Assisting Designers in the Anticipation of Future

Product Use
Julien Nelson, Stephanie Buisine, Ameziane Aoussat

To cite this version:

Julien Nelson, Stephanie Buisine, Ameziane Aoussat. Assisting Designers in the Anticipation
of Future Product Use. Assisting Designers in the Anticipation of Future Product Use, 2009,
vol 2 n 3 pp 25-39.

HAL Id: hal-00787618

https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00787618
Submitted on 25 Feb 2013

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access Larchive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est

archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinee au depot et a la diffusion de documents
entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publies ou non,
lished or not. The documents may come from emanant des etablissements denseignement et de
teaching and research institutions in France or recherche francais ou etrangers, des laboratoires
abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou prives.
AIJSTPME (2009) 2(3): 25-39

Assisting Designers in the Anticipation of Future Product Use

Nelson J.
Arts et Metiers ParisTech, LCPI, 151 boulevard de lHpital 75013 Paris - France
E-mail: [email protected]

Buisine S.
Arts et Metiers ParisTech, LCPI, 151 boulevard de lHpital 75013 Paris - France
E-mail: [email protected]

Aoussat A.
Arts et Metiers ParisTech, LCPI, 151 boulevard de lHpital 75013 Paris - France
E-mail:[email protected]

Abstract
In this paper, we present some theories sover past decades describing interactions between designers and
users, and a state of the art of methods and tools to support these interactions in user-centred design. We
discuss related methodological issues as a first step toward the introduction of new methods to assist user-
centred design, to avoid uses of the product which might have undesirable consequences, while leaving
margins allowing users to adapt to the situation and potentially introduce further innovations within the
product. Lastly, we discuss the concept of unforeseen use and introduce creativity methods to help designers
anticipate these uses.

Keywords: User-centred design, user-designer interactions, prospective ergonomics, creativity.

1 Introduction
User involvement in the design process aims to consequences. These can be beneficial or
gather knowledge of existing needs and practices to catastrophic, according to the context. In the field of
design products that are better suited to them. Several industrial systems, for example, Reason [4] points
authors have contended that the end product out that many major accidents (e.g. the Chernobyl
crystallizes designers representations of users and meltdown, the Tenerife crash, etc.) have resulted
of the uses they make of the product [1, 2]. Real- from operators disconnecting automatic control
world use can be thought of as a test of these mechanisms to better cope with an impending
assumptions. Although the appearance of unforeseen accident, ultimately failing to do so because of an
uses was originally thought to be a mark of poor imperfect knowledge of the situation. On the other
workmanship on the part of designers, design-in- hand if automatic safeguards are not efficient in a
use posits that design continues into the stages of specific situation of use, human intervention is often
product use through users tailoring of the product, the only means to maintain or restore safety [5]. Our
or as Folcher puts it, operators' development of their goal is to propose a conceptual framework for the
own instruments to serve their individual design of a tool whose aim would be to elicit
activities[3]. consequences of unanticipated use beforehand, in
One difficulty is that unforeseen user behaviour often order to improve user-centred design. This leads us to
stems from adaptation to specific, unforeseen relationship.
situations, and is mostly judged according to its

King Mongkuts University of Technology North Bangkok Press, Bangkok, Thailand 25

Nelson J. et al.

Regarding this relationship, one view in the field is why should one convey specific uses as being
that user-designer interactions support a mutual acceptable, and deem others unacceptable?
learning process [6, 7]. In this paper, we contend that The response put forward by the French-speaking
this process can further be described as the co- tradition of ergonomics [14] is to define variability as
construction of an abstract space defining which uses a fundamental element of human activity. Task-
of a product are acceptable. The second part of the related constraints are managed with a user-driven
paper lists theories put forth in recent years to process of adaptation. Thus, although user behaviour
describe user-designer interactions, specifically those can be broadly characterized, interactions between
concerned with defining this space. The third offers a the user and situations-of-use preclude complete and
brief state of the art of existing methods used in such accurate anticipation of user behaviour. In other
interactions. In the fourth part, this analysis leads us fields, this has led to broadening the spectrum of
to make a first step toward a transactional model of analysis and viewing use as a social phenomenon.
user-designer interactions, aiming to help explain the
emergence of unanticipated uses of a product and
control its consequences. In the fifth and final part, 2.2 Use as social fact: communal acceptance and
we discuss the concept of unforeseen use and how rejection of products and prescriptions of use
designers should and could integrate these new uses
Regarding the social aspects of product use, two
in the scope of their work. Finally, we introduce
strands of research can be described which mirror the
creativity as a potential tool to help designers achieve
compliance vs. appropriation divide mentioned
this.
above. A first strand focuses on the social mechanics
of acquisition and transmission of use patterns in
2 Product use as the result of designer-user product use. Bourdieus concept of habitus [15]
interactions exemplifies this, since it defines social class as a unit
2.1 Use as a balance between compliance and for the dissemination of practices in the use of a
product. According to this, users belonging to the
appropriation same class also tend to exhibit similar tastes, and
Several authors describe use as a double-sided therefore potentially use similar products in broadly
process involving, on the one hand compliance to similar and consistent ways (e.g. swinging a golf
prescriptions in use and on the other hand club). This first strand is therefore concerned with
redefinition of these constraints according to personal use as a result of social determinism.
and situational factors [8-10]. A second strand is concerned with the mechanics of
Design with Intent (DwI) [11] summarizes a large product appropriation by social communities [16]. It
number of concepts proposed in recent years to help stresses social acceptance of a technology as
designers define and convey specific uses of a instrumental to the diffusion of innovative products
product as being preferable. These include and practices. Product functionality is only partly
Normans discussion of affordances [12] as responsible for such acceptance. Proulx [17]
directly perceptible mappings between artefact describes cases of civil disobedience within user
characteristics and potential uses. One example of communities, characterized by the enforcement of
this is the use of specific shapes for door handles to codes of conduct and values, which may be opposed
aid in the perception that the door can be pushed or to existing laws and social boundaries e.g. in hacker
pulled. Later, several authors advocated the use of communities.
various barriers [13] to guard against unwanted
uses, be they physical (e.g. an object blocking the 2.3 Synthesis: use as a trial of the product
entrance to a forbidden area), symbolic (e.g. a Use can be viewed as a balance between prescription
warning sign), functional or otherwise. As Lockton et of use and user appropriation on two levels, that of
al. [11] point out, DwI to date has focused less on individuals and of social groups. To quote Jout [18]
methods to convey intent and more on the underlying : Appropriation is a trial. It is the act of composing
ethical issues. For example, when designing urban ones self (our translation). We agree with this, in
environments, what are the ethical questions raised that product use involves an evaluation on the users
by the use of chairs with central armrests to enforce a part of the products capability to respond to specific
policy discouraging the homeless from sleeping in needs. Noticing a discrepancy between these needs
the open? The question seems to be: how, when and

