Issue
Article
Vol.28 No.4, October 1996
Article
Issue
Issue |
Article |
Vol.28 No.4, October 1996 |
Article |
Issue |
The human computer interaction (HCI) community has a long association with the development of user centred design principles (UCD) and usability engineering but how far is industry integrating UCD principles into their product design processes in practice?
The application of digital technologies, which is continually breaking into new spheres of use, presents a challenging development. Business environments are rapidly evolving; new markets, new market players, new types of products, new user groups. All these changes raise different issues from those previously confronted in the computer industry. As the "usability issue" is applied to many product areas beyond traditional HCI we were interested to find out how far state of practice companies are adapting the UCD principles commonly advocated. We were also interested to see how these principles were being applied in business areas not usually associated with the computer industry.
The workshop set out to identify:
We had a total of 18 participants.
We had a diverse mix of participants all of whom were actively engaged in user centred design as part of their job responsibilities. Participants ranged from people working in state of practice companies to people involved in defining new directions. Nine participants worked in North America, 8 worked in Europe, and 1 in Japan.
No Business Area 5 Computer Manufacturers 4 Product Manufacturer (Professional and Consumer products) 3 Software vendors 5 Research and Consultancy 1 Financial service industry
What we planned to do was have participants present their position statements, and to identify which of the three issues (the key practices, the skills or the dependencies) they wanted to discuss. Following a short plenary session the intention was then to break out into three groups, discuss the issues and then come together again as a plenary to draw conclusions.
In practice the day turned out somewhat differently. The whole morning was taken up with participants presenting their position statements and entering into a discussion on all three issues. The conclusion from this was an inventory of key practices that people used, an overview of the skills employed, and the dependencies, particularly the hindrances that people encountered. As a result all participants opted to discuss the issue of dependencies.
The issues that arose from the morning discussion will not surprise most readers. However to give you a flavour of the scope we summarise them below.
The key practices summarised below are not necessarily practised in all respects by the companies represented but they are key practices which need to be addressed.
The skill and knowledge base that should be represented in a recognised and competent form in UCD design teams:
And some comments remembered from the session...
"We have established ways of working, but if somebody senior disagrees......"
"If we do a usability test and the engineers don't like the results they do their own test....."
"We have a process but in fact I make it up each time......"
"HF practitioners have to get used to a lot of frustration......."
The Afternoon Session
For the afternoon we turned the issue on its head. The scene we set for ourselves was as follows. If, within an organisation, User Centred Design occurs as accepted daily practice then how would we know that it was in place, what would be the barriers, what would be the motivators, and who would need to know (alliances, champions, customer/user groups, etc)? We split up into 4 smaller groups.
So how far are UCD practices industrialised? In general, we considered the industries represented and those known to the participants.
It was agreed that most of the key practices identified are carried out at one time or another to some degree. The key practices are also well known to those in the field. A major problem for many practitioners, even in `highly aware companies', is that involvement is too often ad hoc and by invitation, and/or there is too much reliance on individual initiative. This results in highly variable levels of involvement depending on the resources available. Where practices are not so well known or developed this was not regarded as a problem; "given time we will find ways and means...".
In the area of skills a similar conclusion emerged as with key practices. The skills are widely practised but to variable degrees for the same reasons noted for the key practices. Individuals can also be expected to represent a range of skills beyond those for which they would regard themselves as qualified. In part this is due to the lack of available skills in the market place coupled with the `immature view' that many businesses have of what UCD involves.
In development projects we generally agreed that the more `immature businesses' often see UCD as restricted to integrating human factors into software development projects. In other words UCD tends to be an add-on to a software development process in order to deliver a more refined solution. In the case of the more `mature businesses' a wider view tends to be taken of the skills required, and the view on the technology is not seen as just limited to software. However, even with the more `mature businesses' UCD still tends to be subordinate to a process where designing the technology is the dominant perspective.
We regard the perspectives outlined here as a reflection on the evolution of working practices that need to be seen in an historical context. The development of UCD has been characterised as going through the art -> craft -> engineering -> management progression. We are perhaps at the shift from craft to engineering with many companies at the craft level in terms of their daily operational work. Many companies seem to be concerned with establishing UCD at just the engineering level. However the leading edge companies seem to recognise already that if design is to be user centred then it needs to be an integral part of managing product strategy as part of setting business directions.
