Improving the process of developing a UI in the IPD process of BA

(1)

Improving the process of developing a

UI in the IPD process of BA

Version: final (public)

January 2012

Master thesis

By: Henk Faber

S1839454

henkfaber3@gmail.com

University of Groningen

MSc. Technology Management

1

st

Supervisor University: dr. ir. H. Van De Water

2

nd

Supervisor University: drs. F.P. Bakker

Philips

Beverages

(2)

2 Improving the process of developing a UI in the IPD process of BA (Vfinal)

List of abbreviations

BA Beverages

DA Domestic Appliances

IPD Integrated Product Development

NPS Net Promoter Score

PRC Product Research Centre

UI User Interface

(3)

Preface

This project was conducted at Philips Drachten Beverages (BA) to conduct my master thesis of the master program Technology Management. My research at Philips BA was five months of research on the topic I like most: helping to improve a user interface (UI) development process that is able to deliver a targeted user experience (UX).

I explicitly came to Philips to apply for an internship because I know they want to make UI’s that deliver their brand promise of ‘sense and simplicity.’ My previous experiences in the subject of developing a UI that produces a targeted UX (BSc. Human Technology and bachelor thesis of

Technology Management on the subject of UI’s) made me eager to become more knowledgeable on managing the development of the UI. Since my previous experience showed the adoption of a UI development process that produces the right UX in an integrated product development (IPD) process with many other disciplines is a challenge.

Hereby I would like to thank the people that made it possible for me to conduct this project. Special thanks to the guidance and support of Mérijn Stam during my internship at Philips BA. He introduced me into the UI development in the IPD process of BA. I also want to thank Bert Ipema, head of the product research centre (PRC), for giving me the opportunity to research to conduct my master thesis at Philips BA.

Finally, my gratitude goes to my supervisor Hen Van De Water and second supervisor Frans Bakker. My first supervisor helped me with his guidance and constructive criticism from a theoretical perspective. It helped me to see things clearly and simplified in an analysis and diagnosis of the complexity called ‘reality.’

(4)

Management summary

The motivation to research was the complaint within the management of BA that the process of developing a UI in the IPD process of BA is a point to improve. The research question in this research was formulated as:

How to improve the process of developing a UI in the IPD process of BA?

Several issues related to the development of the UI in the IPD process of BA were identified and a plan of action to solve the issues was made accordingly. The main themes to improve the UI development in the IPD process of BA derived from the analysis and diagnosis are:

A. The degree of specialization of the team members of the IPD of BA in their field of work B. Degree of fire fighting on UI-development instead of fire prevention

C. Degree of understanding the UX with regard to the UI of the team members of the IPD process in BA

D. Proportion of lessons learned on developing a UI, that are implemented in following projects

The change indicated by the plan of action, consists of five elements that are very interrelated and should all be executed to handle the interrelating issues. Executing the plan of action mentioned in this report will improve the development of the UI in the IPD process of BA. Doing so, the UI can contribute to deliver the targeted UX. The elements of the plan of action are:

A. Understanding the consequences of prioritizing UI

B. Gain external research on user needs (when developing new families or generations of UI) C. Produce a constant learning process to hand over learnings from project to project (on

consistent components in UI generations or families)

D. Produce a (better) methodology to hand over research results regarding UI within the IPD process

E. Define a methodology to hand over the UX targeted

(5)

5 Improving the process of developing a UI in the IPD process of BA (Vfinal) consistent within a product generation / family. A change on the product design, resulting from research results on UI inside the IPD process of BA, might deflect the product from delivering its targeted UX if the targeted UX is not communicated throughout the IPD process of BA. The

(6)

Index

List of abbreviations ... 2 Preface ... 3 Management summary ... 4 1. Introduction ... 7

1.1 Introduction to the company ... 7

1.2 An introduction to UI ... 7

1.3 An introduction to how a UI is developed in the IPD process ... 9

1.4 Complaint from within the organization ... 11

1.5 Problem analysis ... 12

1.6 Summary... 15

2. Research framework ... 16

2.1 Research question & further demarcation ... 16

2.2 Approach ... 16

2.3 Data collection ... 19

2.4 Summary... 19

3. Analysis, diagnosis and possible solutions ... 20

3.1 Analysis of fields of research ... 20

3.2 Analysis, diagnosis and possible solutions of developing a UI in the IPD process of Philips BA . 22 3.3 Summary... 30

4. Plan of action ... 31

4.1 Introduction ... 31

4.2 Elements needed to solve the issues ... 32

4.3 Impact on the current situation ... 36

4.4 Summary... 37

5. Conclusions ... 38

References ... 40

Appendix A. Interviews... 43

Appendix B. Organization IPD BA ... 49

(7)

1. Introduction

The master thesis presented in this report was conducted at Philips BA in Drachten.

As can be read in the title of this thesis, the business problem involved is about improving the development of the UI in the IPD process Philips BA within the Consumer Lifestyle division. In this chapter the company and its division BA will be introduced, an introduction to what a UI is will be shown, the process of developing a UI in the IPD process of BA is introduced, the complaint from within the organization is discussed and in the last paragraph the problem analalysis will be handled.

1.1 Introduction to the company

Philips is a large company with over 119.000 employees worldwide. The company consists of three main divisions: Healthcare, Lighting and Consumer Lifestyle. BA is part of the Domestic Appliances (DA) division which, in turn, is part of the Consumer Lifestyle division. BA itself produces and

develops traditional drip filter coffee machines, single serve softpad machines (Senseo), single serve capsule machines, and full automatic espresso machines.

Philips is striving to deliver sense and simplicity to their consumers, as is widely spread towards the consumers in commercials using the brand promise: “sense and simplicity”. The brand promise, introduced in 2004, is stated by Philips as being: “In a world where complexity increasingly touches every aspect of our daily lives, we will lead in bringing “sense and simplicity” to people“(source:

http://www.philips.com/about/company/missionandvisionvaluesandstrategy/index.page (visited November 23th 2011)). Philips thus wants to be the best in the markets it is involved, in bringing the UX of sense and simplicity by developing products that create this experience.

1.2 An introduction to UI

(8)

user and the product meet and affect each other it is an important element of forming the UX: sense and simplicity. To give an understanding of what can be understood when talking about a UI, some examples of UI’s on the products of BA are discussed. A water level indicator (figure 1.1) is able to inform the user how he affected the water level after he poured in some water. The handle in figure 1.2, informs the user something is not ready to brew coffee by clearly affecting the shape of the coffee machine (the whole upper side is standing up). The user can affect the handle by pushing it down. Using the buttons in figure 1.3 the user is able to control the coffee machine. The symbols inform the user what the button is able to do. The

lights beneath the buttons on the left and right informs the user what function is selected. The light encircling the button in the middle can send different messages to the user by blinking, a special sequence, continuously shine or not shine at all.