26 King Mongkuts University of Technology North Bangkok Press, Bangkok, Thailand

Assisting Design in the Anticipation of Future Product Use

and capabilities triggers either product rejection, or code in exchange for crediting original authors [21,
transformation of its uses and/or structure. In this we 22]. Likewise, recent initiatives such as the
subscribe to Simondons view of technology as freecycling movement provide a basis for product
evolving in Lamarckian-type adaptation to user needs reuse, both in social (a social contract that states that
[19]. Only successful solutions, regarding both new unused goods can and should be exchanged with
products and new uses of existing products, are kept other freecyclers) and material terms (e.g.
and shared with the community. communities to help freecyclers contact each other to
This points directly to von Hippels discussion of arrange such exchanges).
user innovation processes [20]. According to his The user-designer loop is tightened by the fact
work, relevant transformations of a product may be that the terms user and designer can refer to the
shared within a community, by members he calls same people. Spaces for exchanges regarding
lead users, who combine knowledge of specific existing needs or future uses function according to
personal needs with technical know-how which communal rules (e.g. meetings, forums, emailing,
allows them to propose and implement solutions, etc.) which differ from the user-designer or user-
notably in the case of designing customized sporting manufacturer relationship which is contractual [22].
equipment to improve performance. For example, he As we will see in the third part, one problem of
cites a study of user innovations in a canyoning existing methods for use analysis is the asymmetry
community, which developed a way to cut a trapped they introduce between designers on the one hand
rope loose using a chemical agent. Such innovations and users on the other hand.
can then be produced and sold by manufacturers in
the field. In most cases however, knowledge of
technical solutions and of user needs is distributed. 3 Methods for use analysis: some forms of
The emergence of unsatisfied needs triggers an collaboration between designers and users
examination of existing resources for innovation. User centred design has fostered a varied set of
Such resources can be self-centric in the case of lead methods for the analysis of product use. In this part,
users, but may also stem from user-manufacturer we provide a short state of the art of these methods.
collaboration. Repeated exposure to specific user Following the distinction made in the first part of the
needs thus allows manufacturers to select paper, we examine existing methods according to
transformations deemed most relevant to users, two levels of dichotomy. The first level concerns
leading to what von Hippel calls manufacturer- whether methods are geared toward prospective or
centric innovations. retrospective analysis of product use. The second
However, he further points out that user- level concerns whether the unit of analysis is the
manufacturer collaboration is fundamentally different individual user or groups of users.
from user innovation. Indeed, in the latter case, users
can freely share innovations within communities. 3.1 Prospective vs. retrospective use analysis
This totally changes the balance of use prescription
vs. product appropriation for several reasons: Original models of user-centred design such as the
one put forth by the International Standards
Social values associated to product appropriation Organization [23] advocated retrospective evaluation
are very different. Appropriation is viewed in a of the usability of design solutions against user
positive light since it can give rise to innovation. requirements. Such methods are classically divided in
Indeed, in some communities, contributing to the three categories:
effort may be seen as almost contractual, since
unreciprocated profit from use can lead to effects of User testing, which examines user behaviour
social branding. For example, leeching refers to the with the product in the context of typical tasks, e.g.
practice of downloading the productions of online based on performance measurement or think-aloud
communities without contributing to the community protocols.
in return; Inspection, which requires a usability specialist
Values associated to use prescription are also to examine the product and apply domain-specific
different. In the case of open source software design, knowledge, e.g. through heuristic evaluation or
for example, prescription is superseded by overall cognitive walkthroughs
contractual principles, e.g. total access to software Survey methods, presented in the next part.

King Mongkuts University of Technology North Bangkok Press, Bangkok, Thailand 27

Nelson J. et al.

Two main elements stick out from this classic Foreseeing future use
framework of usability engineering. The first
One reason for the inability of designers to integrate
concerns the gradual broadening of the spectrum of
use-related knowledge early on in the design process
analysis from usability to the wider realm of user
is that the introduction of new elements within
experience [24]. The second concerns the use of
human activity is likely to cause in-depth changes of
analysis results and extrapolation of the results to
habits in use. For example, Folchers [3] study of the
future situations.
use of a proble
An increasingly large toolbox m-solving database by telephone hotline operators
Usability, defined as the effectiveness, efficiency shows that the contents of the database were
and satisfaction with which specified users achieve reorganized by users according to the type of
specified goals in particular environments [25] was problems they solved in their everyday activity. Cerf
long considered as a yardstick by which a products and Meynard [30], while studying the activity of
quality could be measured. It originally included agricultural counsellors, found that a system intended
three classic components: effectiveness, i.e. the to be used as a parasite trap for single plants was
accuracy and completeness with which specified used in a wider context as a detector to help decide
users can achieve specified goals in particular when to start anti-parasitic treatment on entire fields.
environments; efficiency, i.e. the resources Both these examples illustrate strong design-for-use
expended in relation to the accuracy and assumptions, i.e. the construction of internal models
completeness of goals achieved; and satisfaction i.e. of what Gurin et al [31] term characteristic
the comfort and acceptability of the work system to situations of action in the use of existing products,
its users and other people affected by its use. as well as potential situations of future use.
More recent developments gradually came to Extrapolation from one to the other can be viewed as
consider many more aspects of user experience as a form of counterfactual reasoning. As Roese and
measures of quality of use, e.g. beauty, affective, Olson point out, construction of counterfactual
hedonic or experiential aspects, which call for new scenarios stem from localized changes in specific
conceptual (models of human experience) or variables of existing scenarios [32]. For example, one
methodological tools. Methods used in the evaluation might start out with information regarding the use of
of these non-instrumental aspects can be based on a product by middle-aged adults and attempt to
various methods. Following Theureaus work on the extrapolate product use by the elderly. Therefore,
Course of Action research programme, one can methods for prospective use analysis, i.e. projection
identify several key requirements in constructing an into simulations of what might happen, always
appropriate set of methods and tools to study human depend on models of existing situations. Existing
activity [26]: methods depend on various postulates:
An epistemological framework which defines Prior occurrence in other, similar situations can
what are the specific objects of interest in the serve as a starting point for users to simulate
realm of product use and the basic rules what would happen with a different product. For
underlying their study example, Flanagans critical incident technique
A set of methods, borrowed from various may be used to identify problematic situations
scientific fields, with specific rules for their and likely causes of the problem, as levers to
application construct new scenarios and examine users
A set of rules regarding to what this counterfactual behaviour [33];
observatory tells us, what are its potential and Users can rely on existing problem-solving
limitations for the generation of data and strategies. For example, information-on-demand
hypotheses regarding product use. and Wizard-of-Oz type techniques help elicit
user needs in terms of information and expected
Thus, broadening interest to user experience led to system behaviour in solving such problems.
the widespread use of methods from social sciences.
In short, prospective analysis is usually based on
Overall, the epistemological framework of use
fostering the construction and use of mental
analysis can be seen as fundamentally
simulations. One last point we would like to
heterogeneous, and a practitioner (or indeed, several
make is that several media may be used for this.
practitioners) might rely on various combined
methods depending on their specific expertise.

