Document 2 - Interns@Strathclyde

1
THE UNIVERSITY OF STRATHCLYDE, GLASGOW
Review of Design Methods and Tools
Innovative Problem Solving; The use of design methods towards
innovative problem solving and solutions in an engineering context.
Kerrie Noble, 3rd Year, MEng, PDE
Dr. Hilary Grierson, Department of Design Manufacture and Engineering Management
Abstract: This document contains a review of design methods and tools used within the design process. The methods have been grouped depending on the
stage at which they are most suitable used within the design process.
13/11/2012

2
Document 2 Overview ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2
Current Situation Assessment.......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2
Future Situation Assessment ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2
Evaluation ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 2
Development.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2
Implementation ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2

3
Research
DeliverableDocument1
–ThreeDivisions
Research
Deliverable
Document2
Analysis
DeliverableDocument3–3Design
Matrices
Analysis
Company Groupings
Minerals
Division
Oil and Gas
Division
Power and
Industrial
Division
Review of Design Methods
and Tools

4
Report
DeliverableDocument4–Reportand
Appendices
Report
Project Overview Diagram
Document 2 Overview
This document provides a critical overview of available design methods and tools which can be used in the Silver Bullet process. The five stages of the
Silver Bullet process, the current situation, identifying what could be different, evaluation, further development and implementation have been addressed
in this document. The design methods and tools have been categorised into the five Silver Bullet stages and strengths and weaknesses of each method
have been identified. The information has come from many sources, including the web. (See deliverable document 4 for details of sources).

5
Current Situation Assessment

6
Strengths Weaknesses
 Identifies key internal and external factors which are critical
to success
 May persuade the user to compile lists rather than being
actively involved with design or thinking what is actually
important in achieving objectives
 The importance of the individual points gained is revealed
through the strategies they create
 Uncritical about findings
 Can be adapted for use in any decision making process  No prioritisation is given
 Asking and answering meaningful questions during the
analysis will maximise benefits of the study and competitive
advantage
 If not used correctly then SWOT outcome could be totally
disregarded
 Improves knowledge of company’s own strengths,
weaknesses, technology and threats
 May not create an impartial overview unless used correctly
Current Situation Assessment – SWOT Analysis
How – Set an objective, what is the organisation going to do? Assess
the present situation of the organisation. Analyse existing strategies
and plot in the SWOT chart. Define the issues found by using the
SWOT landscape.
 Resources: 1) A short, specified amount of time
2) 3 people, maximum, to conduct appropriate research
3) 1 person to create the table and landscape
4) Use an online SWOT tool
http://www.smartdraw.com/specials/ppc/swotanalysis.htm?id=136790&gclid=CNjJh6mk6bACFccJtAodOFSP8A
SWOT chart SWOT landscape
Why – To identify niche gaps, opportunities and threats within the
market by assessing the internal capabilities of the
company/organisation.

7
 Provides a more in-depth market overview than SWOT  Outcome is not beneficial unless directly related back to the
company and its strategies/objectives outlined in a SWOT
analysis
 Includes important and influential design areas such as
environment, legal and technologies
 It is difficult to forecast future trends with an acceptable level
of accuracy
 Highlights existing technologies which can be incorporated  Uncritical about findings
 Helps to avoid taking action which may lead to failure  May persuade the user to compile lists rather than being
actively involved with design or thinking what is actually
important in achieving objectives
Current Situation Assessment – PESTEL Analysis
Why – To understand the market growth/decline, business position,
potential and direction for operations.
How – PESTEL stands for Political, Economic, Social, Technological,
Environmental and Legal. By using the PESTEL framework, conduct
analysis into each of the defined areas.
PESTEL Framework
 Resources: 1) A short, specified amount of time
2) 3 people, maximum, to conduct appropriate research
3) 1 person to collate findings
4) Use an online PESTEL tool http://rapidbi.com/the-pestle-analysis-tool/

8
 A good visual parametric painting helps to visualise the
relationships identified.
 Hundreds of parameter cross-plots must be produced to be of
full value.
 Simple. Do not try to be clever; with a greater understanding
useful combined parameters will emerge.
 The reason for doing a particular cross-plot may first appear to
be illogical.
 Conclusions will always be drawn and only relevant
information will be kept.
 Participants must be happy, willing and able to do many cross-
plots without being able to deduce a reason for doing so.
 Knowledge gained will provide a direct input for the PDS 
 Can highlight a group of potential future suppliers needed for
the future of the design, incorporates the wider thinking of
the design process

Current Situation Assessment– Parametric Analysis
Why – Used to identify a product’s place in the market in relation to the
competition, and also to gain insight into the make-up and interrelationships
between the parameters inherent in the product under consideration.
How – Analyse competing products from a consideration of published
catalogue data. Seek out relationships between parameters for a particular
product area under consideration. Cross-plot parameters to see if
relationships exist between them.
 Resources: 1) Generally better completed with one person
2) Computer
3) Wall/board space to display plots in order to undertake useful comparisons
4) Appropriate data analysis software, e.g. matlab

9
 Eliminates set-up logistics by leveraging scheduled marketing
presentations.
 Requires a skilled observer, with attention to detail, to make
the best out of the evidence gathered.
 Maximises the amount of customer input per briefing
session.
 Very time consuming and may be logistically difficult.
 May provide excellent stories  Product/performance would feel the need to undergo
significant change as a result of this method, or it may be
perceived as spying.
  The researcher should listen to the presentations without
interrupting or giving feedback, this limits the information
gathered and does not allow for the research to have an input
into the direction the session follows.
Current Situation Assessment – Fly on the Wall
Why – To obtain verbatim quotes from customers while remaining unobtrusive
and not interfering with the presentation.
How – Conduct the study at an appropriate briefing or presentation to gain a
potential source of direct and immediate thoughts, feelings, needs, problems
and priorities of customers and users.
 Resources: 1) Preferable option is to film the presentations if allowed.
2) One researcher to film and listen, a small group of around 6 to analyse the film at a later date as this
may encourage different perceptions of the same problem to arise.
3) White board or wall area to clearly display the key thoughts and feelings which have come from the
analysis, allowing for ideas to be posted around these statements.

10
 Builds employee involvement within the project.  Requires a skilled observer with attention to detail to make
the best of the outcome.
 Generates relevant, quantifiable data and may provide
excellent stories.
 Time consuming and may be logistically difficult.
 Provides a deep and relevant understanding of how people
really use your service/product.
 Wider ethnographic research is required to maximise the
output from this particular type of research.
 Provides a more holistic view of how a complex
system/product works, including identifying the interaction
between the user, the product and the organisation.

Current Situation Assessment – Observation and Shadowing
Why – To understand how people behave within a given context.
How – Create a set amount of time to observe or shadow someone of
particular interest in the area of the project. Note observations that are
made, paying particular attention to problems or issues which arise.
 Resources: 1) Photographs and visual aids will help as a reference at a later date. Displaying them in a ‘mood-board’
style may be useful.
2) Access to other forms of ethnographic research, (visual, video etc.)
3) An ‘inclusive’ group discussion of findings may help to spark ideas, may be best to have a circular table
with all the photographic evidence spread in the middle.

11
 May be able to provide information on aspirations,
emotional reactions and other hidden/non-spoken
information.
 Expensive in terms of time and travel costs.
 Easier to conduct than group interviews and allows
involvement of the individual to be built within the process.
 Requires good interview skills.
 Provides relevant data and also may uncover information
that wouldn’t be brought up in a group situation.
 Unstructured interviews may lead to inappropriate data being
gathered and result in the interview taking a direction which
was unhelpful and unforeseen. Making it difficult to analyse
and quantify results.
 A one-on-one situation allows for the clarification of points
between the individual and the researcher, this means there
can be no misinterpretation of meaning.
 May make interviewees self-conscious.
Current Situation Assessment – Individual Interviews
Why – To gain a deeper insight into people’s needs and perspectives.
How – Can be organised around structured questions, follow a more open
format through semi-structured questions, or be unstructured with no prior
questions. The interview may take an empathic turn where the exchange of
questions is not just seen as scientifically neutral or objective – instead it is a
process of collaboration.
 Resources: 1) A neutral, relaxed setting is required to make the interviewee feel at ease and provide the best outcome.
2) Early in the design process the structured approach will be more useful; a structured set of questions will be
needed. Could use Survey Monkey to help with this.

