of how design outcomes, user involvement process outcomes, and experiential user models become malleable objects that enable client-designer collaboration.

Regardless of the user involvement strategy applied, design outcomes were used as instruments for collecting information from the clients (and users). These design outcomes were 1) the representation of newly developed design solutions including drawings, plans, 3D renderings, physical models, and prototypes; or 2) existing design solutions that were physically available, such as buildings, imagery, and products. These design outcomes were used by designers to elicit clients’

(users’) reactions. If these reactions were collected early in the design process, they became the basis for how designers interpreted the user—for example, through the use of imagery in Arch2 to interpret what the client/user wanted. If the reactions are collected later in the design process, they become prescriptive user input and serve to identify problems and possible solutions.

200 A concern expressed by some of the designers was that clients did not always understand

these design outcomes and did not always interpret them correctly.333 This illustrates the malleable

character of these materials. In other words, each party (client and designer) interprets the design

outcome based on their individual background and experience with the object of design. As such,

these design outcomes become instruments of collaboration and serve as boundary objects within the

design process. It was observed that architecture made use of these boundary objects more than

industrial design and interaction design because of the nature and the scale of their product.

When the project did not include a user involvement service, and thus the designers did not

participate in a user involvement strategy, the design outcomes became the main boundary objects

between client and designers. However, when designers did participate in user involvement

processes, an experiential user model resulted. In these cases, the user scenarios were observed to

become the main communication tools between the clients and designers. Both the client and designers referenced these user models, and agreements and disagreements arose in comparison to

their experiential user models.

In projects where designers did not interact with the users, the user involvement outcomes

served as validation tools. In these cases, the user involvement process outcomes were condensed

into project goals. Throughout the design process, both the client and the designers referenced these

goals while explaining the design solutions. Therefore, even though the designers did not participate

in any user involvement process, the users still served as boundary objects between the designers

and the client.

Thus, boundary objects were observed to enhance client-designer interaction. In addition,

when a project included the participation of designers in a user involvement service, the boundary

333 p.72-f.55, p.165-f.272 201 objects served to strengthen the interaction and information exchange among members of the

design team.

5.2. Analyzing the Differences: Epistemic Cultures of the User in Design Fields

This section focuses on defining the epistemic cultures of the user and how these cultures

differentiate the design professions that were observed. As practiced using the comparative optics method of Knorr Cetina (1999), the data from each design field was analyzed through the lenses of other design fields to search for differences. It was concluded that the utilization of prescriptive user input and the focus on the best case scenarios (ideal) were the main differentiators of user knowledge production in the design fields observed.

As discussed earlier, the personal and organizational characteristics of mediators, the inclusion of a user involvement service in the project, and the participation of designers in user involvement processes were different in each consultancy. Within each of these consultancies, multiple epistemic cultures also existed. Thus, the differences among epistemic cultures are mostly attributed to each setting (consultancy) rather than to design fields/professions. In contrast to

industrial design, in architecture and interaction design, prescriptive user input was more common.

At Arch1 and Arch2, design processes—especially the design development stage of architecture—

were structured around user group meetings in which designers collect users’ reactions to proposed

design solutions. The unfolding of the design solutions and problems was dominated by the

prescriptive input of users.

Similarly to architecture, at IxD1 and IxD2 prescriptive user input was common with the

focus on usability testing. These usability tests were not necessarily systematic tests, but rather were

conducted with co-workers, friends, and clients to test solutions and highlight problems.

In comparison, at ID1 and ID2 it was observed that testing and user feedback were not as

easy to secure in industrial design as they were in the architecture and interaction design

202 consultancies.334 Because physical prototypes and clean mock-ups are required for usability tests, it

was too labor and dollar intensive to build a design prototype to secure user feedback. Instead,

industrial designers relied on co-workers for feedback on probable design solutions.

Consequently, in the industrial design consultancies, prescriptive user input was less

frequently used as the machinery of user knowledge production, while in architecture and interaction

design, prescriptive user input was more frequently used as the machinery of user knowledge

production.

In architecture, plans and drawings were used as boundary objects to secure feedback from

full-time occupants. Because of the nature of the design product in architecture (buildings), the users

did not have direct access to the design solution and could not physically test the design solution. In

contrast, in the interaction design consultancies, the simulation of the proposed design solution and

the testing of it with users was much easier.

In all consultancies, regardless of the design field, examples of best practices were available

in office environments, magazines, books, and on the internet. However, architects were observed

to use of the concept of best practices the most intensely. This was especially true in healthcare design, where constant reference was made to ideal flow and ideal feel. As explained earlier, in architecture the user model reflected the ideal flow and feel as a blend of best practices and client input. This user model has been labeled the ideal user model.

The ideal was also important in the industrial design and interaction design consultancies; however, the focus was different. Although the designers of ID2 and IxD2 referenced best practice in their conversations, their focus was on learning more about the users’ context, behaviors, experiences, and so forth. In contrast, the architects tended to focus on possible discrepancies between their design solution and the “ideal.” This can be interpreted to mean that in architecture

334 p.134-f.200, p.134-i.4.32 203 the “ideal” has a different meaning and plays a different role than in industrial design and interaction design.

One of the reasons for this difference may be attributed to the fact that the design outcome in architecture (buildings) requires a different kind of user input and is therefore, by its very nature,

less personal and individually based than that required by industrial design and interaction design.

Furthermore, the scale of the designed objects that industrial designers and interaction

designers develop is much smaller than that of architects—allowing industrial designers and

interaction designers the opportunity to focus on details of the user earlier in the process. In

contrast, because of the scale of buildings and the number of people to be accommodated, focusing

on the users as individuals early in the process is less feasible. Therefore, in architecture it is through

the use of best-case scenarios (ideals) that communication and understanding between designers and

users are enhanced.

204 CHAPTER SIX

CONCLUSION

“A lot of times, the research people do not talk the same language as the design people and that is why we move the design people aside and then move the research people that way so there is more overlap and…more seamless transmission of the information. And how is the organization designed to enhance that…you know in terms of how it is organized.” Manager from Arch2

“We are still…at a very early stage in incorporating user research into design. So it does not always happen perfectly.” Design researcher from ID2

“Sometimes there is a disconnect between the strategist and the designer if they are not working together … I feel like you are pushing these, the data,… it does not seamlessly go together, it is not the seamless process, it is more organic.” Designer from IxD2

In this study, six design consultancies that create internationally recognized design solutions and pleasant user experiences were examined. Three of these design consultancies had established design research departments that offered systematic user involvement services. The implementation of systematic methods of user involvement in design has more than a decade of history (Hummels et al., 2007; Reese, 2002; Wasson, 2000). Various methods have been tried, practice models have been tested, and studies on the topic have been conducted. However, as the above quotations highlight, little is known about how to seamlessly integrate user involvement into the process of designing.

6.1. Summary of the Results

This study is situated at the intersection of user involvement, user experience, and the design process. Within the past few decades, the focus of design has expanded from just the creation of physical outcomes to include the creation of experiences (Klingmann, 2007; Kuniavsky, 2003;

205 Margolin, 1988; C. T. Mitchell, 1993; Pine & Gilmore, 1999; Schifferstein & Hekkert, 2008).

Designers have been introduced to social science research methods, participated in co-design processes with users, and practiced user-centered design models. Although these efforts have been impressive, progress toward the true integration of user information, social science research, and design has been slow. One of the reasons for this gap is the application of user-oriented approaches that are not accompanied by a holistic understanding of how designers process user information.

Distinct from previous studies on the topic, the current study focused on the machineries of user knowledge production of designers. A comparative approach was utilized to investigate designers from three major design fields: architecture, industrial design, and interaction design. The user knowledge processes of designers from six design consultancies—both with and without research departments—were examined closely in their natural settings. Karin Knorr Cetina’s (1999) theory of epistemic cultures was augmented with the theories of boundary objects (Star & Griesemer, 1989) and constructivist learning (Brownstein, 2001; Dewey, 1938; von Glasersfeld, 1989; Hmelo-Silver, 2004;

Kolodner, 1995; Resnick, 1989; Savery & Duffy, 1996) to reveal the black box of how designers process user information.

An adapted version of grounded theory (Sarker et al., 2000) was applied in the data collection and analysis. While some of the findings of this study support the dominant views in the literature on user involvement, user-centered design, and the design process, others significantly diverged from these views.

The user involvement literature focuses on the development of user insights, opportunity spaces, and design concepts (e.g., Beers & Whitney, 2006; Kumar, 2004; Rhea, 2003) and takes for granted the transfer of these conclusions into design solutions. However, this study revealed that the information garnered from user involvement processes is not always utilized by designers as is.

Designers process this information and construct their own user models. These user models form the

206 user knowledge that designers refer to when solving design problems as defined by Dagwell and

Weber (1983), Hasdogan (1996), Pruitt and Adlin (2006), and Suchman (2007). This study further revealed that in addition to user models, prescriptive user information also affects the designers’ problem solving activity. Although prescriptive user information was observed to be important, designers were referenced their user models more throughout the design process. Thus it can be concluded that the user is not a given; instead, in line with the argument of constructivist learning theory, the user is a constructed phenomenon in design.

A change in perspective of the user as a constructed phenomenon has the potential to shift the current attention from the collection of user information at the fuzzy-front end of design (e.g.,

Khurana & Rosenthal, 1997; Rhea, 2003; Sleeswijk Visser et al., 2007) to the dynamics and factors that affect the designers’ construction of users.

The user information available to designers in their office contexts was observed to differentiate based on its nature (as concrete and abstract) and source (as given and interpreted).

Independently from the type of user information, in order to be used tacitly (as described by Polanyi

(1958, 1967)) in the design process, this information was transformed into abstract and interpreted knowledge (called user models in this study). This transformation process is characterized by several configurations and reconfigurations.335 Mediators play central roles in these configuration and

reconfiguration processes. Mediators are either personally or organizationally defined. The most

common mediators observed in the studied design consultancies were the client, co-workers,

personal experience, intuition, professional knowledge, previous projects, and context.

Shifting the focus to mediators in the design process has the potential to enhance designers’

constructed user models. For example, it was observed that the active participation of designers in user

involvement processes (rather than handing them the user involvement process outcomes) made a

335 The title of this dissertation refers to the multiple user configurations and reconfigurations that were observed within the design process. 207 significant impact on the design process. This participation in user involvement processes brought new mediators into the designers’ construction of user models. Further, participation of designers in a user involvement process resulted in 1) collaborative learning between designers and design researchers, users, and clients, 2) the development of contextual information about users and projects, and 3) the storage of user information within the design office context.

In the consultancies observed, user involvement was seen primarily as a service to the client rather than as a service to the in-house designers. Consequently, not all projects include a user involvement process. Therefore, not all designers get the chance to participate in a user involvement process. This being the case, it becomes the designers’ and design researchers’ responsibility to communicate the significance of user involvement processes and outcomes to the client.

Unfortunately, quite often, the literature on user involvement neglects to take into consideration the fact that most design research departments are structured as a separate service for which the client must pay. It is suggested that this fact—at least in part—may be why user involvement methods and practice models are hard to implement in a professional setting.

The analysis of the user models through the machineries of user knowledge production challenges the current design literature that does not differentiate between the user models constructed by designers. The current study illustrates two different types of user models based on the influence of mediators and the user information available to designers in the process of user model construction. These two are the experiential user model and the composite user model.

When designers participate in a user involvement process, the resulting user model is associated with scenarios—that is, the experiential user model. Experiential user models were observed to be shared among the members of a design team, thereby establishing coherent user experiences through teamwork.

208 When designers did not participate in user involvement processes, a composite user model was developed. The composite user model is composed of pieces of user knowledge that are unassociated with a scenario. The differences between user models referenced by designers have the potential to explain why some design solutions are more successful than others in delivering pleasant user experiences.

Another divergence from the dominant views presented in the literature is related to the subject of study. In the current literature, the perception offered is that the user is the primary component of concern in design, for example, user research (e.g., Aldsersey-Williams et al., 1999;

Kumar, 2004; Kuniavsky, 2003), user experience (e.g., Battarbee & Koskinen, 2005; Bruseberg &

McDonagh-Philp, 2001; Buxton, 2007), user involvement (e.g., Burley et al., 2009; Kaulio, 1998;

Kujala, 2003), user innovation (e.g., Flowers et al., 2010; Iivari, 2010; Ives & Olson, 1984), and user- centered design (e.g., Beers & Whitney, 2006; Holtzblatt, Wendell, & Wood, 2005; Melican, 2000).

This continued reference to the user suggests that the focus is on the user as an individual human being—and that this focus is central to the design process. However, the findings from this study do not support the accuracy of this perception. Instead, the results revealed that designers focus more on the users’ context (the issues that surround the human being). In this sense, the subject of study by designers is much broader than that which is presented in the literature and in practice. In this study, designers saw the user as a liminal phenomenon that was necessary to garner the information they needed about the users’ context. It is suggested that recognition of this broader perspective about the subject of study could influence how the user is presented in the design literature. Further, it is proposed that by incorporating this broader view into their practice, clients might value user involvement services more.

The dominant view presented in the literature in regard to the design process is that the design process starts with an analysis of the problem (Archer, 1984; Cross, 2008; Roozenburg &

209 Eekels, 1995). However, in this study it was determined that the act of designing starts with a solution. The analysis of the problem takes place as designers define the problems in relation to the proposed design solution. The design process is characterized by multiple solution-problem cycles.

This finding offers a fresh insight into the act of design and brings clarity to the black box of designers’ problem solving.

This study offers further insights into the black box of designer problem solving through an analysis of how the user (through user models and prescriptive user input) impacts the unfolding of design solutions. This aspect of users and user information (in conjunction with the stages of a design process) has been studied by many scholars (e.g., Buurman, 1997; Vredenburg et al., 2001;

Zeisel, 2006). In this study, unlike the approach in previous studies, the machineries of user knowledge production were examined and tracked within the designers’ processes.

This framework offered insights into the influence of the user, as a design factor, throughout the design process, rather than as limited to the fuzzy-front end of design as previously presented in user-centered design studies (e.g., Khurana & Rosenthal, 1997; Sleeswijk Visser et al., 2007). This study revealed that the user informs designers throughout the design process; however, the method and the magnitude of the users’ impact changes from the programming to the evaluation stages.

Further analysis revealed that designers’ user models serve as self-analysis and information- processing tools to test solutions and define problems. The utilization of user models through the care of the self is most helpful in addressing macro design problems. Thus, designers refer to their user models most frequently in the early stages of the design process (programming, ideation, and early integration). However, these user models are also referenced in the later stages of the design process through direct and prescriptive user input when the focus is on finalizing the project. User models aid in the designers’ processing of prescriptive user input. Independently from the stage of

210 the design process, the understanding of the designer as a self-testing and information processing

device helps explain how design functions as a reflective practice as outlined by Schön (1983).

In a reflective practice, certain objects are needed to enable collaboration between the client,

designers, design researchers, engineers, developers, and so forth. Although some scholars have

explained how certain elements of design and design research serve as boundary objects to enable

the interaction among parties (e.g., Bertelsen, 2000; Bødker, 1998; Fischer & Ostwald, 2005;

Fleischmann, 2006a, 2006b; Tunstall, 2008), the role of design outcomes and users as boundary

objects has been understudied.

In this study, a variety of design outcomes (i.e., existing design solutions, imagery, drawings,

sketches, mock-ups, prototypes, physical models, digital renderings) were found to be serving as

boundary objects to enhance client-designer and project team interaction and collaboration. In

projects with user involvement services, the user (including the experiential user models and the user

involvement process outcomes) became the secondary boundary object and helped to increase

communication among all parties. In the absence of user involvement services in a project, the

design outcomes had higher significance as boundary objects because they became the main

resource for information exchange. A better understanding of the users’ and the design outcomes’

role as boundary objects justifies the incorporation of user involvement services. It can be assumed

that healthier communication between the client and designers and among the design team will result in higher quality design outcomes.

For the last few decades, design scholars have been discussing the idea of design as a discipline and trying to define the commonalties and differences among each design field (e.g.,

Cross, 2001; Giard, 1990; Love, 2002; Manzini, 2009). I also used a similar approach in this study, but differently from the precedent studies, I compared a single type of knowledge (user knowledge) among three design fields. This comparison showed that architecture stands apart from the other

211 design disciplines in that the user models created are built around an ideal. This ideal is seen as a reflection of best practices and is defined by an ideal flow and feel. When interacting with users, architectural designers focus on defining the discrepancies between the current user flow and feel and the ideal user flow and feel.

In addition to this finding, the study revealed differences among all three of the professional design fields studied: architecture, interaction design, and industrial design. In architecture and interaction design, prescriptive user input was more common. In architecture, the design development stage was composed of several design iterations based on user comments, whereas in interaction design, usability tests provided direct user input into the process. In industrial design, the requirement of physical prototypes for testing made it harder to receive direct user input as frequently as in interaction design. These differences in the machineries of user knowledge construction by architects, industrial designers, and interaction designers suggest that each profession has individual characteristics and that the study of design as a discipline may obscure knowledge processing in each field.

Although the design consultancies studied were structured around a single organizational culture, each design consultancy contained multiple epistemic cultures of users. The machineries of user knowledge production changed from consultancy to consultancy, and these machineries were individually and organizationally defined within the context of design. The existence of an in-house research department itself did not guarantee that designers would focus more on the users. User information, mediators, participation in the user involvement process, and the professional design field were found to be the main reasons for the differences among epistemic cultures of users.

6.2. Implications for Design Theory, Practice, and Education

In this study, I analyzed and discussed numerous issues related to machineries of user knowledge production in six design consultancies. The investigation into epistemic cultures of the

212 user in design is timely, as users and user involvement have become more and more important in the

practice of design. As more in-house design research and strategy departments are added to design firms, understanding how to seamlessly integrate user involvement into the design process will become even more critical. The findings from this dissertation offer theoretical, practical, and educational insights into this phenomenon.

In recent years, design epistemology has been the topic of considerable discussion

(Bertelsen, 2000; Blackmer, 2005; Carvalho et al., 2009; Cross, 2001; Friedman, 1997; Love, 2002).

Existing studies focused on analyzing how and what designers know. In this study, a different approach

to the examination of design epistemology was used: looking at the machineries of knowledge production

as suggested by Knorr Cetina (1999). The study of epistemic cultures in design has the potential to

help us better understand the “black box” of design.

In this study it was observed that designers utilize different machineries in the creation of

user knowledge, and that the user is not the only design factor that affects the design outcomes. A

focused and isolated look into the user revealed that the user is not a given in the design process, but

rather a constructed phenomenon. This constructed phenomenon is utilized in the design process

through the self-testing of probable solutions and problem identification. Thus, user knowledge is

incorporated into design through solution-problem cycles. This finding has implications in regard to

our understanding of the overall act of designing. The solution-problem cycle contradicts some of

the existing design process models that depict design as an iterative journey from a problem to a

solution (e.g., Archer, 1984; Pahl & Beitz, 1984; Roozenburg & Eekels, 1995). The understanding

that the design process starts with a solution brings up possible new ways of enhancing the quality

of initial design solutions. Furthermore, this study suggests that, rather than focusing on the analysis

of the problem at the programming stage, designers would do well to shift their attention to the

framing of probable solutions.

213 The differences found among design fields’ epistemic cultures of users are applicable to

discussions on design as a discipline. Because design has emerged from a craft tradition, design fields have been searching for ways to structure themselves as professions and define their knowledge base

(Clemons & Eckman, 2004; Cross, 1999; Friedman, 1997; Giard, 1990). The findings on how the user model is constructed through the configuration and reconfiguration of user information and mediators has implications for defining the knowledge base of design. Furthermore, the concept of the care of self supports the notion that design is more than a skill; it is a discipline that requires

education and expertise.

The investigation into the epistemic cultures of users in design consultancies revealed that

the influence of the user as a design factor is not limited to a user involvement process of outcomes

and to the fuzzy-front end of design. The findings highlight the fact that studies that focus only on

the user involvement process outcomes (e.g., insights, design concepts) and the fuzzy-front end of design are missing the larger impact of users in the design process (e.g., Boztepe, 2007; van Rijn et al., 2011; Sleeswijk Visser et al., 2007). A change in how users are perceived to inform designers throughout the design process has implications for design as a discipline as well as design as a professional practice.

The designers and design researchers at all the design consultancies continuously sought ways to better integrate user involvement into the design process. The feedback workshops that were conducted after the analysis of each consultancy became discussion platforms for designers and design researchers. Although both parties found the user involvement invaluable, none were satisfied with the current level and structure of integration of user information. The results of this study suggest that the design consultancies should evaluate the value of a user involvement service from different perspectives—not just from the perspective of how much the user informs the designers. The findings from this study showed that the user and user involvement processes inform

214 both the designers and clients in ways that are not always visible. For example, the user as a

boundary object enhances the client-designer interaction and increases the chances of meeting the

client’s expectations.

The utilization of the user as a boundary object also highlights the significance of the

transfer of user involvement process outcomes to clients. This transfer is as significant to clients as it is to designers. The efforts that have been spent on communicating user involvement findings to designers (e.g., Sleeswijk Visser, 2009; van Veggel, 2005) should also be applied to the transfer of findings to clients.

The significance of the designer’s participation in the user involvement processes was highlighted in this study. The existence of an in-house research department is not enough to increase user-centered design. However, because of the budget and schedule of projects and the availability of human resources, participation of designers in user involvement processes is not always possible.

Although it is not easy to transform how the design and user involvement services are structured in design consultancies, a conversation regarding the appropriateness of existing budgeting policies is necessary.

The findings from this study also show that it is not possible to have a single epistemic culture of users in any setting. However, design consultancies do have control over some of the

machineries of user knowledge production. The participation of designers in user involvement

processes and the level of user-designer interaction are some of the machineries that design

consultancies can control. Thus, a design consultancy could target and establish a dominant

epistemic culture of the users to be served.

The conclusions and insights gained from this study also have implications for design

education. The finding that explains the significance of participation in a user involvement process

highlights the significance of offering design education outside the context of the studio. Although

215 there is evidence that instructors have created opportunities for students to interact with users in

their natural contexts (e.g., Hadjiyanni, 2007; Sipos, 2009; Zollinger, Guerin, Hadjiyanni, & Martin,

2009), these efforts are still limited and do not focus on teaching the construction of user models

and the utilization of these models throughout the design process. A more conscious approach to how user models can be developed and utilized could enhance students’ understanding of the tacit act of design.

In addition, shifting from problem identification to solution definition as a starting point in the early stages of the design process could be tested in design studios to evaluate the implications of such a change in students’ understanding of the design process. Furthermore, it is suggested that the role of users as boundary objects in the design process could be integrated into the content of various design courses. Through the incorporation of these suggestions into design education, the design community at large could ultimately be affected by entry level designers who have a keener understanding of how user information is processed.

6.3. Recommendations for Further Research

The limitations of this study and the findings from this dissertation raise several questions that can be addressed with future research. Most of these recommendations address issues related to the application of the research process and the generalizability of the research findings.

Only six design consultancies from a single country were closely examined in this study; therefore the results can not be widely generalized. However, the study offers a framework and research design that could be repeated at different consultancies, in different countries, and in different professional design fields.

The user involvement services within the design consultancies observed were limited to methods of designing for users. Designing with users, in other words co-designing with users, was not a

216 common practice for any of the consultancies.336 However, co-design has been defined as a new

form of design practice that offers the possibility of enhancing user experiences (Sanders, 2005;

Sanders & Stappers, 2008). Understanding how the designers’ processing of user information

changes with co-design warrants further study.

In the current study, the user was the focus. This being the case, other design factors, such

as technology and manufacturing, were purposely ignored in the analysis of how designers process

user information. It is suggested that factors such as these warrant further study. The current study

challenges design scholars to study the impact of different design factors in isolation from other factors that may affect the design process. It is likely that the exploration of these factors individually would reveal valuable information about the act of design.

As explained before, the study of design through the investigation of machineries of knowledge production opens a new door for design. Knorr Cetina’s (1999) theory can be applied to the study of various design topics, especially in contributing to our understanding of the nature of the professional act of designing.