28 King Mongkuts University of Technology North Bangkok Press, Bangkok, Thailand

Assisting Design in the Anticipation of Future Product Use

Storyboards describe the key elements of a solving [41], the following remarks can be made
situation on a series of panels. A storyboard is a concerning the characteristics of such interactions:
partial representation in both senses of the term: Speed: Feedback is generally fast and has a
time-wise, it only shows part of the story and single, clearly defined objective;
leaves the user to fill the gaps; content-wise, it Expectancy: Users can reasonably expect that
shows a fixed point of view on the situation, their call will lead to the problem being solved
which is chosen by designers. Film-based and the situation returning to normal within a
techniques are richer with information but have short time.
the same limitations. One key difference,
however, is freedom regarding content. One can Technological breakthroughs, mostly regarding
only film situations that are observed or acted online tools, have allowed these service-based
out, but can sketch any kind of situation; interactions to evolve considerably in terms of both
content and structure. For example, computer
Interactive simulations insert the user in a
maintenance can now rely on remote tools for both
scripted situation, while offering possibilities for
diagnostic (e.g. log files, which can record various
interaction. These limitations, which mostly
kinds of commands and parameters) and intervention
stem from interface characteristics, are
(e.g. remote desktop services, in which the
counterbalanced by the expected benefits of
maintenance operator physically takes control of
interactivity. Although simulations can rely on
user-interface interaction) purposes.
various media such as role playing or CAD
simulations, Virtual Reality (VR) has been the In contrast, design projects have less clearly defined
subject of much interest, since its capacity to objectives. The key difference is that a problem
immerse the user in a potentially realistic solving service can be thought of as a corollary to the
environment, easily gather use-related data and act of purchase, whereas users providing feedback
afford a sense of presence have been hailed as existing and future possible uses of a product are not
the next gateway toward prospective use bound by the same relationship. However, in line
analysis. with recent work in this field [42], we posit that this
relationship is still service-bound, although it doesnt
However, as several authors point out [34-36],
necessarily rest on the same framework, since
physical realism of simulations is not paramount to
benefits expected from user participation are not
obtain reliable data regarding future use. The goal is
necessarily viewed as immediate.
what Burkhardt [35], in the area of VR use for
training, terms psychological realism i.e. to place Complex phenomena may be at work when users are
the user in a situation where his behaviour can be asked to participate, in some form or another, in the
reliably said to be an accurate description of future product design process. Walker and Prytherch [43],
use behaviour. This involves a shift in points of view for example, point out that user motivation can have
from the present to the future situation. As long as profound effects on the users perceptive, cognitive
psychological realism is ensured, one can think of and evaluative processes, thereby impacting any
several other methods for prospective anticipation of analysis results. Likewise, Morie [44] shows that
future use, e.g. roleplaying or storytelling-based, motivation has an effect on the users ability to reach
which offer a greater degree of freedom. However, a state of immersion in a Virtual Environment.
this shift also entails overcoming pervasive Similarly, several studies in social sciences gave
obstacles described below. shown that user participation to investigations
experiments requires personal investment on the part
of users, in terms of:
3.2 Use analysis from individual vs. social points
of view Investment in the traditional sense, e.g. time,
which is usually the object of some form of
User collaboration in use analysis practices compensation;
When one examines the ways in which designers and Investment in terms of internal resources, related
users interact beyond the stages of product design, in particular to the construction of a mindset
most situations of interaction involve problem- prone to yielding relevant results.
solving services, such as using a technical hotline. Lack of investment in this second area can lead users
Although these involve a specific form of to question the usefulness of investigations, e.g. ask
collaboration aimed toward diagnosis and problem themselves questions such as What am I doing

King Mongkuts University of Technology North Bangkok Press, Bangkok, Thailand 29

Nelson J. et al.

here? Thus, experimentations relying on simplified complexity of real world use may prove to be too
tasks or simplified versions of the product require much to be circumscribed by even regular
some form of suspension of disbelief on the users exchanges aiming to help mutual learning. Instead,
part in order to provide interesting results. Participant we propose to view use as a process of negotiation
observation, which aims to reach a close and intimate between users and designers. Use can then be
level of familiarity with a given group of individuals, characterized as a sequence of acts of compliance
also requires investment on the part of users [45]. and defiance regarding use prescription.
Likewise, the reliance on data mining methods, Designers inability to predict all possible forms of
which rely on machines rather than humans to collect user defiance, as well as the fact that some of these
use-related data for extended periods of time, can acts may give birth to further innovation, are
lead to protocols being abandoned because the responsible for the fact that such situations can be
expected benefit of submitting continuously to viewed as tolerated violations to prescriptions of
automatic surveillance is not necessarily clear to use, in Amalbertis sense [46]. This model,
users. represented in fig. 1, underlines that use practices
may stray from the usual space of operations into an
4 Toward a transactional model of user-designer area of violations and deviances. This space of usual
interactions forms of use is defined simultaneously by
technological pressures (e.g. product functionalities),
4.1 Principle and overall view
individual concerns (use appropriation by users) and
One main problem of user centred design today is safety procedures (i.e. prescriptions in use).
foreseeing future use, for which several methods This model is concerned with the drift into accidents
exist. Some consist in projecting users or designers seen in major industrial systems. To generalize, one
within a mindset in which counterfactual reasoning is should point out that safety is not the sole criterion
sufficiently close to factual reasoning that involved in expected product use, but that it is
information gathered might be seen as a useful examined jointly with other criteria such as social
resource for design. Others rely on anticipating use acceptability and collective, rather than individual,
through analysis of the behaviour of user groups. We concerns. However, a recurrent theme is the
introduced the idea that user participation to such complexity of factors involved in crossing the
investigations might be viewed as a specific form of border and engaging in unforeseen uses. Some
service relationship, whose failures might in part be authors call these the systems Borderline Tolerated
due to the terms and benefits of this service being Conditions of Use [47], whereas others use the term
unclear. catachresis to describe the use of a tool for
One approach to use anticipation relies on another function than one planned by the designer of
introducing rules of use, which users can either the tool [48]. Both these concepts, although
comply to or reject the latter leading to either belonging to different traditions of scientific
rejection of the product altogether, or to the research, highlight the idea that unforeseen use might
emergence of unanticipated uses. In this part, we stem from a strain between design solutions and user
contend that such an approach may also imply expectations, which we, in turn, choose to view as a
service relationships, albeit relationships with similar process of negotiation.
difficulties but very different dynamics.
One difficulty is pointed out by Rabardel and Bguin
[9], whose view on accidents in unanticipated use
rests on the idea of asymmetry of information
between designers and users. For example, the user
might stray from use prescriptions (e.g. prolonged
use of a sunbed) because of a misrepresentation in
risks associated to such use and lacking knowledge
of key facts (e.g. minimal exposure time before the
probability of developing skin cancer rises
significantly). Mutual learning between users and
designers may help even out these effects of Figure 1: the traps of overregulation, from Amalberti
asymmetry. However, we contend that the [44]

