See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/234037889

Embedded systems engineering for products and services design

Article  in  Work · January 2012

DOI: 10.3233/WOR-2012-0267-941

CITATIONS READS

6 279

3 authors, including:

Waldemar Karwowski Marcelo Soares

University of Central Florida Southern University of Science and Technology - SUSTech
551 PUBLICATIONS   9,381 CITATIONS    233 PUBLICATIONS   895 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Social Computing and Analytics Lab View project

Identifying Connectivity Patterns in Human Brain Networks View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Marcelo Soares on 20 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Work 41 (2012) 941-948 941
DOI: 10.3233/WOR-2012-0267-941
IOS Press

Embedded systems engineering for products

and services design
Tareq Z. Ahram a*, Waldemar Karwowski a , Marcelo M. Soares b
a
Institute for Advanced Systems Engineering,, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL 32816, USA
b
Department of Design, Federal University of Pernambuco, CAC, Cidade Universitaria – 50.670-420 Recife, PE,
Brazil

Abstract. Systems engineering (SE) professionals strive to develop new techniques to enhance the value of contributions to
multidisciplinary smart product design teams. Products and services designers challenge themselves to search beyond the
traditional design concept of addressing the physical, social, and cognitive factors. This paper covers the application of em-
bedded user-centered systems engineering design practices into work processes based on the ISO 13407 framework [20] to
support smart systems and services design and development. As practitioners collaborate to investigate alternative smart prod-
uct designs, they concentrate on creating valuable products which will enhance positive interaction. This paper capitalizes on
the need to follow a user-centered SE approach to smart products design [4, 22]. Products and systems intelligence should
embrace a positive approach to user-centered design while improving our understanding of usable value-adding, experience
and extending our knowledge of what inspires others to design enjoyable services and products.

Keywords: Smart Products; service systems, Systems Engineering; Embedded Systems

the design process, a designer selects a group of ob-

jects and attributes from the design continuum and
1. Introduction assigns a value to each attribute that best fits the ob-
jectives and constraints specified by the owner [21].
The introduction of user-centered systems engi- The resulting Smart Systems concept is a qualitative
neering methodology and design principles to design and quantitative description of a system in terms of
smarter products has been inspired by the theory of integrated objects representing functionally effective
smart environments developed in Germany [8,13,34). components.
Intelligent and integrated systems has affected indus- User-centered Smart Systems (USS) design is charac-
trial and economical growth in many nations. These terized by the relationship between knowledge and
developments have strengthened the need for empha- technology. USS involves the knowledge that is re-
sizing the role of information and knowledge in smart quired to deliver the smart product, whether it is in-
systems. A revolution sparked by Smart Systems with vested in the technology of the product or in the ser-
its new information society is taking over what has vice provider [19, 28]. Knowledge requirements in
been known as the industrial society [17]. Smart Sys- intelligent systems design and modeling have been
tems design considers qualitative attributes between categorized into three main categories: knowledge-
human–human and human–machine interactions. based, knowledge-embedded, and knowledge-
These considerations include workforce integration separated [28]. Research has indicated that a know-
(i.e., those who design the system and provide the ledge-based smart system, such as teaching aid sys-
service) and customers or users (i.e., those who re- tems, depends on customer knowledge to deliver in-
ceive and use the product or service). Smart Systems tended functionality. This knowledge may become
design also describes the necessary objects and/or embedded in a product that makes the service access-
components that constitute intelligent design. During ible to more people. An example of this is logistics

*
Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]