Figure1.1 Water level indication

Figure 1.3 Buttons, symbols and lights

(9)

1.3 An introduction to how a UI is developed in the IPD process

A lot of elements of the product form the UI of the product (as can be seen in the examples in

paragraph 1.2). All the elements that affect the UI are shaped / affected in a lot of departments of BA and through all stages inside the IPD process. The overall look of the product is done by design, the software (to build a sequence to blink lights for example) is developed by electronics & software and the interior and placement of different mechanisms is done by system architecture. The PRC defines technical specifications of the product with regard to UI, and helps design the UI elements. The PRC also tests if the product delivers the intended UX. The members of PRC are all UI experts. Within large projects the IPD process of BA is extended by using interaction designers (UI experts) of Philips DA. During all the projects designers of DA are used. The designers and interaction designers are not specifically dedicated to BA to produce consistency and alignment among the products developed by Philips DA. The division ‘test and verification’, tests and verifies the technical specifications on UI set by PRC. ‘Life cycle and support’ tests the performance of the UI during its lifetime in the market. If new functions have to be created the department of ‘function development’ can create these functions. Because the UI is affected in so many different departments and stages (basically the entire IPD), the development is not mentioned in this report as being a (separate) UI development process but as being the process of developing a UI in the IPD process of BA. The subject of research is thus handled as an aspect system, the ‘process of developing a UI’ being the aspect of the system ‘IPD process of BA’. All the subsystems of the IPD process of BA that relate to the aspect ‘process of developing a UI’ will thus be handled on that aspect.

The possibility of a smaller, more detailed project on specific steps (subsystems) in the IPD process was not chosen because of the possibility that interrelations between the subsystems could be missed and because changes on one subsystem can have impact on other subsystems (because the process of developing a UI in the IPD process of BA affects a lot of subsystems / departments) this could give wrong solutions that make other problems worse. The possibility to research the development of the UI (aspect) not only on BA but the entire sector of consumer lifestyle was not done due to lack of time.

(10)

10 Improving the process of developing a UI in the IPD process of BA (Vfinal) are delivered to the IPD in functions, a rough design and some possible design requirements. These functions and design (requirements) often differ from already shaped (in case of an update) to just some suggestions (in case of a new concept). To the people that develop a UI in the IPD process, the functions are activities the product should be able to execute and the design (requirements) is the UX the product wants to enable. The UX and the activities the product should be able to execute can be seen as input in figure 1.4 (yellow area on the left).

Output Attention on UI during the IPD process

Input Defining optimal design (based on theory and experience) Creating a software prototype

and test the UI Activities it should

be able to execute

UX

Create real models and test

UI Create full functioning model and execute Home placement test Improve Knowledge UI Improve Improve

Box 1 Box 2 Box 3 Box 4

Figure 1.4 Process of developing a UI in the IPD process of BA

The first designs (3 to 5) of the UI are made in a sketch by using general knowledge on UI (as

documented in the internal document “UI guidelines for DA”) and experience of the members of the IPD on what sort of UI should be used and how the UI should be implemented in the design (box 1 figure 1.4). The sketches of the UI are input to the second phase (see arrow between first and second box in figure 1.4) where the sketches are transformed into software prototypes and accordingly the UI is tested on a touchscreen PC (box 2 figure 1.4). These software models consist of a picture of the machine with different types of UI and / or different button lay-outs but also with different

electronics / programming (e.g. different flashing modes of lights and different times it takes to brew a cup of coffee). After the test the best prototypes (or a combination of good elements) are selected and are input to the next phase (see arrow between second and third box in figure 1.4), where 2 or 3 real life models are made and their UI is tested (box 3 figure 1.4). If none of the software prototypes are satisfying, the software prototypes are improved and tested again (see striped arrow above the second box).

(11)

11 Improving the process of developing a UI in the IPD process of BA (Vfinal) The full functioning models are similar to an eventual production product so the tests on the prototypes can be done in a real life situation (often a home placement test or in a small project the kitchen in the Philips Home Lab). After the final test on UI the best full functioning prototype (or a combination of good elements) are selected and form the input to the final UI (see arrow between fourth box (in the blue area) and UI (in green area) figure 1.4). If none of the full functioning

prototypes are satisfying the full functioning prototypes are improved and tested again (see striped arrow above the fourth box). The IPD process itself ends with a full functioning product ready for production. With regard to the UI, the IPD process ends with a UI as can be seen as output in figure 1.4 (green area on the right). The results of all the tests and experiences on the tests are discussed (when the project is finished) and it is discussed what results or experiences should be input into new projects (see striped and dotted line between the fourth and first box (where theory and experience is used)).

In the improvements (above box 2, 3 and 4) the test results of the test in the corresponding box and previous boxes are used together with theory and experience (box 1). Anytime during the

development of the IPD the project can be aborted in a meeting of the IPD process (because the product cannot produce the experience it is intended to do) or by higher management (because of strategic reasons).

1.4 Complaint from within the organization

Within the management of BA the complaint exists that the process of developing a UI in the IPD process of BA, as displayed in figure 1.4, can be improved. The goal of this research, according to the management of BA, is to improve the process of developing a UI in the IPD process of BA to increase the net promoter score (NPS). The NPS is a consumer satisfaction research which measures the loyalty of consumers. Within Philips BA the performance of the UI is measured by the NPS. The NPS is a performance indicator scored by the target group of the products BA develops. According to the management of BA: ’Improving the UI’ would be to achieve a higher NPS to budget ratio but not decreasing the NPS compared to the current rating. Thus: creating a higher NPS score with the same budget or increase the budget and proportionally create a higher NPS. In the NPS-test the main question to the interviewees is: “Would you recommend this product to others”. The NPS is

(12)

12 Improving the process of developing a UI in the IPD process of BA (Vfinal) The management of BA had some suggestions how the UI of the products leaving the IPD process of BA could be improved:

- Problems in handing over UI related research results - Learnings of former projects are not implemented

- UI experts are called in to fix the UI instead of asked to help develop a UI, which causes delays (because it takes less time (and thus money) to design a good UI at the beginning compared to fixing it in a later phase)

The suggestion on handing over UI related research results were described as being a problem with a lot of misunderstanding between the researcher and the receiver, which cause the UI not to be developed in line with the research results. The learnings of former projects were not implemented and resulted in making the same mistake again and therefore not improving the IPD process. In the suggestion from the management of BA it was noted that UI experts are often called in to fix the problem instead of helping to develop a good UI from the beginning. Fixing the UI means redesigns have to be executed and thus causes delays in the IPD process. No specific examples of the causes were handed over, just these indications.

1.5 Problem analysis

(13)

comparison to other competitors for Philips BA. To ensure reliability the results of a particular brand in a category will only be presented in the results if, at least, 30 results were gathered.