30 King Mongkuts University of Technology North Bangkok Press, Bangkok, Thailand

Assisting Design in the Anticipation of Future Product Use

4.2 Negotiating future use as an alternative to 4.3 A sample application: a negotiating agent to
comprehensive anticipation avoid overload in domestic vehicles
Introducing such a basis for user-designer In designing motor vehicles for transporting goods,
relationship, highlighting not mutual learning but one risk relates to overload. Some forms of
negotiation processes, involves modelling this prescription have been proposed to avert this type of
relationship in order to control it. As a first step, we risk. For example, professional truck drivers undergo
introduce the concept of pact of use which relates specific training to help them handle their vehicle
to what Joule et al [49] call the free will compliance based on various types of information (e.g. driving
paradigm. These authors describe a number of context, truck specifications, etc.). However, in the
techniques to allow persuasive communication. context of everyday domestic use, such information
These techniques mostly rest on the fact that users is not often made explicit, which causes drivers to
tend to carry out actions in line with set attitudes, frequently overload their vehicle, often out of
rather than commit inconsistent actions. Furthermore, necessity.
they describe a number of factors which tend to Placing a sensor within the loading compartment
foster strong commitment on the part of subjects, would allow the system to sense when it is being led
such as repetition, perception of the irrevocability of outside the conditions of anticipated use, and trigger
the action, or explicitly describing an actions a sequence of events described in fig. 2. Sensor
consequences. One should note that several such activation might first trigger a warning, not in terms
attitude-shaping elements are at play, for example, of an immediate corrective action, but in terms of a
when designing barriers [13] against unintended knowledge-providing service focused on the vehicle,
use of software. e.g. You are currently driving with an overload of
However, we posit that just confronting the user with [x] kg based on your cars specifications. Then,
the consequences of actions located outside of the rather than just presenting the driver with a warning,
domain of expected use is not enough. User the system would also provide contextual
interactions with the product may also be viewed information about vehicle design, clearly describing
within the scope of a service relationship, involving a the expected consequences of this unusual use, for
human presence outside of the user-product pairing. example; This may cause support elements to
For example, the use of lifeline bracelets for the break. Finally, in order to avert automatic
elderly needs to be strictly controlled to be reliable. processing (and ignoring) of such alarms, the system
Anomalies in product use (e.g. accidental activation) should explicitly present the user with the choice to
are followed up by check-up calls on the telephone, pursue under current conditions of use, and require a
to ensure that the wearer is not in any immediate specific response from him.
danger. This service is a normal part of product use, Some authors have stressed the importance of
but such initiatives are still fairly underdeveloped. presenting the user with a simulation of the
Obviously, our suggestion is not that product use foreseeable consequences of his actions, e.g. when
should be tracked and interfered with every step of training to operate complex systems such as cranes
the way. Besides the logistical nightmare this would [50], but this work is only concerned with acquiring
entail, constant involvement of designers might be the set of skills and concepts necessary for product
perceived as just another constraint, and likely use. In everyday operation, others have pointed out
impeded (e.g. through deactivation of surveillance or that decision-making required the user to constantly
assistance functions). Rather, since the basic problem update his mental model of the situation, identifying
of unanticipated use seems to be understanding user specific cues of the systems state given its current
motivation to stray from anticipated use, we propose use [51, 52]. For example, hearing a car creak, or
to include sensors within products to identify when feeling it lag, are both indicators of overload, but the
the product is being placed outside of the usual scope decision to stop and unload the car is not systematic
of operation. Rather than immediately prescribing a or compulsory. Klein [51] points out, in fact, that
corrective action, a service would then allow sensemaking, i.e. the deliberate effort to understand
collecting information regarding the rationale for this events requires continuous cycles of gathering and
unexpected use. interpreting new data.

King Mongkuts University of Technology North Bangkok Press, Bangkok, Thailand 31

Nelson J. et al.

information to help remember the circumstances

Design specifications
which led to the product being used outside of its
intended scope of use.
This approach provides explicit information
Expected situations regarding the margins of expected product use, thus
Unexpected
of use Situations of use
confronting the user with a choice: comply with
(Overloaded car) prescriptions regarding product use, or persist in
current strategies. Conversely, when unanticipated
use is described a posterior in a positive light, user
responses could be collected automatically to help
Warning guide future innovation
System-specific
knowledge 5 From unforeseen to undesirable use: building
upon a negotiation-based approach
In the example described above, we defined
Explicit alternatives for use overloading the car as an unforeseen use, i.e. one
Description of likely consequences that is outside of the spectrum of uses catered for by
the product. One could point out that this situation,
which is critical to the product, in fact refers to a
variety of situations of use since there are many
User yields reasons and situations where one might be led to
User persists
Return to expected use overload a car, e.g. when moving house, going on a
long journey, transporting bulky items, etc. What
links these situations together is the resulting effect
A posteriori report-based system on the product, which can be detected and signalled
Motivations for unanticipated use to users. In this part, we examine the consequences
of this claim on the design of use-negotiating agents,
and the potential to broaden this concept.
Figure 2: a view of the process
for managing unanticipated product use 5.1 Unforeseen use, a polymorphous concept
Scenario-based design [54, 55] is a staple philosophy
This entails two types of risks: the first is failing to
of user-cantered design, relying on the use of
identify relevant cues, e.g. not understanding the
evocative stories told in various formats (textual,
meaning of an alarm; the second is failing to gather
graphical, film-based, etc.) to maintain orientation to
enough cues for efficient action, e.g. waiting to see
people and their needs when making design
how the car will behave. This second level poses
decisions. Scenarios may focus on several elements
specific difficulties, since uncertainty regarding the
of a situation but are invariably concerned with a
risks in current use behavior is outweighed by
single situation. By nature, scenarios are meant to
certainty regarding task objectives [46]. Beyond
elicit discussion between designers, particularly
providing the user with contextual information, it is
regarding the scope of situations of use that have
therefore essential to specifically request an action on
been catered for in a given project. For example,
his part, since such requests allow the user to better
designing a safety product to prevent drowning in
manage time-critical tasks, as well as to enforce
infants may incur a lengthy discussion of accident
accountability and ensure commitment to following
scenarios, i.e. the situations which the product is
consistent use strategies [53].
meant to guard against [56]; but, since it is
Furthermore, this system may also provide a basis to impossible to process each possible contingency
understand the occurrence of unforeseen uses, individually, scenarios are more often viewed as
through the use of a reporting system. For such a representing classes of situations, rather than single
system to be truly functional, it should be used courses of events, the goal being to make claims, i.e.
following (rather than during) driving episodes, in a guide design towards relevant trade-offs based on
debriefing stage, and provide the user with their representations of future use [57, 58]. This

32 King Mongkuts University of Technology North Bangkok Press, Bangkok, Thailand

Assisting Design in the Anticipation of Future Product Use

concept of trade-off echoes Simons theory of decisions can rest on other criteria, such as efficiency
bounded rationality, whereby decisions are made (success in carrying out a task, of which safety is one
not by examining the full spectrum of possible element), fairness (conformity to the legal system),
scenarios, but settling for the most satisficing one authenticity (conformity to the designers personal
[59]. This means that however much effort is put into values), etc. Therefore the concept of consequences
generating and discussing scenarios of use, there will of unforeseen use should be extended to include
always be a set of unanticipated situations which the these various criteria, and one could substitute the
user might stumble into in the use stage of the term unsafe acts in fig. 3 with the term
product lifecycle. undesirable acts.
Within this spectrum of unanticipated use, In short, unforeseen use is an extremely
however, a review of the literature leads us to polymorphous concept, and one should think about
consider the point of view of the user, more which subset of situations is of most interest to user-
specifically distinguishing whether entering this centred design if one is to expand the concepts put
grey area is an intentional process, or not. Thus, forth in this paper (fig.4). In particular, we will set
Brands et al.s recent survey of non-intentional apart 2 types of unanticipated uses:
design, or NID, processes [60] (non-intentional Misappropriation, which refers to intentional
refers here to designer intentions) shows that drifts from designer anticipations in product use;
diverting objects from their original intended use can
be a conscious, or even political, action, just as it can Misuse, which refers to unintentional drifts.
be a semi-conscious act of making the best with Both these strategies are clearly outside of the space
what you have. Similarly, Fulton Suris [61] choice of acceptable use as defined by designer intentions
to describe some types of diversions as thoughtless (area 1), but it is possible for designers to anticipate
acts such as using a pencil as a hairpin clearly at least some of these practices, either to prevent
shows that user intention is an important variable in them from spreading or to alleviate their
characterizing diversions of use. consequences (area 2). However, only some of these
A second important variable is the consequences of unintended uses can be anticipated, and others may
specific use strategies. In our process model (fig. 2), develop unexpectedly, forming a set of unforeseen
relying on a binary persist/ yield alternative to uses (area 3). Therefore, misappropriation and
describe use choices implies that in a given situation misuse both straddle areas 2 and 3 of our model.
where user and designer are at odds with choosing
appropriate behaviour of use, one of the two is right
and one is wrong. But within the realm of human
misappropriation misuse
error, several authors [4, 62] suggest taxonomies
based on the distinction between what the user Designer 1
intended to do and what action is actually carried out intentions

(e.g. fig. 3). 2

Designer anticipations
All possible uses of a product 3

Figure 4: Types of unforeseen use. Green denotes

intentional actions on the part of the user, red to
unintentional ones.

5.2 Augmenting designer capacity for prospective

use analysis
Figure 3: Taxonomy of unsafe acts, from Reason [4] Anticipating both misuse and misappropriation is of
great interest to designers, but one should point out
that most strategies deployed by designers rely on
Like Amalbertis model (fig. 1) the model in fig. 3
anticipating contingencies. Most barriers used by
emphasizes safety as a dominant criterion in design. designers to keep users in a domain of acceptable use
However, as Daniellou [27] points out, design

King Mongkuts University of Technology North Bangkok Press, Bangkok, Thailand 33

Nelson J. et al.

(e.g. an instructions manual, a foolproof process further to allow more rapid and efficient
mechanism, use procedures supported by wizards, expansion of designer knowledge of future use.
etc.) seem built on the premise, not that the designer
knows best, but that design has entailed enough 5.3 Creativity as a tool for prospective use analysis
effort to claim that unexpected use is automatically
undesirable. In the example mentioned above, the involvement of
a qualified agronomists is the driving force for
The originality of the negotiating agent approach is
expanding designer knowledge of future use. The
that it acknowledges that design assumptions may be
initial diagnosis allows identification of
wrong, and lets the user decide whether to follow
characteristic work situations which are then
through on his initial intentions; in Vicentes words,
subjected to a more in-depth analysis leading to
letting the user finish the design of the system [63].
prescriptions for design [31]. The intervention itself
This makes the agent potentially useful in countering
therefore serves as a tool to describe existing
both misuse and misappropriation, but for two
situations of use (e.g. of a work tool), clarify
different reasons:
stakeholder intentions, and anticipate future
In the first case, it allows the user to ascertain evolutions. However, as Robert and Brangier [66]
that he is outside of the scope of intended use, point out, this model refers to corrective practice,
thus addressing the risk of skips, lapses or which focuses on existing products, rather than
mistakes; prospective practice, which refers to the anticipation
In the second, it encourages negotiation by of human needs and activities.
allowing the user to turn back on a violation or In line with our earlier remarks, these authors note
justify it, giving material for further design the need for collaboration between various fields
iterations. (sociology, marketing, ethnography, etc.) to
However, the remaining issue is that this system anticipate future use. Since prospective analysis aims
relies on prior definition and formalization of the to widen the scope of anticipated use based on
anticipated set of situations of use. How can one interactions between people of different backgrounds
program such an agent to ensure efficient prior (including, in the case of participatory design, users),
detection of all undesirable uses? we feel it is even more necessary to rely on a
Bdker [64] found that users confronted with a framework to structure this process of exploration
variety of design projects were able, through the and definition of product uses.
construction of open-ended scenarios and reflection We contend that creativity may be a suitable
thereon, to support creativity in design. The methods candidate for this. Creativity has been the subject of a
she describes (e.g. creating and acting out further very abundant and varied body of research in the
scenarios; playing the devils advocate, building ideal social sciences aiming to discover its sources and
scenarios, etc.) emphasize the fact that scenarios are mechanisms; at the same time, several pragmatic
merely an entry point to access a wider variety of methods and practices have been developed to
situations, and that creativity focuses just as much on attempt to boost creativity, such as brainstorming
finding solutions as it does on identifying situations [67] or TRIZ [68]. Although, as some authors point
to test them. However, the potential of these methods out, the theoretical basis is still in its early stages [69,
to widen the scope of use anticipation is reduced 70], one trend in the field is to define creativity as a
because they are used in a seemingly haphazard way. practice allowing divergence from a set of existing
This is a recurrent concern in literature. For example, ideas to extend this set, and convergence for these
in a study carried out as part of the design of a new ideas to be developed. Literature in this field broadly
process control interface in a chemical plant, Bguin defines four main tasks in the creative process, which
[65] used simulations in a participatory design can be combined linearly in a creativity session.
framework to build up designer expectations of
future use. This allowed him to prospectively identify 5.4 Creativity sessions to foresee future use
the appropriation of a heat-sensitive alarm by plant
operators, who used it as a thermometer. To put a Creativity is generally viewed as a key element in the
stop to this undesirable practice, designers fitted a design of innovative products [71]. Increasingly,
separate heat sensor in the plant. One wonders, given designers aim to manage their own creativity through
these results, if it might be possible to guide this the use of structured methods and processes as well

