Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa

Communicating actionable user research for human-centered design

  • Celeste Roschuni (a1), Elizabeth Goodman (a2) and Alice M. Agogino (a3)
Abstract
Abstract

In human-centered design, user research drives design decisions by providing an understanding of end users. In practice, different people, teams, or even companies manage each step of the design process, making communication of user research results a critical activity. Based on an empirical study of current methods used by experts, this paper presents strategies for effectively communicating user research findings across organizational or corporate boundaries. To build researcher–client relationships, understand both user and client needs, and overcome institutional inertia, this paper proposes viewing user research clients as users of user research outcomes. This reframing of the crafting of communication across boundaries as a parallel internal human-centered design process we refer to as a double ethnography.

Copyright
Corresponding author
Reprint requests to: Celeste Roschuni, 1865 Euclid Ave No. 27, Berkeley, CA 94709, USA. E-mail: celery@berkeley.edu
Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

D. Baecker (2001). Why systems? Theory Culture & Society 18(1), 5974.

C. Bartel , & R. Garud (2009). The role of narratives in sustaining organizational innovation. Organization Science 20(1), 107117.

P.R. Carlile (2002). A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: boundary objects in new product development. Organization Science 13(4), 442455.

D. Dougherty (1992). Interpretive barriers to successful product innovation in large firms. Organization Science 3(2), 179202.

C.L. Dym , A.M. Agogino , O. Eris , D.D. Frey , & L.J. Leifer (2005). Engineering design thinking, teaching and learning. Journal of Engineering Education 94(1), 103120.

A. Hargadon (2002). Brokering knowledge: linking learning and innovation. Research in Organizational Behavior 24, 4185.

K. Henderson (1991). Flexible sketches and inflexible databases: visual communication, conscription devices, and boundary objects in design engineering. Science, Technology & Human Values 16(4), 448473.

A.M. Maier , C.M. Eckert , & P.J. Clarkson (2005). A meta-model for communication in engineering design. CoDesign 1(4), 243254.

A.M. Maier , M. Kreimeyer , C. Hepperle , C.M. Eckert , U. Lindemann , & P.J. Clarkson (2008). Exploration of correlations between factors influencing communication in complex product development. Concurrent Engineering 16(1), 3759.

M.E. Raven , & A. Flanders (1996). Using contextual inquiry to learn about your audiences. SIGDOC Asterisk Journal of Computer Documentation 20(1), 113.

L. Sanders (2008). On modeling: an evolving map of design practice and design research. Interactions 15(6), 1317.

S.L. Star , & J.R. Griesmer (1989). Institutional ecology, “translations,” and coherence: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–1939. Social Studies of Science 19, 387420.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

AI EDAM
  • ISSN: 0890-0604
  • EISSN: 1469-1760
  • URL: /core/journals/ai-edam
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords:

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 8
Total number of PDF views: 39 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 255 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 28th March 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.