12
 The time required, the number of people needed to conduct the
questionnaire and the costs are all very low.
 An expertise in questionnaire structuring will be required in order to
achieve the best result from the activity and to ensure the
information collected is relevant.
 A good source for gathering research which is unattainable
through the use of other methods.
 You may incur low response rates or inaccuracies within the
responses which will be of no relevance to the research. There is no
opportunity to clarify responses given.
 Helps to set an early design direction, by canvassing opinion, and
helps to support further investigation.
 The structured format and length of the questionnaire may restrict
the freedom of response given.
 Good ability to reach a large variety of people within a very short
time scale.
 May lead to unrealistic expectations.
 Yields relevant, quantifiable data which is easy to summarise. The
anonymity of the data collected may also encourage honesty.

Current Situation Assessment – Questionnaires and Surveys
Why – Provides qualitative and quantitative information enabling a comparison
of different responses to the same set of structured questions, enabling an
insight into users’ thoughts and concerns.
How – Questionnaires should be as visually clear and as inviting as possible.
Can be structured using three types of questions; open – answers can be
anecdotal or open-ended; structured – requiring fixed answers such as ‘yes’ or
‘no’; and semi structured – containing both open and structured questions.
Normally conducted on a random basis in a public area or on the internet, and
in forums.
 Resources: 1) The use of web forums and user forums will help increase response rates.
2) Use of programmes, such as Survey Monkey, will help to ensure the layout and style of the
questionnaire is correct and easy to use.

13
 Provides relevant and quantifiable data.  Does not build employee involvement within the process as
the method is best conducted on an individual basis.
 The ability to search for key components, with easy access
over the internet means the method is fast and easy to use.
 Not necessarily focused on HRD (Human Resource
Development) – more of a technical method which focuses on
numbers and technical data.
 Inexpensive, most information can be gathered for free from
the internet.
 May not identify causes, problems or concerns within the
particular area of interest.
 May build management involvement within the design
process as they may be able to supply original organisational
documents.
 May not provide visibility for the objective of the research or
the direction of the project as a result of the research findings.
Current Situation Assessment – Organisational Documents
Why – To attain an overview of the business and gather technical data on the
product/issues which are being considered.
How – Organisational websites will contain relevant documents which can be
accessed. The Kompass Directory and CBD –Current Business Directories will
provide information for companies from many industrialised countries. For US
companies, the Thomas Directory will provide relevant information for some
companies. Technical Indexes Limited also produces Product Data Books
which can help to provide information.
 Resources: 1) Computer, internet access, access to organisational documents from management
2) Kompass Directory, Engineer Buyers’ Guide, Technical Index Limited, CBD (Current British Directories),
Thomas Directory, specialist libraries, sheets published by the Engineering Science Data Unit
3) One researcher to carry out activity on an individual basis

14
 Provides ability to clearly inform the design process by
observing real activities and behaviours.
 Requires a large allocation of time and high expertise in order
to achieve an acceptable output which has been highly
analysed with a high attention to detail.
 Has the ability to verify that a chosen solution is robust
enough to meet the stated requirements, and any
unanticipated changes that it may introduce in use.
 There is a high risk of misunderstanding or misinterpreting an
observation.
 Provides both a quantitative and qualitative analysis of the
data obtained.
 The absence of relevant questions will decrease the suitability
of the information gathered, with a risk the study will no
longer be relevant.
 Allows for first-hand interaction with the user with the ability
to question actions to gain a deep understanding.
 May infringe on the rights of the participant’s privacy.
Current Situation Assessment – Day in the Life
Why – To gain a user insight and an in depth understanding.
How – Undertake a study in which the designer follows the subject through a
typical day, observing and recording events to create an accurate picture of
what is happening throughout the day. This may need to be repeated over
several days in order to gather a balanced perspective. Map the outcome, or
illustrate through a storyboard, to show what happened, in order to identify
problem areas, and to illustrate how time is assigned to various activities.
 Resources: 1) Notebooks, cameras, pens, paper, voice recorders, Skype, sms messaging, software
http://directmailmac.com/
2) A large wall or display area to display the outcomes of the research in order to encourage discussion
on the observation.

15
 Allows consideration of sensitive areas of user need that
require private disclosure.
 Requires a large amount of time and expertise in order to
complete a high quality analysis of the results from the probe.
 Enables access to areas of research which the designer
cannot gain through interview or observation.
 The main objective is to activate the user to describe their
insight in a more creative way; if the outcome is not as
anticipated or the user is detached from the process the
outcome will not be relevant.
 Helps to set an early design direction with direct
identification problematic areas and concerns.
 Difficult to get an answer rate which is suitable for
generalisation.
 Only requires input from the design team to analyse the
results and therefore comes at a relatively low cost.
 It is assumed that the participant will have high motivation to
complete the study; this assumed high motivation may give
distorted results.
 High level of user interaction with the design process. 
Current Situation Assessment – Design Probe
Why – To provide a self-disclosed insight into people’s lives.
How – Also known as cultural probes or user diaries, the designer prepares a
research kit which is given to the user to record aspects of their lives
autonomously, independent of the designer. May be prepared for a specific
user, given to many users, or placed in an environment to collect information,
more generally, from users of that space.
 Resources: 1) Notebooks, cameras, pens, scissors, stickers, postcards, diaries, maps, question cards, tools for
mapping and drawing.
on the observation.

16
 Gives a concise reference of all of the key points found from
research which can be easily shared amongst the design
group and with others involved in the design process.
 Takes time to compile properly and does not add any
development to the product, in terms of design, during this
time.
 Good tool for eliminating unnecessary information and
allows the group to refocus its search after a wide area of
research.
 Needs to be believable in order to work effectively as a tool.
 Allows for reflection and a check-back to the design brief.
Allowing the designer to take back full control of the process.
 Requires a great deal of expertise to ensure valuable
information is included and the persona is believable.
 Can help to both stimulate and evaluate new design
concepts.

 Can help with the justification of new innovations to
stakeholders and the testing of ideas when access to the user
is not available.

Current Situation Assessment – Design Persona
Why – To bring together people’s needs and user data and combine it in such a
way as to bring it to life for the designer.
How – Personas are figurative models, as opposed to abstract models, which
are constructed to resemble real users, right down to photographs,
background information and personal history. The most relevant user, market
and data research will be combined with these areas in order to make a
fictional character which will represent the target consumer within the given
market.
 Resources: 1) A display area for the finished document so the design team have constant and instant access
2) Photographs, previous research, internet, computer
.

17
 Enables design teams to analyse tasks and gain a deeper
insight through repetitive viewing.
 Requires moderate expertise, cost and a large number of
people to be involved over a long period of time.
 Produces a good contextual insight, especially when
exploring the effectiveness of new prototypes in the
development stage of the design process.
 Observer bias and emphasis play a role in the outcome of the
activity.
 Provides a much more comprehensive perspective of the user
and their environment then other research methods.
 Information and results are highly dependent on the
researcher’s observations and their interpretations of these.
 Behaviour observations are best understood when observed
within their natural environment and video ethnography
allows for this.
 Quantitative analysis is almost impossible due to the
qualitative nature of the method.
Current Situation Assessment – Video Ethnography
Why – To gather video-based evidence and gain an insight into user behaviour.
How – Use a video camera to capture everyday events as they happen, within
a set context. Capture people’s interactions with one another and the
environment around them.
 Resources: 1) Notebooks, cameras, pens, diaries, maps, question cards, tools for mapping and drawing.
on the observation.

18
 A very quick method for talking to a wide variety of people
and gaining a contextual view of a particular topic.
 Permission must be sought from forum administrators as the
designer will be joining the forum for a professional purpose.
 The expertise, time, cost and number of people required to
carry-out this method are all very low.
 Involves ‘stories’ about behaviour and do not examine actual
user/stakeholder behaviour.
 It enables the building of a picture on a subject where very
little information is formally available or when access to the
user is limited.
 The data is classed as self-report data and depends on the
participant’s truthfulness and recall accuracy. What people
report may be quite different from what they actually do.
 Has an open-ended quality which focus groups cannot
achieve.
 Dominant participants can skew the results. Conflicts and
power struggles can alter the group dynamics and lead to a
non-creative environment.
 Encourages constructive and on-going discussion. 
Current Situation Assessment – Web Forum
Why – To gain general insights into a specific topic.
How – If a web forum is an online community that focuses on a shared
interest or experience. If a forum exists that is relevant to the interest of the
design/project then specific questions can be posted for the online
community to discuss and respond to. The designer may also find general
insights by reading archived posts. The forum can also be used to post
information on more detailed surveys and questionnaires.
 Resources: 1) Computer, an established forum or the construction of a forum
2) If required seek permission from the administrator and post a pre-planned set of questions.

19
 Can help in the exploration of relationships between the
developed product and suppliers with consideration given at
an early stage in the design process.
 Concentrating on only five features may narrow the research
conducted at an early stage, leading to discarding of some
important information.
 Increases ideas and discussion on improving product
differentiation during development.
 A clear market must be known before commencing the study
otherwise the outcome will be vague and of little use to the
product development.
 Can help with further identifying what competitors are doing
and how successful they are.
 The model does not consider non-market changes, such as
political issues, which can be key and highly influential during
the design and launch of a new product.
 Shown in a more visual and succinct way than that of the
PESTEL and SWOT analysis.

Current Situation Assessment – Porter’s Five Forces
Why – To model the industry/business market which the new product/service
will enter and show how five main forces influence that particular market area.
How – Take the five forces – supplier power, threat of new entrants, threat of
substitutes, buyer power and threat of rivalry – and conduct research into
who, what, where, why and when these forces will affect the
industry/business market for the new product/service which is being
developed.
 Resources: 1) post-its (to help brainstorm key issues to include in the model), large A3 paper, markers
2) A circular seating position for a group of around 6 people to encourage discussion during the creation
visual graphic
3) A large wall space to display the outcome and provide a focus point during the rest of the design
process

20
 Provides a deep understanding of the theoretical
requirements of the user, something which cannot be tested
during methods such as empathic modelling.
 The outcome is entirely based on designer perceptions and is
estimated through the use of some user input. This may lead
void outcomes and a non-relevant product for the market.
 Quick to complete with clearly visible problematic areas,
meaning there can be little misinterpretation and little
analytical skills are needed.
 It is difficult for the designer to remain objective; there is an
urge to become bias towards one type of result.
 Gives a comprehensive coverage of a wide variety of user
related areas.

Current Situation Assessment – Assessing Capability Levels
Why – To assess the capability a product demands in order to use it.
How – A person’s capability is split into seven main categories; vision, hearing,
thinking, communication, locomotion, reach and stretch, and dexterity. The
ability required by the product during use and the actual ability of the user are
plotted against each other, in all seven categories, allowing comparison and
identification of problem areas.
 Resources: 1) post-its, A3 paper, markers, computer
2) A circular seating position to encourage discussion during, and after, the creation of the visual ability
representation
3) A wall space to display the outcome

21
 The method is valuable and powerful in terms of the
outcome it has the potential to produce.
 Requires expertise and intelligent application in order to find
the right ‘why’.
 Can produce corrective and preventative action as it can
produce enormous improvements to the smallest area of the
design.
 There is a want for the designer to stop at the first or second
answer as they become blinded by the symptoms or setting for
the first ‘apparent’ cause.
 Can create a situation where all of the ‘right’ people are
included in the process of sitting in a room and discussing the
possible root causes of a given defect within a design. (By
right people it means a mix of disciplines from across the
design process).
 There is a risk of accepting answers which are too simple due
to ‘kneejerk’ answers given to questions.
Current Situation Assessment – 5 Whys?
Why – To dig below the outward symptoms of a problem in order to find its
real root cause.
How – The method involves asking why five times in succession. The answer
to one question should lead you to asking the next why, although it may not
always be possible to get an immediate answer to the next question.
 Resources: 1) post-its, A3 paper, markers,
representation and a wall space to display the outcome and encourage further discussion and development
3) A group of 6 – 12 people will provide the best and most comprehensive outcome

22
 Gathers detailed information about the user over a
prolonged period of time.
 All the information gathered is self-reported, so the outcome
will be highly dependent on the honesty and open-ness of the
person responsible for keeping the diary.
 Feedback is often provided while the user is interacting with
the product so there is less of a lag, which is evident in other
methods.
 Involves ‘stories’ about behaviour and do not examine actual
 Encourages constructive and on-going discussion.  Dominant participants can skew the results. Conflicts and
 This type of study avoids cohort effects as the study is
conducted on one group of people over time, rather than
studying lots of different groups of people.

Current Situation Assessment – Diary Study
Why – To track specific items, users or behaviour.
How – The study requires users, or observers of users, to keep track of
activities or events in the form of a diary or log for a particular period of time.
Specific items such as mobile device usage, use of personal calendars,
coursework or general activities which can take place in 30 minutes every day
can be tracked. Diary entries can include text accounts of events, pictures,
video, audio, sketches and voice-mail.
on the observation.

23
 Generate effective contextual data which is presented in an
accessible form.
 Is only able to capture impressions of lifestyle rather than full
descriptions.
 Represents a wide sample of users over a short period of
time.
 Users are left unsupervised to carry out the study; therefore
they may not follow the study instructions correctly,
corrupting the result of the study.
 Captures attitudinal and lifestyle data more naturally than
other formal methods.
 Users are free to take pictures of their choice, however this
may lead to accidental or intentional discarding of what may
be important information.
 Enables efficient, visual scanning of the photographs from
several users.

Current Situation Assessment – Photo Study
Why – To report important aspects of the users’ lives and the context
surrounding them.
How – A sample of users are given a set of ‘missions’ to take photographs
which highlight important aspects of their lives and day to day context. These
may be things that they value, cause problems, generate certain feelings etc.
Data from the study will then help to highlight opportunities for new
technologies and possible barriers to their acceptance.
 Resources: 1) Envelopes and paper outlining the required missions, cameras, software to assemble images
on the observation.

24
 Identifies significant user concerns which may not have been
evident during other research.
 May be hard for the designer to maintain an objective view
with previously established bias towards particular design
ideas and features.
 Builds teamwork across the design team and other business
areas which may be involved.
 Has no direct contact or input from a user’s perspective
meaning the result may be estimated an unreliable.
 Consolidates lots of customer data into meaningful design
criteria.

 Involves the entire design team so that a mutual
understanding of all of the data can be shared.

Current Situation Assessment – Claims Analysis
Why – To examine the positive and negative consequences of design features
that are described in current or future scenarios of use.
How – A ‘claim’ is a statement of the consequences of a specific design
feature or artefact on users and other stakeholders. These ‘claims’ are made
for several design features and are discussed among the design team, with
input from various knowledge areas and business sectors.
 Resources: 1) Post-its, pens, wall/display space
2) Circular seating position to encourage discussion and ensure everyone feels included

25
 Generates detailed, precise information on the nature of
expert performance in a specific task of interest.
 Analysis of the information gathered during the task can be
very time-intensive.
 When implemented correctly the analysis can be a highly
valid source of information on expert cognitive processes.
 The task analysis does not always capture other non-cognitive
attributes necessary for accomplishing results.
 Provides systematic procedures for ascertaining expert
cognitive processes.
 The results of the task analysis can be misleading when expert
users have performance capabilities above that of others.
Current Situation Assessment – Cognitive Task Analysis
Why – To deeper understand activities which require a lot of cognitive activity
from the user.
How – The steps contained within a cognitive task analysis are; mapping the
task to be analysed, identifying the critical decision points within the task,
clustering, linking, and prioritising them, and characterising the strategies
used.
 Resources: 1) Make use of a wide range of available methods for help with conducting a cognitive task analysis such
as; applied cognitive task analysis (ACTA), critical decision method (CDM), skill-based CTA framework, task knowledge
structures (TKS) and the cognitive function model (CFM)
on the observation.
4) A defined list of tasks, frameworks to help conduct the analysis, willing participants, pens, paper,
computer, a mixed group of expertise to help with analysis and outcome, group of 6-12 people