34 King Mongkuts University of Technology North Bangkok Press, Bangkok, Thailand

Assisting Design in the Anticipation of Future Product Use

as dedicated tools. However, it should be pointed out mentioned in the problem definition stage, in order to
that the incentive in harnessing creativity lies, generate scenarios where available solutions are
following the seminal work of Guilford [72], in the ineffective in preventing car overload.
promise of new and improved solutions for solving Since our review of the literature emphasizes that
design problems. Typically, for example, creativity product appropriation is a developmental process,
might be used to generate a product concept to these scenarios may infer on events and activities that
address a particular problem or user need. occurred before the loading or driving tasks, the goal
Alternately, later stages of the design process, being to achieve consistent scenarios [64] For
creativity may be used in the definition of product example, one scenario might involve the user having
specifications. In short, creativity is usually viewed to stuff everything in the back seat because a roof-
as a resource to decide upon product characteristics rack strap has been damaged in a previous outing.
whereas it is rarely used when reflecting upon the
The final stage of idea sorting and evaluation aims to
products future use. The originality of our work lies
critically examine the scenarios generated in order to
in this novel application of creativity enhancement
improve on the design of the negotiating agent or
methods.
other safety systems. The KJ method [79], for
Referring to the initial example of the car overload, example, might uncover commonalities in the
problem definition might focus on the various scenarios generated in the creative production stage,
possible situations in which a user might want to load allowing designers to identify usable parameters for
a car, with special emphasis on user role in the the detection of unwanted situations of use.
overload and motivation to indulge in it. Feedback Backseat loading is a good example of such a
from negotiating agents in the field, but also from category: integration of load sensors in the back seat
users themselves (e.g. in simulations [73] or focus or floor of the car may be a viable solution.
groups [74]) may provide material for this initial
Alternately, creative production may, in defining
exploration. Combining the two, e.g. using allo-
these unwanted scenarios, uncover consequences of
confrontation [75] is likely to provide designers with
overload going beyond initial design expectations of
further insight.
vehicle damage, e.g. reduced visibility, leading to
Once initial knowledge about means and motivations further opportunities for the development of
for car overload has been gathered, collective innovative products, e.g. a visibility sensor that
examination of existing solutions used to reduce would improve upon the classical practice of
unwanted consequences for the car, e.g. through a checking in the rear-view mirror. This last example
brain purge [76]. This examination should be two- shows that creativity is an overarching and
directional, i.e. focus both: continuously essential element of design [80].
On widening the space of acceptable use and
improving the vehicles load-bearing capabilities 6 Conclusion
(e.g. roof racks, suspensions, trailers);
On strategies for use prescription and In this paper, we have laid the groundwork for a
architectures of control [77], in order to model describing product use as a double-sided
remove the incentive for overload (e.g. driving process of use prescription vs. appropriation.
instruction, safety campaigns, removal services, According to this view, most methods of use analysis
etc.) appear to have a retrospective point of view, i.e. rely
on collecting data about existing situations in order to
In our case, the creative production stage aims to optimize an existing product. In contrast, product use
identify the reasons for which these existing may be seen as a possible source of innovation. This
strategies are ineffective, as well as to find more entails letting users take over the product to let new
effective alternatives. For example, if roof racks are uses emerge, which can be spread in social groups to
overloaded, why is this so, and what are the possible give rise to trends of use. However, some existing
consequences? Classical methods of creativity that technologies (e.g. P2P networks) are known to have
can be used here include brainstorming [67] or disseminated uncontrollably in this way. In this case,
problem-solving matrices [78]. For example, a unanticipated uses can also have unexpected
problem-solving matrix may focus on crossing the consequences for the product, for the user, or even in
solutions discovered in the problem analysis stage on some cases for society as a whole. For all these
the one hand, with the situations of car overload reasons, freedom of use is often counterbalanced by

King Mongkuts University of Technology North Bangkok Press, Bangkok, Thailand 35

Nelson J. et al.

forms of prescription in so-called standard or [6] Bguin P., 2003. Design as a mutual learning
tolerated conditions of use. process between users and designers.
Studies of use prescription have shown that Interacting with Computers, 15(5): 709-730.
particularly conflicting relationships can exist [7] Vallette T., 2005. Recherche d'un cadre
between designers and some user groups, e.g. conceptuel d'aide la conception collective
hackers [17], resulting in uncontrolled dissemination innovante par l'usage: proposition de l'outil
of specific use practices. However, no form of "Glocal" pour la conception d'outils main et
prescription is absolutely reliable, and as our review des quipements de travail, in Gnie
of the literature suggests, neither should it be. This industriel, ENSAM: Paris.
complex relationship calls for new forms of
communication between users and designers. [8] Nardi B.A., 1996. Studying context: a
Modelling underlying social and cognitive processes comparison of Activity Theory, Situated Action
should yield interesting results for the design of tools models, and Distributed Cognition, in Context
and structures to help users and designers interact and Consciousness: Activity Theory and
around and during product use, and foresee Human-computer Interaction, B.A. Nardi,
consequences of specific forms of product use. We Editor, Cambridge University Press: New
hope, in line with the proponents of design-in-use, York, NY: 35-52.
that continued user involvement in the process may [9] Rabardel P. and P. Bguin., 2005. Instrument
improve user centred design. Finally, we put forth a mediated activity: From subject development
methodological suggestion approach to circumvent to anthropocentric design. Theoretical Issues
the paradox of design ergonomics" [81], i.e. in Ergonomics Science, 6(5): 429-461.
designers inability to finely predict a products
future use from the initial stages of design, where [10] Suchman, L., 1987. Plans and Situated
such information would be most useful. A creative Actions: The Problem of Human Machine
design paradigm, based on applying existing Communication, New York, NY: Cambridge
creativity enhancement methods to the original field University Press.
of defining frames of product use, constitutes an [11] Lockton D., D.J. Harrison. and N.A. Stanton.,
original step forward to reach this longstanding goal. 2008. Design With Intent: Persuasive
Technology in a Wider Context. in Persuasive
References 2008.
[1] Bguin P., 2007. Taking activity into account [12] Norman D.A., 1988. Design of everyday
during the design process, @ctivits, 4(2): things, New York, NY: Basic Books.
115-121 [13] Hollnagel E., 2004. Barriers and accident
[2] Visser W., 2006. Designing as construction of prevention, Aldershot: Ashgate.
representations: A dynamic viewpoint in [14] Daniellou F., 2005. The French-speaking
cognitive design research, Human ergonomists approach to work activity: cross-
Computer Interaction, 21(1): 103-152. influences of field intervention and conceptual
[3] Folcher V., 2003. Appropriating artifacts as models. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics
instruments : when design-for-use meets Science, 6(5): 409-427.
design-in-use. Interacting With Computers, [15] Bourdieu P., 2005. Habitus, in Habitus: a
15(5): 647-663. sense of place, J. Hillier and E. Rooksby,
[4] Reason J., 1990. Human error, Cambridge, Editors, Ashgate: Aldershot, UK.
MA: MIT Press. [16] Akrich M., 1992. Beyond Social Construction
[5] Woods D.D. and E. Hollnagel., 2006. of Technology: the Shaping of People and
Resilience Engineering concepts, E. Things in the Innovation Process, in New
Hollnagel, D.D. Woods, and N. Leveson, Technology at the Outset : Social Forces in
Editors, Ashgate: Aldershot. the Shaping of Technological Innovations, M.
Dierkes and U. Hoffmann, Editors, Campus:
Frankfurt.

