Abstract
One of the challenges for companies when developing concepts for new products, services or applications is whether or not the concepts will make sense to the user. And evidence that a concept will be valuable should preferably become available early in the design process. Involving users in the process of reflecting on new concepts makes sense because they are domain experts. However, in order to judge whether a concept will bring added value, users need to envision future contexts of use. We present the Co-Constructing Stories method, which aims to facilitate this envisioning process for users. In one-to-one sessions of less than an hour, first users are prompted by stories about the current context, helping them recollect relevant real life experiences for sensitization. Next, they are prompted through future scenarios to envision possible future experiences that may be enabled by the concept. In this paper we explain the method and discuss its background and relation to other methods. We introduce a case study in which the method was applied. Based on the insights gathered through this and similar case studies, we provide guidelines for designers who might be interested to use the method in the future.
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
References
Atasoy B, Martens J-B (2011) Crafting user experiences by incorporating dramaturgical techniques of storytelling. In: Procedings of the second conference on creativity and innovation in design. ACM, New York, pp 91–102. doi:10.1145/2079216.2079230
Atasoy B, Martens JBOS (2016) STORYPLY: designing for user experiences using storycraft. In: Markopoulos P, Martens JB, Malins J, Coninx K, Liapis A (eds) Collaboration in creative design. Methods and tools. Springer, New York
Bijl-Brouwer M, Boess S, Harkema C (2011). What do we know about product use? A technique to share use-related knowledge in design teams. Presented at the IASDR 2011 4th international congress of international association of societies of design research, Delft, The Netherlands. Retrieved from http://doc.utwente.nl/82017/
Boyatzis RE (1998) Transforming qualitative information: thematic analysis and code development. Sage, Thousand Oaks
Braun V, Clarke V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 3(2):77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Dindler C, Iversen OS (2007) Fictional inquiry—design collaboration in a shared narrative space. CoDesign 3(4):213–234. doi:10.1080/15710880701500187
Howard S, Carroll J, Murphy J, Peck J (2002). Using “endowed props” in scenario-based design. In: Proceedings of the second Nordic conference on human-computer interaction. ACM, New York, pp 1–10. doi:10.1145/572020.572022
Kankainen A, Vaajakallio K, Kantola V, Mattelmäki T (2012) Storytelling group – a co-design method for service design. Behav Inform Technol 31(3):221–230. doi:10.1080/0144929X.2011.563794
Light A (2006) Adding method to meaning: a technique for exploring peoples’ experience with technology. Behav Inform Technol 25(2):175–187. doi:10.1080/01449290500331172
Mancini C, Rogers Y, Bandara AK, Coe T, Jedrzejczyk L, Joinson AN, Nuseibeh B (2010) Contravision: exploring users’ reactions to futuristic technology. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, New York, pp 153–162. doi:10.1145/1753326.1753350
Özçelik-Buskermolen D, Terken J, Eggen B (2012) Informing user experience design about users: insights from practice. In: CHI’12 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems (CHI EA’12). ACM, New York, pp 1757–1762
Quesenbery W, Brooks K (2011) Storytelling for user experience. Rosenfeld Media, New York
Richards L (2005) Handling qualitative data: a practical guide. Sage, London/Thousand Oaks
Salvador T, Howells K (1998) Focus troupe: using drama to create common context for new product concept end-user evaluations. In: CHI 98 conference summary on human factors in computing systems. ACM, New York, pp 251–252. doi:10.1145/286498.286734
Sanders EBN (2000) Generative tools for codesigning. In: Scrivener SAR, Ball LJ, Woodcock A (eds) Collaborative design. Springer, London, pp 3–12
Sanders EBN, Stappers PJ (2013) Convivial toolbox: generative research for the front end of design. BIS Publishers, Amsterdam
Sleeswijk-Visser F, Stappers PJ, van der Lugt R, Sanders EB-N (2005) Contextmapping: experiences from practice. CoDesign 1(2):119–149. doi:10.1080/15710880500135987
Taylor-Powell E, Renner M (2003) Analyzing qualitative data. University of Wisconsin – extension, cooperative extension, Madison
Tomico O, Garcia I (2011). Designers and stakeholders defining design opportunities “in situ” through co-reflection. In Participatory innovation conference. Presented at the participatory innovation conference, Sønderborg, Denmark, pp 58–64
Verganti R (2009) Design-driven innovation. Changing the rules of competition by radically innovating what things mean. Harvard Business Press, Boston
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Buskermolen, D.Ö., Terken, J. (2016). Co-Constructing New Concept Stories with Users. In: Markopoulos, P., Martens, JB., Malins, J., Coninx, K., Liapis, A. (eds) Collaboration in Creative Design. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29155-0_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29155-0_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-29153-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-29155-0
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)