26
 The approach is very simplistic to understand and conduct.  The method is not highly structured.
 The method can highlight concepts which are hard to
understand.
 The expert needs to have an awareness of concepts for a
particular design project in order to relay relevant information.
  The non-expert may feel intimidated if the expert’s corrections
are too harsh.
Current Situation Assessment – Teach back
Why – To extract information from experts that would be useful for gathering
requirements, learning about work flow and understanding mental models.
How – A subject matter expert is asked to describe a concept, task or
something else related to a particular domain or product. The non-expert
listens carefully to the expert. The non-expert is then asked to ‘tech back’
what the expert had previously explained. When the non-expert is teaching
back what they have learned, the expert corrects any misinterpretations,
errors or simplifications. The session is then repeated with another expert
who teaches the non-expert. The transcripts from all sessions are then
examined for common misinterpretations, errors or simplifications.
 Resources: 1) A quiet room in which a conversation can be held without interruptions, with a relaxed setting and
atmosphere
2) Pens, paper (to record what is said and any misinterpretations, errors or simplifications)

27
 More meaningful then flow charts or other technical
diagrams for conveying the user experience.
 Interaction between the storyboard and the user is limited.
 Does not require programming skills.  Project team members may be reluctant to hand draw if they
feel they are bad at it.
 Does not require artistic skills.  There are few data on the effectiveness of storyboards for
user interface design.
 Provides a quick way to sketch ideas.  Interactive, non-linear storyboards are more desirable but take
more time to develop.
 Complements verbal scenarios.  Not practical for detail design or covering all use cases.
 Provides a way to organise use cases into a coherent
description of users’ actions.

Future Situation Assessment – Storyboard
Why – To illustrate the interaction between a person and a product in a
narrative format.
How – Firstly, you need to decide what to include. Understand the users, their
backgrounds and goals, the system and its features. Put together a design
team and brainstorm about the storyboard. Identify people and artefacts in
the storyboard and develop the storyboard scenarios. Identify key frames
within the storyboard and develop the storyboard around these.
 Resources: 1) Paper, pens, pencils, large whiteboard (to brainstorm ideas), software tools (such as power point, Photoshop
and Illustrator.
2) Requires large display spaces so each approach can be displayed together in order to hold a good discussion

28
 Requires almost no facilitation or moderation, like a
conventional brainstorm, the group can feel free to
contribute at their own free will, more formal discussions will
take place once the brainstorming has finished.
 Requires a robust dedication to quantity and not quality.
 It is a useful way to get over ‘design blocks’ that are slowing
development.
 Can, at times, seem chaotic and intimidating.
 More active and engaging than traditional brainstorming,
activity is seen to increase creativity.
 May not be appropriate for some business or international
cultures.
Current Situation Assessment – Postcard Portraits
Why – To gain familiarisation with users’ needs and problem areas in order to
generate ideas.
How – Draw a quick sketch/portrait of potential users and problems within
the design project area. Use these pictorial descriptions to spark discussion.
Hold a short brainstorming session on each postcard to generate potential
solutions. The idea is to develop a spider-web of problems and solutions.
 Resources: 1) A neutral, relaxed setting is required to make the participants feel at ease and provide the best
outcome.
2) A large room, with a clear space to enable the design team to move around freely, in order to place
sticky notes on large wall spaces with ease.
3) Post-its, pens, paper, group of 6-12 people

29
 The basic method does not require a lot of training.  The method can quickly get out of control and intervention
may be needed to take control of the group and direct them
away from the ridiculous without seeming like a dictator. A
focus which has gone outside the bounds of usefulness or
appropriateness needs to be changed.
Current Situation Assessment – ‘Yes, and….’
Why – To explore possible user scenarios, generate requirements, brainstorm,
or envision future concepts.
How – This technique is borrowed from improvisational theatre. The basic
method is to assemble a group and provide a starting statement or scenario.
Consider if there are props you could use to trigger ideas, for example an iPad.
Ask someone to write the ideas where they are visible to the group or video
the session to capture all the information. Have the leader of the group start
with the introductory statement. Encourage someone to say, ‘Yes, and’ and
then add something new. Continue with the activity until the group slows
down.
 Resources: 1) A room with a large empty space, all chairs and tables will need to be cleared out of the way for the
duration of the exercise.
2) Participants need to stand in a circular formation to encourage engagement
3) Props (if necessary), whiteboard, pens, paper, video recorder

30
 Useful for understanding and solving a problem.  Must be performed systematically, usually as part of an
investigation, with conclusions and causes identified in order to be
effective.
 Provides the ability to look at complex systems around problems in
order to identify key points of failure.
 Root causes identified depend on the way in which the problem or
event is identified.
 Can minimize the need for Root Cause Analysis in the future by
using Cause and Effect Diagrams, 5 Whys, FMEA and Kaizen to help
develop the product/service during this process.
 A sequence of events or a timeline, describing the relationships
between contributing factors and root causes must be identified for
the analysis to become effective.
 Comprehensive toll, system-wide review of significant problems as
well as the events and factors leading to them.

Current Situation Assessment – Root Cause Analysis/Error Analysis
Why – To identify the root causes of problems or events in order to prevent the
recurrence of similar harmful outcomes.
How – The analysis must start with a factually defined problem. Gather data
and evidence which leads to the final failure. Ask ‘why?’ and identify the
causes associated with the sequence of steps towards the defined problem or
event. Classify causes into causal factors that relate to an event in the
sequence. Identify corrective actions and solutions to the problems and then
implement.
 Resources: 1) A neutral, relaxed setting is required to make the design team feel at ease and provide the best outcome.
2) A circular seating position of the participants will encourage engagement with the activity and hopefully ensure
no one is neglected.
3) For help with understanding and the construction of diagrams etc. software and online tools can be used;
www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newTMC_80.htm

31
 Allows a direction to be agreed on before committing large
amounts of time and money.
 Depending on the project, sketching will have different advantages,
fitting well with some and less so with others.
 Allows for a visual exploration in multiple fields of design, in
multiple product/service areas.

 Can identify bottlenecks in existing processes/products/services,
as well as visually defining solutions for improvements/new
products.

Current Situation Assessment – Process Sketches
Why – To help visualise the process in which the product/service is used.
How – First define the process to be considered. Identify each of the stages
involved in the process and where and when the product/service is used
within these and how it is used. Sketch a representation of each of the stages
to help the entire design team visualise what is happening during the process.
 Resources: 1) Easy access to documentation for all those involved throughout the design and manufacture of the
product/service is essential for this method to work.
2) When developing sketches, a cross-functional team is needed; using large sheets of paper around a large table
will help with inclusivity and interaction.
3) For help with understanding sketching tutorials, online resources are available;
http://psd.tutsplus.com/tutorials/drawing/the-role-of-sketching-in-the-design-process/

32
Future Situation Assessment

33
 Suitably structured questionnaires can give a powerful
insight into customer needs.
 A random approach to this method will leave fundamental
gaps in the information gathered.
 Structuring interview schedules or questionnaires around
elements of the PDS provides relevant information.
 Using inappropriate information gathering methods will lead
to unjustified conclusions.
 Fast and inexpensive  Failure to develop a coherent, logical and integrated plan for
conducting the needs analysis will lead to the failure to gather
appropriate information.
 May build management involvement within the design
process.
 May not identify causes of problems or failures, only suggests
what the customer wants to see within the product.
Future Situation Assessment – Needs Analysis
Why – To establish the true needs of the customer – the ‘voice of the
customer’- VOC.
How – Obtained by extensive examination of the views and reports of
representative bodies, market data publications (buying habits), reports giving
official opinions and reactions to products in use and also by structured
interviews or customer questionnaires.
 Resources: 1) Generally better completed with one person
2) Computer
3) Wall/board space to display plots in order to undertake useful comparisons
4) Use an appropriate needs analysis template http://www.buzzle.com/articles/needs-analysis-template.html

34
 Comprehensive analysis provides a greater insight into the
product area and its domains.
 Requires handling and obtaining of large amounts of
information from a wide variety of sources.
 Leads to the preparation of a PDS.  Ideas and solutions will start to be generated, however this is
not the purpose of this activity, and ideas should be recorded
but not acted upon.
 Builds involvement from a wide variety of business sectors. 
 The procedures of this activity will trigger a creative impulse,
allowing creative energies to be channelled in the most
productive way from the beginning.