36 King Mongkuts University of Technology North Bangkok Press, Bangkok, Thailand

Assisting Design in the Anticipation of Future Product Use

[17] Proulx S., 2005. Penser les usages des [29] Kujala S., 2003. User involvement: a review
technologies de linformation et de la of the benefits and challenges, Behaviour &
communication aujourdhui : enjeux Information Technology, 22(1): 1-16.
modles tendances [Conceptualizing [30] Cerf M. and J.M. Meynard., 2006. Diversit
current-day use of IT: stakes, models and dusages des outils daide la dcision en
trends], in Enjeux et usages des TIC : aspects conduite de cultures : quels enseignements
sociaux et culturels,, L. Vieira and N. Pinde, pour une cration conjointe des outils et de
Editors, Presses universitaires de Bordeaux, leurs usages ? [Diversity of uses of tools for
Bordeaux: 7-20. decision-making assistance in crop
[18] Jout J., 2000. Retour critique sur la management : what does it teach us for the
sociologie des usages [A critical review of joint design of tools and their uses ?], Natures
sociology of use]. Rseaux, 100: 488-521. Sciences, Socits, 14: 19-29.
[19] Simondon G., 1958/1980. On the Mode of [31] Gurin F., Laville A., Daniellou F. and
Existence of Technical Objects, London: Duraffourg J., 2007. Understanding and
University of Western Ontario. transforming work, Lyon: ANACT.
[20] Von Hippel E., 2005. Democratizing [32] Roese N. and J.M. Olson., 1993. The structure
innovation, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. of counterfactual thought, Personality and
[21] Elliott M.S. and W. Scacchi, Mobilization of social psychology bulletin, 19: 312-319.
Software Developers: The Free Software [33] Flanagan J.C., 1954. The Critical Incident
Movement, Information Technology and Technique, Psychological Bulletin, 51(4): 327-
People, 2008. 21(1): 4-33. 359.
[22] Stewart K.J. and S. Gosain, 2006. The Impact [34] Patrick J., 1992. Training, research and
of Ideology on Effectiveness in Open Source practice, London: Academic Press.
Software Development Teams, MIS Quarterly, [35] Burkhardt J.M., B. Bardy. and D. Lourdeaux.,
30(2): 291-314. Immersion, ralisme et prsence dans la
[23] Organization I.S., 1990. ISO 13407 : Human- conception et l'valuation des environnements
centred design processes for interactive virtuels [Immersion, realism and presence in
systems. the evaluation of Virtual Environments],
[24] Hassenzahl M. and N. Tractinsky., 2006. User Psychologie Franaise, 48: 35-52.
experience - a research agenda, Behaviour & [36] Nyssen A.S., 2005. Simulateurs dans le
Information Technology, 25(2): 91-97. domaine de lanesthsie. Etudes et rflexions
[25] ISO, 1998. ISO 9241 - Ergonomic sur les notions de validit et de fidlit, in
requirements for office work with visual Apprendre par la simulation - De l'analyse du
display terminals (VDT)s, ISO/IEC. travail aux apprentissages professionnels, P.
Pastr, Editor, Octars: Toulouse.
[26] Theureau J., 2006. Le cours d'action: mthode
dveloppe [Course of Action: developed [37] Darses F. and M. Wolff., 2007. How do
method], Toulouse: Octars. designers represent to themselves the users
needs?, Applied Ergonomics, 37: 757-764.
[27] Daniellou F., 1992/1999. Le statut de la
pratique et des connaissances dans [38] Oudshoorn N., E. Rommes. and M. Stienstra.,
l'intervention ergonomique de conception [The 2004. Configuring the user as everybody:
status of practice and knowledge within gender and design cultures in information and
ergonomic interventions in design], in communication technologies, Science
Ergonomie, Universit le Mirail: Toulouse. Technology & Human Values, 29(1): 30-63.
[28] Bach C. and D.L. Scapin., 2003. Ergonomic [39] Hyysalo S., 2003. Some Problems in the
criteria adapted to human virtual environment Traditional Approaches to Predicting the Use
interaction. in 15th French-speaking of a Technology-driven Invention Innovation,
conference on human-computer interaction, The European Journal of Social Science
Caen, France. Research, 16(2): 117-137.

King Mongkuts University of Technology North Bangkok Press, Bangkok, Thailand 37

Nelson J. et al.