The performance of the UI, of the products leaving the IPD process, is measured by the NPS score (as discussed in the previous paragraph). The NPS score of the products of Philips BA are higher in two target markets (6 and 1 points) and lower in six (-31, -8, -4, -26, -26 and -72 points) of the researched markets compared to its main competitor in the corresponding market (source: NPS Release 2011 Coffee, 2011 (Internal document Philips)). The six markets that have competitors scoring higher on NPS compared to Philips BA are areas for improvement to Philips. Possibilities to improve the NPS are thus possible in these six markets. Since the motive of people to be a promoter, passive or detractor differ, it is impossible to conclude from these numbers to say that the UI can be improved or if the UI is an important factor to the NPS score. Even the two markets in which Philips has the highest NPS score, the UI might be an area to improve. It is also possible that Philips is already the best promoter on UI and / or has the least detractors on UI related causes. By looking at the root causes, that are also gathered by TNS, the reason for promoting or detracting can be traced. Looking at the definition of UI in paragraph 1.2, the root causes of the NPS related to UI are ease of use and ease of cleaning. The ease of use and the ease of cleaning are shaped in the place where the

appliance and the user meet and affect each other (where the product is used / cleaned). Since these root causes are formed by the place where the user and the appliance affect each other (the UI) it is a performance indicator for the UI.

Table 1.1 Percentage of promoters and detractors that have a root cause related to UI (global) (Dark grey areas means it is the main reason for promotion / detraction the lighter grey area means it is the second most important reason) Source: NPS Release 2011 Coffee, 2011 (Internal document Philips)

Detractors Promoters Sector Ease of use Ease of cleaning UI related total

(14)

The ease of use and ease of cleaning are combined often the main reason to promoters or detractors that form the NPS as can be seen in table 1.1. In table 1.1 is shown that among promoters the

category ‘ease of use’ is the second largest cause of promotion in all categories. In two categories the main cause of detractors is the ease of cleaning. Although these numbers (on percentages of

promoters and detractors that have a root cause related to UI) are not available of other

competitors, the conclusion can be made that the ease of use and ease of cleaning form a relatively large share of the NPS score of Philips. The perception of the management of BA to be able to improve the NPS score by improving the UI is thus true.

To see if Philips BA has room for improvement on the ease of use and ease of cleaning, a comparison has to be made with other competitors. If the competitors have fewer detractors and/ or more promoters on ease of use and / or ease of cleaning, room for improvement on the UI exists, since the competitors show a higher score is possible. Table 1.2 shows the score of the ease of use and ease of cleaning per category and per market. Not all researched markets had sufficient results (more than 30 respondents) and are thus not available. Still, if the available numbers show a significant trend they can be used to give reasoning.

Table 1.2 Reasons for promotion or detraction related to UI compared to best competitor (per country and per category). The numbers are the percentage of promoters minus the percentage of detractors. Dark grey areas means Philips is the best scoring in the market, the lighter grey area means Philips scores as good as the best scoring in the market. The higher the score, the better. Source: NPS Release 2011 Coffee, 2011 (Internal document Philips).

Ease of use Ease of cleaning

Drip filter Philips Best competitor Philips Best competitor

(15)

15 Improving the process of developing a UI in the IPD process of BA (Vfinal) Of the 9 category / market combinations researched only two are slightly in advantage of Philips BA on the ease of use and one is a tie compared to its best competitor. On the 9 category / market combinations researched on ease of cleaning only one is as good as its best competitor.

Since area of improvement on the UI related areas ‘ease of use’ and ‘ease of cleaning’ exists the problem is not a perception problem. The norm of Philips to be a leader on sense and simplicity (as mentioned in paragraph 1.1) is attainable because Philips is often already close to the best

competitor in most researched markets (as can be seen in table 1.2). Since the norm of Philips is attainable the problem presented is no target problem. The problem of improvement on the UI developed in the IPD process of BA, is a reality problem since it is neither a target problem nor a perception problem. A ‘reality problem’ means reality has to be changed to solve the problem (De Leeuw, 2000). To be able to improve the UI of the products coming out of the IPD process of BA (and thus its related NPS scores), the process of developing a UI in the IPD process of BA (the process that creates the UI) should be improved.

1.6 Summary

Within the management of BA the complaint exists that the process of developing a UI in the IPD process of BA is a point to improve. The goal of this research, according to the management of BA, is to explore the complaints from the people that develop the UI and find out how to improve the UI of the products developed by BA in its IPD process. The UI is an important factor in creating the UX of sense and simplicity, which is the brand promise of Philips. The complaint from within the

organisation is a reality problem because the norm of leadership on sense and simplicity is attainable and an area of improvement on UI exists. To be able to improve the UI of the products coming out of the IPD process of BA, the process of developing a UI in the IPD process of BA should be improved. The improvement of the development of UI can be measured afterwards using the reasons for promotion and detractors related to ease of use and ease of cleaning and compare it with the current numbers presented in paragraph 1.5. The suggestions of the management of BA on how to improve UI coming out of the IPD process are:

- Problems in handing over UI related research results - Learnings of former projects are not implemented

(16)

2. Research framework

This chapter presents the fundamental structure to research the business problem. The research question and further demarcation will make clear what will be researched in paragrapg 2.1. Paragraph 2.2 will show how the research will be approached. How the data (needed to solve the research question) will be collected, is presented in paragraph 2.3.

2.1 Research question & further demarcation

In the problem analysis (paragraph 1.5) it became clear that there is room for improvement on the UI of the products coming out of the IPD process. The problem handled in the problem analysis can be formulated as a research question as:

This research is relevant to Philips BA to improve their development of the UI in the IPD process and thereby strive towards sense & simplicity. This research is not intended to comment on or elaborate on UI literature and science at large. Literature on UI and other relevant literature are used to provide a scope on the current situation and to give insights in possible improvements on the IPD process of BA regarding to UI. The results of the research are intended to be used to improve the development of the UI in the IPD process of BA, not other divisions.

2.2 Approach

Since the management of BA wants advice on how to improve the IPD process of Philips BA, the problem presented in the problem analysis is a design oriented problem. Basically the management of Philips BA wants to know how the IPD process should be designed so the products leaving the IPD process have a better UI compared to the current situation. Two commonly used design oriented approaches are those of De Leeuw (2000) using a ‘diagnose, design, change’ process and Van Strien (1997) using the regulative cycle presented in figure 2.1. The model of De Leeuw (2000) is quite similar to the regulative cycle: the diagnose of De Leeuw (2000) is similar to the analysis and

(17)

be executed by Philips. Philips has to realise they have to implement and evaluate the improvement, to see if the proposed change did work out in reality. Because Van Strien (1997) clearly shows a process Philips has to take, instead of the model of De Leeuw which stops after change, the regulative cycle is chosen.