Future Situation Assessment – Attribute Listing/Matrix Analysis
Why – To focus on the attributes of an object and see how each attribute could
be improved.
How – A matrix with all features of comparable competitor products on the
vertical axis and the model types on the horizontal axis. The matrix is
completed to show which models incorporate which features.
 Resources: 1) Requires cooperation between different sectors of the business
2) Computer
3) Computer based template to make compilation easier

35
 Learning from industry leaders and competitors can spark
ideas and help increase your credibility.
 Does not actively build involvement between people or
different sectors of the business.
 Availability of free data on the internet provides an extensive
and fast resource.
 Research may develop into tangents which are not directly
related to the problem and will not identify appropriate and
relevant information.
 You avoid rediscovering what is already known in regards to
problems and their solutions.
 Data from different organisations may be misleading.
 Better at highlighting the main problem areas than some
other methods.
 Requires a significant amount of time and analysis.
 Relevant information develops a list of product requirements
which can be used for evaluation at a later stage.

Future Situation Assessment – Benchmarking
Why – Identifying the ‘best practice’ in relation to both products and the
processes by which these products are created and delivered.
How – Look outward, (outside a particular business, organisation, industry,
region or country), to examine how other businesses, organisations,
industries, regions and countries achieve their performance levels.
 Resources: 1) Completed best with one person
2) Requires a very clear, set objective to allow gathering of appropriate information
3) Computer based template to make compilation easier

36
 Gives specific, relevant and direct feedback on issues or
design ideas.
 Moderately time consuming, but less so than individual
interviews, and is difficult to conduct.
 Encourages on-the-spot sharing and synthesis of different
views which may allow for the development of elicit key
topics which were not expected.
 Moderately expensive.
 Builds involvement for the employee during the process and
support for the development of the product.
 May be difficult to analyse and quantify data and information
gathered.
 Best results are produced during use in the latter stages of
the design process as a form of validation and evaluation, but
can also be useful during the early stages to identify key
issues.
 Some participants may feel over-shadowed if group dynamics
are wrong for the situation. This will lead to people taking a
back-seat and not contributing to the process.
Future Situation Assessment – Focus Group (Group Interviews)
Why – To gain user opinions and attitudes on specific issues and ideas.
How – Uses an interview style to allow each group member the chance to
contribute, in a coherent and ordered way, to the group session. Group
dynamics play a key role, some participants may be empowered, and others
may be intimidated. The session should solicit feedback on specific issues or
design ideas.
 Resources: 1) A neutral, relaxed setting is required to make the interviewees feel at ease and provide the best outcome.
3) Pen and paper to record comments and thoughts.

37
 Provides a very practical insight into situations which the
design would not normally have the opportunity to
experience and would rely on user descriptions for insights.
 As this method is just a simulation the outcome cannot be
100% accurate and should be combined with other resources
to ensure reliability.
 Provides a deep understanding of how your product can be
used within a real world context.
 It is almost impossible to simulate all details of sensory loss or
motor impairment and residual capacities may vary
considerably.
 Tests initial concepts over a wide spectrum of abilities.  Requires expertise in analysis and observation over a long
period of time.
 Can provide a benefit to the client as well as the designer,
therefore incorporating a wider variety of people within the
design process.
 The absence of theoretical rules to govern the use of the
method may lead to corrupt results if it is not carried out
methodically.
Future Situation Assessment – Empathic Modelling
Why – To gain direct experience of reduced ability and user needs.
How – The designer uses a simulation device to gain a first-hand insight into
what it is like to live with particular impairments or disabilities while carrying
out a particular task. The task is defined as a flow chart and during the
simulation the difficulties arising during the task are described by the
designer. The difficulties are marked as bottlenecks within the flow chart
giving a direct indication of problem areas and concerns for the user.
 Resources: 1) Pen, paper, camera, video camera, lenses, Vaseline, ear plugs, blindfolds, tape, coins/buttons, gloves,
elastic bands, texts constructed to emulate reading problems,
2) Devising a number of tasks to be performed at the same time can emulate problems with cognitive
functioning.
3) A large wall display area to display the outcomes/photographs etc. to encourage discussion.

38
 Gives specific, relevant and direct feedback on issues or
design ideas.
 Moderately time consuming, but less so than individual
interviews, and is difficult to conduct.
 Moderately expensive.
 Builds involvement for a variety of different people, with
different skills, perspectives and opinions within the design
process.
gathered.
 Best results are produced during use in the latter stages of
the design process as a form of validation and evaluation, but
can also be useful during the early stages to identify key
issues.
 Some participants may feel over-shadowed if group dynamics
are wrong for the situation. This will lead to people taking a
back-seat and not contributing to the process.
Future Situation Assessment – Immersive Workshop
Why – To allow users to visualise design ideas, design scenarios and simple
prototypes in order to express their thoughts, ideas and concerns.
How – A variation of a focus group, concentrating on the design development
process. It can be tailored to meet specific aims of its organisers through the
setting of the brief and the participants selected. Participants may include
designers, engineers, specialists in the area of the theme of the workshop and
end users.
 Resources: 1) A neutral, relaxed setting is required to make the interviewees feel at ease and provide the best outcome.

39
 This method engages a person’s imagination and encourages
a fully response in ways that more formal interview or
questionnaire techniques cannot achieve.
 Requires a high level of expertise in order to achieve a useful
outcome.
 Good for exploring subject areas or topics that could be
sensitive.
 Requires a significant amount of time, cost and people to run
the activity.
 Speculative design concepts can be tested with early
intervention from the user, saving money and development
time.
gathered.

Future Situation Assessment – Intervention/Provocation
Why – To develop a greater engagement with the user and a better
understanding of their motivation.
How – The designer will place 2D graphic visualisations or 3D objects within an
environment in order to stimulate a discussion and elicit a response from the
user. Interventions can include futuristic prototypes that express new ideas;
provocations can include shock imagery or incongruous juxtapositions.
 Resources: 1) A neutral, relaxed setting is required to make the interviewees feel at ease and provide the best
outcome.
2) 2D graphics, 3D futuristic objects, creative and inspiring surrounding environment

40
 Enables people to share in the exploration of imagined or
speculative outcomes.
 Requires a high level of expertise being used over a long
period of time.
 Supports design scenarios with a compelling narrative and
allows engagement with future outcomes.
 Involves a large number of people with a large cost being
incurred.
 Able to practically demonstrate the potential of a highly
speculative idea, gathering support and evidence for
presenting to stakeholders and investors.
 As the film is entirely speculative, outcomes will have to be
verified against real-life situations to ensure reliability.
 The visual resource brings to life ideas which are hard to
understand when using other, conventional, methods.

Future Situation Assessment – Pseudo-Documentary
Why – To provide the designer with a realistic representation of an imagined
scenario.
How – Present a design scenario in the form of a film that has a documentary
format but which is actually staged. Real users of a future product or service
can participate in the pseudo-documentary working as actors with the aid of a
script. Events and characters are fictitious but can be based on real user
insight.
 Resources: 1) A detailed script for the film, a large number a variety of users to become actors, a film set, camera, a
detailed potential concept, a well-researched market area and potential use
2) A large room where the pseudo-documentary can be screened, inviting multi-disciplinary experts, end
users, designers, stakeholders and investors
3) Computer, pen, paper to record comments and thoughts during discussion after film screening.