While in-house research departments and the integration of user involvement methods in projects are seen as state-of-the-art in design (Hummels et al., 2007), because of budget, schedule, and human resource shortages, it has not been applied to every project, by every design consultancy, in every country. For example, emerging economies are slower to keep up with Western design approaches (Oygur & Blossom, 2010). However, these locales are in need of user-centered design solutions. It is suggested that the design services in these locales would be enhanced by conducting more studies that focus on such things as 1) the role of mediators in the processing of user

336 The closest method to co-designing, conducted by design researchers in three consultancies with the design research departments, was the participatory design exercises. These exercises were conducted to collect further information from users rather than developing design solutions together with users. 217 information, 2) ways of enhancing mediators’ impact, and 3) the development of inexpensive and

easy integration of user involvement methods that focus on the construction of user models.

My journey into the six design consultancies utilizing the theoretical framework of epistemic cultures, boundary objects, and constructivist learning theory offers only one way to examine how designers process user information. My findings strongly suggest that this is only the beginning of a

very long journey.

218 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Agar, M. H. (1996). The professional stranger: An informal introduction to ethnography (2nd ed.). New York: Academic Press. Aldsersey-Williams, H., Bound, J., & Coleman, R. (1999). Methods Lab: User research for design. Helen Hamlyn Research Centre, Royal College of Art, London. Retrieved from http://www.education.edean.org/index.php?card_id=80&filters=f21&row=0&remove=80 &query=. Anderzhon, J. W., Fraley, I. L., & Green, M. (Eds.). (2007). Design for aging post-occupancy evaluations: Lessons learned from senior living environments (1st ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Archer, B. (1984). Systematic methods for designers. In N. Cross (Ed.), Developments in design methodology (pp. 57–82). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons Inc. Arnold, J. (2006). The reconciliation of research and creativity in industrial design. Paper presented at IDSA National Education Symposium, Austin, TX. Retrieved from http://www.idsa.org/absolutenm/articlefiles/NEC06_arnold_james.pdf. Asimow, M. (1962). Introduction to design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Ask, K. (2009). Gaming as knowing. Game cultures as societies of knowledge? Position Papers Oslo 09. Retrieved from http://www.ngrn.dk/publications/Position+Papers+Oslo+09/. Austin, S., Baldwin, A., Li, B., & Waskett, P. (1999). Analytical design planning technique: A model of the detailed building design process. Design Studies, 20(3), 279–296. Balka, E. (2006). Inside the belly of the beast: The challenges and successes of a reformist participatory agenda. Proceedings of the Ninth Conference On Participatory Design: Expanding Boundaries in Design (pp. 134–143). Trento, Italy: ACM. Baroudi, J. J., Olson, M. H., & Ives, B. (1986). An empirical study of the impact of user involvement on system usage and information satisfaction. Communications of the ACM, 29(3), 232–238. Battarbee, K., & Koskinen, I. (2005). Co-experience: User experience as interaction. CoDesign, 1(1), 5–18. Becker, F., & Steele, F. (1995). Workplace by design: Mapping the high-performance workscape (1st ed.). San Franciso: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Bednar, A. K., Cunningham, D., Duffy, T. M., & Perry, J. D. (1992). Theory into practice: How do we link? In T. M. Duffy & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation (2nd ed., pp. 17–34). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Beers, R., & Whitney, P. (2006). From ethnographic insight to user-centered design tools. Ethnographic Praxis in Industry Conference Proceedings (pp. 144–154). Portland, OR: EPIC. Bernard, H. R. (2006). Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (4th ed.). New York: AltaMira Press.

219 Bertelsen, O. W. (2000). Design artifacts: Towards a design-oriented epistemology. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 12, 15–28. Birks, M., & Mills, J. (2011). Grounded theory: A practical guide. Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Blackmer, B. E. (2005). Knowledge on knowledge. Journal of Interior Design, 31(1), vii–xii. Bødker, S. (1998). Understanding representation in design. Human-Computer Interaction, 13(2), 107–125. Boztepe, S. (2007). Toward a framework of product development for global markets: A user-value- based approach. Design Studies, 28(5), 513–533. Brownstein, B. (2001). Collaboration: The foundation of learning in the future. Education, 122(2), 240. Bruseberg, A., & McDonagh-Philp, D. (2001). New product development by eliciting user experience and aspirations. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 55(4), 435– 452. Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K. (Eds.). (2010). The SAGE handbook of grounded theory. Los Angeles; London: Sage. Buchanan, R. (2001). Human dignity and human rights: Thoughts on the principles of human- centered design. Design Issues, 17(3), 35–39. Budd, C. (2000). Narrative research in design practice: capturing mental models of work environments. Journal of Interior Design, 26(2), 58–73. Burley, L., Scheepers, H., & Owen, L. (2009). User involvement in the design and appropriation of a mobile clinical information system: Reflections on organisational learning. In W. Wojtkowski, G. Wojtkowski, M. Lang, K. Conboy, & C. Barry (Eds.), Information systems development (pp. 143–156). Boston, MA: Springer US. Buur, J., & Bodker, S. (2000). From usability lab to “design collaboratorium”: Reframing usability practice. Proceedings of the 3rd Conference On Designing Interactive Systems: Processes, Practices, Methods, and Techniques (pp. 297–307). New York: ACM. Buurman, R. D. (1997). User-centred design of smart products. Ergonomics, 40(10), 1159–1169. Buxton, W. (2007). Sketching user experiences: Getting the design right and the right design. Amsterdam; Boston, MA: Elsevier/Morgan Kaufmann. Byrd, T. A., Cossick, K. L., & Zmud, R. W. (1992). A synthesis of research on requirements analysis and knowledge acquisition techniques. MIS Quarterly, 16(1), 117–138. Cagan, J., & Vogel, C. M. (2002). Creating breakthrough products: Innovation from product planning to program approval. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall PTR. Cain, J. (1998). Experience-based design: Toward a science of artful business innovation. Design Management Journal, 9(4), 10–16. Callon, M. (1986). Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St. Brieuc Bay. In J. Law (Ed.), Power, action, and belief: A new sociology of knowledge? (pp. 196–230). London; Boston, MA: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Cama, R. (2009). Evidence-based healthcare design. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

220 Carvalho, L., Dong, A., & Maton, K. (2009). Legitimating design: A sociology of knowledge account of the field. Design Studies, 30(5), 483–502. Cefkin, M. (2009). Introduction: Business, anthropology, and the growth of corporate ethnography. In M. Cefkin (Ed.), Ethnography and the corporate encounter: Reflections on research in and of corporations (pp. 1–37). New York: Berghahn Books. Charlton, S. G., & O’Brien, T. G. (2002). Handbook of human factors testing and evaluation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: Sage. Chatterjee, S., Sarker, S., & Fuller, M. (2009). A deontological approach to designing ethical collaboration. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 10(3), 138-169. Clarke, A. E. (Ed.). (2005). Situational analysis: Grounded theory after the postmodern turn (1st ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Clemons, S., & Eckman, M. (2004). Toward a common language: Proposed index categories to enhance dissemination and retrieval of interior design scholarship. Journal of Interior Design, 30(2), 13–30. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt University (1991). Technology and the design of generative learning environments. Educational Technology, 31(5), 34–40. Collins, H. (1992). Changing order: Replication and induction in scientific practice. Chicago, IL: University Of Chicago Press. Conway, D. (Ed.). (1973). Social science and design: A process model for architect and social scientist collaboration and report of a conference. Washington, DC: American Institute of Architects. Cooper, A. (2004). The inmates are running the asylum: Why high tech products drive us crazy and how to restore the sanity (1st ed.). Indianapolis, IN: Sams. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Cross, N. (1999). Design research: A disciplined conversation. Design Issues, 15(2), 5. Cross, N. (2001). Designerly ways of knowing: Design discipline versus design science. Design Issues, 17(3), 49–55. Cross, N. (2008). Engineering design methods: Strategies for product design (4th ed.). Chichester; New York: Wiley. Cross, N. (2011). Design thinking: Understanding how designers think and work. Oxford; New York: Berg. Cuff, D. (1992). Architecture: The story of a practice. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Dagwell, R., & Weber, R. (1983). System designers’ user models: A comparative study and methodological critique. Communications of the ACM, 26(11), 987–997. Danko, S., Meneely, J., & Portillo, M. (2006). Humanizing design through narrative inquiry. Journal of Interior Design, 31(2), 10–28.

221 Darke, J. (1979). The primary generator and the design process. Design Studies, 1(1), 36–44. Davies, S. P. (1995). Effects of concurrent verbalization on design problem solving. Design Studies, 16(1), 102–116. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982–1003. Deasy, C. M., & Lasswell, T. E. (1990). Designing places for people: A handbook on human behavior for architects, designers, and facility managers. New York: Whitney Library of Design. Desmet, P., & Hekkert, P. (2007). Framework of product experience. International Journal of Design, 1(1), 57–66. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Macmillan. Dickinson, J. I. (2004). Nursing home design: A student challenge and call for change. Journal of Interior Design, 30(1), 31–55. Dickinson, J., & Marsden (Eds.). (2009). Informing design. New York: Fairchild Books. Diller, S., Shedroff, N., & Rhea, D. (2006). Making meaning: How successful businesses deliver meaningful customer experiences. Berkeley, CA: New Riders. Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2009). Internet, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons. Dishman, E. (2003). Designing for the new old: Asking, observing and performing future elders. In B. Laurel (Ed.), Design research: Methods and perspectives (pp. 41–48). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Dolan, R. J., & Matthews, J. M. (1993). Maximizing the utility of customer product testing: Beta test design and management. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 10(4), 318–330. Doll, W. J., & Torkzadeh, G. (1988). The measurement of end-user computing satisfaction. MIS Quarterly, 12(2), 259–274. Don, A., & Petrick, J. (2003). User requirements: By any means necessary. In B. Laurel (Ed.), Design research: Methods and perspectives (pp. 70–80). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Dorst, K., & Cross, N. (2001). Creativity in the design process: Co-evolution of problem–solution. Design Studies, 22(5), 425–437. Dreyfuss, H. (2003). Designing for people (Illustrated ed.). New York: Allworth Press. Duffy, T. M., & Jonassen, D. H. (1992). Constructivism: New implications for instructional technology? In T. M. Duffy & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation (pp. 1–16). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550. Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago, IL; London: The University Of Chicago Press. Fetterman, D. M. (1998). Ethnography: Step by step (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

222 Fischer, G., & Ostwald, J. (2005). Knowledge communication in design communities. In R. Bromme, F. W. Hesse, & H. Spada (Eds.), Barriers and biases in computer-mediated knowledge communication: And how they may be overcome (pp. 213–242). New York: Springer. Fisher, T. (2004). Architects behaving badly: Ignoring Environmental Behavior Research. Harvard Design Magazine, 21, 1–3. Fleischmann, K. R. (2006a). Boundary objects with agency: A method for studying the design–use interface. The Information Society, 22(2), 77–87. Fleischmann, K. R. (2006b). Do-it-yourself information technology: Role hybridization and the design–use interface. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 57(1), 87– 95. Flowers, S., von Hippel, E., de Jong, J., & Sinozic, T. (2010). Measuring user innovation in the UK: The importance of product creation by users. London: NESTA. Retrieved from http://www.nesta.org.uk/publications/reports/assets/features/measuring_user_innovation _in_the_uk. Forsythe, D. E. (1999). “It‘s just a matter of common sense”: Ethnography as invisible work. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 8(1/2), 127–145. Frascara, J. (2002). People-centered design: Complexities and uncertainties. In J. Frascara (Ed.), Design and the social sciences (pp. 33–39). London; New York: Taylor & Francis. French, M. J. (1985). Conceptual design for engineers (2nd ed.). London: Springer. Friedman, K. (1997). Design science and design education. In P. McGrory (Ed.), The challenge of complexity (pp. 54–72). Helsinki, Finland: University of Art and Design Helsinki. Friedman, K. (2000). Creating design knowledge: From research to practice. Paper presented at IDATER 2000 Conference, Loughborough, UK. Retrieved from https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/dspace-jspui/bitstream/2134/1360/1/Friedman2000.pdf Garrety, K., & Badham, R. (2004). User-centered design and the normative politics of technology. Science, Technology & Human Values, 29(2), 191–212. Gaver, B., Dunne, T., & Pacenti, E. (1999). Design: Cultural probes. Interactions, 6(1), 21–29. Gaver, W. W., Boucher, A., Pennington, S., & Walker, B. (2004). Cultural probes and the value of uncertainty. Interactions, 11(5), 53–56. Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. New York: Basic Books. Giard, J. R. (1990). Design education in crisis: The transition from skills to knowledge. Design Issues, 7(1), 23–28. Giere, R. N. (2002). Discussion note: Distributed cognition in epistemic cultures. Philosophy of Science, 69(4), 637–644. Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine Transaction.

223 von Glasersfeld, E. (1989). Cognition, construction of knowledge, and teaching. Synthese, 80(1), 121–140. Goodwin, K., & Cooper, A. (2009). Designing for the digital age: How to create human-centered products and services (1st ed.). Indianapolis, IN: Wiley. Grbich, C. (2007). Qualitative data analysis: An introduction. London; Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Green, W. S., & Jordan, P. W. (Eds.). (2002). Pleasure with products: Beyond usability. London; New York: Taylor & Francis. Grønbæk, K., & Mogensen, P. (1997). Informing general CSCW product development through cooperative design in specific work domains. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 6(4), 275–304. Grudin, J. (2005). Three faces of human-computer interaction. IEEE Annals of the History of Computing, 27(4), 46–62. Guile, D. (2010). The learning challenge of the knowledge economy. Rotterdam; Boston, MA: Sense Publishers. Hadjiyanni, T. (2007). Bounded choices: Somali women constructing difference in Minnesota housing. Journal of Interior Design, 32(2), 13–27. Hall, R. R. (2001). Prototyping for usability of new technology. International Journal of Human- Computer Studies, 55(4), 485–501. Hamilton, D. K. (2003). The four levels of evidence-based practice. Healthcare Design Magazine, 3, 18–26. Hanington, B. (2003). Methods in the making: A perspective on the state of human research in design. Design Issues, 19(4), 9–18. Hanna, L., Risden, K., & Alexander, K. (1997). Guidelines for usability testing with children. Interactions, 4(5), 9–14. Hargadon, A., & Sutton, R. I. (1997). Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 716–749. Hasdogan, G. (1996). The role of user models in product design for assessment of user needs. Design Studies, 17(1), 19–33. von Hippel, E. (1994). The sources of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press. Hmelo-Silver, C. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235–266. Holtzblatt, K., Wendell, J. B., & Wood, S. (2005). Rapid contextual design: A how-to guide to key techniques for user-centered design. San Francisco: Elsevier/Morgan Kaufmann. Huberman, A. M., & Miles, M. B. (1994). Data management and analysis methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 428–444). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hummels, C., Redström, J., & Koskinen, I. (2007). Design research for social scientists: Reading instructions for this issue. Knowledge, Technology & Policy, 20(1), 11–17.

224 Iivari, N. (2010). Discursive construction of “user innovations” in the open source software development context. Information and Organization, 20(2), 111–132. ISO 9241-210. (2010). Ergonomics of human system interaction-Part 210: Human-centered design for interactive systems. International Organization for Standards, Switzerland. Ives, B., & Olson, M. H. (1984). User innovation and mis success: A review of research. Management Science, 30(5), 586–603. Jacques, R. (1981). User response and housing quality. In R. Jacques & J. A. Powell (Eds.), Design, science, method: Proceedings of the 1980 Design Research Society Conference (pp. 133– 144). Guildford: Westbury House. Jones, J. C. (1992). Design methods (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley. Jones, R. (2006). Experience models: Where ethnography and design meet. Ethnographic Praxis in Industry Conference Proceedings (pp. 82–93). Portland, OR: EPIC. Jordan, A. T. (2002). Business anthropology. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland. Jordan, P. W. (2000). Designing pleasurable products. London; New York: Taylor & Francis. Jordan, P. W. (2002). Human factors for pleasure seekers. In J. Frascara (Ed.), Design and the social sciences (pp. 9–23). London; New York: Taylor & Francis. Julier, G. (2008). The culture of design (2nd ed.). Los Angeles; London: SAGE. Kang, I., Choi, J.-I., & Chang, K. (2007). Constructivist research in educational technology: A retrospective view and future prospects. Asia Pacific Education Review, 8(3), 397–412. Kaulio, M. A. (1998). Customer, consumer and user involvement in product development: A framework and a review of selected methods. Total Quality Management, 9(1), 141–149. Kelley, Thomas, & Littman, J. (2005). The ten faces of innovation: IDEO’s strategies for defeating the devil’s advocate and driving creativity throughout your organization. New York: Currency/Doubleday. Kelley, Tom, & Littman, J. (2001). The art of innovation: Lessons in creativity from IDEO, America’s leading design firm (1st ed.). New York: Currency/Doubleday. Khurana, A., & Rosenthal, S. R. (1997). Integrating the fuzzy front end of new product development. Sloan Management Review, 38(2), 103–120. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86. Klingmann, A. (2007). Brandscapes: Architecture in the experience economy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Knorr Cetina, K. (1991). Epistemic cultures: Forms of reason in science. History of Political Economy, 23(1), 105 –122. Knorr Cetina, K. (1992). The couch, the cathedral, and the laboratory: On the relationship between experiment and laboratory in science. In A. Pickering (Ed.), Science as practice and culture (pp. 113–138). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

225 Knorr Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Kokotovich, V. (2008). Problem analysis and thinking tools: An empirical study of non-hierarchical mind mapping. Design Studies, 29(1), 49–69. Kolko, J. (2010). Abductive thinking and sensemaking: The drivers of design synthesis. Design Issues, 26(1), 15–28. Kolodner, J. (1995). Design education across the disciplines. Proceedings of Second Congress on Computing in Civil Engineering (pp. 318-333). Atlanta, GA: American Society of Civil Engineers. Korobkin, B. (1975). Images for design: Communicating social science research to architects. Washington, DC: American Institute of Architects. Kouprie, M., & Sleeswijk Visser, F. (2009). A framework for empathy in design: Stepping into and out of the user’s life. Journal of Engineering Design, 20(5), 437–448. Krippendorff, K. (2005). The semantic turn: A new foundation for design. Boca Raton: CRC Press. Kristensson, P., Magnusson, P. R., & Matthing, J. (2002). Users as a hidden resource for creativity: Findings from an experimental study on user involvement. Creativity and Innovation Management, 11(1), 55–61. Kujala, S. (2003). User involvement: A review of the benefits and challenges. Behaviour & Information Technology, 22(1), 1–16. Kumar, V. (2004). User insights tool: A sharable database for user research. Institute of Design White Papers. Retrieved from http://www.id.iit.edu/news/2012/01/18/user-insights-tool- sharable-database-user-research-institute-design-white-paper-january-2004-vijay-kumar/. Kuniavsky, M. (2003). Observing the user experience: A practitioner’s guide to user research (1st ed.). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Laurel, B. (2003). Muscular design. In B. Laurel (Ed.), Design research: Methods and perspectives (pp. 16–19). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Lawson, B. (1990). How designers think (2nd ed.). London: Butterworth Architecture. Lawson, B. (2004). What designers know. Oxford [England]; Burlington, MA: Elsevier/Architectural Press. Lawson, B., & Dorst, K. (2009). Design expertise. Oxford [England]; Burlington, MA: Architectural Press. Leeuw, E. D. de, Hox, J., & Dillman, D. (2008). International handbook of survey methodology (1st ed.). New York; London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Leonard, D., & Rayport, J. F. (1997). Spark innovation through empathic design. Harvard Business Review, 75(6), 102–113.

226 Liker, J. K. (2004). The Toyota way: 14 management principles from the world’s greatest manufacturer. New York: McGraw-Hill. Love, T. (2002). Constructing a coherent cross-disciplinary body of theory about designing and designs: Some philosophical issues. Design Studies, 23(3), 345–361. Luck, R. (2007). Learning to talk to users in participatory design situations. Design Studies, 28(3), 217–242. Lynch, M. (1985). Art and artifact in laboratory science: A study of shop work and shop talk in a research laboratory. London; Boston, MA: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Van Maanen, J. (1988). Tales of the field: On writing ethnography. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Manzini, E. (2009). New design knowledge. Design Studies, 30(1), 4–12. Mao, J.-Y., Vredenburg, K., Smith, P. W., & Carey, T. (2005). The state of user-centered design practice. Communications of the ACM, 48(3), 105–109. March, L. (1984). The logic of design. In N. Cross (Ed.), Developments in design methodology (pp. 265–276). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons Inc. Margolin, V. (1988). Expanding the boundaries of design: The product environment and the new user. Design Issues, 4(1/2), 59–64. Margolin, V. (1997). Getting to know the user. Design Studies, 18(3), 227–236. Mariampolski, H. (1999). The power of ethnography. International Journal of Market Research Society, 41(1), 75–86. Martin, C. S., & Guerin, D. A. (2006). Using research to inform design solutions. Journal of Facilities Management, 4(3), 167–180. Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? American Psychologist, 59(1), 14–19. McDonagh, D., Bruseberg, A., & Haslam, C. (2002). Visual product evaluation: exploring users’ emotional relationships with products. Applied Ergonomics, 33(3), 231–240. McDonagh-Philp, D., & Lebbon, C. (2000). The emotional domain in product design. The Design Journal, 3(1), 31–43. McFall, B., & Beacham, C. (2006). Ideal design programming with photoethnographic data and systems analysis. Journal of Interior Design, 31(3), 21–34. Melican, J. P. (2000). Describing user-centered designing: How design teams apply user research data in creative problem solving. Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, IL. Melican, J. P. (2004). User studies: Finding a place in design practice and education. Visible Language, 38(2), 168–193. Merrill, M. D. (1991). Constructivism and instructional design. Educational Technology, 31(5), 45– 53. Merz, M., & Knorr Cetina, K. (1997). Deconstruction in a “thinking” science: Theoretical physicists at work. Social Studies of Science, 27(1), 73–111.

227 Mitchell, C. T. (1993). Redefining designing: from form to experience. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Mitchell, M. (1994). The views of students and teachers on the use of portfolios as a learning and assessment tool in midwifery education. Nurse Education Today, 14(1), 38–43. Molotch, H. L. (2003). Where stuff comes from: How toasters, toilets, cars, computers, and many others things come to be as they are. New York: Routledge. Mørk, B., Aanestad, M., Hanseth, O., & Grisot, M. (2008). Conflicting epistemic cultures and obstacles for learning across communities of practice. Knowledge & Process Management, 15(1), 12–23. Nelson, R. (2006). Designing to heal: A new trend in evidence-based, “nurse-friendly” hospital design. American Journal of Nursing, 106(11), 25–27. Nielsen, J., & Mack, R. L. (1994). Usability inspection methods. New York: Wiley. Norman, D. A. (2002). The design of everyday things. New York: Basic Books. Norman, D. A. (2005). Emotional design: Why we love (or hate) everyday things (1st ed.). New York: Basic Books. Nurkka, P., Kujala, S., & Kemppainen, K. (2009). Capturing users’ perceptions of valuable experience and meaning. Journal of Engineering Design, 20(5), 449–465. Oygur, I. (2010). Search for rigor in design research: An analysis of qualitative user research literature. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Design and Emotion. Chicago, IL. Oygur, I., & Blossom, N. (2010). Design and the user experience: The Turkish context. Design Issues, 26(4), 72–84. Oygur, I., & Thompson, J. A. A. (2011). Disciplinary research boundaries: A survey of user involvement approaches and methods in design. Paper presented at EDRA 42nd Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL. Pahl, G., & Beitz, W. (1984). The design process. In K. Wallace (Ed.), Engineering design: A systematic approach (2nd ed.). London: Design Council. Park, J. (2011). Developing a knowledge management system for storing and using the design knowledge acquired in the process of a user-centered design of the next generation information appliances. Design Studies, 32(5), 482–513. Pena, W., Parshall, S., & Kelly, K. (1987). Problem seeking: An architectural programming primer (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: AIA Press. Petrini, M., & Pozzebon, M. (2009). Managing sustainability with the support of business intelligence methods and tools. In S. K. Prasad, S. Routray, & R. Khurana (Eds.), Information systems, technology and management (pp. 88–99). Ghaziabad, India: Springer. Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. (2000). The knowing-doing gap: How smart companies turn knowledge into action. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Piaget, J. (1977). The development of thought: Equilibration of cognitive structures. New York: Viking Press.