Figure 2.1 The regulative cycle (Van Strien, 1997)

The bussiness problem of BA and therefore the decision to research inside BA are not results from a research but are defined by insights from the management of BA: as discussed by Van Aken et. al.: “Business problems are not given, cannot be ‘discovered’ in reality, but are the result of choices of influential stakeholders: in the context of a ‘mess’ of issues, of opinions and value judgements on those issues, of interests, power and influence, these stakeholders choose an issue, or combination of issues, to work on” (2007, p. 9). All the conditions mentioned in the previous quote by Van Aken make the IPD process of BA a typical business problem selected from a ‘mess’ of issues because the problem mess was defined by the insights of the management of BA. The problem mess described by Van Strien in figure 2.1 should not be mistaken with the definition of ‘problem mess’ by Ackoff (1979). The problem mess presented in the regulative cycle is a mess of issues or in other words: a range of issues to choose from. The issue chosen by the management of BA is the development of the UI in the IPD process. After the issue was selected the problem analysis, in this research

(18)

18 Improving the process of developing a UI in the IPD process of BA (Vfinal) An analysis is: “the detailed study or examination of something in order to understand more about it” (Hornby, 2010, p.49). By analysing the development of the UI in the IPD process of BA a better understanding of the current situation will be created to be able to diagnose the problem mess. Diagnosing is: “the act of discovering or identifying the exact cause of a problem” (Hornby, 2010, p.417). In the context of researching this business problem, diagnosing is the process to identify what elements and relations cause issues in the development of the UI in the IPD process of BA. To be able to diagnose the development of the UI in the IPD process an understanding has to be created about the UI. An introduction to the UI is already presented in paragraph 1.2, more thorough

understanding is created in paragraph 3.1. Using the understanding on the field of research the development of the UI can be analysed and diagnosed. Other, more specific literature and research findings will be used in the analysis and diagnosis of the current situation. The analysis and diagnosis of the current situation (the development of the UI in the IPD of BA) will be discussed in paragraph 3.2. During the analysis and diagnosis in paragraph 3.2 possible solutions, that are obvious after diagnosing the issue, will be mentioned. Other solutions related to the discussed theory in the analysis are introduced in chapter 4 (plan of action).

The crucial link in handing over the problem solving advice to Philips is the plan of action as a guide to the intervention. The analysis, diagnosis and possible solutions will be input to the plan of action. The plan of action will use field-tested grounded technological rules or solution concepts since: “The most powerful support can be given by field-tested and grounded technological rules or solution concepts” (Van Aken et. al., 2007, p.14). The intervention phase, to be executed by Philips BA, will implement the plan of action. Having a feeling that could be worth investing in is all about knowing the process, therefore the people inside the management of BA (who are very familiair with

implementing changes in the IPD process of BA) decide what to change and what not. In other words how to implement the plan of action addressed in this thesis. The management of BA is also

(19)

2.3 Data collection

In this research the current situation of how a UI is developed in the IPD process of BA has to be analysed and diagnosed. The understanding of the current situation is created using theory on the development of the UI and how people interact with UI’s. With an understanding of the UI, the development of the UI can be analysed and diagnosed. The current situation will be analysed by using internal documents on how the development of the UI is intended (by the management of BA) to be organised and predominantly by doing interviews with the people that develop the UI inside the IPD process (what is the reality). Since at this point it is not known how and where in the process of developing the UI (as described in figure 1.4) room for improvement exists, the interviews cannot be designed strictly in advance. A structured interview or a survey is thus not suitable. To scan for issues in the interviews a structured interview is executed. The structure inside the semi-structured interview can be changed after each interview because at each interview the area for improvement becomes clearer. The remaining structure of the interview (interview questions) is derived from (problems mentioned in) literature. To improve the current situation field-tested and grounded technological rules or solution concepts on how a UI could be developed best in an IPD process are gathered. In the analysis and diagnosis the current situation and the field-tested and grounded technological rules or solution concepts derived from literature are discussed to show where and how the current situation can be improved. To fit the plan of action to the IPD process of BA a panel discussion with crucial actors (departments mentioned in paragraph 1.3) will be executed. In the panel discussion the plan of action will be presented and discussed. The panel discussion is to be shot on camera to document. The video can be retrieved by sending an email to the address on the front page. The discussion in the panel discussion is input to the final plan of action as will be show in chapter 4.

2.4 Summary

(20)

3. Analysis, diagnosis and possible solutions

In this chapter the analysis, diagnosis and possible solutions of the problem presented in the problem analysis will be handled. First the fields of research around UI will be investigated to create an

understanding of UI (paragraph 3.1) to be able to know what should be researched when looking at the process of developing a UI in the IPD process of BA. Paragraph 3.2 will handle the analysis on the issues in the development of the UI in the IPD process of BA and accordingly will show what is the cause of the issue (diagnose). Possible solutions will be addressed at the identified area that can be improved to show how the diagnosed issues possibly could be handled. How the findings of this chapter can help improving the UI in the IPD process of BA will be handled in the plan of action in the following chapter.

3.1 Analysis of fields of research

The field of research related to UI is often labelled as: Human Factors, Ergonomics, Human Computer Interaction, Cognitive Engineering, Human-Centred Design, Human Systems Integration or many other disambiguation’s (Cooke & Durso, 2007; Norman, 2010a). All these different fields of research try to achieve the same thing, developing a UI to achieve some predefined UX. The term “UX” is defined by ISO as: “A person's perceptions and responses that result from the use or anticipated use of a product, system or service" (ISO 9241-210, 2010). Or as mentioned by Law et. al. “We

recommend the term user experience to be scoped to products, systems, services, and objects that a person interacts with through a user interface. These can be tools, knowledge systems, or

entertainment services, for example” (2009, p. 727).

The researchers of the different fields of research related to UI are not promoting and debating with each other because there is no common field of research. The lack of promoting and debating is referred to as a: “Labelling and identity problem” (Cooke & Durso, 2007; Norman, 2010a) and results in a less specified, and therefore confusing, field of research (UI) to find solutions for everyday practice in an IPD process. The labelling and identity problem also results in less debate among UI scientists which in turn can lead to less quality because the same discussion is handled in different fields of research but not compared to each other.As well as there are different names on the field of research on UI, a lot of different terms are used within these fields of research. Different

(21)