41
 Scenarios can open-up discussion around broader social
challenges and provoke discussion in order to help develop
or evaluate ideas.
 Requires a considerable number of people, with high expertise
to work for a long period of time.
 Generates low costs.  Often not based on actual user data which can lead to
incorrect assumptions.
 Takes a critical and speculative design approach in order to
challenge assumptions and preconceptions.
 It is often left to the interpretation of the designer to judge
how to integrate scenarios into the overall development
process.
 Creates clear visuals to aid in communication with end users. 
 Allows testing of large-scale or abstract concepts. 
Future Situation Assessment – Scenario
Why – To gain an insight in future uses of products and services.
How – Scenarios are imaginative, can be presented through a variety of media
including texts, illustrated storyboards or films, and can feature multiple
characters to describe multiple product or service interactions. Create a
storyline which explores how people might interact with a particular design or
context of use. By provoking discussion they may help evaluate or test ideas
from a human experiential point of view. You may also include scenarios
about misuse, outlining how people may interact with the product in an
incorrect and damaging way.
 Resources: 1) A detailed script for scenario, pens, paper, post-its (to note problem areas and thoughts)
2) A large wall space for display of a storyboard to showcase scenario and to encourage discussion

42
 Does not require a trained moderator and can therefore be
designer led, extending the boundaries of the traditional
focus group format.
 Requires the input of moderate expertise, time, cost and a
number of people.
 Encourages constructive and on-going discussion.  Involves ‘stories’ about behaviour and do not examine actual
 Provides a space where users can interact with the design
process throughout the duration of a project.
 The data is classed as self-report data and depends on the
participant’s truthfulness and recall accuracy. What people
report may be quite different from what they actually do.
 Has an open-ended quality which focus groups cannot
achieve.
 Dominant participants can skew the results. Conflicts and
Future Situation Assessment – User Forum
Why – To encourage rich, creative and divergent contributions from potential
users.
How – Hold an interactive session between designers and users where all
attendees contribute to the dialogue and express their own opinion. Forums
can be used to explore more open-ended questions rather than just focusing
on one main issue.
outcome.
2) A circular seating position of the participants will encourage engagement with the activity and
hopefully ensure no one is neglected.

43
 This task makes it possible to combine the needs of the user
with the actual constraints surrounding the use of the
product.
 The data collected through this method study will not be
indicative of every user.
 Helps the designer to visualise how and when the product
will be used in a real-world context.
 The method requires a long time for completion, to allow
several studies to be conducted in order to obtain a fuller
understanding of use.
 Helps to establish a better understanding of the size and
shape of the product.

 Allows ideas to be eliminated or developed on the basis of
sound and scientific research rather than the personal
preference of the designer.

Future Situation Assessment – Ergonomic Analysis
Why – To understand and detail the likely nature of the interaction between
the user and the product.
How – Use an ergonomic analysis tool in order to identify areas of stress
during the use of the product which may require additional attention in order
to reduce the possibility of injury. All activities will be documented for each
task and act as a resource which can be referred to throughout the design
process.
 Resources: 1) Use an ergonomic analysis tool to help with the study - http://www.acsco.com/Ergonomic%20Analysis.htm
2) Visual representations and outputs from the study will enable the designer to visual the context and
may aid in the evaluation process later in the design project.

44
 Good method for taking suggestions which were made during
research and highlighting which are viable suggestions and
which were not.
 The tool is based on predicting the users’ reaction and
therefore the outcome cannot be guaranteed to be 100%
accurate.
 Enables the voice of the customer to be translated into
critical and quality characteristics.
 Asking the correct questions during the process of this task can
be difficult and can have an adverse effect on the outcome of
the design.
 Helps within the structuring of other methods such as Quality
Function Deployment.
 Requires a large amount of research and time given to
implementation.
 Provides a good visual and comparative aid for evaluation at
a later stage of the process.

Future Situation Assessment – Kano Model
Why – To help design teams uncover, classify and integrate three categories of
customer needs and attributes into the products or services they are
developing.
How – The simple approach is to ask customers two questions for each of the
three types of attributes (threshold, performance and excitement) – 1) Rate
your satisfaction if the product had this feature and 2) Rate your satisfaction if
the product did not have this feature. The customer should be asked to
answer with satisfied, neutral, dissatisfied or don’t care responses. Eliminate
or include performance or excitement attributes where their presence or
absence respectively led to customer dissatisfaction. Prioritisation matrices
can help determine which attributes will help provide the greatest return on
customer satisfaction.
 Resources: 1) Use Kano model tool to help establish a suitable questionnaire for the completion of the method -
http://www.kanosurvey.com/
2) Visual representation of the outcome, large wall space to display the outcome and encourage
discussion, previous research, contact with the potential user, Kano graph to plot the user-disclosed outcome

45
 Shows a link between the mapping of means and parts within
the product.
 Can be quite vague if not completed to a high enough level.
 Results provide detailed functions which are directly related
to the design of the potential product.
 Outcome can be complex and requires a long time given to
compilation of a diagram providing information, the majority
of which has previously been gathered from other research
methods.
 Helps to clarify design objectives and sub-objectives and
refocus the mind of the designer on the design task.
 Can be complex and difficult to produce correctly.
 Can be beneficial in the creation and further development of
a design proposal.
 Can lead to frustration when the design outcome is not as
expected.
Future Situation Assessment – Function-Means Tree
Why – Prepared for the major system, subsystems of components of a product
to establish the key functional aspects of the users’ needs.
How – The tool is for listing primary functions of a design and various means
of achieving those functions. Functions are what the product must do and
means are how the product will achieve the functions. Start with high-level
product functional expectations and as you move to the right ask how each of
the previous functions can be achieved.
 Resources: 1) post-its (to help plan the tree before completing it), large A3 paper, markers
2) A circular seating position for a group of around 6 people to encourage discussion during the creation
of the tree
3) A large wall space to display the outcome and provide a focus point during the rest of the design
process

46
 Empowers the design, and the designers, to exceed normal
expectations which in turn provide a level of unanticipated
excitement which generates value.
 The process of creating the ‘House of Quality’ outcome is long
and complex and will require a large amount of time.
 Identifies true customer needs instead of listing the
customers’ perspective.
 As this is a tool with origins from the Japanese Management
sector, problems can occur when the approach is tried within a
western business environment.
 Maximises the positive quality which can be added to a
product which adds value also.
 As user inputs are found by surveys, and other information
collection methods, if this is done poorly then the result of the
QFD analysis will also be poor.
 Provides a closer link between the end user and the
development of a design.
 Needs and wants of the customer can change in a very short
time period and so the outcome of QFD may be rendered
irrelevant by the end of the design process.
 Keeps a customer focus within the design process. 
Future Situation Assessment – Quality Function Deployment
Why – To manage the process of conversion of customer requirements into
process controls.
How – QFD links the needs of the customer with various product functions by
seeking both spoken and unspoken user needs, identifying positive quality and
business opportunities, and translating these into actions and designs by using
transparent analytical and prioritisation methods.
 Resources: 1) post-its, A3 paper, markers, computer
representation and a wall space to display the outcome and encourage further discussion and development

47
 Improves safety, productivity and efficiency within the
design.
 The sizes highlighted and chosen by the method will not be
suitable for everyone within the targeted user group.
 Improves the competitive advantage the product may have
when released to market.

 Improves product quality, work process and quality of work
life.

 Allows for the input of real-world contextual issues to be
linked with the developing design.

Future Situation Assessment – Anthropometric Analysis
Why – To provide quantitative data related to the measurement of various
parts of the human body.
How – The analysis is based on a list of dimension definitions of the human
body, encompassing different genders and age ranges. By analysing the
measurements the designer can use the quantitative data to see variances
between the dimensions of any given human being in relation to the general
population. This will help illustrate the challenges which will occur when
trying to accommodate for a wide spectrum of human measurements and
body types within a design.
 Resources: 1) Computer, clear idea of target end user, a clear visual image of the proposed design
2) Access to verified information source - http://msis.jsc.nasa.gov/sections/section03.htm

48
 As the same participants are studied over a long period of
time then consistency of research in habits and movements
can be achieved.
 Inconsistent variables over the duration of the study will mean
all that is tested in the study is the learnability of the system.
 Allows the researcher/designer to identify developmental
trends by looking for common attributes the subjects of the
study share.
 The inability to study the entire population, and the need to
focus on a specific subset, may result in discrepancies within
the study results.
 This type of study avoids cohort effects as the study is
conducted on one group of people over time, rather than
studying lots of different groups of people.

 Combines both qualitative and quantitative data to give a
more comprehensive study of behaviour.

Future Situation Assessment – Longitudinal Study
Why – To understand the long-tern effect of changes in products, processes or
environment.
How – Repeat observations or examination of a group of users over a
prolonged time period, at regular intervals, with respect one or more study
variables. Can be conducted over the duration of anywhere from a few days
to several decades.
on the observation.

