This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Weaver to O.E. Hunt, Detroit, 1932. Charles F. Kettering papers, GMI Alumni Historical Collection, Flint, Michigan. Reprinted with the permission of GM media archives.
- 2.
Weaver is usually credited as the person who transformed customer surveys from a scientific technique into a widespread method used by the industry (Marchand 1998). I wish to thank Mika Pantzar for drawing my attention to Weaver’s ideas and Marchand’s discussion of them.
- 3.
It is noteworthy that the same attributes and the shift from artisan to industrial production are lamented on similar grounds by 19th century authors, with a portrayal of a similar past golden age. Karl Marx’s lengthy discussion of the deskilling of labour in industrial production is a prime example (Marx 1990, pp. 439–553).
- 4.
Diabetes is an incurable long-term illness. In the long run it leads to, for instance, kidney failures, heart attacks, and blindness. These complications can be countered by maintaining ‘a good treatment balance’, mainly right blood-sugar level, with diet and medication. A large amount of documentation is produced and used to control the disease over the years. For this purpose, paper forms have been the main tool, currently sought to be replaced by software.
- 5.
The original participants in the PDMS collaboration knew only a few of these, and the whole scope of the previous attempts in different hospital districts became visible only when we took it upon ourselves to go through all the hospital districts in Finland (Hyysalo and Lehenkari 2003).
References
Aaltonen, A. (2004). Asiakaslähtöisen tuotekehityksen edellytyksistä rakennusteollisuudessa (on requirements for customer centered design in construction industry). In: M. Hasu, T. Keinonen, U.-M. Mutanen, A. Aaltonen, A. Hakatie & E. Kurvinen (Eds.), Muotoilun muutos – näkökulmia muotoilutyön organisointiin ja johtamiseen (transformation of design – perspectives to the organisation and management of design work) (pp. 45–77). Helsinki: Teknova Oy.
Beyer, H. and Holzblatt, K. (1998).Contextual design: Defining customer centered systems. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
Bucher, M., Shapiro, D., Hartswood, M., Procter, R., Slack, R., Voss, A. and Mogensen, P. (2002). Promises, premises and risks: Sharing responsibilities, working up trust and sustaining commitment in participatory design projects. In: T. Binder, J. Gregory & I. Wagner (Eds.),Proceedings of the Participatory Design Conference. PDC 2002, June 23–25 (pp. 173–183). Malmö, Sweden: Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility.
Cooper, A. (2004). Inmates are running the asylum – why high-tech products drive us crazy and how to restore the sanity. Indiana: Sams.
David, P.A. (1990). The dynamo and the computer: An historical perspective on the modern productivity paradox.The American Journal of Economic Review, 80(2), 355–361.
Ehn, P. and Kyng, M. (1987). The collective resource approach to systems design. In: G. Bjerknes, P. Ehn & M. Kyng (Eds.),Computers and democracy: A scandinavian challenge (pp. 17–58). Brookfield, VT: Gower.
Ferguson, E.S. (1992).Engineering and the mind's eye. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Freeman, C. (1979). The determinants of innovation – market demand, technology, and the response to social problems.Futures (June), 11, 206–215.
Freeman, C. and Louçã, F. (2001). As time go by: From the industrial revolutions to the information revolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Greenbaum, J. and Kyng, M. (Eds.). (1991).Design at work: Cooperative design of computer systems. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gregory, J. (2001). Scandinavian approaches to participatory design. In: C. L. Dym & L. Winner (Eds.),Mudd design workshop iii, social dimensions of engineering design, 17–19 May 2001. Claremont, California, USA.
Grudin, J. (1993). Obstacles to participatory design in large product development organizations. In: D. Schuler & A. Namioka (Eds.),Participatory design: Principles and practices (pp. 99–119). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hales, M. (1994). Where are the designers? Styles of design practice, objects of design and views of users in cscw. In: D. Rosenberg & C. Hutchison (Eds.),Design issues in cscw (pp. 151–179). London: Springer-Verlag.
Hartswood, M., Procter, R., Slack, R., Voß, A., Buscher, M., Rouncefield, M. and Rouchy, P. (2002). Co-realisation: Towards a principled synthesis of ethnomethodology and participatory design.Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 14(2), 9–30.
Hasu, M. (2001).Critical transition from developers to users. Academic dissertation. Helsinki: University of Helsinki, Department of Education.
Hearstatt, C. and Hippel, E. v. (1992). From experience: Developing new product concepts via the lead user method, a case study in a “low tech” field.Journal of Product Innovation Management, 9, 213–221.
Henderson, K. (1998). On line and on paper. Visual representations, visual culture, and computer graphics in design engineering. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hippel, E. v. (1988).The sources of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hirschheim, R. and Klein, H.K. (1989). Four paradigms of information systems development.Communications of the ACM, 32(10), 1199–1216.
Hyysalo, S. (2003). Some problems in the traditional approaches of predicting the use of a technology-driven invention.Innovation, 16(2), 118–137.
Hyysalo, S. (2004).Uses of innovation. Wristcare in the practices of engineers and elderly. Academic dissertation. Helsinki: Department of Education.