1051-9815/12/$27.50 © 2012 – IOS Press and the authors. All rights reserved
942 T.Z. Ahram et al. / Embedded Systems Engineering for Products and Services Design

providers, where the technology of package delivery tive is now fully embedded in the ticketing kiosk and
is tracked by Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) integrated with government and airline up-to-date
embedded in the package and the system that sche- databases. Now a traveler must only have the know-
dule and route the delivery of packages. It is impor- ledge to operate the machine. All these components
tant to note, however, that the delivery personnel are are incorporated and organized in a scheme originat-
critical components in both the delivery and pickup ing from a generalized definition of a system
stages. Their knowledge is crucial in satisfying cus- [10,21,30]
tomers and providing quality service. The USS ap- "A system is an organized set of objects
proach contributes to systems development processes which processes inputs into outputs that
rather than replaces them. This is achieved by im- achieve an organizational purpose and
plementing Human Factors & Ergonomics (HFE) meets the need of customers through the
principles along with product design and Usability use of human, physical and informatic
Engineering (UE) procedures to design user friendly enablers in a sociological and physical en-
products and analyze users-system interactions. The vironment".
following key principles of USS have been identified: USS design involves three main components: smart
! Clear understanding of user and task require- product problem structuring, idea generation, and
ments: Key strengths of USS design are the idea evaluation and selection. This approach helps
spontaneous and active involvement of product smart product designers to integrate new connections
or service users and the understanding of their between various product elements, recognize key
task requirements. Involving end users will im- processes and elements in the system and recombine
prove system acceptance and increase commit- them in different ways, identify elements of purpose,
ment to the success of the new product. and focus on goals. The primary mechanism of cus-
! Consistent allocation of functions between users tomer value creation is divided between customer
and intelligent system: Allocation of functions knowledge, machines and technological knowledge
are based on full understanding of customer ca- [4, 28].
pabilities, limitations, and task demands.
! Iterative smart system design approach: Iterative
smart system design solutions include processing 2. The smart products
responses and feedback from product or system
users after their use of proposed design solutions. The concept of smartness of consumer products
Design solutions could range from simple paper has been investigated by several authors. This section
prototypes to high-fidelity smart systems mock- presents a synthesis and summary of the most innova-
ups. tive work that influenced research in this field. All-
! Multidisciplinary integration design teams: USS mendinger and Lombreglia [6] highlighted smartness
design is a multitasking collaborative process in a product from a business perspective. They regard
that involves multidisciplinary design teams. It is “smartness" as the product's capability to predict
crucial that the smart system design team com- business errors and faults, thus “removing unpleasant
prise professionals and experts with suitable surprises from [the users'] lives.” The Ambient Intel-
skills and interests in the proposed system de- ligence (AMI) group described a vision where distri-
sign. Such a team might include end users, smart buted services, mobile computing, or embedded de-
product handlers (front-stage smart system de- vices in almost any type of environment (e.g., homes,
signers), software integration managers, usability offices, cars), are integrated seamlessly with one
specialists, software engineers (back-stage smart another using information and intelligence to enhance
system designers), interaction designers, user ex- user experiences [1,7,35]. Rapid technological ad-
perience architects, and training support profes- vancements and agile manufacturing created what is
sionals. called today smart environments. Smart products
Consumers of a smart product develop knowledge in have to be considered in the context of their envi-
order to use the system. In knowledge-separated sys- ronment. Ahram et. al [3] and Das and Cook [11]
tems, the smart product may be accessible to custom- define a smart environment as the one that is able to
ers without needing to interact with another human acquire and apply knowledge about an environment
being in the loop. An example of this is the ticketing and adapt to its inhabitants in order to improve their
kiosks at the airport, which have replaced airline rep- experience in that environment. A key issue is the
resentatives. The knowledge of the airline representa-
 943
T.Z. Ahram et al. / Embedded Systems Engineering for Products and Services Design

knowledge aspect as further noted by Mühlhäuser mantic self- description, proactive behavior,
[29] references to smart product characteristics that multimodal natural interfaces, AI planning,
are attributed to future smart environments: i.e., “in- and machine learning."
tegrated interwoven sensors and computational sys-
tems seamlessly embedded in everyday systems and The Smart Products Consortium (SPC) has
tools of our lives, connected through a continuous adopted and modified the definition given in
network.” In this respect, smarter products can be Mühlhäuser [29]. The new definition provides an
viewed as those products that facilitate daily tasks industry-applicable, life-cycle development metho-
and augment everyday objects. In 2007, AMI identi- dology with tools and platforms to support the con-
fied two motivating goals for building smart products struction of smart products and emphasis on tangible
[33]: objects as smart products (i.e., physical products).
1) Increased need for simplicity in using eve- The SPC defined smart products as follows Sabou et
ryday products as their functionalities be- al. [33]:
come ever more complex. Simplicity is de- “A smart product is an autonomous object
sirable during the entire life-cycle of the which is designed for self-organized embed-
product to support manufacturing, repair and ding into different environments in the course
use. of its life-cycle and which allows for a natural
2) Increased number, sophistication, and diver- product-to-human interaction. Smart products
sity of product components (for example, in are able to proactively approach the user by
the aerospace industry), as well as the ten- using sensing, input, and output capabilities of
dency of the suppliers and manufacturers to the environment thus being self-, situational-,
become increasingly independent of each and context-aware. The related knowledge and
other which requires a considerable level of functionality can be shared by and distributed
openness on the product side. among multiple smart products and emerges
Mühlhäuser [29] observed that these product charac- over time."
teristics can now be developed due to recent advances Major characteristics of smart products are illustrated
in information technology as well as ubiquitous com- by comparing their essential features. For example,
puting that provides a real world awareness in these Maass and Varshney [24] define six major characte-
systems through the use of sensors, smart labels, and ristics (see Table 1) for smart products. These charac-
wearable, embedded computers. According to teristics highlight the following major functions:
Mühlhäuser [29], product simplicity can be achieved ! Context-awareness: the ability to sense con-
with improved product to user interaction (p2u). Fur- text
thermore, openness of a product requires an optimal ! Proactivity: the ability to make use of this
product to product interaction (p2p). context and other information in order to
Knowledge intensive techniques enable better proactively approach users and peers
product to product interaction through self- ! Self-organization - the ability to form and
organization within a product or a group of products. join networks with other products.
Indeed, recent research on semantic web service de-
scription, discovery, and composition may enable
self-organization within a group of products, and
therefore, reduce the need for top-down constructed
smart environments [9]. Smart products also require
some level of internal organization by making use of
planning and diagnosis algorithms as stated by
Mühlhäuser [29]:

“A Smart Product is an entity (tangible ob-

ject, software, or service) designed and made
for self-organized embedding into different
(smart) environments in the course of its life-
cycle, providing improved simplicity and
openness through improved p2u and p2p in-
teraction by means of context-awareness, se-
944 T.Z. Ahram et al. / Embedded Systems Engineering for Products and Services Design

Mühlhäuser [29] and SPC emphasize the fact that

Table 1: Smart Products Characteristics (Modified smart products should support their entire life-cycle.
from Maass and Varshney [24]) In addition, special care should be devoted to offering
multimodal interaction with the potential users, in
Characteristic Description order to increase the simplicity characteristics of the
Personalization Customization of products ac- products.
cording to buyer's and consum-
er's needs.
Business- Consideration of business and 3. Systems engineering approach for design and
awareness legal constraints. modeling of smart products

Situatedness Recognition of situational and

community contexts. Systems engineering (SE) concepts and principles
Adaptiveness Change product behavior ac- are an integral part of the contemporary engineered
cording to buyer's and consum- world [4,18]. Such concepts are also used to create
er's responses to tasks. smarter consumer products, produce food, protect
human health, enable travel over great distances, and
Network ability Ability to communicate, inte- allow for instant and ubiquitous communication.
grate and bundle with other These principles are also used to build houses, design
products. workplaces, and develop an infrastructure upon
Pro-activity Anticipation of user's plans and which society relies. The SE principles are used to
intentions. make services and products cheaper, more functional,
and get them to the market faster. Systems engineers
apply and integrate concepts and rules derived from
math and science to create and apply such