49
 Involves the entire design team so that a mutual
understanding of all of the data can be shared.
 Requires expertise and knowledge within the group and
subgroup categories.
 Builds teamwork across the design team and other business
areas which may be involved.
 Can be very time consuming and requires the participation of a
large number of people.
 Consolidates lots of customer data into meaningful design
criteria.
 Can become exhausting due to the constant discussion and it
may seem to the design team that the discussion is leading
nowhere.
 Identifies customer work practice. 
Future Situation Assessment – Affinity Diagramming
Why – To consolidate ideas from a group and obtain consensus on how
information should be structured.
How – Concepts, which are written on cards, are sorted into groups and
subgroups. The groups and subgroups which have been identified can then be
used to analyse findings from field studies, identify group user functions as
part of the design, and analyse findings from a usability evaluation. The
designer can interpret the data in order to show the range of a problem,
uncover similarities among problems from multiple customers, and give
boundaries to the problem while also identifying areas for future study.
 Resources: 1) Post-its, pens, A3 paper, relevant research information
on the observation.

50
 Allows comparison with predicted performance across
different variations on a user interface.
 The method is only valid for well-practiced and repetitive
tasks.
 Does not require the participation of users or a working
prototype, only a description of the task and software is
needed.
 Does not account for any learning required for the user to
work through the task for the first time.
 Can be useful to predict task times for different approaches
to the same task, encompassing a variety of different user
perspectives and possible uses.
 The outcome of the analysis depends highly on the
assumptions of the modeller.
  Does not address the quality of the work produced by
completing the task, the quality of the output of the task, or
the effects of context of use attributes such as fatigue, group
influence, the readability or layout of the user interface, or
interruptions.
Future Situation Assessment – KLM-GOMS (Keystroke-Level Model GOMS)
Why – To predict how long it will take expert users to complete a task without
errors.
How – KLM-GOMS predicts the task times based on a simple set of physical
and mental operators, including keystrokes, button clicks, pointer movement,
keyboard to mouse movement and thinking time. Each KLM operator is
assigned a time based on empirical research. To obtain the predicted time for
a task, you add the times for an individual operator.
 Resources: 1) A detailed list of different tasks to be carried out, willing participants, stopwatch, pens, paper,
computer, estimated timing for each task
on the observation.

51
 Assuming there is a good facilitator/moderator then this
method is a very ‘democratic’ way of generating ideas.
 Requires an experienced and sensitive facilitator who
understands the social psychology of small groups.
development.
 The concept and completion of brainstorming is very easy to
understand.
 Can, at times, seem chaotic and intimidating.
  May not be appropriate for some business or international
cultures.
Future Situation Assessment - Brainstorming
Why – To inspire the free-flowing sharing of thoughts by an individual or group
of people.
How – A question or topic will be posed for the group to focus on during the
brainstorming session. Rules for the session must be established before
choosing participants with whom to include in the brainstorming session with.
Each participant will be given post-its to record their ideas during the session
and the group will review each idea at the end of a set time. The focus should
be on the quantity of ideas produced and not the quality, at this stage of the
process there should be no judgement or discarding of ideas.
outcome.
hopefully ensure no one is neglected during the discussion phase of the exercise

52
 This is a highly cost effective method.  Can be laborious to analyse for patterns within large sample
groups.
 Provides a very large amount and wide range of data within a
very short period of time.
 Does not require trained facilitators or special materials,
software or hardware.

 Provides frequency, salience and consistency data. 
 Can be used to compare different groups or cultures. 
Future Situation Assessment – Free Listing
Why – To gather data about a specific domain or topic.
How – Quite useful for understanding users, tasks terminology and other
issues such as idea generation. Ask the participants, for example, to ‘list all
the things which frustrate you about our product’. You can plot the frequency
and position of the responses and use that as an input to your requirements
and design activities. It is better when used in large group settings to
generate a large quantity of responses.
outcome.
3) Post-its, pens, paper, group of 6-12 people, use of excel spread sheet to compile comments and help
look for patterns.

53
 Metaphor brainstorming is a variation on group
brainstorming so participants grasp the general procedures
very quickly.
 This method is relatively unused and undocumented by
industry and other related sources.
 Participants can express ideas from areas of interest and
other work areas.
 There is some mental inertia when people first try to use this
method. Because of this fact it can be helpful to show the
results of metaphor brainstorming and then the metaphor
deconstruction before trying this method for the first time.
 Can be used to generate organising metaphors for a product,
images for icons, requirements, and features.

Future Situation Assessment – Metaphor Brainstorming
Why – To generate metaphors and extract aspects of those metaphors which
can be applied to design.
How – Start by choosing a topic for the metaphor brainstorming session.
Provide a short briefing about the use of metaphor in design and assign
‘homework’ related to the topic area. Brainstorm a set of metaphors where
the basic question is; ‘what metaphors might give us ideas about…..?’ Choose
a set of metaphors from the brainstorming session and then conduct a
deconstruction session where you begin to break the metaphors into objects,
attributes, processes or tasks. From the list created, take the most promising
concepts and see if they prompt ideas.
outcome.

54
 Many design ideas can be generated in a very short space of time.  Some individuals may be intimidated by being asked to draw.
 In addition to the ideas which the method creates for visual
designs, it can also elicit requirements that traditional
brainstorming may have missed.
 It is very possible that the group will not converge on a good
solution to the design problem.
 The method is very low cost and requires few resources.  There is no definitive technique for analysing the drawings.
 Ideas are elaborated and refined by a large, diverse group of users.
It is an inclusive method that allows many people to contribute to
the design.
 Managers may consider the activity to be frivolous.
 Themes, good ideas and best practices can emerge from the
results.

Future Situation Assessment – Brain drawing
Why – To visualise brainstorming ideas and concepts in a more visual and easy
to understand method.
How – This method involves drawing quickly and sharing the results with
other participants in the group. Like many other ideation methods, the focus
is on the quantity of ideas generated rather than the quality. The process
operates in rounds with participants beginning with a blank page and then
using others’ sketches for inspiration in subsequent rounds. This creates a set
of sketches which combines ideas of everyone within the group.
 Resources: 1) A neutral, relaxed setting is required to make the participants feel at ease and provide the best outcome.
no one is neglected during the discussion phase of the exercise
3) Post-its, pens, paper, group of 6-12 people, wall/display space to display drawings to allow for inspiration

55
 Brain writing is easier to conduct than group brainstorming as it
does not require an experienced facilitator or many ground rules.
 Brain writing is less well known than group brainstorming.
 Often produces more outputs and ideas than group brainstorming.  It is generally less social than group brainstorming as participants
are asked not to talk as they write down ideas.
 It is a way to get input from new or shy colleagues who would not
necessarily speak up in a group brainstorming session.
 Participants may feel unable to fully express their ideas in writing.
 Reduces the possibility of social conformity. 
 Can be appropriate if you are working in a culture where
brainstorming participants may be embarrassed to express
extreme ideas.

Future Situation Assessment – Brain writing
Why – To generate a large amount of ideas by asking people to write down
ideas and thoughts which they may have.
How – Explain the procedure for brain writing and then hand each participant
a sheet of paper and place extra sheets in the centre of the table. Describe
the question or topic of interest and inform the group of how long they will
have to write ideas on the sheet of paper. At the end of the first writing
interval ask people to pass their sheet to the next person. Each person is then
to read the preceding ideas silently and then add more ideas to the bottom of
the list. The process is then repeated several more times.
outcome.
2) A circular seating position of the participants will encourage engagement with the activity
3) Post-its, pens, paper, group of 6-12 people, wall/display space to display drawings to allow for
inspiration

56
 Simple procedure.  Analysing the dimensions that emerge across participants requires some
background in qualitative analysis.
 Useful for understanding ‘user-derived’ dimensions that should be
considered when evaluating a product or a service.
 The card sort can produce fairly consistent results between participants,
but it may also vary widely.
 This is an established technique that has been used for over 10 years by
many designers.
 The card sort is relatively quick but the analysis of the data can be difficult
and time consuming, particularly if there is inconsistency between the
participants.
 Typically the cost is a stack of index cards, sticky notes, a pen or printing
labels and some time.
 The participants may not consider what the content is about, or how they
would use it to complete a task, and focus only on ‘surface’ characteristics.
 It is possible to perform several sorts within a short period of time,
generating a large amount of data.

