Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

User experience: does it matter in complex systems?

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Cognition, Technology & Work Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper explores the concept of user experience (UX) within complex systems in the domain of nuclear power production. The specific context is the development of main control room solutions. As UX has become a prevalent concept in human–computer interaction and related research fields, it is a valid question, whether the concept could bring something new to the research concerning complex safety–critical systems also. In this paper, we introduce the concept of UX as an indicator of the users’ subjective feeling of the appropriateness of the proposed tool for the activity. Based on activity theoretical contemplation, we presume that UX is grounded in the feelings and emotions evoked in the usage of the systems and which concern the status of the whole activity. In the paper, a theory-based characterization of UXs in the particular domain is developed based on three general functions of a tool: instrument, psychological, and communicative. We present the operationalization of UX and three studies in which UXs concerning different control room systems during a control room transformation process were followed. Based on the results of the three studies, we find that the significance of UX as an indicator of quality in use lies in the ability to bring the professional users’ experiences, which are embedded in the inner characteristics of the work and not always observable by external evaluators, to the process of designing new systems. Evidence to support the initial background assumption that UXs may concern instrumental aspects of tools was identified in the studies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Subjective ratings are a standard practice, but they have rarely the particular viewpoint of experience, i.e., what it feels like to use the system.

  2. For modeling the domain and the controlled process, see, e.g., (Burns and Hajdukiewicz 2004; Lind 1999; Norros 2004 Savioja et al. 2012; Vicente 1999).

  3. Study B in lesser extent than A and B though.

  4. Subsystem validation (SSV) refers to a preliminary validation study that does not concern the integrated system yet.

  5. The responses of study C were left out from the statistical analyses due to small number of responses.

  6. Statistical comparisons could not be made due to small number of participants in study C.

  7. Again, the responses of study C were left out due to small number of responses.

References

  • Bardzell S (2010) Feminist HCI: taking stock and outlining an agenda for design. Paper presented at the proceedings of the 28th international conference on human factors in computing systems, Atlanta, Georgia, USA. pp 1301–1310. doi:http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1753326.1753521

  • Bargas-Avila JA, Hornbæk K (2011) Old wine in new bottles or novel challenges: a critical analysis of empirical studies of user experience. Paper presented at the proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Vancouver, BC, Canada. pp 2689–2698. doi:10.1145/1978942.1979336

  • Baumgartner H, Steenkamp JEM (2001) Response styles in marketing research: a cross-national investigation. J Market Res 38(2):143–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Béguin P, Rabardel P (2000) Designing for instrument-mediated activity. Scand J Inf Syst 12:173–190

    Google Scholar 

  • Bødker S (2006) When second wave HCI meets third wave challenges. In: proceedings of the 4th Nordic conference on Human-computer interaction: changing roles, ACM Press, New York

  • Burns CM, Hajdukiewicz JR (2004) EID: ecological interface design. CRC Press, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

  • Dekker S (2011) Drift into failure—from hunting broken components to understanding complex systems. Ashgate, Burlington

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey J (1999) The quest for certainty. A study of the relation of knowledge and action (finnish translation). Helsinki: Gaudeamus

  • Dourish P (2001) Where the action is—the foundations of embodied interaction. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Eckert C, Clarkson J (2005) The reality of design. In: Clarkson J, Eckert C (eds) Design process improvement—a review of current practice. Springer, London, p xvi

    Google Scholar 

  • Engeström Y (1987) Learning by expanding: an activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Orienta-Konsultit, Helsinki

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison S, Sengers P, Tatar D (2011) Making epistemological trouble: third-paradigm HCI as successor science. Interact Comput 23(5):385–392. doi:10.1016/j.intcom.2011.03.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hassenzahl M (2010) Experience design: technology for all the right reasons. Morgan and Claypool, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Hassenzahl M, Tractinsky N (2006) User experience—a research agenda. Behav Inf Technol 25(2):91–97. doi:10.1080/01449290500330331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hollnagel E, Woods D, Leveson N (2006) Resilience engineering: concepts and precepts. Ashgate, Padstow

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollnagel E, Paries J, Woods D, Wreathall J (eds) (2011) Resilience engineering in practice: a guidebook. Ashgate, Burlington