Figure 1: Framework for Smart Products SE Process (Modified from original by DAU Guidebook [12])
 945
T.Z. Ahram et al. / Embedded Systems Engineering for Products and Services Design

principles [4,3]. For example, The energy used to ! Reduced training and support: User-centered
heat, cool, and light residential or industrial dwellings design and usability principles help reduce smart
is typically generated hundreds of miles away from product provider training time and the need for
where it is used and needs to be transferred over long user support. This is of special importance to
distances. Systems engineering concepts supports novel systems since newly introduced smart sys-
building smart grid infrastructure and efficient energy tems most often require dedicated training and
distribution networks. support.
The contemporary SE process is an iterative, hie- ! Reduced errors: Poorly designed smart systems
rarchical, top down decomposition of system re- significantly increase human error due to incon-
quirements (Hitchins 2007). The hierarchical decom- sistencies, ambiguities, or other interface design
position includes Functional Analysis, Allocation, faults.
and Synthesis. The iterative process begins with a ! Increased productivity: A smart system employ-
system-level decomposition and then proceeds ing user-centered design and usability principles
through the functional subsystem level all the way to will enable users to concentrate on the task rather
the assembly and program level (see Figure 1). Mod- than the interface in order to operate effectively.
eling SE Process Activity is performed using Systems ! Improved user population acceptance: Most us-
Modeling Language (SysML). ers would be more likely to trust a smart system
SysML is a general purpose visual modeling lan- that provides well-presented information which
guage for specifying, analyzing, designing, and veri- is easily accessed, increasing end-user accep-
fying complex systems which may include hardware, tance and enhancing customer satisfaction.
software, information, personnel, procedures and ! Enhanced reputation: A well-designed system
facilities (OMG SysML: http://www.omgsysml.org). will enhance the vendor’s reputation in the mar-
SysML provides visual semantic representations for ketplace and guarantee profitability and customer
modeling system requirements, behavior, structure, support for future products and services.
and parametrics, which is used to integrate with other
engineering analysis models [15].
5. The User-centered Smart System development
cycle
4. The benefits of User-centered Systems
engineering design methods and strategies The ISO 13407 human-centered design framework
is considered the cornerstone for incorporating differ-
User-centered design methods and strategies are ent design techniques of which all can be merged to
concerned with incorporating the user's perspective support a user-centered design process. According to
into the systems development process to achieve usa- the ISO 13407 standard [20], appropriate USS
ble systems and smarter products or improve existing processes are composed of five iterative steps which
ones. This section adopts the framework of ISO will guarantee the fulfillment of all requirements into
13407 [20] where each step in the user-centered de- the system design process as follows:
sign cycle is evaluated with supporting usability me- ! Planning systems design processes
thods. Product usability is now widely recognized as ! Smart product context of use
one of the critical success factors of an interactive ! Requirements specification
product development process [14, 20, 31, 32]. Unfor- ! Integration of design solutions
tunately, poorly designed, unusable systems exist, ! Smart systems evaluation and assessment
which end users find difficult to use. Poor system The five iterative user-centered systems design
provisions are costly for an organization and nega- steps are based on the ISO 13407 framework and are
tively affect the reputation of the smart product ven- depicted in Figure 2. The first step in planning smart
dor. Dissatisfied customers may go so far as to find system design processes is to communicate smart
and choose a substitute vendor with a better system. needs with stakeholders and users to gain agreement
User-centered design processes and methods help on how user-centered design techniques can contri-
design better systems and increase quality to meet bute to the smart system objectives [23, 2]. In addi-
customer expectations. The benefits of following tion, the planning process prioritizes smart product
user-centered design principles in systems have been requirements and highlights potential benefits gained
summarized by Maguire [25-26]
946 T.Z. Ahram et al. / Embedded Systems Engineering for Products and Services Design