228 Pickering, A. (1984). Constructing quarks: A sociological history of particle physics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Pickering, A. (1995). The mangle of practice: Time, agency, and science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Pickering, A. (Ed.). (1992). Science as practice and culture. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Pine, B. J., & Gilmore, J. H. (1999). The experience economy: Work is theatre & every business a stage. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Pink, S. (2007). Doing visual ethnography: Images, media, and representation in research (2nd ed.). London; Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Plowman, T. (2003). Ethnography and critical design practice. In B. Laurel (Ed.), Design research: Methods and perspectives (pp. 30–40). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Polanyi, M. (1967). The tacit dimension. Garden City, N.Y: Doubleday. Poynor, R. (2008). Video ethnography. Iconeye: Icon Magazine Online, 059. Retrieved from http://www.iconeye.com/read-previous-issues/icon-059-|-may-2008/video-ethnography. Preiser, W. F. E., Rabinowitz, H. Z., & White, E. T. (1988). Post-occupancy evaluation. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Pruitt, J., & Adlin, T. (2006). The persona lifecycle: Keeping people in mind throughout product design. Amsterdam; Boston, MA: Elsevier; Morgan Kaufmann. Rapoport, A. (1977). Human aspects of urban form: Towards a man-environment approach to urban form and design (1st ed.). Oxford: Pergamon Press. Rapoport, A. (2008). Environment-behavior studies: Past, present, and future. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 25(4), 276–281. Redström, J. (2006). Towards user design? On the shift from object to user as the subject of design. Design Studies, 27(2), 123–139. Reese, W. (2002). Behavioral scientists enter design: Seven critical histories. In S. Squires & B. Byrne (Eds.), Creating breakthrough ideas: The collaboration of anthropologists and designers in the product development industry (pp. 17–43). Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey. Resnick, L. B. (Ed.). (1989). Introduction. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 1–24). Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates. Rhea, D. (2003). Bringing clarity to the “fuzzy front end.” In B. Laurel (Ed.), Design research: Methods and perspectives (pp. 145–154). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. RIBA (2007). Outline plan of work. Royal Institute of British Architects. Retrieved from http://www.architecture.com/Files/RIBAProfessionalServices/Practice/OutlinePlanofWor k%28revised%29.pdf. Rich, E. (1983). Users are individuals: Individualizing user models. International Journal of Man- Machine Studies, 18(3), 199–214.

229 van Rijn, H., Sleeswijk Visser, F., Stappers, P. J., & Özakar, A. D. (2011). Achieving empathy with users: The effects of different sources of information. CoDesign, 7(2), 65–77. Robinson, L. B., & Parman, A. T. (2009). Research-inspired design: A step-by-step guide for interior designers. New York: Fairchild Books. Rohrer, C. (2008). When to use which user experience research methods. Retrieved November 28, 2009, from http://www.useit.com/alertbox/user-research-methods.html. Roozenburg, N. F. M., & Eekels, J. (1995). Product design: Fundamentals and methods. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons. Rorty, R. (1991). Objectivity, relativism, and truth. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press. Rose, G. (2007). Visual methodologies: An introduction to the interpretation of visual materials (2nd ed.). London; Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Roth, S. (1999). The state of design research. Design Issues, 15(2), 18. Rothstein, P. D. (1999). The re-emergence of ethnography in industrial design today. Paper presented at Design Education Conference, Chicago, IL. Retrieved from http://www.digitalyoni.com/Design/Anthronomics/Introductory%20Reading/The%20Re- emergence%20of%20Ethnography%20in%20Industrial%20Design%20Today.pdf. Rothstein, P. D., & Shirey, M. T. (2003). User-centered research: A status report from the field. Paper presented at IDSA National Education Conference, New York. Retrieved from http://www.idsa.org/WebModules/Articles/articlefiles/Paul_Rothstein_Michelle_Tornello. pdf. Rowe, P. G. (1987). Design thinking. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Ruetsche, L. (2001). Is science (epistemically) multicultural? Metascience, 10(1), 86–90. Salvador, T., Bell, G., & Anderson, K. (1999). Design ethnography. Design Management Journal, 10(4), 41, 35. Sanders, E. (1999). Postdesign and participatory culture. Paper presented at Useful and Critical: The Position of Research in Design, Tuusula, Finland. Retrieved from http://www.maketools.com/articles- papers/PostdesignandParticipatoryCulture_Sanders_99.pdf. Sanders, E. (2002). From user-centered to participatory design approaches. In J. Frascara (Ed.), Design and the social sciences (pp. 1–8). London; New York: Taylor & Francis. Sanders, E. (2005). Information, inspiration and co-creation. Paper presented at The 6th International Conference of the European Academy of Design, Bremen, Germany. Retrieved from http://www.maketools.com/articles- papers/InformationInspirationandCocreation_Sanders_05.pdf. Sanders, E. (2006). Design Serving People. In E. Salmi & L. Anusionwu (Eds.), Cumulus Working Papers (pp. 28–33). Helsinki, Finland: University of Art and Design. Sanders, E. (2008, December). An evolving map of design practice and design research. Interactions, XV(6), 13–17.

230 Sanders, E., & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign, 4(1), 5–18. Sandivo, V. E., & Norton, K. J. (1994). Integrated design-process model. Journal of Management in Engineering, 10(5), 55–62. Sanoff, H. (2000). Community participation methods in design and planning. New York: Wiley. Sanoff, H. (2008). Multiple views of participatory design. International Journal of Architectural Research, 2(1), 57–69. Sarker, S., Lau, F., & Sahay, S. (2000). Using an adapted grounded theory approach for inductive theory building about virtual team development. SIGMIS Database, 32(1), 38–56. Savery, J. R., & Duffy, T. M. (1996). Problem based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. In B. G. Wilson (Ed.), Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design (pp. 135–148). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications. Schifferstein, H. N. J., & Hekkert, P. (Eds.). (2008). Product Experience (1st ed.). San Diego, CA: Elsevier. Schifferstein, H. N. J., & Zwartkruis-Pelgrim, E. P. H. (2008). Consumer-product attachment: Measurement and design implications. International Journal of Design, 2(3), 1–13. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books. Schuler, D., & Namioka, A. (Eds.). (1993). Participatory design: Principles and practices (1st ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Sipos, M. A. (2009). Effective ways of teaching interior design with community linkage. Design Principles and Practices: An International Journal, 3(4), 207–218. Sleeswijk Visser, F. (2009). Bringing the everyday life of people into design. Delft, Netherlands: Delft University of Technology. Sleeswijk Visser, F., Lugt, R. V. der, & Stappers, P. J. (2007). Sharing user experiences in the product innovation process: Participatory design needs participatory communication. Creativity and Innovation Management, 16(1), 34–45. Smith, K., & Smith, C. (2012). Non-career teachers in the design studio: Economics, pedagogy and teacher development. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 31(1), 90–104. Spinuzzi, C. (2005). The methodology of participatory design. Technical Communication, 52(2), 163–174. Spiro, R. J., Feltovich, P. J., Jacobson, M. J., & Coulson, R. L. (1991). Cognitive flexibility, constructivism, and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. Educational Technology, 31(5), 24–33. Squires, S. (2002). Doing the work: Customer research in the product development and design industry. In S. Squires & B. Byrne (Eds.), Creating breakthrough ideas: The collaboration of anthropologists and designers in the product development industry (pp. 103–124). Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.

231 Squires, S., & Byrne, B. (Eds.). (2002). Creating breakthrough ideas: The collaboration of anthropologists and designers in the product development industry. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey. St Pierre, L. (2002). Reseach and design collaboration: A case study. In J. Frascara (Ed.), Design and the social sciences (pp. 135–145). London; New York: Taylor & Francis. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, `translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387–420. Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge [Cambridgeshire]; New York: Cambridge University Press. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Suchman, L. (2007). Human-machine reconfigurations: Plans and situated actions (2nd ed.). Cambridge [Cambridgeshire]; New York: Cambridge University Press. Suri, J. F. (2001). Designing experience: Whether to measure pleasure or just tune in? In W. S. Green & P. W. Jordan (Eds.), Pleasure with products: Beyond usability (pp. 162–174). London; New York: Taylor & Francis. Suri, J. F. (2003). The experience evolution: Development in design practice. The Design Journal, 6(2), 48, 39. Suri, J. F., & Howard, S. G. (2006). Going deeper, seeing further: Enhancing ethnographic interpretations to reveal more meaningful opportunities for design. Journal of Advertising Research, 46(3), 246–250. Swanson, E. B. (1974). Management information systems: Appreciation and involvement. Management Science, 21(2), 178–188. Taylor, E. M. (2009, October). 2009 survey of design research in healthcare settings: The use and impact of evidence-based design. Healthcare Design, 1–16. Tétard, F., Patokorpi, E., & Kadytė, V. (2005). User-Centred Design of Mobile Services for Tourists. In E. Lawrence, B. Pernici, & J. Krogstie (Eds.), Mobile Information Systems(pp. 155–168). New York: Springer. Traweek, S. (1988). Beamtimes and lifetimes: The world of high energy physicists. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Tunstall, E. (Dori). (2008). The QAME of trans-disciplinary ethnography: Making visible disciplinary theories of ethnographic praxis as boundary object. Ethnographic Praxis in Industry Conference Proceedings (pp. 218–233). Copenhagen, Denmark: EPIC. Ulrich, K. T., & Eppinger, S. D. (2004). Product design and development (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill/Irwin. van Veggel, R. J. F. M. (2005). Where the two sides of ethnography collide. Design Issues, 21(3), 3– 16.

232 Veryzer, R. W., & Borja de Mozota, B. (2005). The impact of user oriented design on new product development: An examination of fundamental relationships. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22(2), 128–143. Voss, A., Hartswood, M., Procter, R., Rouncefield, M., Slack, R., & Büscher, M. (Eds.). (2009). Configuring user-designer relations: Interdisciplinary perspectives. London: Springer. Voss, A., Procter, R., Slack, R., Hartswood, M., & Rouncefield, M. (2009). Design as and for collaboration: Making sense of and supporting practical action. In A. Voss, M. Hartswood, R. Procter, M. Rouncefield, R. Slack, & M. Büscher (Eds.), Configuring user-designer relations (pp. 31–58). London: Springer. Vredenburg, K., Isensee, S., & Righi, C. (2001). User-centered design: An integrated approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Vredenburg, K., Mao, J.-Y., Smith, P. W., & Carey, T. (2002). A survey of user-centered design practice. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors In Computing Systems: Changing Our World, Changing Ourselves (pp. 471–478). Minneapolis, MN: ACM. Wagner, E. L., & Newell, S. (2004). “Best” for whom?: The tension between “best practice” ERP packages and diverse epistemic cultures in a university context. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 13(4), 305–328. Wasson, C. (2000). Ethnography in the field of design. Human Organization, 59(4), 377–388. Weiss, R. S. (1995). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview studies. New York: Free Press. Weller, S. C., & Romney, A. K. (1988). Systematic data collection. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Wener, R. (2008). History and trends in environmental design research (EDR). Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 25(4), 282–297. Wichansky, A. M. (2000). Usability testing in 2000 and beyond. Ergonomics, 43(7), 998–1006. Wilson, B. G. (Ed.). (1996). Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications. Winter, R. (2008). Design science research in Europe. European Journal of Information Systems, 17(5), 470–475. Woolgar, S. (1991). Configuring the user: The case of usability trials. In J. Law (Ed.), A sociology of monsters: Essays on power, technology and domination (pp. 57–102). London: Routledge. Yin, R. K. (2008). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Zeisel, J. (2006). Inquiry by design: Environment/behavior/neuroscience in architecture, interiors, landscape, and planning (Revised ed.). New York: W. W. Norton & Company. Zimring, C. M., & Reizenstein, J. E. (1980). Post-occupancy evaluation. Environment and Behavior, 12(4), 429 –450. Zollinger, S. W., Guerin, D. A., Hadjiyanni, T., & Martin, C. S. (2009). Deconstructing service- learning: A framework for interior design. Journal of Interior Design, 34(3), 31–45.

233 APPENDIX A

PRELIMINARY SURVEY INSTRUMENT

USERS’ ROLE IN DESIGN

1. INTRODUCTION Every design process involves some type of user engagement. User input can be the result of an intuitive consideration (such as self-modeling and user scenarios) or of empirical research (such as focus groups and ethnographic studies). In both cases, users inform designers; thus, the design process.

For my doctoral dissertation, I have been studying the impact of users and various user research methods on the design process. An important part of my research involves feedback from design practitioners from different design disciplines in response to the following questionnaire.

Your input is critical to my research. It takes 5 to 10 minutes to complete the questionnaire. The questionnaire is confidential and your responses are anonymous.

Thank you very much for taking time out of your busy schedule to complete the questionnaire.

Isil Oygur PhD candidate Washington State University Spokane

2. PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND 1. What is your profession? O Architect O Graphic designer O Industrial (product) designer O Interaction designer O Interior designer O Landscape architect O Urban designer O Other (please specify)

2. I am practicing design as part of O A public organization’s in-house design team O A private corporation’s in-house design team O A freelance design office O Other (please specify)

3. Currently, in which country are you practicing design?

234 4. For how long have you been practicing design? Please include only the years since university/college graduation.

5. Through which listserv did you receive this questionnaire? O Anthrodesign O ASID O EDRA O ID forum O IDEC O PhD Design O Other (please specify)

3. USER AND USER RESEARCH 1. Which one of the following terms describes your engagement with users and user research the best? O Action research O Co-design O Contextual design O Environmental behavioral research O Evidence-based design O Experience-based design O Participatory design O User-centered design O Other (please specify)

2. Which of the following sources do you use to gain an understanding about users? Please check all that apply. O Conferences O Cultural probes O Ethnographic research O Focus group studies O Internet searches O Interviews O Intuition O Literature (books, academic journals) O Magazines O Market research data O Narrative inquiry O Observations O Participatory design exercises O Personal experiences as a user

235 O Photo-ethnography O Post-occupancy evaluation O Self-modeling (thinking of yourself as the user) O Simulations O Site visits O Surveys O Task analysis O Usability tests O Video ethnography

Please specify other sources you use that are not listed.

3. Please think about the user research phase of the projects in which you participated. Which one of the following terms explains the structure of the user research the best? O Intuitive research (designers’ investigation of users based on intuitive and experiential knowledge) O Semi-systematic research (using ad-hoc methods to conduct research without necessary training) O Systematic research (as much empirical research as possible is conducted by trained researchers)

If you have comments, please specify

4. How often do you conduct or participate in systematic user research involving empirical research methods (such as ethnographic studies, interviews, and focus groups)? O On every project O On every other project O More than three times a year O Once a year O Once in every other year O Seldom O Other (please specify)

4. DESIGN PROCESS 1. Please rate the following according to what you learn related to users in a project. A lot Some A little None N/A Demographic information O O O O O Expectations of the user O O O O O Historical information O O O O O Human factors/Ergonomic issues O O O O O Intangible needs (such as emotional needs O O O O O and dreams)

236 Limitations of a site/space O O O O O Limitations of an artifact O O O O O Possibilities with an artifact O O O O O Site inspirations O O O O O Sustainability O O O O O Tangible needs (such as physical needs) O O O O O User experiences (users’ experience with O O O O O the existing artifacts and environment)

2. Please rate the following phases of a typical design project according to the amount of user knowledge you use. A lot Some A little None N/A Programming (analyzing the design O O O O O problem) Data collection O O O O O Analysis (concept development) O O O O O Synthesis (developing solutions) O O O O O Development (detailing) O O O O O Communication (delivery of design O O O O O proposal)

3. Please rate the following components of a design outcome based on how much they are affected by the knowledge you gain from users. A lot Some A little None N/A Aesthetics/form O O O O O Color scheme O O O O O Design concept O O O O O Dimensions of the design solution O O O O O Environmental issues O O O O O Function O O O O O Human factors/Ergonomic concerns O O O O O Designed objects’/spaces’ interaction O O O O O with the environment Designed objects’/spaces’ interaction O O O O O with the user Material selection O O O O O Site selection O O O O O Usability O O O O O

4. Do you think systematic research on users involving ethnographic studies, focus groups, etc. in a design process affects the design outcome? O Yes, affects positively O Yes, affects negatively O No, the outcome does not change O Not sure

237 5. Do you think the application of systematic user research involving ethnographic studies, focus groups, etc. results in changes in the phases of design process following concept development? O Yes O No O Not sure

6. Please elaborate on your response to previous question (Question 5).

If you answered “yes,” why do you think user ______research changes other phases of design ______process? If you answered “no,” why do you think user ______research does not affect the other phases of ______design process? If you answered “not sure,” why are you not ______sure? ______

7. What is the most significant information you gain from users in a design process? ______

8. Based on your personal experience, do you see any differences between design problems that require systematic user research and those that do not?

______

5. THANKS Thank you very much for your help, time, and contribution to my study. The results of this survey will be shared publicly in the future.

If you have any questions or comments, please contact me at: e-mail: [email protected]

Isil Oygur PhD candidate Washington State University

238 APPENDIX B

PRELIMINARY SURVEY RESULTS

A. Respondents’ profile and background

Four hundred sixty-five people participated in the study. Among their responses, 366 to

section 3 were usable, and 254 to section 4 were usable. The responses of those who had not completed the sections entirely were eliminated.

The largest number of respondents were from interior design (n=127, 34.7%), followed by landscape architecture (n=70, 19.1%) (Table 1). Forty-three percent of the 366 respondents practiced design at a freelance design office in the USA (n=262, 71.6%) (Table 2). The rest were

from 28 different countries, primarily from Europe. For this sample, the mean of the years of work

experience in design is 16.4 (SD: 11.3) (Table 3).

Table 1. Distribution of the respondents’ professions

Respondents who answered Respondents who answered all sections 2 & 3 of the survey sections of the survey Profession Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage Architect 23 6.3% 13 5.1% Design researcher 22 6.0% 13 5.1% Industrial designer 34 9.3% 21 8.3% Interaction designer 35 9.6% 28 11.0% Interior designer 127 34.7% 92 36.2% Landscape architect 70 19.1% 52 20.5% Other* 55 15.0% 35 13.8% Total 366 100% 254 100% *The “other” category is composed of system designers, design strategists, design engineers, service designers, media designers, and yacht designers.

239 Table 2. Distribution of respondents’ work context

Respondents who answered Respondents who answered all

sections 2 & 3 of the survey sections of the survey Work context Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage Freelance design office 159 43.4% 107 41.8% Private corporation's in- 96 26.2% 69 27.0% house design team Public organization's in- 47 12.8% 36 14.1% house design team University 57 15.6% 37 14.5% Other* 7 1.9% 7 2.7% Total 366 100% 256 100% *The “other” category is composed of people working at multiple contexts.

Table 3. Work Experience of each profession in years

Respondents who answered Respondents who answered all sections 2 & 3 of the survey sections of the survey Profession Mean Range Mean Range Architect 16.0 0-42 21.4 0-42 Design researcher 12.8 3-30 11.5 3-20 Industrial designer 9.2 1-35 10.5 3-35 Interaction designer 14.4 2-40 13.9 3-35 Interior designer 19.4 0-45 21.5 0-45 Landscape architect 16.3 0-43 17.5 0-43 Other* 17.2 1-45 18.2 2-40 Total 16.4 0-45 17.9 0-45 *The “other” category is composed of system designers, design strategists, design engineers, service designers, media designers, and yacht designers.

B. Respondents’ approach to user and user research

The majority of the sample, with the exception of landscape architects, defined their user involvement as user-centered design (n=133, 36.3%) (Table 4). Landscape architects preferred the term participatory design (n=19, 27.1%). However, it is also important to note that some respondents did not see a value in defining exclusive differentiations among these terms.

240 Table 4. Distribution of user involvement approaches by designers

Action research Co-design Contextual design Environmental behavior research Evidence- design based Experience- design based Participatory design User-centered design Other* 1 2 2 1 4 10 3 Architect 0 0 (4.3%) (8.7%) (8.7%) (4.3%) (17.4%) (43.5%) (13.0%) Design 1 1 4 1 3 11 1 0 0 researcher (4.5%) (4.5%) (18.2%) (4.5%) (13.6%) (50.0%) (4.5%) Industrial 1 3 1 4 4 2 19 0 0 designer (2.9%) (8.8%) (2.9%) (11.8%) (11.8%) (5.9%) (55.9%) Interaction 1 1 3 1 3 23 3 0 0 designer (2.9%) (2.9%) (8.6%) (2.9%) (8.6%) (65.7%) (8.6%) Interior 5 5 2 10 14 33 11 37 10 designer (3.9%) (3.9%) (1.6%) (7.9%) (11.0%) (26.0%) (8.7%) (29.1%) (7.9%) Landscape 2 1 5 6 8 10 19 12 7 architect (2.9%) (1.4%) (7.1%) (8.6%) (11.4%) (14.3%) (27.1%) (17.1%) (10.0%) 6 5 2 1 6 6 21 8 Other 0 (10.9%) (9.1%) (3.6%) (1.8%) (10.9%) (10.9%) (38.2%) (14.5%) 17 16 15 27 23 55 48 133 32 Total (4.6%) (4.4%) (4.1%) (7.4%) (6.3%) (15%) (13.1%) (36.3%) (8.7%) *The “other” category includes universal design, architectural programming, integral design, and the comments from respondents who indicated that they were not sure about the differences among the terms.

This sample’s approach to user-centered design reportedly takes place mostly through the use of intuitive methods rather than systematic methods (Table 5). Only design researchers (n=18,

81.8%) and interaction designers (n=12, 40%) stated that they engage with systematic research more than with intuitive and semi-systematic research. This was an expected finding because of the background of design researchers and the longer history of user-centeredness in interaction design.

The respondents also noted that a project can involve a combination or all three of the user involvement approaches. While user input was mentioned as necessary for all projects, the respondents did not think it necessary for the systematic user research. The projects that require intuitive or systematic research are differentiated based on designers’ familiarity with the project type, the definition of the design problem within the design brief, the complexity of the project, the budget, and the schedule.

241 Table 5. Distribution of user involvement type

Intuitive Semi-systematic Systematic research research research 7 12 4 Architect (30.4%) (52.2%) (17.4%) Design 2 2 18 researcher (9.1%) (9.1%) (81.8%) Industrial 17 9 8 designer (50.0%) (26.5%) (23.5%) Interaction 8 13 14 designer (22.9%) (37.1%) (40.0%) Interior 80 31 16 designer (63.0%) (24.4%) (12.6%) Landscape 39 20 11 architect (55.7%) (28.6%) (15.7%) 13 22 20 Other (23.6%) (40.0%) (36.4%) 166 109 91 Total 45.4% 29.8% 24.9%

While in their qualitative answers designers stated that they appreciate systematic research on users, the responses to the frequency of systematic research conduct spike on “in every project”

(n=111, 30.3%) and “seldom” (n=105, 29.7%) (Table 6). The respondents noted that the conduct of systematic research is dependent on the project, budget, and schedule. When they conduct research on users, this group mostly depends on methods such as observation, interview, site visit, personal experience, ethnography, and usability tests (Table 7). The number of user involvement methods practiced range between 1 and 22 with the mean 9.7 (SD: 4.3) (Table 8).

242

Table 6. The frequency of systematic research conducted on users

On every More than On every Once every other three times Once a year Seldom Other project other year project a year 4 2 3 3 2 6 3 Architect (17.4%) (8.7%) (13.0%) (13.0%) (8.7%) (26.1%) (13.0%) Design 14 3 2 1 2 0 0 researcher (63.6%) (13.6%) (9.1%) (4.5%) (9.1%) Industrial 13 2 4 3 1 8 3 designer (38.2%) (5.9%) (11.8%) (8.8%) (2.9%) (23.5%) (8.8%) Interaction 9 10 5 2 1 5 3 designer (25.7%) (28.6%) (14.3%) (5.7%) (2.9%) (14.3%) (8.6%) Interior 34 4 16 4 3 55 11 designer (26.8%) (3.1%) (12.6%) (3.1%) (2.4%) (43.3%) (8.7%) Landscape 10 7 11 7 1 24 10 architect (14.3%) (10.0%) (15.7%) (10.0%) (1.4%) (34.3%) (14.3%) 27 9 1 7 2 5 4 Other (49.1%) (16.4%) (1.8%) (12.7%) (3.6%) (9.1%) (7.3%) 111 37 42 26 11 105 34 Total (30.3%) (10.1%) (11.5%) (7.1%) (3.0%) (28.7%) (9.3%)

Table 7. The user involvement methods applied most and least by designers

Most used 2nd most used 3rd most used Least used 2nd least used 3rd least used Observation Interview Site visit Cultural probes Video eth. Usability tests Architect 21 19 16 2 2 3 (91.3%) (82.6%) (69.6%) (8.7%) (8.7%) (13%) Ethnography Interview Observation POE Simulation Narrative inquiry Design 20 19 18 3 4 6 researcher (90.9%) (86.4%) (81.8%) (13.6%) (18.2%) (27.3%) Observation Interview Ethnography Conferences Narrative inquiry Industrial POE 31 24 21 6 7 designer 0 (91.2%) (70.6%) (61.8%) (17.6%) (20.6%) Interview Usability tests Observation Video eth. Photo-eth. Interaction POE 33 29 27 4 5 designer 0 (94.3%) (82.9%) (77.1%) (11.4%) (14.3%) Interview Site visits Observation Video eth. Photo-eth. Usability tests Interior 113 111 101 1 8 9 designer (89.0%) (87.4%) (79.5%) (0.8%) (6.3%) (7.1%) Site visit Observation Personal exp. Video eth. Usability tests Photo-eth. Landscape 58 55 52 2 4 5 architect (82.9%) (78.6%) (74.3%) (2.9%) (5.7%) (7.1%) Observation Interview Personal exp. POE Simulation Cultural probes Other 46 43 38 5 17 18 (83.6%) (78.2%) (69.1%) (9.1%) (30.9%) (32.7%) Observation Interview Site visit Video eth. Simulation Cultural probes Total 299 297 267 58 70 76 (81.7%) (81.1%) (73.0%) (0.2%) (19.1%) (20.8%)

243 Table 8. The number of user involvement methods practiced by designers

The number of user involvement methods XSDRange Architect 8.1 3.9 1-14 Design researcher 11.5 5.0 3-20 Industrial designer 10.2 4.3 1-19 Interaction designer 10.6 4.3 3-21 Interior designer 9.1 3.6 1-21 Landscape architect 8.7 4.1 1-22 Other 11.2 5.4 1-21 Total 9.7 4.3 1-22

C. Respondents’ user-centered design process

Designers are mostly interested in users’ expectations, site limitations (for architects,

industrial designers, and landscape architects), tangible needs, and experiences (tables 9 and 10). The median for all these factors is 3. The qualitative answers to questions about the most significant type of user information in a process cluster around understanding functionality and usability needs of users, prioritizing the needs and wants, and studying all aspects of the users’ problems. The information from users is more influential on design concept, user-product interaction, function, human factors, and usability features of a design solution. These features of a design outcome were rated with a mean of 3, while for the rest the mean was 2 (tables 11 and 12).

244 Table 9. The rank order of what designers learn related to user in a project *

Design factor Mode Mdn X SD Demographic information n 222.00.8 Expectations of the user n 332.70.5 Historical information n 221.90.8 Human factors/Ergonomic issues 3 2 2.2 0.9 Intangible needs (such as emotional 3 2 2.0 0.9 needs and dreams) Limitations of a site/space n 332.50.8 Limitations of an artifact n 222.00.9 Possibilities with an artifact n 222.00.8 Site inspirations n 222.10.8 Sustainability 2 2 1.9 0.9 Tangible needs (such as physical needs) 3 3 2.6 0.7 User experiences (users' experience with 3 3 2.6 0.6 the existing artifacts and environment) *Rated on a 4-point scale, ranging from 0 (none) to 3 (a lot).

Table 10. The rank order of what each profession learns related to user in a project *

Design Industrial Interaction Interior Landscape Architect research design design design architecture Other Design factor Mode Mdn Mode Mdn Mode Mdn Mode Mdn Mode Mdn Mode Mdn Mode Mdn Demographic 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 information n Expectations of the user 3 3 3 33333333 3 33 Historical information 2 2 2 22222222 2 22 Human factors/ 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 3 3 Ergonomic issues Intangible needs 2 2 3 3 3 3 1 1.5 1 1.5 2 2 3 2 Limitations of a 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 site/space n Limitations of an artifact 2 2 3 2.53322221 2 32 Possibilities with an 1, 2 1.5 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 artifact n Site inspirations n 3 2.5 1 1 2 2 1, 2 2 1, 2 2 3 2 3 2 Sustainability 2 2 1 1 1, 21.5 11113 2 11 Tangible needs 3 3 3 3 2, 32 1 2 1, 22 3 3 3 3 User experiences 3 3 3 33333333 3 33 *Rated on a 4-point scale, ranging from 0 (none) to 3 (a lot).

245 Table 11. The rank order of design features based on how much they are affected by the designers’ user information *

Design features Mode Mdn X SD Aesthetics/form 2 2 2.2 0.7 Color scheme 2 2 1.9 0.9 Design concept 3 3 2.5 0.7 Designed objects’/spaces’ interaction with the 2 2 2.2 0.8 environment Designed objects’/spaces’ interaction with the user 3 3 2.5 0.7 Dimensions of the design 2 2 2.2 0.8 solution Environmental issues 2 2 2.0 0.8 Function 3 3 2.8 0.5 Human factors/ Ergonomic concerns 3 3 2.4 0.7 Material selection 2 2 2.0 0.8 Site selection 2 2 2.0 0.9 Usability 3 3 2.6 0.6 *Rated on a 4-point scale, ranging from 0 (none) to 3 (a lot).

Table 12. The rank order of design features based on how much they are affected by each profession’s user information *

Design Industrial Interaction Interior Landscape Architect research design design design architecture Other Design feature Mode Mdn Mode Mdn Mode Mdn Mode Mdn Mode Mdn Mode Mdn Mode Mdn Aesthetics/form 3 2 2 22222222 2 22 Color scheme 2 2 1, 2 22222221 1 32 Design concept 3 3 3 33333333 2.5 33 Designed objects’/ spaces’ interaction with 2 2 2 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 the environment Designed objects’/ spaces’ interaction with 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 the user Dimensions of the 2 2 2 2 2, 32 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 design solution Environmental issues 2 2 2 22222222 2 22 Function 3 3 3 33333333 3 33 Human factors/ 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 3 Ergonomic concerns Material selection 2 2 2 21211112 2 22 Site selection 3 2 2 12211.511.53 2 22 Usability 3 2.5 3 33333333 3 33 *Rated on a 4-point scale, ranging from 0 (none) to 3 (a lot).

246 For the majority of the sample, systematic user research at the fuzzy-front end of design

affects the other stages of the design process1 (n=156, 61.4%) (Table 13) and positively impacts the design outcome (n=187, 73.6%) (Table 14). Most of the respondents who answered that systematic user research at the fuzzy-front end does affect the following stages claimed that the in-depth analysis of the design problem should be conducted early on and problems should be resolved before moving along. Respondents who were not sure about the impact of systematic research explained that the issue is project dependent and cannot be generalized. Some of these respondents also avoided giving an answer because they lacked enough experience with systematic research.

Table 13. The distribution of the change in the phases of design process following concept development as a result of systematic user research

Yes No Not sure 7 3 3 Architect (53.8%) (23.1%) (23.1%) 11 2 Design researcher 0 (84.6%) (15.4%) 15 6 Industrial designer 0 (71.4%) (28.6%) 26 1 1 Interaction designer (92.9%) (3.6%) (3.6%) 40 11 41 Interior designer (43.5%) (12.0%) (44.6%) 30 7 15 Landscape architect (57.7%) (13.5%) (28.8%) 27 8 Other 0 (77.1%) (22.9%) 156 22 76 Total (61.4%) (8.7%) (29.9%)

1 The only exceptional profession is interior design. The majority of interior designers are not sure about the change in the design stages following concept development (n=41, 44.6%).

247 Table 14. The distribution of how systematic research on users affects the design outcome

Yes, affects Yes, affects No, the outcome Not sure positively negatively does not change 10 1 2 Architect 0 (76.9%) (7.7%) (15.4%) 13 Design researcher 0 0 0 (100%) 17 1 1 2 Industrial designer (81%) (4.8%) (4.8%) (9.5%) 26 2 Interaction designer 0 0 (92.9%) (7.1%) 57 2 7 26 Interior designer (62%) (2.2%) (7.6%) (28.3%) 35 2 2 13 Landscape architect (67.3%) (3.8%) (3.8%) (25%) 29 1 1 4 Other (82.9%) (2.9%) (2.9%) (11.4%) 187 6 12 49 Total (73.6%) (2.4%) (4.7%) (19.3%)

For the respondents who claimed that systematic research affects the design process, the main argument is that systematic research informs designers and helps them develop insights regarding the target users of the design outcome. As the project progresses, designers check back on these insights and information. However, some respondents noted that systematic research in the fuzzy-front end does not “change” but does “impact” the rest of the project. While systematic research in the fuzzy-front end influences major decisions, the impact of systematic research later in the process is not on decision making. It helps in developing more accurate user images and adjusting design solutions based on this updated user image. Consequently, user information informs all stages of a design process; however, the level of the effect changes. The answers to the question “Please rate the following phases of a typical design project according to the amount of user knowledge you use” supports this finding. Archer’s (1984) 6-stage design process model was used in this question. The medians regarding user information use for programming, data collection, analysis, synthesis, development, and communication stages were 3, 3, 3, 3, 2, and 3, respectively

(tables 15 and 16).

248 Table 15. Stages of a Design Process Rated According to the Extent to Which Designers Employ Users’ Information *

Stages of a design process Mode Mdn X SD Programming (analyzing the 3 3 2.6 0.6 design problem) Data collection 3 3 2.5 0.6 Analysis (concept 3 3 2.6 0.6 development) Synthesis (developing 3 3 2.5 0.6 solutions) Development (detailing) 3 2 2.3 0.7 Communication (delivery of 3 3 2.6 0.7 design proposal) *Rated on a 4-point scale, ranging from 0 (none) to 3 (a lot).

Table 16. Stages of a design process rated according to the extent to which each profession employs user information *

Design Industrial Interaction Interior Landscape Architect research design design design architecture Other Design factor Mode Mdn Mode Mdn Mode Mdn Mode Mdn Mode Mdn Mode Mdn Mode Mdn Programming 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 Data collection 3 3 3 3 3 3 2, 32 2, 32 2 2 3 3 Analysis 3 3 3 3 2, 32.5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Synthesis 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Development 2 2 2, 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 3 3 Communication 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 *Rated on a 4-point scale, ranging from 0 (none) to 3 (a lot).

The significance of user information use at different stages was tested using the non- parametric statistics of Friedman two-way analysis of variance. There was a statistically significant difference in the extent to which designers employed user information depending on the stage of a design process, X2(5) = 49.128, P = 0.01. Post-hoc analysis with Wilcoxon signed-rank tests was conducted (Table 17). A Bonferroni correction applied for these tests, resulting in a significance level set at P < 0.0007. There were no significant differences between programming and data collection (Z=-1.961, P=0.050), programming and analysis (Z=-0.666, P=0.505), programming and synthesis (Z=-1.033, P=0.302), programming and communication (Z=-1.202, P=0.229), data collection and analysis (Z=-1.320, P=0.187), data collection and synthesis (Z=-0.706, P=0.480), data

249 collection and communication (Z=-0.702, P=0.483), analysis and synthesis (Z=-0.727, P=0.467), analysis and communication (Z=-0.557, P=0.578), or synthesis and communication (Z=-0.072, P=0.

943). However, there was a statistically significant difference between programming and development (Z=-5.025, P=0.001), data collection and development (Z=-3.722, P=0.001), analysis and development (Z=-5.203, P=0. 001), synthesis and development (Z=-5.113, P=0.001), and between development and communication (Z=-4.448, P=0.001).

Table 17. Wilcoxon signed-rank test results for the extent to which designers consider user information at different stages of a design process

Programming – collection Data Programming – Analysis Programming – Synthesis Programming - Development Programming - Communication – collection Data Analysis - collection Data Synthesis - collection Data Detailing - collection Data Communication Analysis - Synthesis Analysis - Detailing Analysis - Communication - Synthesis Detailing - Synthesis Communication Detailing - Communication -1.96 -.66 -1.03 -5.02 -1.20 -1.32 -.70 -3.72 -.702 -.72 -5.20 -.55 -5.11 -.07 -4.44 Z (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (b) (b) (a) (b) (a) (a) (a) (a) (b) (b) Asymp. Sig. (2- .050 .505 .302 .000* .229 .187 .480 .000* .483 .467 .000* .578 .000* .943 .000* tailed) (a) Based on positive ranks. (b) Based on negative ranks. (c) Wilcoxon Signed-Ranks Test * P < 0.0007

250

APPENDIX C

THE BUILDING AS A PUZZLE: PILOT STUDY REPORT

1. Overview of the consultancy Date: August 2010 Arch0 is a medium-sized architectural, planning, and Observation duration: 10 days (57 hours 40 minutes) interior design consultancy. The consultancy has offered design Collected data include: services since the 1990s and has experience in retail, corporate 3 interviews: principal & 2 associate principals campus, aviation, office, entertainment, medical, and educational 5 client interactions observed 6 site visits with designers buildings.

At the time of the study, consultancy included less than 15 employees. Among these employees, the majority were architects in the position of principal, associate principal, intern

architect, and staff architect. There was one interior designer.

A team of designers is assigned for each project. The teams range from two designers to

four designers. Within each team, there is an associate principal who leads the team and serves as a

project manager. This person is the main point of contact for the client; s/he coordinates the

communication between the Consultancy and the client (as well as the users). The principal oversees

every project. It was observed that, in some projects, the principal also serves as a project manager.

2. Findings

2.1. The Perspective on User and User Research

In Arch0, the user population is classified into four main

groups: client (owner), occupant, temporary user, and

machinery/object (Figure 1). The client is the main point of contact

and the one who generally makes payment for the design service.

Figure 1. User categories

251

Based on the project, the client can be represented by a building committee or an individual. The occupant category further divides into two groups based on their occupation in a building or in an interior: primary users (e.g. teachers at a school) and secondary users (e.g. students at a school).

Temporary occupants of a building or interior are the people who visit the building for a short duration, e.g. shoppers at a mall. The last group, machinery/object, corresponds to industrial machinery or objects that define the design of a building or an interior. Based on the building type, machinery/objects can become the main focus of the process and user of the building. For example, in one of the projects, every design decision was based on making the crane, which will be placed inside the building, work properly. In another, dumpsters, rather than the client or the occupants, defined the shape and the size of the fencing.

In Arch0 projects, the client decides on the occupants’ and temporary users’ involvement in a design process. While the conversations regarding users in the consultancy include all four user categories, the main user input provider for the design process is the client. Occasionally, occupants are also studied, mostly in the primary user category. The consultancy does not do research on temporary users often, although this group is often mentioned while explaining a Figure 2. A mannequin figure as a decoration design project. The user categories other than the client are equivalent object to any other factor (e.g. budget, site, code) that affects the design process (Figure 2).

Rather than engaging in an interaction with all user categories, the designers at Arch0 prefer contacting a single person who is either the client or someone who represents the client. They explain that the design process goes much smoother with that kind of arrangement. “When users clutter the design process” (architect), designers claim, they get lost within personal wish lists that are mostly unrealistic and very subjective.

252

The involvement of users in a design process (and eventually the user research methods) change based on client, budget, schedule, project type (design-bid-build, design-build), project category (residential, office, commercial, hospitality, etc.), complexity of the design problem, and site. In some projects, clients can be involved and have a lot of control; in other cases they have only symbolic involvement (involvement role categories are used as they are defined by Ives and Olson

(1984)). In all projects, the client makes the final decisions regarding a design. Designers see the client (either an individual, a group of people, or a building design committee) as an outside member of their team. Consequently, those clients who have strong involvement in the design process claim ownership of the design solution and explain the solution using words such as “my design” (client).

In one such interaction between a client and a designer, the designer gave special attention to making “recommendations” regarding decisions and specifically said, “I recommend” while making design suggestions.

There is a distinction between “needs” and “wants” of the user. The priority is meeting the needs. The wants are addressed based on budget and schedule. The needs are defined primarily by functionality and space requirements. The designers aim the end product to function properly for the user (e.g., mostly the client and the primary occupants).

Four of the architects suggested that user research is a tool in the architectural design process to make the user feel a part of the building or interior to be designed. When users are asked to provide their perspective, they become interested in the design. Also, the designers felt this action communicated to the users that “they are heard” (architect). In some cases, designers specifically included the ideas that come from users in their design solutions. In other cases, if the user’s idea was too unrealistic, rather than immediately refusing the idea, the designers would conduct research to explain why it was not realistic to include the user’s idea.

253

User research (and research in general) is evaluated as a tool to start the design process.

Research does not stop throughout the design process, as architectural problems require continuous input and feedback from the client. Because of this continuous information exchange, user research is an interactive phenomenon for Arch0. As the experience of the designer increases, systematic user research becomes a more important part of the process.

2.2. User Research Methods

While the user research methods applied in a design process change from one project to another, in general, Arch0 practices intuitive and semi-systematic research. Designers listed site visits, surveys, internet research (about the client and about similar buildings/interiors), meetings

(including personal conversations), studying programming documents, interviews, observations, walkthroughs, site surveys, previous projects, and scrapbooking as the methods they apply (methods are listed in order of rank based on free listing results) (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Designers’ user research methods. From left to right, digital cameras to photograph exisiting client facilities and rulers are primary pieces of equipment; designers might need to record the client’s existing equipment to design accordingly; and designers visualize the users’ needs while sketching at their desks.

The consultancy’s architects and interior designer do not see research as part of their services. The consensus among the consultancy’s designers is that the research data needs to be submitted to them by the client. On the other hand, throughout my visit at the consultancy, I observed several research processes that were conducted by the consultancy’s designers, mostly by

254

the interior designer. The interior designer does not think of herself as a researcher; she does not

believe that she is knowledgeable in conducting research. However, both the principal and the

architects associate design research with the interior designer.

Experience from past projects and knowledge on designing a building category are evaluated as main methods to provide input into a project. In the proposals that the consultancy submits,

there is always a section with the title “relevant experience.”

Most of the data collection takes place through client meetings or site visits. Designers were

observed spending at least half of their day out of the office for client meetings, site visits,

construction administration, etc.

Information from the client, occupants, site, and context is stored in project binders. In each

project binder, there is a section for the photographs that are taken of the site. These photographs

are stored together with field notes including items on user’s existing space solutions, needs, and

behaviors.

While Arch0 uses questionnaires on some projects, they always try to triangulate this

information, as users can misinterpret the questions. For example, the consultancy used a

questionnaire to estimate the employee growth for a project. Most of those who responded to the

questionnaire provided wrong answers, as they misinterpreted the questions. Therefore, Arch0

preferred having a meeting to go over questionnaire results.

In design bid build projects, generally the client gives the programming data to the

consultancy. However, this data is found to be neither comprehensive nor explanatory. The

provided document from the client lists the criteria for design, but as the designers cannot

understand how these criteria are set, they struggle to make sense of the provided data. Even if

programming data is provided to the consultancy, the designers spend time studying the client. In

255

these cases, the methods are generally limited to studying programming documents, site visits,

internet research, and interviews.

Two of the designers believe that users can understand the project better when they see

visual elements. For example, at a client meeting early in a design process, the designers used a white

board to draw plans and communicate their message better. In this meeting, users also used

drawings to better explain their needs and wants. In addition to this type of approach, occasionally

designers showed images to users to better understand what users want. In residential projects,

designer might also ask users to develop a scrapbook or collect images that represent their

preferences.

In addition to the collected data, the communication of the data to the design team in a

comprehensive format gains significance in Arch0. Designers in general do not like the user research

results that are shared in the form of a text. One of the architects noted that rather than reviewing

the project binder to reach the information, he wants this information to be ready available within a

single sheet in the form of a matrix.

2.3. Collected User Information

At the beginning of a project, the design team tries to clarify the design problems by collecting information to answer “who, why, what, where, when, and how much” questions. The aim is to collect information in order not to make “wild guesses” throughout the design process

(architect). At the same time, designers do not want users to share their design solutions, but rather define the design problem. The information that is transferred to the design process is used primarily for four main purposes at Arch0:

a) Factual information: This information type includes facts gathered from existing conditions or future forecasts regarding the client’s firm, existing building, and site (including size, function, volume, occupant load, etc.). The design team is mostly interested in collecting factual data that will

256

shape their decision-making process. For example, in a client meeting agenda, some of the discussion items included code review, full-time employee growth, department workflow, storage/supplies, and wish list. All the discussion items were focused on collecting tangible information (most of which sets the design criteria).

b) Constraints (limitations and requirements): Factual information and constraints are closely

linked. Each fact can inform codes and ADA requirements. For example, an employee forecast of

an office also defines the required number of rooms, code requirements, etc. that limit possible

design solutions.

In addition to facts, the client “wants” define constraints for designers. One such want is

related to the “feel” of an environment. All the designers at Arch0 listed “feel” as one type of

information they need to gather before developing design solutions. The feel includes the desired

atmosphere of the space. Examples include open space versus cubicles, and no window

environment versus spacious environment.

As described by Archer (1984), designers use constraints together with facts to define the

area of maneuver for developing solutions. Each constraint and/or fact defines the “boundaries of a

field” for possible design solutions and designers take actions (maneuvers) within this field to

develop the best fit for the design problem (Archer, 1984, p. 67).

c) Client feedback (approval/rejection): Client feedback is the most significant input into the design process. At each step in the design process, designers ask the client to give comments on outcomes of the design process, including pre-design report, schematic design alternatives, material selections, construction drawings, etc. This feedback is given either during client meetings or through document exchanges.

d) Inspirational information: This is the least documented information type at Arch0. Even though none of the designers noted that they were inspired by the users, they were all observed

257

talking about the image of a client. Early in the design process, designers create a persona that defines the user and make design decisions based on this persona. In this sense, this persona inspires the designers.

One of the architects noted at a client meeting that the early research process resembles a funnel. The design team first collects a massive amount of information, and then tries to minimize the information to focus on the items that can really guide the design process. This funnel process was observed to happen in two ways (Figure 4). Either the client representative or the design team collects information from the occupants and temporary users of an environment. This information is analyzed. Needs and priorities are defined either by the design team or the client representative.

Finally, more readily available data is transferred to the design process.

Figure 4. Two methods of user information transfer at Arch0

The information collected within a design process is constantly changing. In the later stages of a design process, the user might change his or her idea, or others who have different ideas can get involved in the process. Therefore, as one of the architects noted, “You almost have to design for a changing user.”

The user information collected in Arch0’s design process is not used only by the consultancy. This information also serves as a resource for the client’s firm to make decisions

258

regarding its future and helps the client ask the right questions. The research process forces the

client to do a self-analysis.

In addition to this information, designers also want to know where the information comes

from. This phenomenon is listed as one of the shortcomings of design-bid-build projects. In design-

bid-built projects, the programming data together with all the necessary information is handed to the

designers. From time to time, constraints are listed in these documents that designers do not

understand. This limits the designers’ ability to make suggestions to solve design problems.

According to one of the architects, the client (as well as the other types of users) can provide

the most significant information when they see drawings. When users are not presented with

drawings, they do not know what to share with the designers. Drawings become the medium for

clients to provide further information on a project. Therefore, some designers at Arch0 prefer starting the schematic design early in the process.

2.4. Synthesis of User Information

2.4.1. Design process

Arch0’s research process helps designers to make insightful assumptions within the design process regarding the interaction of design outcomes with the users. “The research process programs designers like computers to develop probable design solutions” (architect). The collected information is filtered based on the designer’s priorities for problem solving. This information stays in the designers’ minds and helps designers to see the possibilities within the existing situation. The user data that is stored in the designer’s memory defines the area of maneuver as defined by Archer

(1984). The user-related questions and collected information become more detail-oriented from the programming phase to the construction administration phase.