21 Improving the process of developing a UI in the IPD process of BA (Vfinal) between fields of research and naming it in relation to UI) but wind up in a different level (more broad or narrow) and name the vision they have created differently. Because of the differences, caused by the different holistic views, the labelling and identity problem came to exist.Usability and UX are the most common terms that are mentioned in relation to UI. Usability is defined by ISO as: “the extent to which a product can be used by specified users to achieve specified goals with effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction in a specified context of use.” (ISO 9241 part 11, 1998). The usability influences the ’experience of the usage of a product’ (Finstad, 2010), a higher order term (since usability is only a part of the entire user experience) called UX (Roto, Law, Vermeeren & Hoonhout, 2011). UI development researchers and practitioners have become well aware of the limitations and interrelations of the traditional usability terminology, which focuses primarily on user cognition and user performance in human-technology interactions (Norman, 2004b). Also Norman (2004b) notes that usability is

never a goal but a mean to work towards the goal of a certain UX such as the examples of a UX set by Norman (2004b, p. 313) “pleasure, enjoyment, fun”. The higher order term, UX, according to Law, Roto, Hassenzahl, Vermeeren & Kort: “highlights non-utilitarian aspects of such interactions, shifting the focus to user affect, sensation, and the

meaning as well as value of such interactions in everyday life. Hence, UX is seen as something desirable, though what exactly something means remains open and debatable” (2009, p.179)(in this quote UX is mentioned as a goal (a certain UX you want your consumer to experience) to work towards in an IPD process). People working in an IPD process can use the UI as a tool to create a certain UX because the UX of the UI is a part of the UX of the entire product. In this research the explanation of Norman (2004a) on cognitive psychology applied to everyday products (as can be seen in figure 3.1) is used to define how a UX is shaped. In this research the model will be used to

investigate whether people inside the IPD process of BA are aware and knowledgeable on this process (the relations among the different topics (sensory, cognitive and motorical)) and to see whether research on these topics (specified to the range of products BA produces) is available.

(22)

22 Improving the process of developing a UI in the IPD process of BA (Vfinal) Norman (2004a) describes three levels of cognitive processing and shows that the sensors of a user are the input and the motorical aspects of a user are the output. According to Norman the three different levels of the brain are: “…the automatic, prewired layer, called the visceral level; the part that contains the processes that control everyday behaviour, known as the behavioural level; and the contemplative part of the brain, or the reflective level.” (2004a, p.21). Only the reflective level is not able to directly adjust a sensorical input into a motorical action (the reflective influences the

behavioural to produce a motorical response), the other two levels are able to do so. A sensorical input that has a behavorial processing can become a visceral processing if it is executed a lot. The same thing accounts for other levels, if a process is executed very often it can switch down a level (e.g. from behavioural to visceral) or if a sensory input appears less often the process of the cognitve system (to trigger a motorical response) might become less automated (e.g. from behavioural to reflective). Explaining a UX using the model in figure 3.1 creates more understanding because the sensory and motorical aspects are seperated from the cognitive part. Defining three different kinds of cognitive processing, as is common in cognitive psychology (Norman, 2004a), allows an explaining how an user experiences the product.

Within Philips BA differences exist among the perception of what is UI and what elements are not part of the UI. When asking people of BA; at first, the term UI is often described as being the buttons and symbols on the product. Secondly most people within BA conform to handles or a grab in a water tank as being a UI. The PRC is the department which contains usability experts, they validate the UI and refer to a more abstract definition: the place where the user is informed by the product and where the user controls the product. Formally within BA, developing a UI is seeking to: “establish a dialogue between products, people and physical, cultural and historical contexts; to anticipate how the use of products will affect comprehension; and to determine a form that is appropriate to its behaviour and use” (User Interface guidelines for DA, 2007, p. 6 (internal document Philips)). Within Philips BA the development of the UI is not a phase of the IPD process but a part of the product that should be taken into account throughout the IPD process.

3.2 Analysis, diagnosis and possible solutions of developing a UI in the IPD process of Philips BA

(23)

23 Improving the process of developing a UI in the IPD process of BA (Vfinal) understand the diagnosis. The causal loop diagram shows causal relations that make sense of the issues found in the interviews (Schaffernicht, 2007). The causal-loop diagram shows a positive or negative polarity (+ or – at the end of the arrows in figure 3.2). But does not show a pattern of behaviour (increasing, constant, decreasing) to remain simplicity (and thus the overview)

(Schaffernicht, 2007) and because no significant result of the patterns of the behaviour of the causal relationships were researched nor found. Without this pattern of behaviour the causal loop diagrams is still a useful tool for exploring beliefs concerning the causal structure of the current situation (Schaffernicht, 2007). In this research the awareness existed that: a solution based on the diagnosis in a model is not an optimal solution of a problem unless the model is a perfect representation of the problem, which it never is because a model is the simplification of reality (Ackoff, 1979). Therefore we strongly rely on insights of experienced people within BA (using a panel discussion) to form a plan of action in the following chapter. The four main issues derived from the analysis and diagnosis are: the degree of specialization, degree of fire fighting UI instead of fire prevention, proportion of lessons learned implemented, degree of understanding of the UX with regard to UI. These issues are encircled in figure 3.2.

(24)

(25)

25 Improving the process of developing a UI in the IPD process of BA (Vfinal) If the degree of misunderstandings of each other’s work increases, the degree of misunderstanding why the UI results cannot be delivered in hard specifications also increases. As mentioned in the interviews electronics is often complaining the specifications are not precise enough but PRC just cannot be more specific, they first need to test a real model instead of creating precise specs from a scenario analysis.

As mentioned by PRC members in the interviews, developing a UI in the IPD process of BA is often a case of fire fighting UI instead of fire prevention, often a UI is developed on insufficient research results and the UI has to be redesigned at a later stage. The UI experts within the IPD process of BA often feel frustrated because when they are fixing the UI, they have to criticize and tell people they have done it wrong. The UI experts in the IPD process of BA want to earn recognition by being proactive and doing a good thing instead of being a policeman, to increase their own degree of work satisfaction. As mentioned in the interviews by a PRC member: “If I’m involved in a later stage of the project I feel like a policeman.” Thus, if the degree of fire fighting UI instead of fire prevention increases the degree of work satisfaction of the UI experts in the IPD process of BA decreases. The degree of work satisfaction can increase if everybody would understand why the UI results cannot be delivered in hard specifications. Looking at figure 3.2, if the degree of misunderstanding why the UI results cannot be delivered in hard specifications increases, the degree of work satisfaction will decrease. What consequences a low degree of work satisfaction has on the process of developing a UI in the IPD process was not investigated. The complaints on work satisfaction were used to find the causes and thereby to search for possible flaws in the process of developing a UI in the IPD process of BA.

Having a high degree of UI experts input in early decisions can make a difference and cause some fire prevention instead of fire fighting (Van Kuijk, 2010; Norman, 2010a). According to Norman (2010a) UI experts are never part of early decisions at the initiation of an IPD process because UI experts are often not part of management teams. Both PRC members and project leaders in the interviews mentioned: within Philips BA the IPD initiation (see figure B.2) is the place where the UI experts of PRC do have input in the beginning of the process, but the UI experts are not always involved from the beginning. As cynically stated by a PRC member in an interview: “In theory a PRC’er is involved from the beginning. I repeat, in theory.”

(26)

money (Ulrich & Eppinger, 2007; Tidd, et. al, 2005), since adjustments made in an earlier stage of the IPD process are cheaper compared to changes made in a later stage. Also the UI experts of PRC said in the interview that it would be best to start with a UI that is researched because they know from experience that this will reduce the amount of flaws found in the home placement test(s). Acting according to this sympathy, first a study on what the UI should look like when you want to create a certain UX should be executed and then the UI should be designed.

In others interviews it became clear that for most of the projects within the IPD process of BA doing UI research first is wrong, because once a project is announced it is too late to research how the UI should be designed or if the newly designed UI brings up the right type of UX. This is in contrary to what is stated in the previous indentation. Doing research on UI at the beginning of the IPD process will only delay the IPD process which costs money (Norman, 2006). Iterative design instead of using a traditional waterfall methodology is also an aspect mentioned to improve the IPD process (Ulrich & Eppinger, 2007) also recognised by UI scientists (Norman, 2006; Van Kuijk et. al., 2006; Van Kuijk, 2010) and the UI experts of the IPD of BA in the interviews. As Norman says: ”All of us usability theorists have long argued for iterative design, trying to get rid of the lengthy, inflexible linear project schedules that stymie flexibility and change, that slow up projects.“ (2006, p.50). Note the contradiction, UI theorists and practitioners pledge for iterative qualitative analysis (the call for iterative design) but still feel they want an up-front user study (research on UI at the beginning of the IPD process).

As Norman mentions: “our continual plea for up-front user studies, field observations, and the discovery of true user needs are a step backwards: they are a linear, inflexible process inserted prior to the design stages. We are advocating a waterfall method for us, even as we deny it for others. Yes, folks. By saying we need time to do field studies, observations, rapid paper prototypes and the like, we are contradicting the very methods that we claim to be promoting.“ (2006, p.50).

(27)

27 Improving the process of developing a UI in the IPD process of BA (Vfinal) Documented knowledge of UX and UI combinations are available in the UI guidelines for DA document but they are not used anymore because they are linked to research themes that are not used anymore. The knowledge is available but not used. Thus if the proportion of lessons learned (knowledge on UI – UX combinations) that are implemented would increase the degree of fire fighting UI instead of prevention would be lower since less redesign has to be done and more prevention is done by implementing lessons learned.

The “Degree of understanding of the UX with regard to UI” as mentioned in figure 3.2 overlaps with the research result “Project teams often struggle to define a holistic view of how the product should behave and to define the right requirements to deliver the ideal product experience” (A Consumer Centric Framework for Innovation (internal document, 2011)). The “holistic view” described in this research result is about a UX the product should create, as for example is described in the innovation themes in the “UI guidelines for DA” document. The consumer centricity initiative (A Consumer Centric Framework for Innovation, internal document 2011) within consumer lifestyle has a tool called the “Ideal Product Model.” The tool comprehensively describes what the product should do and how it should behave to deliver the ideal experience. But the description made in the ideal product model does not use pre study results of how a certain UX can be delivered by a UI. Therefore the connection needs to be studied all the time but due to lack of time it is not done. What is needed in this tool, a connection between what users want to experience (UX) and what the UI should look like, is described in chapter 9 “Innovation themes” within the internal document: “UI guidelines for DA” (2007). The problem is that the innovation themes in this internal document are no longer used within the IPD of BA and therefore there is no predefined study what a UI should look like when trying to achieve a certain UX. The innovation themes are no longer used within BA because higher management of DA chose not to use them anymore for the department BA. Result is that people designing the UI in the IPD process are constantly researching how to design the UI to deliver the UX. The research between having a UX and knowing what the UI should look like should be done by studying the reflective-behavioural-visceral trade off and keeping the sensory and motorical aspects in mind (Norman, 2004a), as can be seen in figure 3.1. How, when and where the research should be executed is handled in figure 4.2 element B. The research between having a UX and knowing what the UI should look like can be used as an input to the IPD process.

(28)

28 Improving the process of developing a UI in the IPD process of BA (Vfinal) for DA’ (2007) document). After asking people in the IPD process about the behavioural-visceral trade off in the interviews, it became clear that they are not aware of the

reflective-behavioural-visceral trade off due to their narrow specialties. The interviewees haven’t heard of the methodology / related theory, only some of them heard of innovation themes but these are of no use anymore and therefore only specifications are handed over. The specialties of BA are not on cognitive psychology, therefore if the degree of specialization (becoming more knowledgeable on a specialization) increases (for example by hiring people that are more specialized in electronics) the degree of awareness on the reflective-behavioural-visceral trade off decreases. If people inside the IPD of BA are becoming more aware of the cognitive, reflective-behavioural-visceral trade off, the degree of understanding the UX with regard to UI increases and vice versa. Figure 3.1 shows how a UX is shaped by a consumer and where to look for in the IPD process during this research (if the elements and relations mentioned in figure 3.1 are present within Philips BA). Figure 3.2 shows the results of looking at the elements (sensory, cognitive and motorical) within the process of developing a UI in the IPD process of BA and this paragraph supports figure 3.2 in words.

(29)

29 Improving the process of developing a UI in the IPD process of BA (Vfinal) If the degree of lack of methodology to hand over the UX with regard to UI increases, the degree of the lack of documentation of trade-offs / arguments / experience former experience(s) will increase. Because there’s lack of methodology to document the UI research results trade-offs / arguments/ experience won’t be documented (properly).

An increase in the degree of the lack of documentation on trade-offs / arguments/ experience former experience (s) will decrease the proportion of lessons learned that are implemented because the documents on UI will not be created and thus cannot be used. Although some things in the “TAO User Interface Specifications” document originate from the “UI guidelines for DA” document, the innovation themes for example cannot be used because there is no update “UI guidelines for DA” since the innovation themes seized to exist (as mentioned before in this paragraph).

Often an IPD process is reflected upon in a meeting and a Powerpoint presentation is made where some improvement points are discussed. The people presenting these reflections say the reflections could be improved to create a better implementation of lessons learned. If the lessons learned are used it can save resources because you do not have to research it over and over again.

A high degree of consistency on UI is a crucial thing to be able to implement the lessons you’ve learned (Van Kuijk et.al. 2006, Van Kuijk, 2010; Van Kuijk, 2011). When a certain type of UI is developed, the team of BA gets to know

much more about the UI as it is used in more versions of coffee machines compared to when you continuously switch the design of the UI. The causal relationship that can thus be drawn is: if the degree of consistency on UI

increases the proportion of lessons learned that are implemented in the IPD process of BA will increase.

A good example of consistency within BA is the three button interface of the Senseo generation, see figure 3.3. These buttons are maintained within all the families (Quadrante, Viva café and Latte select). Due to consistency of the three buttons interface and only introducing minor changes, members in the IPD process are able to learn from former versions how people react on small changes. Incremental innovations can thus be effectively introduced. The three button interface of

(30)

30 Improving the process of developing a UI in the IPD process of BA (Vfinal) Senseo is a good example however some machines have the same functions but a different UI. As stated in the interviews: “Senseo machines with the same functions have a different UI. Why?” People within an IPD process should thus be aware that they are doing research for other projects with a same type of UI while doing research on their own. They should know, and be able to, use lessons learned and take in consideration that they will lose a lot of valuable data when producing a new UI (Van Kuijk, 2010; Van Kuijk, 2011).

3.3 Summary

(31)

4. Plan of action

4.1 Introduction

The plan of action is made to show how the issues mentioned in the previous chapter can be

handled. And thus gives answer to the research question: How to improve the process of developing a UI in the IPD process of BA?The possible solutions mentioned in the previous chapter will be input to this plan of action on what could be done to improve the development of the UI in the IPD process of BA. The plan of action is derived from literature, the interviews, the panel discussion and own insights / common sense. The change indicated by the plan of action will be implemented into Philips BA in the intervention, see figure 2.1. The plan of action consists of five elements (A to E, presented in the next paragraph) which are interrelated and should all be executed to handle the interrelating issues mentioned in the previous chapter. At the beginning of each element the ‘issues handled’ are mentioned to know what issue the element will help to solve. Paragraph 4.3 will discuss, in more detail, what the impact of the plan of action is on the current situation. By mentioning the ‘related literature’ at the beginning of the element it is encouraged to the executer of the plan of action to read the theory before executing the element to fully understand the theory behind his action. Although not everything within the mentioned literature is directly relevant to the process of developing a UI in the IPD process of BA (the most important issues are mentioned in paragraph 3.1, 3.2 and this chapter) it sets a good thorough understanding. The numbers behind the often

(32)

4.2 Elements needed to solve the issues

A. Understanding the consequences of prioritizing UI

Issues handled: Degree of specialization & Degree of fire fighting UI instead of prevention Related literature: Van Kuijk (2010) cards 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 12, 15, 16, 18, 21; Norman, D. (2004a, 2010); Green & Jordan (2002) & Mandel (1997)

Projects Philips related: Brand promise “sense and simplicity”

(33)

B. Gain external research on user needs (when developing new families or generations of UI)

Issues handled: Degree of fire fighting UI instead of prevention Related literature: Van Kuijk (2010) cards 7, 8, 12, 18 Norman 2010a Projects Philips related: UI guidelines for DA

The consistency on UI, mentioned in element A, should be created by developing families and generations on UI. Developing a new family or generation should be executed outside the regular IPD process (or as a separate step in the beginning of the IPD) (Norman, 2006; Van Kuijk, 2010). Norman says: “Field studies, user observations, contextual analyses, and all procedures which aim at determining true human needs are still just as important as ever, but they should all be done outside of the IPD process. This is the information needed to determine what product to build, which projects to fund. Do not insist on doing them after the project has been initiated. Then it is too late, then you are holding everyone back.” (2006, p.50). The research on a new type of UI could be documented like is already done in the UI guidelines for DA document. The

document just needs to be updated to current goals and relevant external research on user needs on UI when looking at these goals should be input to the document. Early user research, usage simulation and evaluation can enhance the design freedom of the UI and are essential to create design freedom (Van Kuijk, 2010). If UI experts are not involved from the beginning the design freedom is decreased because changes in the design in a later stage are often too expensive.

C. Produce a constant learning process to hand over learnings from project to project (on consistent components in UI generations or families)

Issues handled: Degree of fire fighting UI instead of prevention & proportion of lessons learned implemented

Related literature: Van Kuijk (2010) cards 7, 15, 18, 19

Projects Philips related: The new product dossier (consumer centricity) and the experience flow (consumer centricity)

(34)

34 Improving the process of developing a UI in the IPD process of BA (Vfinal) experienced people on the team, in reality (as found in interviews) it is not always possible to keep the experienced people inside a team. Therefore the documentation of the projects should be crucial, but be sure not to prescribe methods for user-centred design (Van Kuijk, 2010). The danger of using prescribed formats to test the UI is that it becomes a checklist and not a well thought-out process (Van Kuijk, 2010). As Van Kuijk says: “The product development process should indicate that user involvement is desired or required, however, which method for user-centred design is appropriate to apply should be left up to the development team. They have most knowledge about the assignment, resources and team skills, and thus are the best judge of what methods can and should be used.” (2010, card 19).

D. Produce a (better) methodology to hand over research results regarding UI within the IPD process

Issues handled: proportion of lessons learned implemented Related literature: Van Kuijk (2010) cards 13, 14, 15

Projects Philips related: Ideal product Model (consumer centricity), TAO-C4Y User Interface Specifications

The research results within an iterative process should be shared in a way that everyone understands it and can easily use it and no misunderstanding can be created. The best thing to do is to keep all disciplines in one room throughout the process. A dedicated room per project team is already used within BA but most of the time people sit at the desk of their own department (table). Another crucial part is that all disciplines should be on the same location (Van Kuijk, 2010). Within BA the recommendation of Van Kuijk (2010) (as mentioned in the previous sentence) is especially important for the (interaction) designers who are situated in Amsterdam (the rest of the IPD team members are located in Drachten). When all disciplines are in one room throughout the process the following benefits arise according to Van Kuijk:

(35)

conversation on how to present the research results on UI among the receiver and the document creator. If it cannot be organised to sit in one room, a fallback option should be to regularly hold work sessions. A work session is focussed on sharing information, talking through issues and challenges instead of holding a meeting which is focussed on working through design challenges together, as a team (Van Kuijk, 2010).

E. Define a methodology to hand over the UX targeted

Issues handled: Degree of understanding of the UX with regard to UI Related literature: Van Kuijk (2010) card 14; Norman (2004a)

Projects Philips related: Ideal product Model (consumer centricity), UI guidelines for DA (innovation themes, ABC)

As defined by Blair-Eagle & Zender UI is: “the means by which the users interact with content to accomplish some goal.” (2008, p. 89). Very important to realise is what goal is the user trying to achieve? The goal is usually set as being “making one cup of coffee”. But is that all? What are the thoughts behind making one cup of coffee? What is the user trying to experience (what should thus be the target-UX), and how can the product make sure the experience is made? What sort of tradeoff is made within the user its brain? The model shown in figure 3.1 (Norman, 2004a) shows the relations between the different brain levels. The tradeoffs made are important to realise by UI experts in the team and should be communicated in an understandable way to the rest of the team. Defining a methodology to hand over the targeted UX with regard to UI can be executed by updating the innovation themes of the UI guidelines for DA document as mentioned in element B. Another option is to expand the Ideal Product Model mentioned in the Consumer Centricity Framework sometimes already used within BA.

(36)

4.3 Impact on the current situation

The current situation was analysed in chapter 3 and a causal-loop diagram (figure 3.2) was made accordingly. The causal-loop diagram showed relations that had impact on the process of developing a UI in the IPD process of BA and the previous paragraph presented a plan of action to steer the relations in the right direction (improving the process of developing a UI in the IPD process of BA). Paragraph 4.2 already showed which main issues are handled by each element of the plan of action. The goal of this paragraph is to make clear how the plan of action impacts the current situation presented in figure 3.2. All the elements of the plan of action will be handled separately and will show what impact it intends to have on the current situation.

A. Understanding the consequences of prioritizing UI

By understanding the consequences of prioritizing the UI, the degree of IPD process understanding will increase which results in a lower degree of misunderstanding each other’s work. The size of the gap between research and practice will narrow down because people have more knowledge about the process of developing the UI. If the size of the gap between research and practice will narrow down, it will result in a lower degree of misunderstanding each other’s work. A lower degree of misunderstanding each other’s work will result in a lower degree of misunderstanding why the UI results cannot be delivered in hard specifications. By reducing misunderstandings related to UI the UI experts will have a higher degree of work satisfaction. By executing element A the people will have a broader knowledge and become aware of the reflective – behavioural – visceral trade off, which is important to understand when developing a UI.

B. Gain external research on user needs (when developing new families or generations of UI) By using external research on user needs during the development of families or

generations of UI, the UI experts input in early decisions is guaranteed and the work satisfaction of the UI experts will increase because they do not have to extinguish fires as much as they do now.

C. Produce a constant learning process to hand over learnings from project to project (on consistent components in UI generations or families)

(37)

37 Improving the process of developing a UI in the IPD process of BA (Vfinal) / arguments and experience and thus former research can be reused. By reusing the research results at the beginning of a project the degree of fire fighting instead of prevention will decrease.

D. Produce a (better) methodology to hand over research results regarding UI within the IPD process

By producing a (better) methodology to hand over research results regarding UI within the IPD process of BA the proportion of lessons learned that are implemented will increase. More lessons learned inside the process will be used by steps later on in the process and other departments within BA because they are more accessible and adjusted to the people that use them.

E. Define a methodology to hand over the UX targeted

By defining a methodology to hand over the UX that is intended to be created by using the UI, the people inside the IPD process of BA will create a higher degree of

understanding the UX and what the UX means to the development of the UI. By implementing element A the people inside the IPD process of BA become aware of the reflective – behavioural – visceral trade off, this will help in understanding how the targeted UX can be created by a product.

4.4 Summary

(38)

5. Conclusions

This chapter will discuss the answer to the research question on what Philips BA should do to realise the improvement. The management of BA had the feeling the UI of the products could be improved by improving the process of developing a UI in the IPD process of BA. In the problem analysis it became clear that room for improvement on the UI of the products coming out of the IPD process of BA exists. The research question from the problem analysis was stated as:

The plan of action, derived from this research, consists of five elements that need to be implemented by Philips BA to improve the process of developing a UI in the IPD process of BA. The five elements and what they will change in the IPD process (the underlined text beneath each element) are:

A. Understanding the consequences of prioritizing UI

The understanding of people inside the IPD process and creating consistency on UI

B. Gain external research on user needs (when developing new families or generations of UI) The development of new families or generations of UI

C. Produce a constant learning process to hand over learnings from project to project (on consistent components in UI generations or families)

The learning process within families or generations of UI

D. Produce a (better) methodology to hand over research results regarding UI within the IPD process

Handing over research results

E. Define a methodology to hand over the UX targeted Handing over goals the product should reach

(39)

(40)

References

Ackoff, R. 1979, The future of operational research is past. The Journal of the Operational Research Society. Vol. 30, Number 2, p. 93-104

Aken, van, J.E., Berends, H. & Bij, van der, H. 2007, Problem solving in organizations: A methodological handbook for business students. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Blair-Eagle, A. & Zender, M. 2008, User Interface Design Principles for Interaction Design. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Design Issues: Volume 24, Number 1. p.85-107

Cooke, N.J. & Durso, F. 2007, Stories of Modern Technology Failures and Cognitive Engineering Successes. Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton, US.

Finstad, K. 2010, The Usability Metric for User Experience. Interacting with Computers, vol. 22. p.323– 327

Greens, W.S. and Jordan, P.W. 2002, Pleasure with products: beyond usability, Taylor & Francis, London, UK.

Hornby, A.S. 2010, Oxford advanced learner’s dictionary 8th edition. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.

ISO 9241-11. 1998, Ergonomic Requirements for Office Work with Visual Display Terminals (VDTs).

ISO 9241-210. 2010, Human-centred design for interactive systems.

Kuijk, van. J.I. Christiaans, H.C.C.M. Kanis, H. Eijk, Van D.J. 2006, Usability in the Development of Consumer Electronics: Issues and Actors. Proceedings of IEA2006: the 16th world congress on ergonomics, July 14-2006, Maastricht, NL.

Kuijk, van. J.I. 2010, Managing Product Usability; how companies deal with usability in the development of electronic consumer products. Delft University Press, Delft, NL.

Kuijk, van. J.I. Symposium on Human Technology. May 19th 2011, Groningen, NL.

(41)

41 Improving the process of developing a UI in the IPD process of BA (Vfinal) Leeuw, De, A.C.J. 2000, Bedrijfskundig management: primair proces, strategie en organisatie. Van

Gorcum, Assen, NL.

Mandel, T. 1997, The elements of user interface design, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK.

Norman, D.A. 2004a, Emotional Design, why we love (or hate) everyday things. Basic Books, US.

Norman, D.A. 2004b, Introduction to this special section on beauty, goodness, and usability. Human-Computer Interaction. Volume 19 Issue 4 p.311-318

Norman, D.A. 2006, Why doing user observation first is wrong. Interactions. Volume 13 Issue 4 p.50 & 63

Norman, D.A. 2010a, Speech on Why Human Systems Integration fails. 30th anniversary of the Human-Systems Integration Board of the National Research Council, the National Academies. Washington, DC, USA.

Norman, D.A. 2010b, The research-practice gap. Interactions. Volume 17 Issue 4

Roto, V. Law, E. Vermeeren, A. & Hoonhout, J. 2011, User experience white paper, bringing clarity to the concept of user experience.

Result from Dagstuhl Seminar on Demarcating User Experience,

September 15-18, 2010

Schaffernicht, M. 2007 Causality and diagrams for system dynamics. Proceedings of the 2007 International Conference of the System Dynamics Society Boston, USA

Strien, Van. P. J. 1997, Towards a methodology of psychological practice. Theory and Psychology vol. 7 p.683–700

Tidd, J. Bessant, J. & Pavitt, K. 2005, Managing innovation, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK.

(42)

Internal documents

User Interface Guidelines for DA, v1.0 (2007)

TAO-C4Y User Interface Specifications, v1.4 (2010)

A Consumer Centric Framework for Innovation (February 2nd 2011)

CL-IPD-Activity list – checklist (April, 2011)

Annual report 2010 http://www.annualreport2010.philips.com/downloads/

WK947 NPS GWO FDS (26-11-2009)