from including USS activities within the system de- 5.2 Requirements specification
velopment process.
Requirements specification is one of the most cru-
5.1 Smart product context of use cial activities of system design and development. The
two most common causes of system failure are insuf-
Smart product context of use defines all aspects of ficient effort to identify user requirements and lack of
the system’s intended usage as well as the user popu- end-user involvement in the design process. ISO
lation characteristics (i.e., user profile). Developed 13407 design framework [20] provides guidance on
systems will be used within a certain set of tasks by specifying end-user requirements and objectives. The
users with defined results and goals by performing framework states that the following elements should
certain activities. The system will also be used within be covered in the specification:
a known context of physical, environmental, and or- ! Identification of users and other personnel in the
ganizational conditions. Capturing smart product smart product design (e.g. customers, employees,
context of use is important for helping to specify user associates, designers, and support)
requirements as well as for evaluation and testing. ! Clear statement of the smart product’s design
Best practices indicate that effective smart products and integration goals
and systems strongly promote usability, end-user ! Inclusion of appropriate priorities for the differ-
health and safety, and proper understanding of the ent requirements
context of use. Context of use information can be ! Establishment of measurable benchmarks for
gathered using established structured methods for which design can be tested
eliciting detailed information. This information will ! Acceptance of design requirements by end-users
help facilitate usability evaluation activities, user and stakeholders
requirements specification, and system evaluation. ! Acknowledgment of mandatory or legislative
Smart product context of use information provides requirements
details about the user’s profile and characteristics, as ! Documentation of the requirements and manage
well as, task and environment of smart product usage. changing requirements as the system develops.
Following is a description of each step in the user-
centered design cycle. 5.3 Integration of design solutions

Design solutions start with innovative and creative

ideas through the iterative development process.
Low-fidelity prototypes are necessary inclusions to
the design lifecycle. Design prototypes can be pro-
duced by human factors professionals and the design
team. Major problems can be identified before system
development proceeds too far along because it is al-
ways cheaper and easier to make changes sooner ra-
ther than later in the systems design life cycle
(SDLC). Systems design methods provide techniques
for generating ideas and new system designs through
storyboarding, brainstorming, parallel design, and
Wizard-of-Oz techniques [23]. The process of itera-
tive design and development requires proper docu-
mentation of changes to maintain effective manage-
Fig. 2: User-centered smart system (USS) design ment.
cycle. (Modified from original ISO 13407 framework
[20]). 5.4 Smart systems evaluation and assessment

Smart products should be evaluated during all

design and development stages. Evaluation helps
confirm that the intended objectives have been met
and provide further information for refining the de-
 947
T.Z. Ahram et al. / Embedded Systems Engineering for Products and Services Design