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutchins E (1995) Cognition in the wild. MIT Press, Cambridge MA

    Google Scholar 

  • ISO 11064-1:2000 (2000) Ergonomic design of control centres—part 1: principles for the design of control centres international organization for standardization

  • Jarrat TA, Eckert C, Weeks R, Clarkson PJ (2003) Environmental legislation as a driver of design. In: proceedings of the 14th international conference on engineering design (ICED’03), 19–21 August Stockholm, Sweden

  • Kaptelinin V, Nardi B (2012) Activity theory in HCI—fundamentals and reflections [null]. Morgan and Claypool, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Karapanos E, Zimmerman J, Forlizzi J, Martens J (2009) User experience over time: an initial framework. Paper presented at the proceedings of the 27th international conference on human factors in computing systems, Boston, MA, USA. pp 729–738. doi:10.1145/1518701.1518814

  • Kestenbaum V (1977) The phenomenological sense of John Dewey: habit and meaning. Humanities Press, Atlantic Highlands

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuniavsky M (2008) User experience and HCI. In: Sears A, Jacko JA (eds) The human-computer interaction handbook: fundamentals, evolving technologies and emerging applications, 2nd edn. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 897–916

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuutti K (2010) Where are the ionians of user experience research? Paper presented at the proceedings of the 6th nordic conference on human-computer interaction: extending boundaries, Reykjavik, Iceland, pp 715–718. doi:10.1145/1868914.1869012

  • Lee JD, See KA (2004) Trust in automation: designing for appropriate reliance. Hum Factors J Hum Factor Ergonomics Soc, 46(1), 50–80. doi:10.1518/hfes.46.1.50_30392

    Google Scholar 

  • Lind M (1999) Plant modeling for human supervisory control. Institute of measurement and control. Transactions 21(4–5):171–180

    Google Scholar 

  • Luojus S (2010) From a momentary experience to a lasting one: the concept of and research on expanded user experience of mobile devices. University of Oulu, Oulu

    Google Scholar 

  • Määttänen P (2009) Toiminta ja kokemus (action and experience). Gaudeamus, Helsinki

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy J, Wright P (2004) Technology as experience. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Merleau-Ponty M (1986) The phenomenology of perception. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Norros L (2004) Acting under uncertainty the core-task analysis in ecological study of work. Espoo: VTT

  • Norros L, Liinasuo M, Hutton R (2011) Evaluating the potential of new technological tools for safety critical work. Interact Comput 23(4):299–307. doi:10.1016/j.intcom.2011.05.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norros L, Liinasuo M, Savioja P (2013) Operators’ conceptions of procedure guidance in NPP process control. Nat Decis Mak, NDM 2013

  • Nuutinen M (2006) Expert identity in development of core-task oriented working practices for mastering demanding situations. Six empirical studies on operator work. (Doctoral, University of Helsinki)

  • Obrist M, Reitberger W, Wurhofer D, Förster F, Tscheligi M (2011) User experience research in the semiconductor factory: a contradiction? In: P Campos, N Graham, J Jorge, N Nunes, P Palanque, M Winckler (Eds.), Human-computer interaction—INTERACT 2011. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp 144–151. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-23768-3_12

  • O’Hara J, Higgins J (2004) Human factors engineering plan for reviewing nuclear plant modernization programs No. SKI Report 2005:15 SKI

  • O’Hara J, Higgins J, Fleger S (2012) Human factors engineering program review model (NUREG-0711) revision 3: update methodology and key revisions. In: proceedings of 8th international topical meeting on nuclear plant instrumentation and control and human-machine interface technologies

  • Ouma S, Herselman M, Van Greunen D (2010) Essential UX metrics to be considered when designing m-health applications in order to provide positive user experiences. In: IADIS International Conference E-Health, Freiburg, Germany, 29-31 July 2010. http://hdl.handle.net/10204/4790

  • Palviainen J, Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila K (2009) User experience in machinery automation: from concepts and context to design implications. In M Kurosu (Ed), Human centered design. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 1042–1051. Retrieved from 10.1007/978-3-642-02806-9_119