While solving design problems, designers develop stories about the interaction of the end product with the user. This approach is most dominant at the concept development and schematic

259

design phases. In an early phase of a school project, designers envisioned students using an area for

social gathering. They had not conducted research on students, but based on their previous

experiences as students, designers decided to move the lockers to another location and instead

placed seating units in this location in order to increase the interaction between students. As

exemplified in this case, designers develop a narration about the use of the space and develop design

solutions based on this narration.

In the design development phase, designers mostly rely on plans for solving design

problems. AutoCAD is the main software used to develop design solutions. Some designers were

also observed using SketchUp, Revit, and Photoshop. In some cases, designers used AutoCAD and

SketchUp simultaneously. On these occasions, the SketchUp model included a human figure for

scale (Figure 5). Designers made changes in SketchUp, saw the effect of the change in the context of the human figure, and updated the AutoCAD drawing.

Figure 5. The use of human figures in 3D modeling software

In the design development phase, the integration of user-research results also takes place through codes and ADA requirements. Based on initial research results, designers define the requirements and develop design solutions to meet these requirements.

In a design process, “Somebody has to make choices” (principal). In the design development process, that somebody is usually the designer. While working on plans, designers make choices based on the maneuver space defined by the research results. Through weekly or bi-weekly client 260

meetings, designers get feedback on their solutions. These meetings include new-user information for designers, as users (mostly the client) keep sharing more information based on the design solutions they see.

The construction phase of a design process generates information regarding the use,

function, and feel of design outcomes for future projects. In most cases, designers cannot fully

envision the constructed building or interior. Their trips to construction sites include surprises for

designers. In one such instance, the designers self-modeled themselves as end-users; they tested and

criticized the design solutions. At another visit to a construction site, designers discussed their color

selections and the aesthetics of a seating unit (Figure 6). This discussion included phrases such as

“Next time, we need to use …” (interior designer).

Figure 6. Designers testing the solutions and making observations at a construction site and a newly opened building

The integration of user information later in the construction process mostly includes

developing the solutions that first come to mind. This situation was experienced in a coffee shop

design project (Figure 7). The client for the coffee shop was not happy with the counter where the

coffee would be served. According to the client, the solution was not successful in terms of meeting

the needs of the coffee preparation process. It was found that the counter used to serve coffee to

the customers was not within easy reach. Based on clients’ comments, designers immediately created

261

a solution and decided to lower a part of the counter. However, the final solution came from the consultant. Instead, the consultant suggested extending the counter for easy reach.

Figure 7. Developing solutions for a coffee counter based on client comments

2.4.2. Design features

Most of the information collected through research informs quantity-related features of a project.

According to an architect, “The information is translated into a physical thing whether it is a size or a volume.”

The only user-related information on the title pages of construction drawing documents is also quantity related Figure 8. A detail from the cover page of construction drawings (Figure 8). In these documents, the occupant load is listed in terms of area and exit needs. Other quantity-related features include size of rooms, number of rooms, number of occupants in a room, code-related requirements based on the number of occupants, etc.

Besides quantity-related features, user research information also defines adjacencies, use and function of a space, and needs of occupants (including security, privacy, storage, and IT requirements) of a project. For example, Arch0 conducted a survey to collect information from department heads for an office environment. The survey included questions on function of the space, staff projection for the next 5 years regarding common areas that the office members should

262

share, and the significance of these common areas. These survey results together with client

interviews helped the design team to define the number of rooms, size of rooms, number of

occupants, adjacencies, code requirements, parking requirements, and function of rooms.

For architects and the interior designer at Arch0, plans

represent function. While working on developing layout solutions,

designers define the function and use of each space in relation to each

other space (Figure 9).

Even if most of the collected data entails fact- or constraint- related information, designers also develop an image of the client through Figure 9. Space analysis the research process and try to uncover the feel that the client wants to through sketching experience within the constructed spaces. The image of the client helps the designers make functional, aesthetic, material, furniture, and color decisions. For example, in a conversation regarding the furniture selection for a space, the interior designer evaluated the options based on their resemblance to the client firm’s brand identity.

3. Analysis and discussion

In architecture and interior design, each design process and solution is case specific. There is always a predefined client and a primary occupant population of a project. As each case is defined based on these groups’ needs and wants, it is not possible to develop generalizable solutions from research phases. On the other hand, designers transfer knowledge about secondary users and temporary users from one project to the other. For example, Arch0 was working on a school design.

While the designers had a chance to collect information on the client and teachers (primary occupants), students (secondary users) and temporary users were not included in the process.

Designers used their prior knowledge of students’ experience in an education environment from their previous projects together with their past experiences as a student.

263

The user is not a stable factor in an architectural/interior design process. Since there is

continual interaction with the client, the information from users is constantly changing within the

various stages of the design process. Consequently, the designer reconstructs the user image in his/her

mind based on the feedback from the client.

The user information collected at Arch0 consists mostly of factual data and constraints. This

information is used in the process to make size- and function-related decisions. While designers do

not review the collected data within the later stages of design, they define the primary data early in the process and keep it in mind while solving the design problem. For example, based on the client’s information, the interior designer develops an image for that client together with the feel the interior needs to communicate. While making material, furniture, and color selections later in the process, the interior designer refers back to this information stored in her mind. While answering architects’ questions on interiors, the interior designer’s answer included statements such as “That is not like

…” and “This does not feel like …”

The architect and the interior designer play the role of a dictator or an order-filler, depending

on the situation. In the design development phase, the designers make decisions that define the

environment in which the client will live. In this sense, the designer dictates the kind of space the

user will live in. On the other hand, the client is the one who tells the designer what to do. The client

is the one who decides on other users’ involvement in the process, and he/she approves or rejects

the design solutions. From this perspective, the designer is the order-filler who gets comments from

the client. These comments from time to time include indications of preferences that are

contradictory to those of the designers. However, the designers have no other choice but to meet

the client’s wants. For example, in one of the buildings I visited, the interior designer had selected a

paint color, but the client changed the designer’s selection. At the end, the interior designer did not

264

like the end solution and did not want to be associated with the work; the user was happy with the

outcome.

In an architectural design project, the design solutions do not always come from the

architect or the designer. As an architect explained, the consultants might have better design

solutions than the architects. This was also observed in a consultant meeting. At this meeting,

designers and consultants were building on each other’s ideas to develop the design solution. Arch0

had developed the programming document for the project, but they did not share the programming

data with the consultants. As a result, the potential exists for the research results to get lost while solving design problems collaboratively, as consultants are not included in the research process.

There was an observed connection between the graphic software and the integration of user

information into the design process. Most of the designers were using AutoCAD as the main project

development program. None of the AutoCAD drawings included human figures (there was only one

set of construction drawings with human figures, and this drawings were given to Arch0 by another

architectural consultancy). On the other hand, the SketchUp and Photoshop documents included

human figures. Two of the designers were observed using SketchUp models simultaneously with

AutoCAD drawings within design development phases. These designers said it helps them to

envision the finished building better. When they were asked to explain their design, for these cases,

their explanations included references to the human figure and their perspective within the building.

This finding shows that 3D modeling programs help designers develop user-centered design

solutions.

4 Conclusion

The design of a building resembles a “puzzle making process” (principal). There are many

pieces that need to come together in the right way to make a meaningful whole. The user is one of

265

the many pieces in this puzzle. While the client piece is the keystone, other user categories are as important as any other factor affecting the design solution.

Arch0’s design process includes many iterative cycles. The process also includes different numbers of steps based on the project type. Figure 10 maps the findings regarding user input into

Arch0’s design process using Arch0’s design process model and Archer’s (1984) classification of the design phases.

Figure 10. Arch0’s design process model

266

References

Ives, B., & Olson, M. H. (1984). User involvement and miss success: A review of research. Management Science, 30(5), 586-603. Archer, B. (1984). Systematic methods for designers. In N. Cross (Ed.), Developments in design methodology (pp. 57-82). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.

267

APPENDIX D

INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

INTERVIEW GUIDE: LEAD DESIGNERS/PRINCIPALS

INTRO Is using the tape recorder okay? Your name will not be used in my dissertation and nobody will listen to the tape other than me. The idea of this study is to find out what designers do with user research data and how they integrate user research results into their design process and design solutions. When I use the term user, I know it is very broad, as is the term research. User can be the client or the end user, whereas research can be benchmarking over internet or participant observations. Therefore, throughout this conversation, when you use these terms, please be specific about what you are thinking about. Is there anything about the study you would like me to tell you before we begin?

PROJECT TYPES So far, at ___, what types of projects have you worked on? Who are your clients?

DESIGN Could you walk me through the design process of your last project? While doing that, could you please diagram it as well so that I can understand better? Does this last project represent how you research at this firm in general?

RESEARCH On what subjects do you conduct research? In other words, what do you need to learn before starting to develop design solutions? How do you collect the information you need? When you consider a typical project at your firm, what is the proportion of the amount of time you spend on research to the amount of time you spend on designing?

USER RESEARCH Now, there is another issue I want to ask you about. It is the user research. First of all, from your perspective, what does the term user represent? How often do you conduct research on users? Do you do it in every project? What methods do you use to gather information from users? From your perspective, what is the most significant value of structured user research for design? What percent of your projects in a year require systematic user research? What are the types of design projects that require more extensive user research?

THE INTEGRATION OF USER RESEARCH AND DESIGN

268

Please think about the last project you just explained. What did you learn about users in that project? Was there any new user information you learned? If yes, what was it? How did this knowledge inform your design process? Have you ever gotten the chance to use the user information that you gained from one project in another project? Would the end result be different if you had not done the user research? Is there a specific project you can think of that would make clear how user research informs design? What makes a research project successful? What makes you feel satisfied with your findings?

INTERVIEW GUIDE: RESEARCHERS

INTRO Is using the tape recorder okay? Your name will not be used in my dissertation and nobody will listen to the tape other than me. The idea of this study is to find out what designers do with user research data and how they integrate user research results into their design process and design solutions. I specifically talk with researchers because you are the ones deciding what to learn from users and collecting the necessary data. When I use the term user, I know it is very broad, as is the term research. User can be the client or the end user, whereas research can be benchmarking over internet or participant observations. Therefore, throughout this conversation, when you use these terms, please be specific about what you are thinking about. Is there anything about the study you would like me to tell you before we begin?

PROJECT TYPES So far, at ___, what types of projects have you worked on? Who are your clients?

RESEARCH PROCESS On what subjects do you conduct research? In other words, what do you need to learn before designers can start developing solutions? Could you walk me through the research process of your last project? While doing that, could you please diagram it as well so that I can understand better? Does this last project represent how you conduct research at this firm in general? When you consider a typical project at your firm, what is the proportion of research to design?

USER RESEARCH Now, there is another issue I want to ask you about. It is the user research. First of all, from your perspective, what does the term user represent?

269

What is your goal while conducting research on users? From your perspective, what is the most significant value of user research for design? How often do you conduct research on users? Do you do it for every project? What research methods do you use the most for gathering information from users? What are the types of design projects that require more extensive and structured user research?

THE INTEGRATION OF USER RESEARCH AND DESIGN Please think about your last project that you just explained. What did you learn about users through research? Was there any new information you gained on users? Have you ever gotten the chance to use the user information that you gained from one project in another project? How did you analyze your findings? What were the things you shared with designers? What are the main categories of user information that you communicate/transfer to the design team? How did you share your research results with designers? Did you use specific mediums or documents? From your perspective, how did the research results inform the designers and therefore the design outcome? Do you see components of your research findings in a design outcome? Can you elaborate more on these components?

INTERVIEW GUIDE: OWNER/PARTNER/MANAGER

INTRO Is using the tape recorder okay? Your name will not be used in my dissertation and nobody will listen to the tape other than me. The idea of this study is to find out what designers do with user research data and how they integrate user research results into their design process and design solutions. I need your input because I also need to better understand this firm’s history and strategy on design and research. When I use the term user, I know it is very broad, as is the term research. User can be the client or the end user, whereas research can be benchmarking over internet or participant observations. Therefore, throughout this conversation, when you use these terms, please be specific about what you are thinking about. Is there anything about the study you would like me to tell you before we begin?

ABOUT FIRM Could you please explain the story of _____? When was it found? How did it grow?

270

When did the user experience team come into play and what were the dynamics leading to that decision?

DESIGN How would you explain your firm’s approach to design? What is unique about the design service you offer to your clients? On what subjects do you find it necessary to conduct research? In other words, on what subjects do you offer research services? When you consider a typical project at your firm, what is the proportion of research to design?

USER RESEARCH Now, there is another issue I want to ask you about. It is the user research. First of all, from your perspective, what does the term user represent? What percent of your projects in a year require systematic user research? What are the types of design projects that require more extensive user research? What are your expectations from user research as a firm? What do your clients expect from your user-research service?

THE INTEGRATION OF USER RESEARCH AND DESIGN Please think about two of your finished projects, one with user research input and one without. Were there any differences between the final design solutions? If yes, what were they? What makes a project successful? What makes you feel satisfied with your design solution? If you were to have all the resources, what would you change in your design process? In other words, what would an ideal design process look like? What is your vision for this firm?

271

APPENDIX E

FREE LISTING EXERCISE

USERS’ ROLE IN DESIGN

For my doctoral dissertation, I have been studying the impact of users on the design process. The term “user” is very inclusive and it can correspond to end-users and clients. This free listing exercise is designed to learn the user research methods you practice and the user information you collect in a design project.

Your input is critical to my research. It takes around 5 minutes to answer the questions. Your answers are confidential and your name will not be associated with any of the research results. If you do not want to participate in this exercise, please return this form empty.

Thank you very much for taking time out of your busy schedule to complete the survey.

Isil Oygur, PhD candidate, Washington State University Spokane

FREE LISTING

What is your position in the firm? ______

Could you please list all the USER INFORMATION you use/need while solving a design problem? (e.g. age group, adjacency needs)

PLEASE TURN THE PAGE

272

Could you please list all the METHODS you use in order to collect information on users in a project? (e.g. interview, personal experience)

273

APPENDIX F

SURVEY FOR DESIGNERS

USERS’ ROLE IN DESIGN

INTRODUCTION Every design project involves some type of user engagement. User input can be the result of an intuitive consideration (e.g. self-modeling and personal experience) or systematic research (e.g. structured interviews and observations). In both cases, users inform designers and, thus, the design process. For my dissertation, I have been studying the impact of users and various user-research methods on the design process. Answers to the following questions will help me understand the interaction between user research and design better. It takes around 10 minutes to complete the survey. Please return the survey by ______. THANK YOU very much for taking time out of your busy schedule to complete the survey. Isil Oygur, PhD candidate, Washington State University Spokane

SECTION A: PROFESSIONAL/EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND 1. What is your current position in the firm?

2. What was/were your major(s) at college/university?

3. At which college/university did you get your degree? Please list all the colleges/universities you attended and the degree(s) you earned.

4. How long have you been practicing (include only the years after college/university graduation)?

5. How long have you been practicing at this firm?

274

SECTION B: USER AND USER RESEARCH 1. Please rank order the following factors from 1 to 8 based on their significance for solving design problems in a project. 1 represents the MOST significant factor, and 8 represents the LEAST significant. Rank Budget Client’s brand/wants/needs Codes/ADA requirements Concept of the building/interior End-user of the building/interior (occupants, visitors of a building/interior, patients, doctors, etc.) Environmental concerns (including sustainability and LEED) Project schedule Site / Context of the proposed building/interior

2. Whom do you define as the “user” in a project?

3. Which of the following sources do you use to gain an understanding about users? Please check all that apply. O Collage making (providing users with images, words, and other elements and asking them to create a collage representing their needs, wants, experiences, and preferences) O Conference calls with the client and potential end-users O Ethnographic research (using participant observation of and immersion in everyday life of others to define a culture) O Everyday conversations with the users (e.g. clinicians, patients) O Focus group studies O Internet searches (clients’ website, websites with similar design solutions, etc.) O One-to-one interviews with potential users O Intuition O Literature (books, academic journals) O Magazines O Mock-ups of rooms O Narrative inquiry (using narratives to understand the way people make meaning of situations) O Observations O Participatory design exercises (increasing the participation of users in a design project through workshops and other interactive techniques) O Participant observations (participating and interacting with people while making in situ observations) O Personal experience as a user

275

O Photo-ethnography (providing guidelines and photographic implements to users for them to take photos on a topic) O Post-occupancy evaluation O Scrapbooking (collecting your inspirational images) O Scrapbooks provided by users (to communicate their needs, wants, and preferences) O Self-modeling (thinking of yourself as the user) O Simulations (using digital technologies to imitate things, processes, and systems) O Surveys O Task analysis (studying users’ tasks by breaking them into smaller sub-tasks) O Video ethnography (using cameras during a participant observation to capture activities and culture)

Please specify other sources you use that are not listed:

4. Please think about the user-research phase of the projects in which you participated. Which one of the following terms explains the structure of the user research the best? O Intuitive research (using intuition and experiential knowledge to understand users in terms of their needs and wants) O Semi-systematic research (using quick and simple methods to gather information from users) O Systematic research (using formal and structured research methodologies while conducting user research)

5. How often do you conduct or participate in a rigorous user research process (such as structured interviews, focus groups, observations)? O On every project O On every other project O More than three times a year O Once a year O Once every other year O Seldom O Other (please specify)

SECTION C: DESIGN PROCESS 1. Please rate the following according to what you learn from users in a project.

A lot Some A little None N/A Adjacency needs and wants O O O O O Current user experience (users' experience with the existing O O O O O buildings/interiors) Demographic information O O O O O Expectations/wants of the user O O O O O Users’ culture O O O O O

276

Users’ physical and functional needs O O O O O (e.g. space requirements, parking needs) Users’ intangible needs (e.g. emotional O O O O O needs and dreams)

2. Please rate the following stages of a typical design project according to the amount of user information you use. A lot Some A little None N/A Programming (analyzing the design O O O O O problem) Collecting information on the project, O O O O O users, and site Problem definition O O O O O Concept development/Schematic design Design development O O O O O Communicating the design solution to O O O O O the client Developing construction drawings O O O O O Construction administration O O O O O

3. On average, how many times do you meet with the end-users (patients, doctors, etc.) in each of the following phases of a project? Meetings Pre-design (analyzing the design problem, research) Concept development Schematic design Design development Construction documents Construction administration

4. Please rate the following components of a design outcome based on how much they are affected by the information you gain from users. A lot Some A little None N/A Aesthetics/form of the building and/or O O O O O interior Color scheme O O O O O Design concept of the building/interior O O O O O Dimensions of the building/interior O O O O O Environmental issues O O O O O Functionality O O O O O Materials O O O O O Usability of the building/interior O O O O O User experience in the building/interior O O O O O

277

5. Do you think rigorous research on users (involving structured interviews, observations, etc.) affects the design outcome? O Yes, affects positively O Yes, affects negatively O No, the outcome does not change O Not sure

6. Do you think the application of rigorous user research (involving structured interviews, observations, etc.) changes your design process? O Yes Why do you think user research changes your design process?

O No

Why do you think user research does not affect your design process?

O Not sure Why are you not sure?

7. What is the most significant information you gain from users in a project?

______

278

APPENDIX G

SURVEY FOR DESIGN RESEARCHERS

USERS’ ROLE IN DESIGN

For my dissertation, I have been studying the impact of users and various user-research methods on the design process. Answers to the following questions will help me understand the interaction between user research and design better. It takes around 10 minutes to complete the survey. Please return the survey by ______.

THANK YOU very much for taking time out of your busy schedule to complete the survey.

Isil Oygur, PhD candidate, Washington State University Spokane

SECTION A: PROFESSIONAL/EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND 1. What is your current position in the firm?

2. What was/were your major(s) at college/university?

3. At which college/university did you get your degree? Please list all the colleges/universities you attended and the degree(s) you earned.

4. How long have you been practicing (include only the years after college/university graduation)?

5. How long have you been practicing at this firm?

279

SECTION B: USER AND USER RESEARCH 1. Please rank order the following factors from 1 to 8 based on their significance for solving design problems in a project. 1 represents the MOST significant factor, and 8 represents the LEAST significant. Rank Budget Client’s brand/wants/needs Context of the proposed building/interior End-user of the design outcome (occupants, visitors of a building, patients, clinicians, doctors, etc.) Environmental concerns (including sustainability and LEED) Function of the building/interior Project schedule

2. Whom do you define as the “user” in a project?

______

3. Which of the following sources do you use to gain an understanding about users? Please check all that apply. O Collage making (providing users with images, words, and other elements and asking them to create a collage representing their needs, wants, experiences, and preferences) O Conference calls with the client and potential end-users O Ethnographic research (using participant observation and immersion into everyday life of others to define a culture) O Everyday conversations with the users (e.g. clinicians, patients) O Focus group studies O Internet searches (clients’ website, websites with similar design solutions, etc.) O One-to-one interviews with potential users O Intuition O Literature (books, academic journals) O Magazines O Mock-ups of rooms O Narrative inquiry (using narratives to understand the way people make meaning of situations) O Observations O Participatory design exercises (increasing the participation of users in a design project through workshops and other interactive techniques) O Participant observations (participating and interacting with people while making in situ observations) O Personal experience as a user O Photo-ethnography (providing guidelines and photographic implements to users for them to take photos on a topic) O Post-occupancy evaluation

280

O Scrapbooking (collecting your inspirational images) O Scrapbooks provided by users (to communicate their needs, wants, and preferences) O Self-modeling (thinking yourself as the user) O Simulations (using digital technologies to imitate things, processes, and systems) O Surveys O Task analysis (studying users’ tasks by breaking them into smaller sub-tasks) O Video ethnography (using cameras during a participant observation to capture activities and culture)

Please specify other sources you use that are not listed:

SECTION C: DESIGN PROCESS 1. Please rate the following according to what you learn from users in a project. A lot Some A little None N/A Adjacency needs and wants O O O O O Current user experience (users' experience with the existing O O O O O environment/space) Demographic information O O O O O Expectations/wants of the user O O O O O Users’ culture O O O O O Users’ physical and functional needs O O O O O (e.g. space requirements, parking needs) Users’ intangible needs (such as O O O O O emotional needs and dreams)

2. How often do you conduct user research in each phase of a project? A lot Some A little None N/A Pre-design O O O O O Schematic design O O O O O Design development O O O O O Construction documents O O O O O Construction administration O O O O O

281

3. On average, how many times do you meet with potential END-USERS in each phase of a project? Meetings Pre-research (setup) Data collection Analysis Reporting Concept development of the building/interior Schematic design Design development Construction documents Construction administration

4. Do you think rigorous research on users (e.g. interviews, observations) affects the design outcome? O Yes, affects positively O Yes, affects negatively O No, the outcome does not change O Not sure

5. Do you think the application of rigorous user research (involving structured interviews, observations, etc.) changes your design process? O Yes Why do you think user research changes your design process?

O No

Why do you think user research does not affect your design process?

O Not sure Why are you not sure?

6. What is the most significant information you gain from users in a project?

______

282

APPENDIX H

LOG SHEET FOR WEBSITE ANALYSIS

Main line/tagline

Mission/vision

List of services/ capabilities (in order)

Industries served

Project steps/ Stages of process

Methods listed under research/strategy

Bios of researchers

Number of cases

Number of cases involving research

The type of cases involving research

User involvement methods listed in cases

Cases including the term “experience”

Cases including the term “user”

283

APPENDIX I

ARCH1: FREE LISTING AND SURVEY RESULTS

1. Free Listing Results

Table 1. Architects’ sources of user information. Number of respondents is 16.