We see two interdependent themes.
1. The general drive in industry to manage quality and develop processes in more rigorous ways.
Increasingly as experience with UCD develops businesses will need to develop processes in order to understand how best to deploy their resources. UCD skills are scarce, and likely to remain so for some time to come. This brings added pressure to deploy the resources available in efficient ways. UCD practices and skills will need to be integrated into and co-ordinated with related activities.
2. The extent to which customer satisfaction is becoming a key success factor.
As the market relevance of `quality of use' issues grow in importance businesses will increasingly adopt customer/user focused strategies as part of their drives to maximise on competitive advantage. The sensitivities displayed by market segments need to be reflected in the design solutions chosen for those particular segments. This could mean that UCD specialists get involved in design issues which are quite different from the traditional usability and `quality of use' criteria. For example pleasure, enjoyment, fun, engagement, in contrast to effectiveness, efficiency, satisfaction. The UCD specialist will need to develop the skills and practices that suit the sensitivities particular to their business environment.
These developments will create a more sympathetic environment in which UCD can flourish, but UCD specialists will still have to demonstrate their value to the process.
Making UCD and its impact on product design and success visible to management and other product development disciplines can help to aid in gaining further acceptance of support for UCD activities. Visibility should focus on establishing the value of UCD, not just on UCD as the `initiative of the day'.
Usability testing and evaluation make contributions to product quality, but testing alone does not guarantee quality. In the quality field it has been long acknowledged that you cannot assure quality only by post hoc testing. Expanding UCD activities into earlier activities to help define and shape the user experience has been shown many times to have a substantial impact on overall `quality of use'.
Defining, practising, and communicating UCD principles and practices can serve to help define, preserve and reuse UCD expertise in organisations, as well as helping to establish the value of UCD.
Evolving practices and instituting their common use in design teams and in organisations requires successful management of the process of change within the organisation. Many UCD specialists find themselves as agents of change but could benefit form additional training in tasks such as:
We expect that the `quality of use' issue will be increasingly important in the way a business portrays itself via it's products and services. Consequently the role of UCD will not just be in designing technology. UCD also has a role to play in creating and stimulating both product and business development to satisfy customers and users desires, wishes, and needs.
In this role UCD will involve designing the universe of use. Designing everything the user touches, hears, sees, feels, when they interact with devices and systems. And also designing for all phases of the use process from first encounter to disposal. The scope of issues that UCD might therefore influence, and vice versa, could be:
The authors want to build on what we have learnt from this workshop and plan to survey readers of Interactions in relation to their own experiences. We hope to report the results of this survey in a forthcoming publication.
We would like to hear from more people who are interested in this topic
We would like to thank all those who participated in the workshop;...
The authors have attempted to provide a faithful interpretation of the discussions that took place, but remain solely responsible for the content of this report.
Virginia Allen-Terry, Hewlett Packard, France
Nigel Bevan, NPL Usability Services UK
Miwako DOI, Toshiba, Japan
Ken Eason, HUSAT, UK
Preston Ginsberg, Unysis, USA
Simon Hakiel, IBM, UK
Austin Henderson, Apple Computer, Inc, USA
Todd Johnsgard, Novell Inc, USA
Mark A. Jones, Andersen Consulting, USA
Teri O'Connell, PRC Inc, USA
Amanda Prail, Symantec, USA
Henning Slavensky, Bang and Olufsen, Denmark
Marilyn Stelzner, IntelliCorp, USA
Karel Vredenberg, IBM, Canada
Brenda Wroe, NatWest, UK
Ian McClelland, Bronwen Taylor
Philips Corporate Design
PO Box 218, 5600 MD
Eindhoven, Netherlands
Tel: +31-40-733311
E-mail:
c834997@nlccmail.snads.philips.nl
Bill Hefley
Human-Computer Interaction Institute
Carnegie Mellon University
Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3890, USA
Tel: +1-412-268-7793
E-mail:
weh@cs.cmu.edu
Issue |
Article |
Vol.28 No.4, October 1996 |
Article |
Issue |