Hyysalo, S. and Lehenkari, J. (2001). An activity-theoretical method for studying dynamics of user-participation in is design. In: S. Bjornestad, A. Morch & A. Öpdahl (Eds.),Iris 24, 24th information systems research seminar in Scandinavia, August 11–14, 2001. Ulvik in Hardanger, Norway.
Hyysalo, S. and Lehenkari, J. (2002). Contextualizing power in collaborative design. In: T. Binder, J. Gregory & I. Wagner (Eds.),PDC 2002, participatory design conference, June 23–25, 2002 (pp. 93–104). Malmö, Sweden: Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility.
Hyysalo, S. and Lehenkari, J. (2003). An activity-theoretical method for studying user-participation in is design.Methods of Information in Medicine, 42(4).
Kuniavsky, M. (2003). Observing the user experience. A practitioner's guide to user research. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufman Publishers.
Kuutti, K. (1996). Activity theory as a potential framework for human/computer interaction. In: B. Nardi (Ed.),Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human computer interaction (pp. 45–67). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Leonard, D. (1995). Wellsprings of knowledge: Building and sustaining the sources of innovation. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Lie, M. and Sørensen, K. (Eds.). (1996).Making technology our own? Domesticating technology into everyday life. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.
Marchand, R. (1998). Customer research as public relations: General motors. In: S. Strasser, C. McGoverns & M. Judt (Eds.),Getting and spending: European and American consumer societies in the twentieth century (pp. 85–110). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Marx, K. (1990).Capital (vol 1). London: Penguin Books.
Miettinen, R., Lehenkari, J., Hasu, M. and Hyvönen, J. (1999). Osaaminen ja uuden luominen innovaatioverkoissa. Tutkimus kuudesta suomalaisesta innovaatiosta (know how and the creation of new in innovation networks. A study of six finnish innovations). Vantaa: Sitra ja Taloustieto Oy.
Nielsen, J. (1993). Usability Engineering. Boston: Morgon Kaufman.
Norman, D. (1999). The invisible computer: Why good products can fail, the personal computer is so complex and information appliances are the solution. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Normann, R. and Ramirez, R. (1994). Designing interactive strategy: From value chain to value constellation. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Pantzar, M. and Ainamo, A. (2000). Nokia – the surprising success of textbook wisdom. Paper held at theStrategy Processes, Innovation and Creativity stream of EGOS conference, July 2–4, 2000.
Pinch, T. (2003). Giving birth to new users: How the minimoog was sold to rock and roll. In: T. Pinch & N. Oudshoorn (Eds.),How users matter. The co-construction of users and technologies (pp. 247–270). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Pollock, N. (2004). Universtiy or universality – on the establishment of the “organizationally generic”. Paper presented atUnderstanding socio-technical action – Conference, Napier University, Edinburg, UK, July 3–4, 2004.
Pollock, N., Williams, R. and Procter, R. (2003). Fitting standard software packages to non-standard organizations: The ‘biography’ of an enterprise-wide system.Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 15(3), 317–331.
Prahalad, C. K. and Ramaswamy, V. (2004).The future of competition: Co-creating unique value with customers. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Rogers, E. M. (1995).Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.
Rosenberg, N. (1982).Inside the black box: Technology and economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rothwell, R., Freeman, C., Horlsey, A., Jervis, V., Robertson, A.B. & Townsend, J. (1974). Sappho updated – project sappho phase 2.Research Policy, 3, 258–291.
Schuler, D. and Namioka, A. (Eds.). (1993).Participatory design: Principles and practices. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Sørensen, K., Aune, M. and Hatling, M. (1996). Against linearity – on the cultural appropriation of science and technology. In: M. Dierkes & C. v. Grote (Eds.),Between understanding and trust (pp. 237–260). Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers.
Star, S. L. (2001). Computers/information technology and the social study of science and technology.In International encyclopaedia of social and behaviour sciences. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.
Stewart, J. and Williams, R. (2002). The wrong trousers? Beyond the design fallacy: Social learning and the user.Presentation held at the EASST Conference, University of York, 31 July–2 August 2002.
Suchman, L. (2002). Located accountabilities in technology production. http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/sociology/soc039ls.html, 2002 (28.02.2002).
Victor, B. and Boynton, A. (1998). Invented here: Maximizing your organization's internal growth and profitability. A practical guide to transforming work. Boston, MA: Harward Business School Press.
Williams, R., Slack, R. and Stewart, J. (2000). Social learning in multimedia,Final report to European commission. Edinburgh: Research Centre for Social Sciences, Edinburgh University, High School Yards, Edinburgh.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer-Verlag London Limited
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hyysalo, S. (2009). A Break from Novelty: Persistence and Effects of Structural Tensions in User–Designer Relations. In: Büscher, M., Slack, R., Rouncefield, M., Procter, R., Hartswood, M., Voss, A. (eds) Configuring User-Designer Relations. Computer Supported Cooperative Work. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84628-925-5_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84628-925-5_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-84628-924-8
Online ISBN: 978-1-84628-925-5
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)