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