Sources n Sources n Client meetings/interviews 12 Research on equipment, processes, Review programming documents/ systems that can be improved 1 educational specifications surveys 10 Review client’s website 1 Tours of client’s existing facilities/site Review statistically accurate surveys 1 with client 10 Tour similar/comparable facilities with client 8 Workshops/design charrettes with Table 2. Healthcare architects’ sources of user users, stakeholders, or community 6 information. Number of respondents is 6. Online resources on similar facilities 5 User meetings/interviews 5 Sources n Feedback from facilities management Tours of client’s existing facilities/site staff 4 with client 4 Feedback from individual users 4 User meetings 4 Previous projects/lessons learned 4 All kinds of correspondence with All kinds of correspondence with client (emails, phone conversations, client (emails, phone conversations, etc.) 3 etc.) 3 Client/user surveys 3 Feedback from administration 3 Observations of users during Feedback from committee/group operation 3 after presentation 3 Client/user reviews 2 Interaction with client over drawings, Photos of existing facilities 2 diagrams, tables, etc. 3 Research on current industry Printed resources (books, magazines, trends/benchmark 2 etc.) on similar facilities 3 Tour similar/comparable facilities Review client’s building standards 3 with client 2 Administration meetings/interviews 2 Administration meetings/interviews 1 Community/stakeholder surveys 2 Brainstorming workshops 1 Photos of existing condition 2 Client’s building Stakeholder meetings/interviews 2 standards/regulations 1 Conversations with Equipment survey 1 friends/acquaintances who have Facility mock-ups 1 similarities with the client/user 1 Master plan and pre-design studies 1 Information from superiors 1 Program 1 One-on-one interviews 1 Reviewing code Program diagrams 1 jurisdictions/regulations 1 Questioning 1 Staff meetings/interviews 1

284

Table 3. Interior designers’ sources of user Table 4. User information of interest to information. Number of respondents is 3. architects. Number of respondents is 16. Table continues on next page. Source n Client meetings 3 User information n Tours of client’s existing facility(s) Adjacencies/related functions 10 with the client 3 System requirements (mechanical, Observations 2 fire, lighting, security, A/V, power, Review plans for similar facilities 2 ventilation) 9 Previous projects/lessons learned 1 Equipment requirements 8 Review of photos projects 1 Finishing/colors/materials Review owner requirements 7 standards/requirements 1 Furniture needs 7 Review the trends in facility type 1 Activities that occur in a space 5 Studying surrounding area of the Number of rooms/spaces required 5 facility 1 Sizes of rooms/spaces required 5 Tour similar/comparable facilities 1 Client’s building standards/regulations 4 Client’s reactions/feedback to drawings, buildings, architectural precedents, etc. 4 Code jurisdictions/regulations 4 Communication and data requirements 4 Number of occupants 4 Storage needs 4 Aesthetic/ambiance/feeling expectations 3 Budget/cost 3 Frequency and time of space use 3 How the existing building is being used 3 Technology requirements 3 Accessibility needs 2 Circulation patterns 2 Cleaning/maintenance needs/procedure 2 Future requirements 2 General preferences of a large group 2 How they would like the new space 2 Inventory of existing needs 2 Noise & acoustic considerations 2 Parking needs/requirements 2 Phasing schedule for buildings occupied during construction 2 Space program/educational specifications 2 Room location requirements 2

285

User information n Table 5. User information of interest to Site investigation 2 healthcare architects. Number of respondents Types of teaching 2 is 6. Table continues on next page. Alternatives explored, adopted, discarded 1 User information n Athletic requirements 1 Space program 5 Bus traffic/loading requirements 1 Adjacencies/related functions 4 Client’s stakeholders 1 Number of staff 4 Day lighting requirements 1 Types of activities taking in the Display needs 1 facility 4 Existing condition of the facility 1 Equipment requirements 3 Existing facility inventory 1 How the current facility is used 3 Flexibility (uses other than primary Number of patients 3 use) needs 1 Number of rooms/spaces 3 General project description 1 Room types/uses 3 Imagery or cultural memory that they Anticipated growth 2 would like to be invoked via Budget 2 building 1 Future needs/anticipated use 2 Landscaping preferences 1 Identifications of inefficiencies 2 Likes and dislikes of the user/client 1 Movement of people through the space 2 Sizes of spaces 2 Support service requirements 2 Upcoming technologies/trends 2 Changes required to meet future needs 1 Client’s building standards/regulations 1 Client’s goal/vision 1 Current financial status 1 Existing condition of the facility 1 Facility’s ability to meet current and future needs 1 Finishing/colors/materials requirements 1 Furniture requirements 1 Interaction of various parties in the facility 1 Past growth 1 Process patterns of patients 1 Process patterns of staff/physicians 1 Process patterns of supplies 1 Space limitations 1 Technologies used 1 Logos and brand colors of the client 1 Master planning 1

286

User information n Table 6. User information of interest to Neighborhood context and scale of interior designers. Number of respondents is surrounding architecture 1 3. Operational needs 1 Outcomes of activities that occur in a User information n space 1 Adjacencies 2 Pedestrian considerations 1 Finishing/materials requirements 2 Prior planning and history 1 Occupancy 2 Process of an activity 1 Timeline 2 Projects that the client/user sees as User needs 2 successful 1 What is not working in the existing Schedule 1 facility 2 Senses that are wanted to be What is working in the existing simulated (e.g., smell, sound) 1 facility 2 Sustainability requirements 1 Work patterns/Work flow 2 The message intended to be projected Anticipated growth 1 to user (e.g., welcoming) 1 Budget 1 Visibility requirements 1 Changes to implement 1 City requirements 1 Color requirements 1 Desires 1 General feeling expectation 1 How the people are intended to move through the space 1 Job descriptions of people 1 Location 1 Maintenance 1 Owner requirements 1 Square footage 1 Staff-patient interaction within the space 1 Storage needs 1 Strategic plan 1 Technology requirements 1

2. Survey results

The following results do not reflect the ideas of the whole consultancy. The results are specific to the people who participated in the survey. The number of architects who filled out the survey is 24 and the number of interior designers is three. The design team total is 27.

287

Table 6. The rank order of the design factors’ significance on solving design problems. 13 factors were ranked. Higher numbers represent higher significance. The numbers in parentheses are the mean scores for each factor.

2nd most 3rd most 2nd least 3rd least Profession Most important important important Least important important important ADA standards Construction Architect Client (12.3) Occupants (10.6) Aesthetics (10.0) Schedule (3.8) (2.7) (4.4) Interior Environmental Construction Client (13.0) Budget (11.0) Occupants (10.0) Site (2.0) designer concerns (4.7) (4.7) ADA standards Construction Design team Client (12.3) Occupants (10.5) Budget (9.8) Schedule (4.0) (3.1) (4.4)

Table 7. The average number and range of user involvement methods practiced and the most and not applied user involvement methods

Number of methods practiced Profession Mean Range Most practiced methods Not practiced methods Site visits (92%) Photo ethnography One-to-one interviews with users (87.5%) Video ethnography Architect 9.8 4-19 Everyday conversation with the user (79%) Observations (71%) One-to-one interviews with users (100%) Collage making Everyday conversation with the user (67%) Ethnography Observations (67%) Intuition Photography (67%) Magazines Interior 8 5-11 Site visits (67%) Narrative inquiry designer Photo ethnography Post-occupancy evaluation Scrapbooks provided by users Video ethnography One-to-one interviews with users (89%) Photo ethnography Site visits (89%) Video ethnography Design team 9.6 4-19 Everyday conversation with the user (78%) Observations (70%)

Table 8. The distribution of user involvement types

Intuitive, Semi-systematic Profession Intuitive Semi-systematic Systematic & Systematic* 11 11 1 1 Architect (46%) (46%) (4%) (4%) 3 Interior designer 0 0 0 (100%) 11 14 1 1 Design team (41 %) (52%) (4%) (4%) *Respondents who selected this option noted that they practice all three types depending on the project.

288

Table 9. The frequency of the conduct of systematic user involvement processes

On every On every More than 3 Once every Profession project other project times a year Once a year other year Seldom Other 10 2 4 3 5 Architect 0 0 (42%) (8%) (17%) (13%) (21%) 1 1 1 Interior designer 0 0 0 0 (33%) (33%) (33%) 11 2 4 4 6 Design team 0 0 (41%) (7%) (15%) (15%) (22%)

Table 10. The rank order of what each profession learns related to user in a project. Rated on a 4- point scale, ranging from 1 “none” to 4 “a lot” and 0 being “N/A.” The numbers in parentheses are the median scores and the interquartile range for each factor.

Architect Interior designer Design team Adjacency needs and wants Adjacency needs and wants Adjacency needs and wants (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 0) (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 0) (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 0) Expectations/wants of users Expectations/wants of users Expectations/wants of users (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 0) (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 0) (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 0) Users’ experience within the existing Physical user needs Physical user needs spaces (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 0) Users’ experience within the existing Users’ experience within the existing Workflow of users spaces spaces (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 0) (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 1.0) Human factors/ Workflow of users Workflow of users Ergonomic issues (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 0) Human factors/ Human factors/ Limitations of the existing spaces Ergonomic issues Ergonomic issues (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 1.0) Limitations of the existing spaces Physical user needs Limitations of the existing spaces (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 2.0) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 1.0) Demographic information Demographic information Demographic information (Mdn: 2.5, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 2.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 2.0, IQR: 1.0) Users’ cultural context Users’ cultural context Users’ cultural context (Mdn: 2.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 2.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 2.0, IQR: 1.0) Users’ intangible needs Users’ intangible needs Users’ intangible needs (Mdn: 2.0, IQR: 2.0) (Mdn: 2.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 2.0, IQR: 2.0)

Table 11. Stages of a design process rated according to the level of user information use. Rated on a 4-point scale, ranging from 1 “none” to 4 “a lot” and 0 being “N/A.”

Programming Ideation Integration Implementation Profession Mdn IQR Mdn IQR Mdn IQR Mdn IQR Architect 3.7 0.3 3.5 1.0 3.0 0.7 2.0 0 Interior designer 3.7 0.3 3.5 2.0 3.3 0.7 2.0 1.0 Design team 3.7 0.3 3.5 1.0 3.0 0.7 2.0 0

289

Table 12. Results of Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. Friedman test showed a statistically significant difference in designers’ level of user information use at different stages of a design process, X2(3) = 64.171, P = 0.01. Post-hoc analysis with Wilcoxon signed-rank tests was conducted. A Bonferroni correction applied for these tests, resulting in a significance level set at P < 0.002. Wilcoxon signed- rank test results showed statistically significant differences between programming and integration, programming and implementation, ideation and implementation, and integration and implementation stages.

Programming – Ideation Programming – Integration Programming – Implementation Ideation- Integration Ideation - Implementation - Integration Implementation Z -2.83 (a) -4.50 (a) -4.49 (a) -2.80 (a) -4.31 (a) -4.22 (a) Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .005 .001 .001 .005 .001 .001 (a) Based on positive ranks.

Table 13. The average number of client meetings at different stages of a design process

Programming Ideation Integration Implementation Profession Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range Architect 11.9 0-40 6.7 3-15 15 2-55 19.4 0-100 Interior designer 5.0 - 2.0 - 5.0 4-6 2.0 - Design team 11.5 0-40 6.4 2-15 13.9 2-55 18.3 0-100

Table 14. The rank order of design features based on how much they are affected from the user information. Rated on a 4-point scale, ranging from 1 “none” to 4 “a lot” and 0 being “N/A.” The numbers in parentheses are the median and interquartile range scores for each feature. Table continues on next page.

Architect Interior designer Design team Function Color scheme Function (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 0) (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 0) (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 0) Space-user interaction Function Space-user interaction (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 0) (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 0) (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 0) Site selection Material selection Site selection (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 0) (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 1.0) Usability Aesthetics Usability (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 1.0) Material selection Space-environment interaction Material selection (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 0) (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 0) Color scheme Space-user interaction Aesthetics (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 0.75) (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 1.0)

290

Architect Interior designer Design team Aesthetics Usability Color scheme (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 1.0) Human factors/ergonomics Dimensions of the design solution Human factors/ergonomics (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 0) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 1.0) Space-environment interaction Design concept Dimensions of the design solution (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 1.25) Dimensions of the design solution Human factors/ergonomics Design concept (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 1.75) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 2.0) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 2.0) Design concept Environmental issues Space-environment interaction (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 2.0) (Mdn: 2.0, IQR: 2.0) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 2.0) Environmental issues Environmental issues

(Mdn: 2.5, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 2.0, IQR: 1.0)

Table 15. The distribution of the ideas on how systematic user involvement affects the design outcome

No, the outcome does Can affect positively or Profession Yes, affects positively Yes, affects negatively not change negatively 21 1 2 Architect 0 (88%) (4%) (8%) 3 Interior designer 0 0 0 (100%) 24 1 2 Design team 0 (89%) (4%) (7%)

Table 16. The distribution of the ideas regarding the change in the stages of a design process—other than the fuzzy-front end—as a result of systematic user involvement

Profession Yes No Not sure 16 6 2 Architect (67%) (25%) (8%) 1 1 1 Interior designer (33%) (33%) (33%) 17 7 3 Design team (63%) (26%) (11%)

291

APPENDIX J

ARCH2: FREE LISTING AND SURVEY RESULTS

1. Free Listing Results

Table 1. Architects’ sources of user information. Number of respondents is 29.

Source n Source n (User) group meetings 13 Code research 1 Interviews with the staff, project Comparisons of similar facilities floor administrators (individual) 11 plans 1 Full-scale mock-ups 7 Critique existing facility layout with Survey 7 the staff 1 Tour projects around the country 7 GIS data available from municipal Digital exchange of comments, and government agency websites 1 sketches, etc. 5 Google earth 1 Tour client’s existing locations 5 Historical research of pertinent Verbal communication (i.e., information 1 telephone inquiries, conference Image association 1 calls) 5 Intuition 1 Internet 4 Knowledge experts 1 Observation 4 Meeting with support services (i.e., Books, magazines 3 materials management, Client’s organizational documents 3 housekeeping) 1 Drawings to elicit comment 3 Operations data 1 Models to elicit comment (physical Organizational facility standards, and virtual) 3 restrictions 1 Past projects 3 Physical tests 1 Personal experience 3 POE 1 Shadowing/”a day in the life” 3 Published materials related to client 1 Asking questions 2 Rapid prototyping 1 Client feedback/concerns 2 Renderings to elicit comment 1 Conversations with more experienced Samples (materials, hardware) for co-workers 2 review and client comments 1 Decision matrix 2 Score sheet 1 Design charrettes 2 Sketching 1 Presentations 2 Space program 1 Room data sheets 2 Through client’s project manager 1 Visioning sessions 2 Using schematic design floor plans Analysis of surrounding site 1 for walking through the workflow Analytics 1 of the departments, rooms, clinics 1 Approvals over designs 1 Workload data 1 BIM (building information modeling) 1 City standards 1 Client standards 1

292

Table 2. Interior designers’ sources of user Table 3. Programmers’ sources of user information. Number of respondents is 5. information. Number of respondents is 5. Table continues on next page. Source n User meetings 5 Source n Internet 2 Tour projects around the country Interviews with people using the with client 4 facility 2 Design charrettes (in house or with Interviews with staff 2 client) 3 Observations 2 Internet 3 Questionnaires/Room data sheets 2 Interview users from each 3D models, plans elevations 1 department/area in the facility 3 Brainstorming sessions 1 Tour client’s existing locations 3 Co-workers 1 User group meetings 3 Company/employee biographies 1 Experienced co-workers on the topic 2 Concepts and verbage 1 Questionnaires 2 Existing facility tours 1 Research comparable projects 2 Full scale mock ups 1 “Spot and dot” meetings 1 Human resources documents of the “Visioning” brainstorming meetings 1 client (e.g., employment lists) 1 Artifacts (objects that have cultural Imagery 1 meaning) 1 Interior design presentations 1 Asking them to keep a journal 1 Photographs 1 Books, magazines 1 Research competitors/similar Business standards (AIGA guide for business models 1 health) 1 Reviewing organization’s business Code materials specific to project 1 strategy 1 Conference calls 1 Reviewing previous projects 1 Conference sheets (room floor plan, Reviewing standards for the building 1 elevations, RCP, 3D view) 1 Search for papers, articles, etc. written Consultants (surveyors, geotechnical by user/client 1 engineers, special consultants) 1 Department of health preliminary review 1 Equipment meetings 1 Feedback from presentations 1 Focus groups to involve community 1 Full scale mock-ups 1 Healthcare publications and conferences 2 Informal gatherings such as lunches 1 Inspirational photos and stories 1 Interior design/finish presentations 1 Listening 1 Make changes live with client input in the 3D model 1 Medical websites explaining procedures 1

293

Source n Table 4. Design researchers’ sources of user Past project experience 1 information. Number of respondents is 7. Personal experience 1 Printed material provided by client 1 Source n Review overall floor plans 1 Interviews (single and group) 7 Shadowing clinicians while on shift 1 Observation 7 Showing alternatives 1 Survey 4 Take client on tour of our project Workshops (including exercises such with similar program and ask for as card sort, board games, response 1 structured frameworks, conversations) 3 Data requests from the organization and their analysis 2 On-line research 2 Personal experience/wisdom 2 Photos/video 2 Research on best practices, previous works 2 Shadowing 2 Tours (learning expeditions) 2 Advisory board think tanks 1 Collaging 1 Elicitation tools 1 Ethnography 1 Live simulations with observations 1 Mind mapping 1 Mock journeys 1 Ongoing meetings and communication 1 Online data collection (state/public data, census, etc.) 1 Open forums (user group meetings, comment boxes) 1 Research on the organization 1 Self-journal (photo/word) 1 Simulations via computer 1 Storyboarding 1 Time lapse study 1 Timed observation (lean methodology) 1 User comments 1 rd User comments through 3 party surveys 1

294

Table 5. User information of interest to architects. Number of respondents is 29. Table continues on next page.

User information n User information n Space program 10 Aesthetic preferences 1 Adjacency needs (for departments, Areas for improvement 1 rooms, equipment) 9 Building maintenance over it’s life 1 Budget 7 Client’s objectives and values 1 Client’s mission, vision, strategic plan 7 Client’s reference work/project 1 Schedule 7 Commitments to sustainability 1 Project goals/scope 6 Communication with public/outreach 1 Equipment needs 5 Daily tasks 1 Contextual information (surrounding Daylight needs 1 buildings, etc.) 4 Departments involved 1 Current state of the building/site 4 Desire for operable window 1 Organizational facility standards, Duration of time spent in the restrictions 4 building 1 Current operational strategies/model 3 Educational level 1 Flow of doctors, nurses, patients, Electrical requirements 1 families, and supplies 3 Existing success 1 Reporting, decision making processes Filing needs 1 of the client 3 Finishing requirements 1 Site survey 3 Firm culture 1 Age group 2 Funding mechanism 1 Client’s needs and priorities 2 Hours of operation 1 Client’s past experience with similar How they characterize types of spaces 1 processes, master plans 2 How they use specific types of spaces 1 Code requirements 2 Ideal state 1 Communication/collaboration Ideas about expansion 1 preferences 2 Image or presence goals 1 Design preferences of the client and Inspirational goals 1 users 2 Interior environment goals and Environmental control desires 2 desires 1 Expectations 2 Key service lines 1 Flexibility/adoptability requirements 2 Known obstacles 1 Functional program 2 Major business drivers/influencers 1 Gender 2 Maneuvering clearances 1 Geotech and civil information 2 Materials used 1 Growth 2 Organizational charts 1 Job descriptions 2 Orientation 1 Number issues (e.g., patients per day) 2 Parking needs 1 Space or facility size needed 2 Particular things to avoid 1 What is the problem the client is Patient’s experience 1 trying to solve 2 Patients’ profile 1 Who is the client’s customer/types of Personality type of the client/users 1 users 2 Physical characteristics of users (i.e., ADA considerations 1 height, weight) 1

295

User information n Table 6. User information of interest to Physical limitations 1 interior designers. Number of respondents is Power requirements 1 5. Projected forecast of the facilities needs 5/10/20 years out 1 User information n Remodel, new building, or an Equipment needs 5 addition 1 Adjacency needs 3 Required support spaces 1 Finish requirements 3 Safety concerns 1 Ergonomic requirements 2 Sales oriented information 1 Furniture requirements 2 Sight-line considerations 1 How can their workflow be optimized Special needs 1 & how a new space can support this 2 Specific tasks of users 1 Wanted “feel” of the spaces 2 Storage requirements 1 Work flow 2 Sustainability goals 1 Acoustical needs 1 Target population 1 Time spent in office by individuals 1 Tolerance for innovation 1 Any current work flow issues 1 Tolerance to environmental factors Business strategy 1 (e.g., temperature, humidity) 1 Circulation/flow of users 1 Type of care for specific patients 1 Collaboration style 1 Urban design goals 1 Current equipment in use 1 User’s definition of success 1 Daily/weekly activities of individuals 1 Utility considerations (wet and dry) 1 Existing issues with the finishes 1 Views 1 Facilities requirements 1 Vision requirements 1 Functional requirements 1 What is the client’s product on Individuals’ generational classification 1 service 1 Goals of the organization 1 Work style 1 How do staff interface with public and with patients 1 How the existing space is being used 1 Job description of individuals 1 Organizational metrics (e.g., growth) 1 Number of staff per shift 1 Organization type (client) 1 Patient experience 1 Position/title of individuals 1 Program 1 Space needs 1 What does not work with the existing space 1 What works with the existing space 1 When do staff interface with public and with patients 1 When is the space used 1 Who do they work with in other departments 1 Who is using the space 1 Work type of individuals 1

296

Table 7. User information of interest to programmers. Number of respondents is 5.

User information n Adjacency needs (for departments, User information n rooms, equipment) 4 Privacy needs (e.g., curtain track Equipment needs 4 locations) 1 Flow of doctors, nurses, patients, Program information (department families, and supplies 4 names, size of rooms, function of Type/description of the service(s) of rooms, etc.) 1 the organization 3 Relevant codes and standards 1 Accessibility standards 2 Site survey information 1 Finish requirements 2 Specific HVAC needs 1 Security/hardware Staff size 1 requirements/locations 2 Staffing concerns (flow related) 1 Specific lighting needs 2 Types of patients and ages 1 Acoustical concerns 1 Vision, mission, core values of the Aesthetic preferences 1 organization 1 Aspirations 1 Wall protection locations 1 Bariatric patient design criteria 1 What characteristics of space are Budget 1 important (daylight, quiet, acoustics, Building/manufacturer standards 1 etc.) 1 Business enterprise 1 Who they need to relate to 1 Client’s general standards 1 Cultural information of the organization 1 Customer demographics (age, education level, etc.) 1 Design objectives/goals 1 Electrical needs 1 Ergonomic standards 1 Functional program of departments (e.g. laboratory functional program) 1 Furniture requirements 1 Growth plan of the organization (institutional master plan) 1 Hours of operation 1 How they want to work in the future 1 Infection control standards 1 Life safety goals (meet or exceed code) 1 Mechanical needs 1 Number of occupants of each space (temporary and regular) 1 Physical plant capacity (e.g. boilers, medical gasses) 1

297

Table 8. User information of interest to design researchers. Number of respondents is 7.

User information n User information n Work flow 4 Organizational strategy 1 Age groups 3 Organizational structure and Demographics 3 relationships 1 Communication/collaboration Organizational transformation 1 methods (face to face, video Patient journeys 1 conference, etc.) 2 Position (sitting, standing) 1 Equipment used 2 Process engineering 1 Gender 2 Providers 1 Individuals’ roles (nurse, doctor, etc.) 2 Psychographics 1 Mobility (visits, travel, etc.) 2 Relationships 1 Patient type (inpatient/outpatient) 2 Tasks supported by individuals 1 Technology needs 2 Trends of marketplace/customer 1 Time issues (cycle times, time spent User desires/wants (preferences) 1 on procedures, etc.) 2 Vision (organizational and personal) 2 Growth projection based on population to date 2 Supplies 2 Audience (patient, family, caregivers, public, private, on-stage or off stage, etc.) 1 “Day in the life” 1 Behaviors 1 Business case 1 Code/privacy requirements 1 Cost of doing something 1 Current state 1 Desire for change 1 Disability 1 Disposition (injured, upset, etc.) 1 Drivers (business and personal) 1 Emotions 1 Ergonomics 1 Future aspirations 1 Historical volume information 1 Income level 1 Infection control compliance 1 Insurance type 1 Location 1 Needs (restroom, , elevators, etc.) 1 Organizational culture 1

298

2. Survey results

The following results do not reflect the ideas of the whole consultancy. The results are specific to the people who participated in the survey. The number of architects who filled out the survey is 22, the number of interior designers is seven, the number of healthcare programmers is seven, and the number of design researchers is six. The design team total is 42.