  • Paunonen H, Oksanen J (2011) Usability and user experience of process control systems and the feeling of control. In: proceeding of 10th international technical conference on pulp, paper and allied industry, Pragati Maidan, New Delhi, India, pp 299–305

  • Peirce CS (1998) The Harvard lectures on pragmatism. In: T.P.E. Project (ed) The essential peirce. Selected philosophical writings. Indiana University Press, Bloomington & Indianapolis, pp 133–241

    Google Scholar 

  • Roto V, Law E, Vermereen A, Hoonhout J (2011) User experience white paper—bringing clarity to the concept of user experience available on line: http://www.allaboutux.org/files/UX-WhitePaper.pdf

  • Rückriem G (2003). Tool or medium? the meaning of information and telecommunication technology to human practice. A quest for systemic understanding of activity theory. Paper Presented in FISCAR ‘03

  • Rückriem G (2009) Digital technology and mediation: a challenge to activity theory. In: Sannino A, Daniels H, Gutiérrez KD (eds) Learning and expanding with activity theory. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 88–111

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Russ LR, Phillips J, Brzozowicz K, Chafetz LA, Plsek PE, Blackmore CC, Kaplan GS (2013) Experience-based design for integrating the patient care experience into healthcare improvement: identifying a set of reliable emotion words. Healthcare. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hjdsi.2013.07.004 (accepted)

  • Salo L, Savioja P (2006) Practises of process control in digital control room: possibilities and threats. ECCE 13-trust and control in complex socio-technical systems, Zurich. In: proceedings of ECCE 2006

  • Savioja P, Norros L (2008) Systems usability—promoting core-task oriented work practices. In: Law E, Hvannberg E, Cockton G (eds) Maturing usability quality in software, interaction and value. Springer, London, p 123

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Savioja P, Norros L (2012) Systems usability framework for evaluating tools in safety–critical work. Cogn Technol Work, pp 1–21. Retrieved from 10.1007/s10111-012-0224-9

  • Savioja P, Aaltonen I, Karvonen H, Koskinen H, Laarni J, Liinasuo M, et al (2012) Systems usability concerns in hybrid control rooms. In: proceedings of the 8th international topical meeting on nuclear plant instrumentation and control and human-machine interface technologies

  • Savioja P, Norros L, Salo L (2012) Functional situation models in analyses of operating practices in complex work. ECCE 2012 Re-Thinking Cognition

  • Sproll S, Peissner M, Sturm C (2010) From product concept to user experience: exploring UX potentials at early product stages. Paper presented at the proceedings of the 6th Nordic conference on human-computer interaction: extending boundaries, Reykjavik, Iceland. pp 473–482. doi:10.1145/1868914.1868968

  • Suchman L (1987) Plans and situated actions: the problem of human computer interaction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • van Herk H, Poortinga YH, Verhallen TMM (2004) Response styles in rating scales: evidence of method bias in data from six EU countries. J Cross Cultura Psychol 35:346–360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vicente KJ (1999) Cognitive work analysis toward a safe productive, and healthy computer-based work. Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers, Mahwah

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky LS (1978) Mind in society the development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright P, McCarthy J (2010) Experience-centered design: designers, users and communities in dialogue. Morgan & Claypool, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Ylirisku S, Halttunen V, Nuojua J, Juustila A (2009) Framing design in the third paradigm. Paper presented at the proceedings of the 27th international conference on human factors in computing systems, Boston, MA, USA. pp 1131–1140. doi:10.1145/1518701.1518874

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research has been conducted within the Finnish Nuclear Safety Research Program SAFIR 2014. The authors wish to thank the participants of the studies, the design department of the particular NPP, and the colleagues who took part in conducting the studies, especially Leena Norros and Paula Laitio for their input in the initial formulating of UX indicators and the questionnaire statements.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, Espoo, Finland

    Paula Savioja, Marja Liinasuo & Hanna Koskinen

Authors
  1. Paula Savioja
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marja Liinasuo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hanna Koskinen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paula Savioja.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Savioja, P., Liinasuo, M. & Koskinen, H. User experience: does it matter in complex systems?. Cogn Tech Work 16, 429–449 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-013-0271-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-013-0271-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation