People research for experience designGenerating great stories – new product development

People research for experience design �

Preface

This paper is based on Philips Design’s ‘Research through Design’ program, intended to develop

business options with high potential value and in a timely manner. The paper outlines an approach

to assessing and evaluating innovative experience solutions – presented as tangible experience

demonstrators – that are being developed to have people create their own relevant and meaningful

experiences.

This approach to Experience Assessment builds – in five steps – on the fundamentals of people’s

experiences. Such experiences are both dynamic (evolving over time); personal (an integral part

of each individual’s experience); and memorable (memory forms a frame of reference for new

experiences as well as a long term ‘data-source’ of past experiences).

As an example of how this approach can be applied, we present one of our recently conducted

research projects, intended to help with the development of new innovative solutions for home

entertainment. We show how the approach supports both the design of personalized and

meaningful solutions for people, yet remains quick and cost-efficient.

Slava Kozlov, Lucile Rameckers, Paul Schots

People research for experience design �

Human experiences:

new challenges for business and designIn their seminal book, The Experience Economy,

Pine and Gilmore (�999) argued that people will

increasingly value personalized and memorable

experiences that deliver meaningful solutions to

their rational needs, yet which are also rich both

emotionally and sensorially. Indeed today, many

signals show that our societies have been moving

from a ‘product and service economy’ towards an

‘economy of human experiences’ (Thakara, �005).

In response to these profound changes, business

must also move from developing and manu­

facturing products – with a focus on new features

and functionalities – to designing complete

solutions that facilitate the creation of rich and

meaningful experiences for individuals.

To support this process of ‘experience design’,

it is essential to understand people’s behavior

in the contexts of their own lives and to involve

them in co­designing for the experience

(Prahalad and Ramaswamy �004). The

Participatory Design approach also calls for the

active involvement of the end users in the design

process (Participatory Design, Wikipedia). We

believe that the same principles of active user

involvement should be applied to research phases

as well. Such a new, deeper level of understanding

of both people and new design practices

increases the chance of developing desirable –

and viable – business solutions.

In order to achieve this involvement of the end

user, we developed different research methods

and tools during the earlier stages of the design

process to generate insights into people. These

methods and approaches are described in ‘People

insights at the ‘fuzzy front’ of innovation: How to

achieve human­centered innovation?’ and

‘The seven steps of innovation,’

(Rameckers and Un, �005).

Interacting with people in iterative loops, we

translate and develop these insights through the

following three (successive) phases.

I. Qualities of experiences – the key concepts

that capture essential aspects of the feelings

and emotions that an experiential solution

should evoke

�. Design implications – the features, functions,

relevant messages, associative triggers, and

look and feel of a solution.

3. Design concepts – draft ideas and sketches

that eventually evolve into a set of ‘experience

demonstrators’.

The primal goal of an experience demonstrator

is to enable experience formation, rather than

the presentation of specific product features and

the technology behind it. Therefore, they are not

necessarily fully workable prototypes, as the

technology behind the demonstrator is often still

in development (Andrews, Geurts, and Kyffin,

�005). That said, they must have a reasonably

‘finalized’ execution, and as such are particularly

suited to involving the end­user in exploring

both the medium­term and distant possibilities.

In short, they help people to envisage and

experience, in as tangible a manner as possible,

potential future solutions that are in many other

aspects no more than vague descriptions

(Gardien, �006). (See figure �)

This paper will focus on involving end users in

the third stage of the design process, that is, the

actual creation of experience demonstrators. In

this phase, the team needs specific tools and

methods that actively involve people to explore,

refine, and validate developed experience

solutions vis­à­vis previously defined experience

qualities; they need this to make sure that they

are on the right track in their design. The

fundamentals of a person’s experience (section �)

formed the basis for setting up this Experience

Assessment approach (section 3) and is

illustrated with a case example in section 4.

Figure 1

Examples of

experience

prototypes

People research for experience design 3

Designing for experiences:

from discoveries to memoriesWe have been guided in our research activities

by the fundamentals of a person’s experience

formulated in Cass and Gridley (�004), and the

experience design principles that resulted from

this formulation.

One of the key fundamentals of ‘experiences’ is

that they cannot be ‘provided’ or ‘delivered’ to

people. People create personal experiences using

multiple available enablers and environments

that obtain meaning within a certain social,

cultural, and historical context (Cass and Gridley,

�004, page 5). Therefore, the first principle

of experience design is that it has to enable,

support, and facilitate people in creating their

own experiences, rather than delivering ‘ready­

made’ experiences, for it is only experiences in

which people play an active role themselves that

provide personal meaning.

A second principle builds upon the historical

context in which experiences are shaped: every

person builds their own, personal memory of

the experiences they encounter. A memory

contains previous personal experiences as

well as the interpretation of it from a shared

cultural reference (Cass and Gridley, �004, page

7). A memory, therefore, creates a frame of

reference for interpreting experiences: using our

memory, we continuously create expectations

and interpret perceptions. Our memory is also

affected and developed through our experiences,

which makes every experience a personal

endeavor.

A third principle of experience design is that

people are bound in their lives to the notion

of time: they perceive things and events in

terms of time and, with every action leading to

another, sequences of events flow together into

an overall experience. When people describe

their experiences, they recall them as stories, as

successions of contexts, interactions and events

that flow together in a meaningful way.

These dynamics of an experience as it evolves

over time can be represented as four separate

phases through which people travel (Cass and

Gridley, �004, page 6).

• Impression. The very first feelings and ideas

people have at the beginning of an experience.

This first evaluation determines the subsequent

course of action.

• Discovery. The discovery of an experience at

the beginning of the interaction.

• Use/do. The active interaction with the

solution.

• Memory. The end of the formation of an

experience, which also affects the beginning of

a new experience

Memory affects all three other phases of

experience formation: people form expectations

based on previous experiences, and the memory

of the experience affects future experiences.

(See figure �.)

expectationaffected

Experience in time

impression discovery use/doIndividual memoryand cultural reference

Figure 2

The flow of experiences over time

People research for experience design 4

Assessing experiences:

the five-step approachAs product and concept testing is designed

to explore concrete features, functionalities,

and propositions, we felt that we needed to

make use of an approach that also captures the

dynamic, personal and memorable aspects that

are so typical of an experience. This led us to

develop a rapid yet very productive method to

assess experience solutions and provides the

required feedback loops to the designers.

Following the principles of experience design, we

developed an Experience Assessment approach

that consists of five major stages

�. Creating a personalized space.

�. Investigating expectations and impressions, and

interacting with the experience demonstrator.

3. Putting the solution into a broader context.

4. Exploring the meaning of the solution.

5. Triggering and eliciting memory aspects.

1. Creating a personalized space

Building the context of personal meaning into

our experience­assessment site is a serious

challenge. Ideally we place the demonstrators

in actual homes, but they are often not robust

enough to be placed in such ‘real life’ situations

and they also required regular back­stage

support and technical maintenance.

We therefore developed an assessment site that

allows for customization and personalization by

participants. Instead of testing the demonstrators

in an artificial environment such as a research

lab, we created a space in which people can

imitate their own home environment. We expect

that this not only makes participants feel at

ease but also helps them translate their test

experiences to their own contexts of use.

The participants then shape and create their

own personal test spaces, using a selection of

familiar and preferred triggers (objects and

posters), as shown in figure 3.

2. Investigating expectations and

impressions, and interacting with the

experience demonstrator

As it is so important that an experience builds

over time, we need to account for the whole

trajectory of experiences as people move

from initial expectation to memory formation.

Therefore, the second stage is to explore

the first three parts in this trajectory (that is,

impression, discovery, and use/do).

We ask people to describe their initial

expectations after a brief explanation of the

experience demonstrator but before they see

Figure 3

Poster (left) and home objects (right) used

to personalize the test environment

People research for experience design 5

any part of it. Subsequently, upon arrival at the

test location, people are asked to describe their

first impressions.

Similarly, we continue by exploring the different

applications of the demonstrator, constantly

focusing on the users’ first impressions during

their first interactions with it. In so doing, we

witness how initial first impressions evolve,

or sometimes change into different overall

evaluations and memories of the experience

demonstrators, information that is crucially

important to defining the exact qualities of an

experience demonstrator.

3. Putting the solution into a broader

context

The third stage relates to people’s experiences

with alternative products and solutions. This

also influences and shapes their memory and

expectations and, as such, serves multiple goals.

Firstly, it broadens people’s minds, enabling

them to put things into perspective rather than

tempting them to offer the unrealistic – and

unquestioning – amount of attention they

might give a finished product during a standard

‘market survey’ test. Forcing people to think

about alternative solutions may make them

more critical towards the proposed experience

demonstrator. In addition, it enables people to

place their experience with the demonstrator

in the context of their own personal history of

interaction with products and patterns of use. To

cover this aspect of alternative solutions, people

have to indicate the ‘likeability’, and ‘newness’,

of a wide range of products. The experience

demonstrator was one of these products.

4. Exploring the meaning of the solution

An experience is personal; people participate

in creating their own experiences through

an interplay between context, behavior, and

memory (references and expectations). This

interplay ‘manifests itself to the individual’

through what they perceive and how they

interact with enablers and environment of the

experience.

To get a better understanding of the personal

meaning of an experience, the team wanted

to capture – by using both observation and

dialogue–istinct levels of the perception of, and

interaction with, the experience demonstrator.

On an emotional level, we focus on the feelings

and reactions to a solution, from the beginning

right through to the end of experience

formation; that is, understanding whether feelings

are positive or negative, and – on a deeper level

– identifying precisely the emotions experienced:

surprise, anger, sadness, fear, love, and joy (Shaver,

Schwartz, Kirson, and O’Connor, �00�).

On a rational level, we focus on the experienced

usefulness of the different applications within a

solution. This is to see whether people’s insights

were properly translated into design qualities.

It also provides an opportunity to validate the

importance of the people insights identified.

For example, is the experienced benefit of an

application the fact that it helped the user ‘to

share with friends’ or ‘to be on top of things’?

On an interaction level, we focus on how

the applications fit to the behavior of people:

behavior with regards to the direct interaction

with the demonstrator. This means that

interaction with the demonstrator should always

remain in line with how people are used to

interacting with products.

Accounting for these distinct levels helps us to

understand whether it is:

• The experience itself that is (not) desired;

• The intended experience that has (not) been

properly ‘provided’;

• The combination of interactions, perceptions,

and events that has influenced the flow of the

experience.

People research for experience design 6

5. Triggering and eliciting memory aspects

Finally, the last phase addresses – in two ways

– the important role of memory as part of an

experience.

Firstly, people’s short­term memory of

their interaction and experience with the

demonstrator contains an implicit evaluation

of it. Using a carefully structured interview, we

explored this short­term memory to identify

the design implications of the demonstrator

that do, and do not, contribute to the overall

experiences. The information gathered helps

the design team to fine­tune the experience

demonstrator.

Secondly, one of the dangers of proposing

experience demonstrators to people is that

they may form very positive reactions to it

based on nothing more than its newness and

technological innovation. It is, therefore, also

important to capture what people retain in their

long­term memory after a test, when they have

‘cooled down’. So, to allow them time to ‘take’

the experience home and let it ‘sink in’ in their

own context of use, we give them a token with

pictures of the demonstrator they have just

encountered.

We ask people to put this token in their homes,

in the spot where they would normally have

placed the ‘real’ demonstrator. Two weeks later,

we evaluate how the experience has sunk into

their long­term memory. We also ask them

to tell us how they would have used certain

applications of the demonstrator in their own

homes, and how it would have fit in with the

products they already had.

People research for experience design 7

Experience exploration in action:

a case study We developed our Experience Assessment

approach within the framework of AMEC,�) and

designed it for the development of new digital

systems and solutions that can help people to

transform their home environment and enable

new activities, either by supporting existing

lifestyles, or adopting new ones.

This project was informed by extensive in­

depth research into people’s everyday lives,

their behaviors, needs and wants. Based on

this research, we compiled three distinctive

Personas�) (called Alejandra, Sietske, and Jeroen)

to represent target groups and help designers

translate their abstract people insights into

tangible solutions.

The experience demonstrators developed by

the design team provide solutions for in­home

entertainment. They combine external TV

content with local/self­created digital content

(such as home movies or downloaded films,

pictures and music, etc.), with access to Internet

services. The entire setting is based around the

television in the home. (See figure 4.)

The experience demonstrator was based on

one technological platform consistent across the

three target groups. It consisted of:

• A ‘set­top box’ containing all the appropriate

technology

• ‘personalizable’ home menu displayed on a TV

• Various objects to make the content mobile.

It is important to note that the experience

demonstrators were based on one technological

platform. This was to show that the same

technology can be worked out in different

applications evoking distinctively personalized

experiences for various target groups and

enabled us to construct three experience

demonstrators, each targeted at one of our

personas.

�. Alejandra’s demonstrator was designed

to create easy access to digital content

to enhance a balanced, personal home

environment. In addition to a TV and E­hub,

it includes ‘OpenFrames’. The functionality of

an ‘OpenFrame’ is open to whatever the user

desires so that it can, for example, become

a photo viewer, radio, or recipe book. Each

functionality can be downloaded and organized

in the HomeMenu. (See figure 5.)

�. Sietske’s demonstrator was designed to enable

the physical flexibility of digital content. In

addition to a TV and E­hub, it includes the

‘LifeBook’, a personal and flexible tablet

onto which you can load multiple content.

This makes it become whatever you want,

whenever you want: a photo album, a

collection of news and business services, a

storybook, scrapbook, a communication tool

and so on. (See figure 6.)

Figure 4

The setting of the experience

demonstrator

Figure 6

Experience prototype for sietske (left) and ‘lifebook’ (right)

Figure 5

Experience prototype

for alejandra (left) and

‘openframe’ (right)

People research for experience design �

3. Jeroen’s demonstrator was designed to

enhance the way he experienced his hobbies

(such as music) in his home environment. In

addition to a TV and E­hub, it includes the

‘Pure Music Browser’ – an application on the

HomeMenu which can be used to browse

and play music collections – and a ‘Touchpad

remote’ controller for browsing the Pure

Music Browser using natural gestures.

(See figure 7.)

The research was conducted at Philips Design

in Eindhoven in the Netherlands over a period

of two weeks, with �� participants (six for every

persona). In line with our approach, we created

three different test sites, or ‘islands’ (as shown in

the picture below) for each persona.

(See figure �.)

Step 1: Personalizing the test islands

At the start of the experience assessment,

participants were allowed to personalize the

test site with a personal object brought from

their homes, together with lifestyle posters and

other items provided by the researchers. The

participants very much appreciated the whole

process of personalizing the test island: it gave

them a sense of more intimacy and a feeling of

being genuinely involved.

Step 2: Exploring the demonstrators

Participants were first given a short verbal

introduction to the experience demonstrator

and asked for their expectations before entering

the test site. They then started interacting with

the demonstrator. A researcher continuously

observed and elicited people’s impressions of the

demonstrators, on each level of understanding,

and the way they explored various applications.

It was essential to not focus only on task analysis,

but rather on feelings, emotions, and reactions to

the ‘look and feel’.

It proved to be important that the way we

presented the demonstrators was well­staged:

that is, participants discovered certain features,

were then asked by us for their reaction, then

discovered new facets while we observed their

reaction, and then were asked for their reaction

again, etc. By such a staging of the experience,

we were able to discover a range of reactions to

an entire experience, rather than just the overall

impressions of the demonstrator, as is shown by

the following examples:

• Overall impressions were often positive, while

first impressions were sometimes indifferent

or even negative: “All these things you just

explained can already be done with a regular

laptop”. However, as the entire flow of the

experience unfolded, this persons’ view turned

into a positive, pleasant perception, recognizing

value in the subtleties of experiencing the

personalized and natural interaction with the

demonstrator: “I think you now will access your

photos quicker and more often because you

don’t have to sit behind your pc or get out the

photo albums anymore”.

• Initial expectations were often that the TV

screen was similar to a regular TV screen.

However, as they discovered that they could

display a picture on the entire screen, they

grew more enthusiastic and understood the

opportunity for transforming the TV into a

large painting.

Figure 7

Experience prototype for jeroen

(left) and ‘touchpad remote’ (right)

Figure 8

Example of a personalized test island

People research for experience design 9

Step 3: Creating a product chart

After in­depth exploration of the demonstrators,

we asked people to place them – on charts –

within the broader context of the more familiar

solutions they may already have experienced

today. This also produced a ‘cooling down’ effect

after the test. (See figure 9.)

The construction of these product charts

triggered discussions on the role of technology

and products in people’s lives “I am from another

era: pen, paper, TV,” and “I am not that interested

in new technologies”. This helped us to interpret

people’s experiences with the demonstrators

because it told us something about their level

of openness to innovations. The exercise

also provided a frame of reference for the

participants. Using the chart, people were better

able to compare the demonstrator with existing

products or solutions. One of the participants of

the Jeroen Persona didn’t like that music would

only be available digitally: “I miss the feeling of

holding a CD”.

Step 4: Understanding the experiences

The participants’ feedback was carefully

structured around the three levels of

understanding of the experiences. For the

middle­aged Alejandra Persona, for example,

current technology is complex, difficult, and

confusing. Therefore we defined as a target

for this demonstrator the need to experience

technology in a humanized way – as if there was

no technology at all – in a manner congruent

with existing behavior.

To realize this, the team developed a ‘drag &

drop’ interface that allowed Alejandra to interact

with content in a more natural and intuitive way:

pictures, movies, and music could be moved from

one device to another simply by pointing to the

content with a remote control, ‘capturing’ it, and

‘dragging’ it to another device. (See figure �0.)

The feedback on the drag & drop solution was

very reassuring to the team.

• On the emotional level, people like Alejandra

indicated that they found the application very

desirable and said that they were surprised that

technology could work in such a simple way:

“Wow, it is like a magic wand!”. It even gave

some of the participants a sense of pride, as

they were now able to do something that they’d

considered too difficult in the past: “It is really

good that someone who cannot do anything,

can do this”.

• On the rational level, because most of the

participants were now able to deal with

technological applications they’ve never used

before, it opened up a new world for them and

added value to their lives: “That I can actually

do it, you have more at your fingertips now!”.

• On the interaction level, the main goal of the

drag and drop quality was to make technology

less complex, difficult, and confusing. This

experience was clearly attained: “I have

mastered this much quicker than I thought was

possible for a product such as this”

The design team did, however, receive some

less positive feedback on the experience

demonstrators as well. In case of Jeroen’s

demonstrator, the touch pad was felt to be tiring

to use because it was too sensitive. Fortunately,

this problem could be easily overcome. Most

of the criticism, in fact, was directed at the level

of interaction, demonstrating the importance

of assessing whether it is the experience itself

that is not desired, or whether the intended

experience has not been properly ‘provided’.

Figure 9

Product graph (left)

to trigger discussion (right)

on alternative solutions

Figure 10

‘Dragging & dropping’

content from tv to

openframe

People research for experience design �0

Step 5: Triggering and eliciting memory

Two weeks after the assessments, we probed the

memories participants had built. Overall, people

remembered very well the different applications

and solutions of the experience demonstrators.

However, contradicting what we had expected

– that they would have ‘cooled down’ by then

and be less enthusiastic – the memory of the

experience had become even more positive.

Not only had the new and exciting technical

innovations contributed to this feeling, but also

the imagined usefulness of the demonstrator had

increased over time.

• “… over the past two weeks, I thought about

it often and I think it is a good and useful

product. It saves space, it looks beautiful, and it

is extraordinary functional and divers“.

• “The positive feeling I initially had is still there.

It may have even strengthened. I still think it is

a beautiful and useful device. The tablet is still

very useful, though it is a bit lumpish, big”.

(See figure ��.)

Allowing the experiences to ‘settle’ and then

reflecting on them in their homes – as opposed

to the test area – also helped participants

to recommend additional applications and

improvements to the demonstrators. It helped

them determine the activities and routines that

are important to them in their everyday lives

and what, therefore, should be added to the

demonstrators. The additions proposed were

mainly related to managing the household and

maintaining, or changing to, a more (healthy)

lifestyle (for example, health services, banking

services and reminders).

As the design team of the AMEC project

consisted of multiple stakeholders – ranging

from designers to engineers, people researchers,

and project managers – the test site created

a unique platform for rapid yet efficient

discussion and development of the solutions. It

was extremely well suited to helping the more

technically oriented engineers in translating their

developments and applications to solutions that

would make sense in people’s everyday lives.

(See figure ��.)

The improved experience demonstrators have

since been demonstrated at an internal exhibition

aimed at bringing technology developments

closer to the business and have been received

very well. Initial communication has even been

started with business representatives to discuss

the potential commercialization of some of the

demonstrators’ specific solutions. Moreover,

the design team has been invited to exhibit

their results at the IFA �006 (Internationale

Funkausstellung) in Berlin, the world’s largest

consumer electronics trade fair.

Figure 11

Token to trigger and elicit people’s

memory

Figure 12

Amec team during and after the experience assessment

People research for experience design ��

Summary and discussion The current experience economy has led to the

development of complete solutions that facilitate

the creation of rich and meaningful experiences

for individuals.

To support this process of ‘experience design’

and to develop both desirable – and viable

– business solutions, we need a deep level of

understanding people within the context of their

lives and we need to actively involve people in

both design and research activities.

At Philips Design, we create ‘experience

demonstrators’ to help people envisage and

experience potential future solutions that are,

in many other aspects, no more than vague

descriptions. They help people shape their

own personal experiences when triggered and

enabled by multiple technological and interaction

enablers.

Therefore, we developed an approach for

the assessment of experiences. The approach

consists of five steps – based on the theoretical

fundamentals of people’s experiences

– and, as such, goes far beyond product and

concept testing that is designed solely to

explore concrete features, functionalities, and

propositions.

For this reason, the approach enabled an

understanding of the dynamic, personal, and

memorable aspects that are so typical to an

experience. It enabled us to witness the flow of

the actual experience – from first impression,

discovery and use, to the memory of it ­ thereby

discovering a range of reactions to an entire

experience: the emotional and the rational, as

well as the interaction facets.

The approach also provided an understanding

of the experience in a broader context: that of

the everyday life environment of the individuals,

as well as the internal reference frames that

influence their openness to innovations. Such

understanding could prevent an innovation

being forced in a specific – and inappropriate

– direction, thus ensuring that its potential value

would not be lost (Gardien, �006).

As a result, we developed a rapid yet very

productive method for assessing experience

solutions. It provided the required feedback

loops for, and iterative discussions to, designers

and engineers – who took actively part – in the

early phases of the innovation process.

For business, we feel that such an approach

can offer investment opportunities for the

commercialization of potentially innovative

solutions built on the true understanding,

involvement and evaluation of ‘everyday’ people.

We intend to use and build further upon this

Experience Assessment approach in areas

beyond the context of digital experiences within

the home environment: in particular, solutions

for healthcare and communication.

People research for experience design ��

Shaver, P., Schwartz, J., Kirson, D., and O’Connor, C. (2001).

Emotion Knowledge: Further Exploration of a Prototype

Approach. In Emotions in Social Psychology, Ed. By Parrott W.G.,

Psychology Press: Philadelphia.

Participatory design, article from Wikipedia

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_design)

Thackara, J. (2005). In the Bubble: Designing in a Complex

World. The MIT Press.

Slava Kozlov is Senior Consultant, Philips Design, Netherlands.

Lucile Rameckers is Senior Consultant, Philips Design,

Netherlands.

Paul Schots is Researcher, Philips Design, Netherlands.

The authors want to thank all people involved in the AMEC project.

Specifically we want to thank Anton Andrews, Angus Dick, Luc

Geurts, Robert Kortenoeven, Judith Peeten, Daniel Pezzutti, Stuart

Pill, Henk van de Weij, Pascal de Man for their technical, creative,

as well as intellectual support. We also want to thank Marlies

Bielderman and Juliana Kelly for their support in observing and

interviewing the participants, and Anja Janssen for her facilitation

support. Thanks to Gavin Proctor, Steven Kyffin, Paul Gardien,

Josephine Green and Geke Deetman for making this project

possible. Finally, special thanks go to Mili Docampo-Rama, Geke

Ludde (TU Delft, The Netherlands), Lesh Parameshwaran, Karen

Reddering, Liesbeth Scholten, Bruce Thomas, and Stefanie Un for

their valuable input.

1. AMEC: AMbient ECologies is subsidized by ITEA (Information

Technology for European Advancement). It is a collaborative project

between several European partners to stimulate and encourage

European industry to take a leading role in digital technology

systems. (Aarts and Marzano, 2003; Aarts et al, 2003). More detailed

information about the project can be found at the project web-site:

http://www.amecproject.com/

2. Personas are fictional people with ‘real’ life stories, goals and tasks

(Grudin and Pruitt, 2002). The Personas developed for this project

are fictional yet realistic, meaning that they do not exist in real life,

but are based on extensive research into ‘real’ people. The method

used to develop research-based Personas is described in Research

for Innovation: Fitting the design process at Philips Design, Lucile

Rameckers and Monica Bueno, presented at ESOMAR’s Qualitative

Conference 2003

Acknowledgements

Footnotes

Aarts, E. and Marzano, S., (2003) The New Everyday, Views on

Ambient Intelligence, 010 Publishers.

Aarts, E., Collier, R., van Loenen, E., de Ruyter, B. (Eds.) (2003).

Ambient Intelligence, Springer.

Andrews, A. (2003). Putting the customer first: Creating “Experience

Targets” to mange digital experiences, White Paper of Philips Design.

Andrews, A., Geurts, L. and Kyffin, S. (2005). TO:DO – Collaborative

experience innovation, White Paper of Philips Design.

Rameckers, L. and Bueno, M. (2003). Research for Innovation:

Fitting the design process at Philips Design, presented at ESOMAR

Qualitative conference 2003

Cass, J. and Gridely, N. (2004). Experience Design. A positioning

paper for Philips Design, Royal Philips Electronics.

Grudin, J., and Pruitt, J. (2002). Personas, Participatory Design

and Product Development: An Infrastructure for Engagement.

Proceedings of Participatory Design Conference.

Pine, B, and Gilmore, J. (1999), Experience Economy: Work is

Theatre and Every Business a Stage, Harvard Business School Press.

Prahalad, C.K. and Ramaswamy, V. (2004). The Future of

Competition: Co-creating Unique Values with Customers, Harvard

Business Scholl Press.

Rameckers, L. and Un, S. (2005). “People insights at the ‘fuzzy

front’ of innovation”: How to achieve human-centered innovation?

Proceedings of ESOMAR Qualitative Conference, 2005.

References

The authors

HeadlineSub headline

©�007 Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V.All rights reserved.