Table 9. The rank order of the design factors’ significance on solving design problems. Architects, interior designers, and healthcare programmers ranked 8 factors; design researchers ranked 7 factors. Higher numbers represent higher significance. The numbers in parentheses are the mean scores for each factor.

2nd most 3rd most 2nd least 3rd least Profession Most important important important Least important important important Concept (5.8) Codes/ADA Environmental Architect Client (7.4) Site/context (4.9) Schedule (3.1) End-user (5.8) standards (3.2) concerns (4.0) Interior Codes/ADA Client (7.0) End-user (6.4) Concept (6.1) Schedule (1.7) Budget (3.3) designer standards (3.4) Healthcare Environmental Client (7.1) End-user (6.1) Concept (5.6) Site/context (3.1) Schedule (3.6) programmer concerns (3.4) Function of the Design Environmental Client (5.7) Budget (5.5) End-user (4.4) Schedule (3.5) building (4.4) researcher concerns (1.8) Site/context (4.4) Environmental concerns (3.5) Function of the Design team Client (7.0) End-user (5.8) Concept (5.6) Schedule (3.0) Codes/ADA building (4.4) standards (3.5)

Table 10. The average number and range of user involvement methods practiced and the most and the least applied user involvement methods. Table continues on next page.

Number of methods practiced Profession Mean Range Most practiced methods Least practiced methods Observation (82%) Photo ethnography (5%) Participatory design exercises (82%) Video ethnography (5%) Everyday conversation with the user (77%) Scrapbooks provided by users Architect 12.2 3-19 Conference calls (73%) (14%) One-to-one interviews with users (73%) Narrative inquiry (18%) Personal experience (73%) Everyday conversation with the user (86%) Scrapbooks provided by users One-to-one interviews with users (86%) (14%) Interior 16.7 10-23 Observation (86%) Magazines (26%) designer POE (86%) Photo ethnography (26%) Simulation (26%)

299

Profession Mean Range Most practiced methods Least practiced methods Mock-ups of rooms (86%) Photo ethnography (0) Observation (86%) Scrapbooking (0) Healthcare Participatory design exercises (86%) Scrapbooks provided by users 12.4 4-22 programmer (0) Collage making (14%) Video ethnography (14%) Ethnography (100%) Scrapbooking (17%) Everyday conversation with the user (100%) Scrapbooks provided by users Internet search (100%) (17%) Literature (100%) Magazines (50%) Design One-to-one interviews with users (100%) 20 10-25 researcher Mock-ups of rooms (100%) Observation (100%) Participatory design exercises (100%) Participatory observation (100%) Personal experience (100%) Observation (86%) Scrapbooks provided by users Everyday conversation with the user (81%) (12%) Participatory design exercises (81%) Photo ethnography (17%) Design team 14.1 4-19 One-to-one interviews with users (76%) Video ethnography (21%) Personal experience (76%) Scrapbooking (26%) Conference calls (71%) Narrative inquiry (33%)

Table 11. The distribution of user involvement types

Semi- Intuitive & Intuitive & Semi-systematic Intuitive, Semi-systematic Profession Intuitive systematic Systematic Systematic Semi-systematic & Systematic & Systematic 1 14 4 1 1 Architect 0 1 (5%) (64%) (18%) (5%) (5%) Interior 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 designer (71%) (29%) Healthcare 1 2 2 2 0 0 0 programmer (14%) (29%) (29%) (29%) Design 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 researcher (33%) (17%) (17%) (33%) 4 21 7 2 2 3 3 Design team (10%) (50%) (17%) (5%) (5%) (7%) (7%)

Table 12. The frequency of the conduct of systematic user involvement processes

On every On every More than 3 Once every Profession project other project times a year Once a year other year Seldom Other 9 1 1 1 5 5 Architect 0 (41%) (5%) (5%) (5%) (23%) (23%) 3 2 1 1 Interior designer 0 0 0 (43%) (29%) (14%) (14%) Healthcare 4 2 1 0 0 0 0 programmer (57%) (29%) (14%) 16 5 1 6 7 Design team 0 0 (44%) (14%) (3%) (17%) (19%)

300

Table 13. The rank order of what each profession learns related to user in a project. Rated on a 4- point scale, ranging from 1 “none” to 4 “a lot” and 0 being “N/A.” The numbers in parentheses are the median scores and the interquartile range for each factor.

Healthcare Architect Interior designer Design researcher Design team programmer Adjacency needs and Current user Expectations/wants of Current user Adjacency needs and wants experience users experience wants (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 0) (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 0) (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 0) (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 0) (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 0) Current user Adjacency needs and Physical/functional Adjacency needs and Current user experience wants user needs wants experience (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 0) (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 1.0) Expectations/wants of Expectations/wants of Adjacency needs and Physical/functional Expectations/wants of users users wants user needs users (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 0.25) (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 1.0) Current user Users’ culture Users’ culture Users’ culture Users’ culture experience (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 0.5) (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 1.0) Physical/functional Physical/functional Expectations/wants of Physical/functional Users’ culture user needs user needs users user needs (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 1.25) (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 1.0) Demographic Users’ intangible needs Users’ intangible needs Users’ intangible needs Users’ intangible needs information (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 2.0) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 2.0) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 1.25) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 2.0) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 1.25) Demographic Demographic Demographic Demographic Users’ intangible needs information information information information (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 2.0) (Mdn: 2.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 2.0, IQR: 2.0) (Mdn: 2.0, IQR: 1.25) (Mdn: 2.0, IQR: 1.0)

Table 14. Stages of a design process rated according to the level of user information use. Rated on a 4-point scale, ranging from 1 “none” to 4 “a lot” and 0 being “N/A.”

Programming Ideation Integration Implementation Profession Mdn IQR Mdn IQR Mdn IQR Mdn IQR Architect 4.0 2.5 3.5 0.5 2.75 1.0 2.0 0.3 Interior designer 3.0 2.0 4.0 0.3 3.5 1.0 2.0 0 Healthcare programmer 4.0 1.5 3.75 0.3 3.0 1.0 2.5 1.0 Design team 4.0 2.0 3.75 0.5 3.0 1.0 2.0 0.3

301

Table 15. Results of Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. Friedman test showed a statistically significant difference in designers’ level of user information use at different stages of a design process, X2(3) = 54.983, P = 0.01. Post-hoc analysis with Wilcoxon signed-rank tests was conducted. A Bonferroni correction applied for these tests, resulting in a significance level set at P < 0.002. Wilcoxon signed- rank test results showed statistically significant differences between programming and integration, programming and implementation, ideation and implementation, and integration and implementation stages.

Programming – Programming – Programming – Ideation- Ideation - Integration - Ideation Integration Implementation Integration Implementation Implementation Z -1.05 (a) -2.29 (b) -4.39 (b) -3.89 (b) -4.95 (b) -5.00 (b) Asymp. Sig. .292 .022 .001 .001 .001 .001 (2-tailed) (a) Based on negative ranks. (b) Based on positive ranks.

Table 16. The average number of client meetings at different stages of a design process

Programming Ideation Integration Implementation Profession Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range Architect 3.5 0-20 15.2 0-110 5.8 0-15 6.8 0-100 Interior designer 1.8 0-3 7.1 4-14 7.6 5-12 2.9 0-10 Healthcare 2.0 0-4 6.2 3-8 6.1 5-8 17.0 0-100 programmer Design researcher 5.9 4-8 2.5 1-4 1.0 0-3 0 0 Design team 3.3 0-20 10.5 0-110 5.6 0-15 7.3 0-100

Table 17. The rank order of design features based on how much they are affected from the user information. Rated on a 4-point scale, ranging from 1 “none” to 4 “a lot” and 0 being “N/A.” The numbers in parentheses are the median and interquartile range scores for each feature. Table continues on next page.

Architect Interior designer Healthcare programmer Design team Function Function Function Function (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 0) (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 0) (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 0) (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 0) Usability User experience in the space Usability Usability (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 0) (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 0) (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 0) (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 0) User experience in the space Aesthetics User experience in the space User experience in the space (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 1.0) Dimensions of the design Aesthetics Usability Color scheme solution (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 2.0) Color scheme Design concept Color scheme Design concept (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 1.0) Dimensions of the design Dimensions of the design Design concept Aesthetics solution solution (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 2.0) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 1.0)

302

Architect Interior designer Healthcare programmer Design team Environmental issues Environmental issues Design concept Environmental issues (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 2.0) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 1.0) Material selection Material selection Environmental issues Aesthetics (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 2.0) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 2.0) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 1.75) Dimensions of the design Color scheme Material selection Material selection solution (Mdn: 2.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 2.0) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 2.0) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 1.5)

Table 18. The distribution of the ideas on how systematic user involvement affects the design outcome

No, the outcome Can affect positively or Profession Yes, affects positively Yes, affects negatively does not change negatively 18 2 2 Architect 0 (82%) (9%) (9%) 7 Interior designer 0 0 0 (100%) 7 Healthcare programmer 0 0 0 (100%) 6 Design researcher 0 0 0 (100%) 38 2 2 Design team 0 (91%) (5%) (5%)

Table 19. The distribution of the ideas regarding the change in the stages of a design process—other than the fuzzy-front end—as a result of systematic user involvement

Profession Yes No Not sure 15 2 5 Architect (68%) (9%) (23%) 6 1 Interior designer 0 (86%) (14%) 6 1 Healthcare programmer 0 (86%) (14%) 5 1 Design researcher 0 (83%) (17%) 32 3 7 Design team (76%) (7%) (17%)

303

APPENDIX K

ID1: FREE LISTING AND SURVEY RESULTS

1. Free listing results

Table 1. Industrial designers’ sources of user Table 2. Engineers’ sources of user information. Number of respondents is 2. information. Number of respondents is 10.

Source n Source n Interviews (informal) with users 2 Client/discussions with client team 6 Focus group 1 Interviews/discussions with users 5 Internet 1 Observations on similar products’ Interviews (informal) with colleagues 1 usage 4 Manufacturing partners 1 Internal conversations with typical Market research brief 1 users in the office 3 Mock-up trials 1 Internet search (including blogs, chat Quick survey 1 rooms, reviews) 3 Secondary research 1 Competitive product User testing reports 1 analysis/research on similar products/designs 2 Magazines/published materials 2 Own experience 2 Discussions with colleagues on similar projects 1 Focus groups 1 In-situ interviews with users 1 Information given by researchers 1 Intuition 1 Market research 1 Observations of simulated use 1 Online surveys 1 Photos of users/context 1 Project managers 1 Self-testing the product 1 Site visits 1 Usability studies reports 1

304

Table 3. User information of interest to Table 4. User information of interest to industrial designers. Number of respondents engineers. Number of respondents is 10. is 2. User information n User information n Aesthetic preferences 1 Ergonomic information 2 Demographic information 5 User profile 2 Usage scenarios/similar products’ Competitive products 1 usage patterns 5 Demographic information 1 Ergonomics 4 Desires/wants 1 Aspirations/expectations from similar Difficulties of the existing products 1 products 2 Market 1 Buying preferences 2 Project anchors 1 Concerns/fears/difficulties 2 Usability of existing products 1 Proficiency with similar devices 2 Usage scenarios/use cases 1 Similar successful products and the reason for their success 2 Anthropometric information 1 Context/environment where the product be used 1 Functionality 1 Information on medical condition 1 Motivations for buying the product 1 Price point 1 Requirements 1 Robustness expectations 1 Safety of the user 1 Specifications 1 Tactile feel preferences 1 What the product will be used for 1

2. Survey results

The following results do not reflect the ideas of the whole consultancy. The results are specific to the people who participated in the survey. The number of industrial designers who filled out the survey is three and the number of engineers is 11. The design team total is 14.

305

Table 5. The rank order of the design factors’ significance on solving design problems. 14 factors were ranked. Higher numbers represent higher significance. The numbers in parentheses are the mean scores for each factor.

2nd most 3rd most 2nd least 3rd least Profession Most important important important Least important important important Manufacturing Industrial Client’s brand & Concept (12.5) Client (12) Function (11.5) Color scheme (2) method designer visual identity (6) Materials (3.5) Client’s wants Internet Engineer Budget (8.2) Concept (6.8) Assets (4.7) Schedule (5.3) /needs (7.4) standards (1.6) Design Color scheme Manufacturing Client (12.1) Function (11.9) End-user (10.6) Materials (4.2) team (2.5) method (4.6)

Table 6. The average number and range of user involvement methods practiced and the most and not applied user involvement methods

Number of methods practiced Profession Mean Range Most practiced methods Not practiced methods Internet search (100%) Cultural probes One-to-one interviews with users (100%) Intercept interviews Industrial 14.7 8-24 Observations (100%) Literature (books, academic designer Personal experience (100%) journals, etc.) Usability test (100%) Narrative inquiry Everyday conversation with the user Intercept interviews (100%) Scrapbooking Personal experience (100%) Engineer 12.2 6-21 Intuition (91%) Self-modeling (91%) Internet searches (91%) Personal experience (100%) Intercept interviews Internet searches (93%) Everyday conversation with the user (86%) Design team 12.7 6-24 Intuition (86%) Observation (86%) Self-modeling (86%)

Table 7. The distribution of user involvement types

Profession Intuitive Semi-systematic Systematic Intuitive & Systematic Varies* 1 2 Industrial designer 0 0 0 (33%) (67%) 5 3 3 Engineer 0 0 (46%) (27%) (27%) 5 3 3 1 2 Design team (36%) (21%) (21%) (7%) (14%) *Respondents who selected this option noted that they practice all three types depending on the project.

306

Table 8. The frequency of the conduct of systematic user involvement processes

On every On every More than 3 Once every Profession project other project times a year Once a year other year Seldom Other 1 2 Industrial designer 0 0 0 0 0 (33%) (67%) 1 1 2 7 Engineer 0 0 0 (9%) (9%) (18%) (64%) 1 1 1 2 9 Design team 0 0 (7%) (7%) (7%) (14%) (64%)

Table 9. The rank order of what each profession learns related to user in a project. Rated on a 4- point scale, ranging from 1 “none” to 4 “a lot” and 0 being “N/A.” The numbers in parentheses are the median scores and the interquartile range for each factor.

Industrial designer Engineer Design team Human factors/ Functional user needs Functional user needs Ergonomic issues (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 3.5, IQR: 1.0) Users’ problems with the existing Users’ problems with the existing Users’ problems with the existing products/services products/services products/services (Mdn: 3.5, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 1.0) Users’ experience with the existing Expectations/wants of users Expectations/wants of users products/services (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 3.5, IQR: 1.0) Functional user needs Human factors/Ergonomic issues Human factors/Ergonomic issues (Mdn: 3.5, IQR: 2.0) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 1.5) Users’ experience with the existing Users’ capabilities Users’ capabilities products/services (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 0) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 1.5) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 2.0) Users’ experience with the existing Expectations/wants of users Users’ capabilities products/services (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 2.0) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 2.0) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 2.0) Users’ culture Demographic information Demographic information (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 2.0) (Mdn: 2.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 2.0, IQR: 1.0) Users’ intangible needs Users’ culture Users’ culture (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 2.0) (Mdn: 2.0, IQR: 2.0) (Mdn: 2.0, IQR: 2.0) Demographic information Users’ intangible needs Users’ intangible needs (Mdn: 2.5, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 2.0, IQR: 2.0) (Mdn: 2.0, IQR: 2.0)

Table 10. Stages of a design process rated according to the level of user information use. Rated on a 4-point scale, ranging from 1 “none” to 4 “a lot” and 0 being “N/A.”

Programming Ideation Integration Implementation Profession Mdn IQR Mdn IQR Mdn IQR Mdn IQR Industrial designer 4.0 0 4.0 0 3.6 0 2.0 0 Engineer 3.5 1.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 1.6 1.3 2.0 Design team 3.5 1.0 3.0 1.0 2.3 1.6 1.3 1.8

307

Table 11. Results of Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. Friedman test showed a statistically significant difference in designers’ level of user information use at different stages of a design process, X2(3) = 25.195, P = 0.01. Post-hoc analysis with Wilcoxon signed-rank tests was conducted. A Bonferroni correction applied for these tests, resulting in a significance level set at P < 0.002. Wilcoxon signed- rank test results showed no statistically significant differences between stages.

Programming – Ideation Programming – Integration Programming – Implementation Ideation- Integration Ideation - Implementation - Integration Implementation Z -0.73 (a) -2.85 (a) -3.07 (a) -2.71 (a) -2.83 (a) -2.94 (a) Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .465 .004 .002 .007 .005 .003 (a) Based on positive ranks.

Table 12. The average number of client meetings at different stages of a design process

Programming Ideation Integration Implementation Profession Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range Industrial designer 6.0 - 5.0 - 21 - 0 - Engineer 7.3 4-18 3.5 1-6 14 5-22 5.7 1-10 Design team 7.2 4-18 3.7 1-6 14.7 5-22 5.1 0-10

Table 13. The rank order of design features based on how much they are affected from the user information. Rated on a 4-point scale, ranging from 1 “none” to 4 “a lot” and 0 being “N/A.” The numbers in parentheses are the median and interquartile range scores for each feature.

Industrial designer Engineer Design team Design concept Function Function (Mdn: 3.5, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 0) (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 0.5) Function Design concept Design concept (Mdn: 3.5, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 1.0) Human factors/ergonomics Human factors/ergonomics Human factors/ergonomics (Mdn: 3.5, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 1.0) Usability Usability Usability (Mdn: 3.5, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 1.0) Color scheme Aesthetics Aesthetics (Mdn: 2.5, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 2.0) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 2.0) Material selection Color scheme Color scheme (Mdn: 2.5, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 2.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 2.0, IQR: 1.0) Aesthetics Technology Technology (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 2.0) (Mdn: 2.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 2.0, IQR: 1.0) Technology Material selection Material selection (Mdn: 2.0, IQR: 0) (Mdn: 2.0, IQR: 2.0) (Mdn: 2.0, IQR: 1.5)

308

Table 14. The distribution of the ideas on how systematic user involvement affects the design outcome

No, the outcome does Profession Yes, affects positively Yes, affects negatively not change Not sure 1 2 Industrial designer 0 0 (33%) (67%) 11 Engineer 0 0 0 (100%) 12 2 Design team 0 0 (86%) (14%)

Table 15. The distribution of the ideas regarding the change in the stages of a design process—other than the fuzzy-front end—as a result of systematic user involvement

Profession Yes No Not sure 1 1 1 Industrial designer (33%) (33%) (33%) 9 2 Engineer 0 (82%) (18%) 10 3 1 Design team (71%) (21%) (7%)

309

APPENDIX L

ID2: FREE LISTING AND SURVEY RESULTS

1. Free Listing Results

Table 1. Industrial designers’ and creative Table 2. Interaction designers’ sources of user directors’ sources of user information. information. Number of respondents is 6. Number of respondents is 6. Source n Source n Internet (Flickr, google search, Internet (Flickr, Google, Wikipedia, google images, Wikipedia, customer review sites, e-news, customer review sites, e-news, blogs, discussion forums, blogs, discussion forums) 5 Facebook) 5 Observation 4 Interview with user groups and Client 3 stakeholders 4 Informal user Client 3 interview/conversation 3 Survey 3 Coworkers 2 Ask around the studio 2 Intuition/instincts 2 Empathy study/ role playing 2 Research and strategy department 2 Intuition/instincts 2 Usability testing 2 Personal experience 2 Concept testing 1 Shadowing 2 Empathy 1 Trend reports (from the trend Ethnography 1 analysts or internet) 2 In-situ interview 1 Ask around friends 1 Lectures 1 Feedback from usability testing (client Magazines 1 or user) 1 Market research reports 1 Field study in public 1 Past usability testing results 1 Image association with users 1 Personal experience 1 Journaling 1 Storytelling/scenarios 1 Magazines 1 Trend reports (from the trend Observation 1 analysts or internet) 1 Photo diary 1 Videos 1 Sketching sessions with users 1 Workshops 1 Velcro modeling 1

310

Table 3. Design researchers’ sources of user Table 4. User information of interest to information. Number of respondents is 5. industrial designers and creative directors. Number of respondents is 6. Source n In-situ user interview 5 User information n Survey (mostly online through Demographic information 4 tweeter and surveymonkey) 4 Ergonomics 3 Ethnography 3 User behavior/habits 3 Intercept interview 3 Age 2 Secondary research over internet 3 Cultural aspect/dynamics 2 Trend reports/research 3 Current trends among users Behavioral prototyping 2 (especially color, material, finish Co-creation exercises 2 trends) 2 Era analysis 2 Feedback on prototypes internally or Expert interview 2 from the client or user 2 Focus group 2 Perception/Users’ mindset 2 Journal studies 2 Context of the user 1 Shadowing 2 Physical limitations 1 Stakeholder interview 2 Pictures of existing product’s use 1 Typology of user development/ User User’s emotion 1 mapping 2 Wish list/expectations 1 AEIOU 1 Affinity mapping 1 Experience journey 1 Experiential research 1 Improv exercises 1 Market landscape analysis/competitive analysis 1 Matrix development 1 Peripheral user interview 1 Personas 1 POEMS 1 Quantitative research 1 Scenarios 1 Shop along 1 Syndicated research 1 Value web 1 Video ethnography 1

311

Table 5. User information of interest to Table 6. User information of interest to interaction designers. Number of respondents design researchers. Number of respondents is is 6. 5.

User information n User information n Current technology use and Demographic information 4 characteristics 3 Routine/workaround 4 Demographic information 3 Artifacts/services 3 Pain points/Problems with current Behavioral patterns 3 technology 3 Needs 3 Affinity to/comfort with technology 2 Process map/flow 3 Desires/likes 2 Psychographic 3 Dislikes 2 Ergonomics 2 Needs 2 Lifestyle/life priorities 2 Target user characteristics 2 Social engagement/interactions 2 User feedback on prototype/concepts 2 Usability issues 2 AEIOU 1 User stories/journeys 2 Aspiration/motivation 1 Barriers 1 Context of the user 1 Conjoint analysis 1 Emotions 1 Feedback on products 1 Ergonomics 1 Messages of the user 1 Favorite product 1 Modes of the user 1 Ideal experience 1 Preferences 1 Opportunity space 1 Say, do, make 1 Preferences 1 Shopping path 1 Task flow of users 1 Solutions/features 1 Trend among users 1 Stakeholders 1 User comments on existing technologies/products 1

2. Survey Results

The following results do not reflect the ideas of the whole consultancy. The results are specific to the people who participated in the survey. The number of industrial designers who filled out the survey is five, the number of interaction designers is five, the number of design researchers is four. The design team total is 16 including two creative directors who participated in the survey.

312

Table 7. The rank order of the design factors’ significance on solving design problems. 14 factors were ranked. Higher numbers represent higher significance. The numbers in parentheses are the mean scores for each factor.

2nd most 3rd most 2nd least 3rd least Profession Most important important important Least important important important Color Industrial Functionality Manufacturing Concept (12.3) End-user (12) Client (2.3) scheme/Budget designer (13.7) method (4) (3.7) Interaction Client/Function Manufacturing Color scheme End-user (12.5) Usability (10.8) Materials (4) designer ality (10.5) method (3) (4.3) Design Functionality Manufacturing Color scheme Concept (13) End-user (12.7) Materials (3.7) researcher (12) method (1.7) (3.3) Design Functionality Manufacturing Color scheme End-user (12.5) Concept (11.7) Budget (4.7) team (11.8) method (3.1) (3.8)

Table 8. The average number and range of user involvement methods practiced and the most and not applied user involvement methods

Number of methods practiced Profession Mean Range Most practiced methods Not practiced methods Everyday conversations with users (100%) Intercept interviews Internet searches (100%) Narrative inquiry Industrial Intuition (100%) Survey 17.6 13-24 designer Observation (100%) Personal experience (100%) Self-modeling (100%) Internet search (100%) Collage making Intuition (100%) Conferences Observation (100%) Cultural probes Personal experience (100%) Focus groups Interaction 10.6 9-13 Market research designer Photo ethnography Scrapbooks provided by users Site visits Survey Collage making (100%) Ethnography (100%) Internet search (100%) One-to-one interview with user (100%) Design 21 11-26 Intercept interviews (100%) - researcher Observation (100%) Participant observation (100%) Site visits (100%) Video ethnography (100%) Internet research (94%) Intuition (94%) Design team 15.2 8-26 - Observation (94%) Personal experience (88%)

313

Table 9. The distribution of user involvement types

Profession Intuitive Semi-systematic Systematic Combination of all 1 1 3 Industrial designer 0 (20%) (20%) (30%) 2 2 1 Interaction designer 0 (40%) (40%) (20%) 3 1 Design researcher 0 0 (75%) (25%) 3 4 7 2 Design team (19%) (25%) (44%) (13%)

Table 10. The frequency of the conduct of systematic user involvement processes

On every On every More than 3 Once every Profession project other project times a year Once a year other year Seldom Other 1 1 1 2 Industrial designer 0 0 0 (20%) (20%) (20%) (40%) 1 2 1 1 Interaction designer 0 0 0 (20%) (40%) (20%) (20%) 3 1 Design researcher 0 0 0 0 0 (75%) (25%) 4 4 3 1 3 1 Design team 0 (25%) (25%) (19%) (6%) (19%) (6%)

Table 11. The rank order of what each profession learns related to user in a project. Rated on a 4- point scale, ranging from 1 “none” to 4 “a lot” and 0 being “N/A.” The numbers in parentheses are the median scores and the interquartile range for each factor. Table continues on next page.