sign. System evaluation starts with low-fidelity proto- References

types, followed by more sophisticated high-fidelity
prototypes. Evaluation and assessment helps improve
the smart product as part of the iterative development [1] J. Ahola, 2001. Ambient Intelligence. ERICM News 47.
process and assures the smart product can be used [2] T. Z. Ahram , W. Karwowski, 2009. Measuring Human
successfully by intended users. Smart product evalua- Systems Integration Return on Investment. The Inter-
national Council on Systems Engineering – INCOSE
tion and assessment can highlight problems by either
Spring 09 Conference: Virginia Modeling, Analysis and
user or expert-based methods. Expert-based methods Simulation Center (VMASC), Suffolk, VA. USA.
can help find weaknesses that may not be revealed by [3] T. Z. Ahram, W. Karwowski, B. Amaba, P. Obeid, 2009.
a small number of users. User-based testing is re- Human Systems Integration: Development Based on
quired to find out whether intended users can interact SysML and the Rational Systems Platform, Proceedings
with the product successfully. When running user of the 2009 Industrial Engineering Research
testing, the emphasis may be on identifying problems Conference, Miami, FL. USA.
and addressing them in the design process. [4] T. Z. Ahram, W. Karwowski, and M. Soares (2011)
Innovation in USS is defined as putting creative “Smarter Products User-Centered Systems
Engineering” In: Waldemar Karwowski, Marcelo
ideas into actions while creativity in USS is usually
Soares and Neville Stanton (eds.). Handbook of
expressed as the generation of ideas towards improv- Human Factors and Ergonomics in Consumer Product
ing products; creativity and innovation are totally Design. Methods and Techniques. Taylor & Francis.
different concepts in smart systems design and mod- Boca Raton, FL
eling [16,21] From a user-centered design perspec- [5] T. Z. Ahram, W. Karwowski, B. Amaba, 2010. User-
tive, creativity involves divergent thinking from the centered Systems Engineering & Knowledge
ordinary design perspective. Whereas, innovation Management Framework for Design & Modeling of
involves convergent thinking mixed with creative Future Smart Cities. 54th Annual Meeting of the
ideas in systems. McAdam and McClelland [27] illu- Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (HFES 2010).
San Francisco, California, USA.
strated the vital importance of innovation in engineer-
[6] G. Allmendinger, , and R. Lombreglia, 2005. Four
ing, especially, smart systems by indicating that idea Strategies for the Age of Smart Services. Harvard
generation is a key component of creativity. Business Review 83(10):131-145.
[7] E. Arts, and B. de Ruyter 2009. New research perspec-
tives on ambient intelligence. Journal of Ambient Intel-
6. Conclusions ligence and Smart Environments 1:5-14.
[8] H. Bullinger, and A.-W Scheer, 2003. Introduction. In:
System engineering (SE) professionals strive to H.-J. Bullinger, and A.-W. Scheer, eds. Service Engi-
neering: Entwicklung und Gestaltung Innovativer Di-
develop new techniques to enhance the value of con- enstleistungen. Springer, Berlin.
tributions to multidisciplinary smart product design [9] S. Chandrasekharan, 2004. The Semantic Web: Know-
teams. SE designers challenge themselves to search ledge representation and affordance. In: Cognition and
beyond the traditional design concept of addressing Technology: Co-existence, Convergence, and Co-
the physical, social, and cognitive factors. This chap- evolution, ed. B. Gorayska and J.L. Mey, J.L. Amster-
ter covers the application of user-centered systems dam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, 153-174
engineering design practices based on the ISO 13407 [10] P. B. Checkland, 1981. Systems Thinking Systems
framework to support smart systems design and de- Practice. New York: Wiley.
velopment. As practitioners collaborate to investigate [11] S. Das, D.Cook, 2006. Designing Smart Environments:
A Paradigm Based on Learning and Prediction. In: Sho-
smart product designs, they concentrate on creating rey, R., Ananda, A., Chan, M.C., Ooi, W.T. (eds.) Mo-
valuable products which will enhance positive inte- bile, Wireless, and Sensor Networks: Technology, Ap-
raction. plications, and Future Directions, 337–358. Wiley,
In conclusion, this paper stresses the need to fol- Chichester
low a user-centered SE approach to smart products [12] Defense Acquisition University (DAU) Guidebook
design. Products and systems intelligence should em- 2004. Chapter 4: Systems Engineering.
brace a positive approach to user-centered design [13] De Jong, J.P.J., and Vermeulen, P.A.M. 2003. Man-
while improving our understanding of usable value- agement Decision 41 (9): 844–858.
adding, experience and extending our knowledge of [14] C. Fowler, 1991. Usability evaluation-usability in the
product lifecycle. Usability Now! Newsletter, Issue 3,
what inspires others to design enjoyable services and Spring, 6–7. HUSAT Research Institute. The Elms,
products. Elms Grove, Loughborough, Leicestershire, UK.
 948 T.Z. Ahram et al. / Embedded Systems Engineering for Products and Services Design