[40] Darses F. and F. Reuzeau., 2004. Participation cas de la formation des grutiers [Simulation
des utilisateurs la conception des systmes et and comprehension of technical documents :
dispositifs de travail [User participation to the the case of training crane operators], Le
design of work systems and devices], in Travail Humain, 66(3): 253-282.
Ergonomie, P. Falzon, Editor, PUF: Paris : [51] Klein G., 2007. Corruption and recovery of
405-420. sensemaking during navigation, in Decision
[41] Falzon P., 1994. Dialogues fonctionnels et making in complex environments, M. Cook,
activit collective [Functional dialogues and J.M. Noyes, and Y. Masakowski, Editors,
collective activity], Le Travail Humain, 57(4): Ashgate, Aldershot, UK: 13-30.
299-312. [52] Samuray R., 1995. Conceptual models for
[42] Cerf M. and P. Falzon. eds., 2005. Situations training, in Expertise and technology, J.M.
de service : travailler dans l'interaction Hoc, P.C. Cacciabue, and E. Hollnagel,
[Service situations: working within Editors, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates:
interactions], Octars: Toulouse. Mahwah, NJ.: 107-124.
[43] Walker S. and D. Prytherch., 2008. How is it [53] Landgren J., 2006. Making action visible in
for you? A case for recognising user time-critical work. in CHI2006, Montreal,
motivation in the design process, in Affect and Quebec.
Emotion in Human-Computer Interaction : [54] Rosson M.B. and Carroll J.M., 2002.
From theory to applications, C. Peter and R. Scenario-Based Design, in The Human-
Beale, Editors, Springer, New York, NY.: Computer Interaction Handbook:
130-141. Fundamentals, Evolving Technologies and
[44] Morie J.F., 2006 Virtual reality, immersion Emerging Applications, J.A. Jacko and A.
and the unforgettable experience, in Sears, Editors, Lawrence Erlbaum
Stereoscopic Displays and Virtual Reality Associates.: 1032-1050.
Systems XIII, A.J. Woods, et al., Editors. [55] Go K., 2009. What properties make scenarios
[45] Jorgensen D.L., 1989. Participant useful in design for usability?, in Human
observation: a methodology for human Centered Design, Springer, Berlin: 193-201.
studies, Newbury Park, CA: Sage. [56] Nelson J., Buisine S., Aousst A. and Duchamp
[46] Amalberti R., 2001. The paradoxes of almost R., 2009. Elaboration of safety equipment
totally safe transportation systems, Safety concepts for infants. in 17th International
science, 37: 109-126. Conference in Engineering Design, Stanford,
[47] Pollet P., Vanderhaegen F. and Amalberti R., CA.
2003. Modelling border-line tolerated [57] Carroll J.M. and Rosson M.B., 1992. Getting
conditions of use (BTCU) and associated around the task-artifact cycle: how to make
risks, Safety Science, 41(2-3): 111-136. claims and design by scenario, ACM
[48] Lefort B., 2005. The tool, the thought and transactions on information systems, 10(2):
action, in French and other perspectives in 181-212.
praxiology, V. Alexandre and W. Gasparski, [58] Sutcliffe A.G. and Carroll J.M., 1999.
Editors, Transaction publishers, New Designing claims for reuse in interactive
Brunswick, NJ.: 99-116. systems design. International Journal of
[49] Joule R.V., Girandola F. and Bernard F., 2007. Human Computer Studies, 50(3): 213-241.
How can people be induced to willingly [59] Simon H.A., 1957. A Behavioral Model of
change their behavior? The path from Rational Choice, in Models of Man, Social
persuasive communication to binding and Rational: Mathematical Essays on
communication, Social and Personality Rational Human Behavior in a Social Setting,
Psychology Compass, 1(1): 493-505. Wiley: New York, NY.
[50] Boucheix J.M., 2003. Simulation et
comprhension de documents techniques : le

38 King Mongkuts University of Technology North Bangkok Press, Bangkok, Thailand

Assisting Design in the Anticipation of Future Product Use

[60] Brandes, U., S. Stich, and M. Wender., 2009. [73] Daniellou F., 2007. Simulating future work
Design by use: the everyday metamorphosis of activity is not only a way of improving
things, Basel: Birkhuser. workstation design, 4(2): 84-90.
[61] Fulton Suri J., 2005. Thoughtless acts ? [74] Bruseberg A. and D. McDonagh-Philip., 2002.
Observations on intuitive design, Chronicle Focus groups to support the industrial/product
books. designer: a review based on current literature
[62] Norman D.A., 1981. Categorization of action and designers' feedback, Applied Ergonomics,
slips, Psychological review, 88(1): 1-15. 33: 27-38.
[63] Vicente K.J., 1999. Cognitive work analysis: [75] Mollo V. and Falzon P., 2004. Auto- and allo-
towards safe, productive and healthy confrontation as tools for reflective activities,
computer-based work, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Applied Ergonomics, 35(6): 531-540.
Erlbaum Associates. [76] VanGundy A., 2005. 101 activities for
[64] Bdker S., 2000. Scenarios for user-centred teaching creativity and problem solving, San
design: setting the stage for reflection and Francisco, CA: John Wiley.
action, Interacting With Computers, 13(1): 61- [77] Lockton D., Harrison D., Holley T. and
75. Stanton A.N., 2009. Influencing interaction:
[65] Bguin P., 2009. When users and designers development of the Design with Intent method.
meet each other in the design process, in Risky in Persuasive 2009. Claremont, CA.
work environments, C. Owen, P. Bguin, and [78] Schwartz S.H. and Fataleh D.L., 1973.
F. Wackers, Editors, Ashgate: Aldershot, UK.: Representation in deductive problem solving:
153-170. the matrix, Journal of experimental
[66] Robert J.M. and Brangier E., 2009. What is psychology, 95: 343-358.
prospective ergonomics? A reflection and a [79] Scupin R., 1997. The KJ method: a technique
position on the future of ergonomics, in for analyzing data derived from Japanese
Universal Access in HCI Part I, Springer- ethnology, Human Organization, 56(2): 233-
Verlag, San Diego, CA.: 162-169. 237.
[67] Osborn A.F., 1953. Applied imagination: [80] Dorst K. and Cross N., 2001. Creativity in the
Principles and procedures of creative problem design process: co-evolution of problem
solving, New York, NY: Scribner. solution, Design Studies, 22(5): 425-437.
[68] Orloff M.A., 2006. Inventive thinking [81] Theureau J., 2003. Course-of-Action analysis
through TRIZ: a practical guide, Berlin, and Course-of-Action centered design, in
Springer Verlag. Handbook of cognitive task design, E.
[69] Sternberg R.J. and Lubart T., 1999. The Hollnagel, Editor, Lawrence Erlbaum
concepts of creativity: prospects and Associates: Mahwah, NJ.: 55-81.
paradigms, in Handbook of creativity, R.J.
Sternberg, Editor, Cambridge University
Press: New York, NY.: 3-15.
[70] Sweller J., 2009. Cognitive bases of human
creativity. Educational Psychology Review,
21: 11-19.
[71] Von Stamm B., 2008. What are innovation,
creativity and design ?, in Managing
innovation, Design and creativity, John Wiley:
New York, NY.: 1-25.
[72] Guilford J.P., 1964. Creative thinking and
problem solving. Education Digest, 29: 21-31.

King Mongkuts University of Technology North Bangkok Press, Bangkok, Thailand 39