Industrial designer Interaction designer Design researcher Design team Users’ problems with the Users’ problems with the Users’ problems with the Users’ problems with the existing products/services existing products/services existing products/services existing products/services (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 2.5) (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 0.75) (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 1.0) Users’ experience with the Users’ experience with the Users’ experience with the Functional user needs existing products/services existing products/services existing products/services (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 1.5) (Mdn: 3.5, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 0.75) (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 1.0) Users’ experience with the Users’ capabilities Expectations/wants of users Users’ capabilities existing products/services (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 0.25) (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 0.75) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 0) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 2.0) Demographic information Expectations/wants of users Demographic information Demographic information (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 2.0) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 0.75) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 1.0) Expectations/wants of users Demographic information Users’ capabilities Expectations/wants of users (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 2.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 0.75) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 1.0)

314

Industrial designer Interaction designer Design researcher Design team Human factors/ Users’ intangible needs Users’ intangible needs Functional user needs Ergonomic issues (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 1.25) (Mdn: 3.5, IQR: 1.75) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 1.25) (Mdn: 2.0, IQR: 1.5) Functional user needs Users’ capabilities Users’ culture Users’ culture (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 1.25) (Mdn: 2.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 0.75) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 1.0) Users’ culture Users’ intangible needs Functional user needs Users’ intangible needs (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 1.25) (Mdn: 2.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 3.5, IQR: 1.75) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 1.0) Human factors/ Human factors/ Human factors/ Users’ culture Ergonomic issues Ergonomic issues Ergonomic issues (Mdn: 2.0, IQR: 1.5) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 2.0) (Mdn: 2.5, IQR: 1.75) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 2.0)

Table 12. Stages of a design process rated according to the level of user information use. Rated on a 4-point scale, ranging from 1 “none” to 4 “a lot” and 0 being “N/A.” The responses from design researchers are also included as design researchers can take roles at either stage of the design process.

Programming Ideation Integration Profession Mdn IQR Mdn IQR Mdn IQR Industrial designer 3.5 0.5 3.5 1.25 2.7 2.3 Interaction designer 3.0 0.5 3.5 2.25 3.3 1.2 Design researcher 3.75 0.9 3.75 0.5 2.3 1.2 Design team* 3.5 1.0 3.5 1.25 2.7 1.9 * The Friedman test showed no statistically significant difference in designers’ level of user information use at each stage of a design process, X2(2) = 5.44, P = 0.07.

Table 13. The average number of client meetings at different stages of a design process

Programming Ideation Integration Profession Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range Industrial designer 4.2 3-6 5.2 1-8 6.7 4-9 Interaction designer 6.0 2-10 6.3 4-10 6.3 4-10 Design researcher 5.0 4-6 2.0 2-5 1.7 2-4 Design team 4.8 2-10 4.6 1-10 4.7 2-10

315

Industrial designer Interaction designer Design researcher Design team Function Human factors/ergonomics Function Function (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 0.75) (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 1.0) Human factors/ergonomics Design concept Usability Usability (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 1.5) (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 1.0) Usability Function Human factors/ergonomics Design concept (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 1.5) (Mdn: 3.5, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 0) Design concept Technology Design concept Human factors/ergonomics (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 0) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 1.5) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 1.0) Color scheme Usability Technology Aesthetics (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 1.5) (Mdn: 2.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 2.0, IQR: 0) Material selection Aesthetics Aesthetics Color scheme (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 2.0) (Mdn: 2.0, IQR: 0.5) (Mdn: 2.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 2.0, IQR: 1.0) Technology Color scheme Color scheme Technology (Mdn: 2.0, IQR: 0) (Mdn: 2.0, IQR: 0.5) (Mdn: 2.0, IQR: 2.0) (Mdn: 2.0, IQR: 1.0) Aesthetics Material selection Material selection Material selection (Mdn: 2.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 1.0, IQR: 2.5) (Mdn: 2.0, IQR: 2.0) (Mdn: 2.0, IQR: 2.0)

Table 15. The distribution of the ideas on how systematic user involvement affects the design outcome

Yes, affects Yes, affects No, the outcome Profession positively negatively does not change Not sure Other* 2 3 Industrial designer 0 0 0 40% (60%) 1 2 1 1 Interaction designer 0 (20%) (40%) (20%) (20%) 4 Design researcher 0 0 0 0 (100%) 9 2 1 1 3 Design team (56%) (12.5%) (6%) (6%) (19%) * Responses to other include: a combination of “Yes, affects positively” and “Yes, affects negatively” depending on the case.

Table 16. The distribution of the ideas regarding the change in the stages of a design process—other than the fuzzy-front end—as a result of systematic user involvement

Profession Yes No Not sure Other* 2 1 2 Industrial designer 0 (40%) (20%) (40%) 3 1 1 Interaction designer 0 (60%) (20%) (20%)

3 1 Design researcher 0 0 (75%) (25%)

10 2 3 1 Design team (63%) (13%) (19%) (6%)

* Response to other is “it is a part of the process.”

316

APPENDIX M

IxD1: FREE LISTING AND SURVEY RESULTS

1. Free listing results

Table 1. Designers’ and creative directors’ Table 2. Developers’ sources of user sources of user information. The number of information. The number of respondents is respondents is 7. 11.

Source n Source n Client (and client’s documents) 6 Client 9 Comparative analysis 3 Client’s products, services, previous Client feedback 2 work 4 Media/internet (TV, magazines, art Client feedback/iteration 3 books, etc.) 2 Client’s website 3 Observations 2 Account manager 2 Site analytics 2 Brainstorming 2 Usability testing documents from Comparative analysis 2 others 2 Design documents/internal Client’s website 1 documents/briefs 2 Coworker write-ups 1 Internet 2 Everyday conversation with target Colleagues 1 audience 1 Conversations with friends, target Family/friend testing 1 audience 1 Interview 1 Empathy/intuition 1 Intuition 1 Family/friend testing 1 Personal experience 1 Focus groups 1 Reading user reviews from blogs/user Keeping up-to-date 1 groups 1 Reviewing previous projects 1 Results from previous projects 1 Site analytics 1 Studying products/services that are Usability testing 1 being advertised 1 Testing 1

317

Table 3. User information of interest to Table 4. User information of interest to designers and creative directors. The number developers. The number of respondents is 11. of respondents is 7. User information n User information n Age range 6 Age range 7 Technical ability 6 Gender 3 Gender 5 Interests of the users (likes, hobbies, Interests 3 etc.) 3 Education level 2 User’s familiarity with the presented Project layout, flow 2 information/visual 3 Tolerance to technical learning 2 “what not”/dislikes 2 User’s role/functionality 2 Target audience 2 Attention span 1 Visual identity/brand 2 Capabilities 1 Assets/characters’ roles and behaviors 1 Characters, their world, and motion 1 Desired interaction 1 Color theory 1 Educational level 1 Culture 1 Family status 1 Experience (web, game, etc.) 1 Functionality 1 Family values 1 Interests in other similar projects 1 Income level 1 Language 1 Learning ability 1 Location 1 Recognition ability 1 Marital status 1 Target audience 1 Objective of the project 1 The state of current products 1 Social archetype 1 Visual identity 1 Time at year 1 Tone/messaging 1 Tracking/site metrics 1 User’s reactions to characters/assets 1

2. Survey results

The following results do not reflect the ideas of the whole consultancy. The results are specific to the people who participated in the survey. The number of interaction designers who filled out the survey is five and the number of developers is 12. The design team total is 19 and includes the responses from two creative directors.

318

Table 5. The rank order of the design factors’ significance on solving design problems. 10 factors were ranked. Higher numbers represent higher significance. The numbers in parentheses are the mean scores for each factor. The end-user was ranked fifth most important factor by the design team with a mean score 6.2.

2nd most 3rd most 2nd least 3rd least Profession Most important important important Least important important important Client’s wants Internet Designer End-user (7.2) Concept (7.0) Schedule (2.6) Assets (3.8) /needs (8.2) standards (1.6) Client’s wants Internet Developer Budget (8.2) Concept (6.8) Assets (4.7) Schedule (5.3) /needs (7.4) standards (1.6) Client’s wants Internet Design team Budget (7.6) Concept (7.1) Schedule (4.3) Assets (4.6) /needs (7.8) standards (1.8)

Table 6. The average number and range of user involvement methods practiced and the most and not applied user involvement methods

Number of methods practiced Profession Mean Range Most practiced methods Not practiced methods Internet search (100%) Collage making Personal experience (100%) One-to-one interview Intuition (80%) Narrative inquiry Observation (80%) Photo ethnography Designer 8.2 5-12 Everyday conversation with potential Scrapbooks provided by users users (80%) Simulations Surveys Task analysis Video ethnography Internet search (83%) Collage making Intuition (83%) Narrative inquiry Observation (83%) Photo ethnography Developer 6.8 2-13 Personal experience (83%) Scrapbooking Scrapbooks provided by users Video ethnography Internet search (90%) Collage making Personal experience (84%) Narrative inquiry Design team 7.4 2-13 Intuition (84%) Photo ethnography Observation (84%) Scrapbooks provided by users Video ethnography

Table 7. The distribution of user involvement types

Profession Intuitive Semi-systematic Systematic Intuitive & Semi-systematic 3 1 1 Designer 0 (60%) (20%) (20%) 11 1 Developer 0 0 (92%) (8%) 16 2 1 Design team 0 (84%) (11%) (5%)

319

Table 8. The frequency of the conduct of systematic user involvement processes

On every On every More than 3 Once every Profession project other project times a year Once a year other year Seldom Other Designer 20% 0 0 20% 0 60% 0 Developer 8% 0 17% 8% 0 67% 0 Design team 11% 0 16% 11% 0 63% 0

Table 9. The rank order of what each professional learns related to user in a project. Rated on a 4- point scale, ranging from 1 “none” to 4 “a lot” and 0 being “N/A.” The numbers in parentheses are the median scores and the interquartile range for each factor.

Designer Developer Design team Users’ experience with the existing Users’ capabilities Demographic information design solutions (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 0.5) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 3.5, IQR: 2.0) Expectations/wants of users Demographic information Expectations/wants of users (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 1.5) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 1.0) Demographic information Expectations/wants of users Users’ capabilities (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 2.5) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 1.5) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 1.0) Users’ experience with the existing Users’ experience with the existing Users’ capabilities design solutions design solutions (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 1.75) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 2.0) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 2.0) Users’ intangible needs Users’ culture Users’ culture (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 1.5) (Mdn: 2.5, IQR: 2.5) (Mdn: 2.0, IQR: 2.0) Users’ culture Users’ intangible needs Users’ intangible needs (Mdn: 2.0, IQR: 1.5) (Mdn: 1.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 2.0, IQR: 2.0)

Table 10. Stages of a design process rated according to the level of user information use. Rated on a 4-point scale, ranging from 1 “none” to 4 “a lot” and 0 being “N/A.”

Programming Ideation Integration Profession Mdn IQR Mdn Mdn IQR Mdn Designer 4.0 0.8 4.0 1.0 3.3 1.2 Developer 2.8 1.5 3.5 1.0 2.8 1.3 Design team* 3.0 1.5 4.0 1.0 3.0 1.3 * The Friedman test showed no statistically significant difference in designers’ level of user information use at each stage of a design process, X2(2) = 2.8, P = 0.25.

Table 12. The average number of client meetings at different stages of a design process

Programming Ideation Integration Profession Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range Designer 3.3 2-6 2.0 1-3 8.3 2-18 Developer 2.8 0-10 2.5 0-5 10.2 4-45 Design team 3.0 0-10 2.4 0-5 9.6 4-45

320

Designer Developers Design team Design concept Usability Function (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 0.5) (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 0.5) Function Design concept Design concept (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 0.5) (Mdn: 3.5, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 1.0) Usability Function Usability (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 0.5) (Mdn: 3.5, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 1.0) Interactive quality Aesthetics Aesthetics (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 1.0) Navigation/site map Interactive quality Layout (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 0) Layout Navigation/site map Interactive quality (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 0.75) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 1.0) Aesthetics Layout Navigation/site map (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 1.5) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 0) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 1.0)

Table 14. The distribution of the ideas on how systematic user involvement affects the design outcome

Profession Yes, affects positivelyYes, affects negatively No Not sure 4 1 Designer 0 0 (80%) (20%) 10 2 Developer 0 0 (83%) (17%) 15 1 3 Design team 0 (79%) (5%) (16%)

Table 15. The distribution of the ideas regarding the change in the stages of a design process—other than the fuzzy-front end—as a result of systematic user involvement

Profession Yes No Not sure 5 Designer 0 0 (80%) 10 1 1 Developer (83%) (8%) (8%) 16 1 2 Design team (84%) (5%) (11%)

321

APPENDIX N

IxD2: FREE LISTING AND SURVEY RESULTS

1. Free listing results

Table 1. Designers’ sources of user Table 2. Developers’ and technical analysts’ information. Number of respondents is 6. sources of user information. Number of respondents is 11. Source n Brainstorming/project team Source n discussions 3 Interview 5 Casual conversation with people 3 Brainstorming meetings 3 Competitive and comparative Competitive and comparative analysis 3 analysis/Precedents 3 Survey 3 Intuition/logic 3 Usability testing 3 Personal experience 3 Educated guess 2 Articles on the subject 2 Casual conversations with people 1 Client 2 Client (their project examples) 1 Experience strategy team (site maps, Collaborative exercises 1 UX framework, IA, strategy brief) 2 Data from web analytics 1 Internet (comments, reviews, etc.) 2 Emails 1 Design brief 1 Focus group 1 Feedback from senior designers 1 Observation 1 Focus group 1 Other departments within the Internal testing among ourselves 1 consultancy 1 Interview 1 Paper prototyping 1 Looking myself 1 Past projects 1 Observation 1 Personal experience 1 Personas 1 Presentations 1 Self testing 1 Revisions 1 Self-modeling 1 Talking to technical analysts (this User testing results 1 source is specific to developers) 1 Trying alternatives to compare 1 Want/need analysis 1

322

Table 3. Design researchers’ sources of user Table 4. User information of interest to information. Number of respondents is 9. designers. Number of respondents is 6.

Source n User information n User interview 9 Demographic information (especially Survey 6 age) 3 Usability testing 5 Aspirations 2 Competitive/comparative analysis 4 Interests 2 Secondary research (trend analysis, Likes 2 etc.) 4 The goal of the user while using the Web analytics 4 product 2 Focus group 3 Confusions resulting from the Social media engagement 3 concept/prototype 1 Stakeholder interview 3 Dislikes 1 Focus group testing 2 Existing products used by the user 1 Observation 2 Geography 1 Reports from research firms 2 Level of involvement of the user with 2nd hand user feedback (helpdesk, the product 1 customer services, etc.) 1 Lifestyle 1 Card sorting 1 Most relevant information for the Cognitive walkthrough 1 user 1 Heuristic evaluation 1 Motivation 1 Online user reviews 1 Personal style 1 Participatory exercises 1 Profession 1 Prioritization exercises 1 Reactions to concepts/prototypes 1 Task analysis 1 Who the user is purchasing for 1 Workshops 1 Workshops with stakeholders 1 Workshops with users 1

323

Table 5. User information of interest to Table 6. User information of interest to developers and technical analysts. Number of design researchers. Number of respondents is respondents is 11. 9.

User information n User information n The task/the problem that we are trying to Demographic information (most solve 4 importantly age) 4 Age, gender 3 Analytics data 3 Proficiency with the technology/product 3 Common behaviors 3 Target user description/personas 3 Goals 3 Limitations of the user 2 Mental models 3 Beginning state of the task 1 Motivations 3 Business drivers 1 Needs 3 End state of the task 1 Tasks/workflow 3 Indirect/expected results from the task 1 Technical proficiency 3 Information use 1 User taxonomy/segmentation 3 Location 1 Analog artifacts 2 Necessary information for each user to Competitive products the users like/use and perform the task 1 users’ comments on these 2 Needs 1 Desires/likes 2 Other projects/best practices according to Geographic location 2 the user 1 Preferences 2 Painpoints/problems 1 Skills 2 Task procedure 1 Accessibility 1 Technical information (method of internet Attitudes 1 access, etc.) 1 Barriers/frustrations 1 User case scenarios 1 Beliefs 1 User roles’ description 1 Connection speed/hardware/software 1 User-product interaction 1 Cultural/environmental factors 1 Expectations 1 Fears 1 Health 1 Influencers 1 Interests 1 Internet search logs 1 Job/job responsibilities/past jobs 1 Online habits 1 Personal social media 1 Task environment 1 Touch-points 1 Use of technology 1 What is (not) important for the user 1

324

2. Survey results

The following results do not reflect the ideas of the whole consultancy. The results are specific to the people who participated in the survey. The number of interaction designers who filled out the survey is seven and the number of design researchers is nine. The design team total is 16 and includes the responses from two creative directors.

Table 7. The rank order of the design factors’ significance on solving design problems. 7 factors were ranked. Higher numbers represent higher significance. The numbers in parentheses are the mean scores for each factor.

2nd most 3rd most 2nd least 3rd least Profession Most important important important Least important important important Client’s brand & Client’s wants/ Aesthetics/Conc Project schedule Designer End-user (5.3) Budget (3.0) visual identity needs (5.4) ept (4.1) (2.3) (3.7) Client’s brand & Design Client’s wants/ Concept/Project End-user (5.6) visual identity Aesthetics (2.8) Budget (4.1) researchers needs (5.8) schedule (4.2) (2.6) Client’s brand & Client’s wants/ Aesthetics/Proje Design team End-user (5.4) Concept (4.2) visual identity Budget (3.6) needs (5.6) ct schedule (3.4) (3.1)

Table 8. The average number and range of user involvement methods practiced and the most and not applied user involvement methods

Number of methods practiced Profession Mean Range Most practiced methods Not practiced methods Internet search (100%) Conferences Intuition (86%) Ethnography Everyday conversation with the user (71%) Photo ethnography Designer 9.3 5-20 Market research (71%) Observations (71%) Personal experience (71%) Intuition (100%) Photo ethnography Surveys (89%) Scrapbooking Design Internet search (89%) 11.3 6-16 researchers One-to-one interviews with users (78%) Personal experience (78%) Usability testing (78%) Internet search (94%) Photo ethnography Intuition (94%) Design team 10.4 5-20 Everyday conversation with the user (75%) Personal experience (75%)

325

Table 9. The distribution of user involvement types

Intuitive & Intuitive, Semi- Profession Intuitive Semi-systematic Systematic Semi-systematic systematic, & Systematic 4 1 1 1 Designer 0 (57%) (14%) (14%) (14%) 1 5 2 1 Design researchers 0 (11%) (56%) (22%) (11%) 5 6 3 1 1 Design team (31%) (38%) (19%) (6%) (6%)

Table 10. The frequency of the conduct of systematic user involvement processes

On every On every More than 3 Once every Profession project other project times a year Once a year other year Seldom Other 1 2 1 3 Designer 0 0 0 (14%) (29%) (14%) (43%) 2 2 3 2 Design researchers 0 0 0 (22%) (22%) (33%) (22%) 3 4 4 3 2 Design team 0 0 (19%) (25%) (25%) (19%) (13%)

Designer Design researchers Design team Expectations/wants of users Current user experience Current user experience (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 0) (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 1.0) Current user experience Demographic information Expectations/wants of users (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 0) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 1.0) Functional user needs Expectations/wants of users Functional user needs (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 1.0) Demographic information Users’ culture Demographic information (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 0) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 1.0) Users’ culture Functional user needs Users’ culture (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 1.0) Users’ capabilities Users’ capabilities Users’ capabilities (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 2.0) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 2.0) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 2.0) Users’ intangible needs Users’ intangible needs Users’ intangible needs (Mdn: 2.0, IQR: 0) (Mdn: 2.0, IQR: 2.0) (Mdn: 2.0, IQR: 0.5)

326

Table 12. Stages of a design process rated according to the level of user information use. Rated on a 4-point scale, ranging from 1 “none” to 4 “a lot” and 0 being “N/A.” The responses from design researchers also analyzed as at IxD2 design researcher have dual roles and work as information architects as well.

Programming Ideation Integration Implementation Profession Mdn IQR Mdn IQR Mdn IQR Mdn IQR Designer 4.0 0 4.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Design researchers 3.5 1.0 4.0 1.0 2.5 0.75 1.0 0.25 Design team 4.0 0.5 4.0 1.0 2.5 1.0 1.0 0.5

Table 13. Results of Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. Friedman test showed a statistically significant difference in designers’ level of user information use at different stages of a design process, X2(3) = 14.719, P = 0.01. Post-hoc analysis with Wilcoxon signed-rank tests was conducted. A Bonferroni correction applied for these tests, resulting in a significance level set at P < 0.002. Wilcoxon signed- rank test results showed no statistically significant differences between stages.

Programming – Ideation Programming – Integration Programming – Implementation Ideation- Integration Ideation - Implementation - Integration Implementation Z -1.60 (a) -2.38 (a) -2.39 (a) -2.20 (a) -2.22 (a) -0.28 (a) Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .109 .018 .017 .028 .027 .783 (a) Based on positive ranks.

Table 14. The average number of client meetings at different stages of a design process

Programming Ideation Integration Implementation Profession Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range Designer 2.2 0-5 1.4 0-3 5.2 0-14 1.0 0-2 Design researchers 2.4 1-4 2.0 1-3 6.1 2-11 0.6 0-3 Design team 2.3 0-5 1.8 0-3 5.8 0-14 0.8 0-3

327

Table 15. The rank order of design features based on how much they are affected from the user information. Rated on a 4-point scale, ranging from 1 “none” to 4 “a lot” and 0 being “N/A.” The numbers in parentheses are the median and interquartile range scores for each feature.

Designer Design researchers Design team Function Function Function (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 0) (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 0.75) (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 0) Information architecture Information architecture Information architecture (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 0.75) (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 1.0) Usability Usability Usability (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 0.75) (Mdn: 4.0, IQR: 1.0) Experience Experience Experience (Mdn: 4.9, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 4.9, IQR: 0) (Mdn: 4.9, IQR: 0) Aesthetics Aesthetics Aesthetics (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 2.0) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 0) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 0) Color scheme Design concept Color scheme (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 2.0) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 1.75) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 2.0) Design concept Layout Design concept (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 1.5) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 1.0) Layout Layout

(Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 3.0, IQR: 1.0) Typography Typography

(Mdn: 2.0, IQR: 1.0) (Mdn: 2.0, IQR: 1.0)

Table 16. The distribution of the ideas on how systematic user involvement affects the design outcome

No, the outcome does Profession Yes, affects positively Yes, affects negatively not change Not sure 5 2 Designer 0 0 (71%) (29%) 9 Design researchers 0 0 0 (100%) 14 2 Design team 0 0 (88%) (13%)

Table 17. The distribution of the ideas regarding the change in the stages of a design process—other than the fuzzy-front end—as a result of systematic user involvement

Profession Yes No Not sure 6 1 Designer 0 (86%) (14%) 8 1 Design researchers 0 (89%) (11%) 14 1 1 Design team (88%) (6%) (6%)

328