[15] S. Friedenthal, A. Moore, R. Steiner, 2008. A Practic- [31] J. Nielsen, 1994a. Special Issue: Usability laboratories.
al Guide to SysML: The Systems Modeling Language, Behavior and Information Technology 13, 3–197.
Morgan Kaufmann; Elsevier Science. [32] J. Nielsen, 1994b. Usability Engineering. San Francis-
[16] D. Gurteen, 1998. Knowledge, creativity and innova- co: Morgan-Kauffman.
tion. Journal of Knowledge Management 2: 5–13. [33] M. Sabou, J. Kantorovitch, , A. Nikolov,
[17] Hauknes, J. 1996. Innovation in the Service Economy, A.Tokmakoff, X. Zhou, , and E. Motta, , 2009. Position
STEP group Storgt. 1 N-0155 Oslo, ISSN 0804-8185. Paper on Realizing Smart Products: Challenges for Se-
[18] Hitchins, D. K. 2007. Systems Engineering: A 21st mantic Web Technologies, Report by Knowledge Me-
Century Systems Methodology. Chichester, UK: John dia Institute:
Wiley & Sons. http://people.kmi.open.ac.uk/marta/papers/ssn2009.pdf
[19] H. E. Hulshoff, F.M.J. Westhof, J. J. Kirchhoff, B. A. [34] A. Scheer, and D. Spath, eds. 2004. Computer Aided
Kirchhoff, , and S. T. Walsh, 1998. New services: Stra- Service Engineering: Informationssysteme in der Di-
tegic exploratory survey of a dynamic phenomenon. enstleistungsentwicklung. Berlin: Springer.
EIM Small Business Research and Consultancy, Zoe- [35] M. Weiser 1991. The computer of the 21st century.
termeer, NL. Scientific American 265(3): 66-75.
[20] ISO 13407: Human-centered Design Processes for
Interactive Systems. International Standards Organiza-
tion, Geneva, 1999. Also available from the British
Standards Institute, London.
[21] Kaner, M., and Karni, R. 2007. Engineering design of
a service system: An empirical study. Information
Knowledge Systems Management 6: 235–263, IOS
Press.
[22] W. Karwowski, T. Z. Ahram, 2009. Interactive
Management of Human Factors Knowledge For Human
Systems Integration Using Systems Modeling
Language. Special Issue for Information Systems
Management. Journal of Information Systems
Management. Taylor and Francis.
[23] W. Karwowski, G. Salvendy, T. Z. Ahram, 2009.
Customer-centered Design of Service Organizations. In:
Introduction to Service Engineering, ed. G. Salvendy,
W. Karwowski, Chapter 9. John Wiley & Sons, NJ
(ISBN-10: 0470382414).
[24] W. Maass and U. Varshney 2008. Preface to the Focus
Theme Section: 'Smart Products'. Electronic Markets
18(3): 211-215.
[25] M. C. Maguire, 2001a. Context of use within usability
activities. International Journal of Human–Computer
Studies 55: 453–483, doi:10.1006/ijhc.2001.0486.
[26] M. C. Maguire, 2001b. TAQ and SAQ: Pre and post
test questionnaires for assessing user acceptance. HU-
SAT Memo HM1148, June 2001. HUSAT Research In-
stitute, The Elms, Elms Grove, Loughborough, Leices-
tershire LE11 1RG, UK.
[27] R. McAdam, , and J. McClelland, 2002. Individual
and team-based idea generation within innovation man-
agement: Organizational and research agendas. Euro-
pean Journal of Innovation Management 5 (2): 86–97.
[28] C. M. McDermott, H. Kang, and S. Walsh, 2001. A
framework for technology management in services.
IEEE Transactions in Engineering Management 48 (3):
333–341.
[29] M. Mühlhäuser, 2008. Smart Products: An Introduc-
tion. In Constructing Ambient Intelligence - AmI 2007
Workshop, pages 154 - 164.
[30] G. Nadler, and S. Hibino, 1998. The Seven Principles
of Creative Problem Solving. Prima, Rocklin, CA.

View publication stats