Future Situation Assessment – Card Sorting
Why – To generate information about the associations and grouping of specific data
items.
How – You must first generate the items for the card sort, these can come from
various sources, such as; user research, brainstorming, competitive evaluations, and
task analysis. Write each statement on a separate card and number each card with a
unique code. Provide the participants with the set of cards which have been
thoroughly shuffled. Ask each participant to sort the cards into two piles, name each
pile and explain how each pile is different. Shuffle the items again and ask the
participant to sort the cards in a different way. Name the new groups and again
explain how the piles are different. Repeat 5-6 times until the participants cannot
generate new piles. Gather sort data from 10 – 20 participants and organise the
dimensions that you obtained from all the participants to see if there are any
common themes.
 Resources: 1) Index cards, sticky notes, pen
2) A large display area where groups can be displayed easily for everyone to see and allow for discussion.

57
 Function allocation is useful for determining the degree of
automation for a system.
 The guidelines produced are often simplistic and provide only
limited heuristics for allocating functions among people,
hardware and software.
  Can affect important human values, for example, automated
systems that do not allow much human intervention often
lower user satisfaction.
Future Situation Assessment – Function Allocation
Why – To decide whether a particular function will be accomplished by a
person, technology or by some mix of person and technology.
How – Context of use analysis should be used to identify the task structure
and demands, the knowledge needed to perform the tasks, environmental
constraints, functional and safety requirements, and any other relevant issue.
Complete a mandatory allocation; allocate functions to humans where there
are technical limitations, ethical constraints or safety considerations, and
allocate functions to machines where the task demands exceed human
capabilities or when the system must be operated in a hostile environment.
Complete a provisional allocation; permanently allocate tasks based on task
criticality, cost, training or knowledge requirements, or task unpredictability,
and evaluate.
 Resources: 1) Apogee allocation software, computer
2) Complex, time-consuming task, best carried out by one person
http://www.stat-design.com/Software/Allocation.html?gclid=CIfmp9zU-rACFVMTfAodAXXqNw

58
 Allows a range of ideas to be generated quickly and cost
effectively.
 Requires a number of design team members to be available at the
same time in order to produce the concepts.
 The parallel nature of the method allows several approaches to be
explored at the same time, thus condensing the concept
development schedule.
 Requires a major investment of time over a short period for the
design work to be carried out.
 The concepts generated can often be combined so the final idea
benefits from all ideas proposed.
 Time must be allocated in order to compare parallel design outputs
properly so that the benefits of each approach are obtained.
 Minimal resources and materials are required. 
 Can be utilised by those with little or no human factors expertise. 
Future Situation Assessment – Parallel Design
Why – To produce alternative designs in parallel and incorporate the best
aspects of each design in the final solution.
How – First clearly define the boundaries of the parallel design, goals,
objectives etc. Design teams should have roughly equivalent skills and use
whatever media they prefer to present their designs. Decide beforehand how
much time will be allocated to design work and set a clear limit; also, agree on
criteria against which the designs will be assessed. Allow sufficient time to
carry out a fair comparison of the designs produced. Discuss each design
separately and then discuss how various aspects of the design could be
combined. The objective is to settle on a design concept based on the total
effort.
 Resources: 1) Paper, pens , pencils,
2) Requires large display spaces so each approach can be displayed together in order to hold a good
comparison discussion
3) Requires 10 – 20 hours of development time per design group.

59
 Gives users a voice in the design process.  Requires a significant allocation of time to prepare, run and
evaluate the outcome of the workshop.
 Involves developers, business representatives and users
working together to develop a solution.

 Enables technical and non-technical participants to
contribute equally.

 Shifts the focus from purely technical requirements and
issues towards the needs of the business and users.

 Enables a team to rapidly design, evaluate and iterate their
design approaches.

Future Situation Assessment – Participatory Design
Why – To involve users in the design process and help ensure that the product
designed meets their needs and is useable in the process.
How – Hold a workshop for the duration of a day. Define a clear set of
objective and aim for including no more than 10 people. Set goals, objectives
and expectations. At the close of the workshop, summarise what you have
achieved, document the design and determine the next steps to be taken.
 Resources: 1) Paper, pens , pencils, large whiteboard (to brainstorm ideas), software tools (such as power point, Photoshop
and Illustrator, stationary to prototype with
2) Requires large display spaces so each approach can be displayed together in order to hold a good discussion

60
 Enhances flexibility within the creative process.  Requires an experienced and sensitive facilitator who
understands the social psychology of small groups.
 Yields new points of view and therefore leads to innovation.  Requires a robust dedication to quantity and not quality.
 Assuming there is a good facilitator/moderator then this
method is a very ‘democratic’ way of generating ideas.
 May not be appropriate for some business or international
cultures.
development.

Future Situation Assessment – SCAMPER (Osborn’s Checklist)
Why – To generate ideas for new products or services by encouraging you to
think of how you could improve existing ones.
How – The mnemonic stands for; substitute, combine, adapt, modify, put to
another use, eliminate and reverse. You use the tool by asking questions
about existing products using the seven prompts listed above. These
questions help you to come up with creative ideas for developing new
products, or improving current products.
outcome.

61
 Helps respondents to project their own attitudes and feelings
in an unconscious on the subject under study.
 Highly trained interviewers and skilled interpreters are
needed.
 Allows for urges or responses to emerge which would not be
revealed through direct questioning.
 Interpreters’ bias can exist or develop throughout the process.
 Allows for many interpretations of the same thing.  It can be a costly method.
 Quick and easy in terms of completion.  The respondent selected may not be representative of the
entire nation or targeted group of users.
  Care needs to be taken so as not to generate too much noise
that the value of the exercise becomes lost.
Future Situation Assessment – Word Association
Why – To explore ideas, define, and investigate general issues.
How – This well established method can take place as a group or individual
process. Start with a word which is related to the project in some way, it can
be a need, a problem, issue etc. Then begin listing, or exchanging words
within the group, that are associated with the previous/or beginning word.
This will help to generate creativity.
 Resources: 1) Index cards, sticky notes, pen, if conducting this on an individual basis websites/forums can be useful
http://www.wordassociation.org/
2) A large display area where words and associated words can be displayed to allow discussion with the
design team on completion of the method
3) A neutral and relaxing atmosphere where participants are seated in a circular format in order to make
them feel comfortable and encourage participation

62
 Generates a broad range of concepts for further
development.
 Expertise and time required are significant.
 Builds empathy with the users.  The quick rejection of ideas should be avoided as this will
result in the immediate application of real-world constraints.
 Tackles a problem in a new way, if thinking becomes
stagnated.
 Constraints should be used to ‘shape’ the idea into a more
suitable form; the idea should not fit the ‘mould’ laid out by
requirements and constraints.
 The staffing required and the cost of running this method is
low.

Future Situation Assessment – Lateral Thinking
Why – To generate a range of ideas and concepts at an early stage.
How – Involve designers and users in a series of shared mental activities to
provoke new ideas. A useful starting point for this method is to list the
sequence of actions in a particular process, then play around with them by
removing, reversing or distorting some of them to promote lateral thinking.
Concepts that are generated may be sketched or written by the designer or
the user.
 Resources: 1) Index cards, sticky notes, pen
2) A large display area where ideas can be displayed to provoke thought and refinement
3) A neutral and relaxing atmosphere where designers can relax and induce creativity

63
 The method is very easy to use.  Some participants may have problems describing their ideas
concisely, so the idea may not be clear enough to other participants.
 Does not require a trained/experienced moderator.  The time limit of 5 minutes may make participants feel pressured
and restricted in their thinking.
 By using participants with different fields of knowledge, the
innovative potential of the group can be exploited.
 May generate less creative solutions because the individual nature
of the contributions does not take advantage of group discussions.
 All participants are active, which may not occur in traditional
brainstorming.

 No premature discussion – useful for addressing conflicts in the
group as they could have a negative effect.

 A useful idea is systematically developed further. 
 The ‘author’ of a creative idea can be identified; this can be an
important motivational factor.

Future Situation Assessment – 6-3-5 Brainstorming
Why – To address the potential deficiencies of brainstorming by encouraging
participation by all, with an emphasis on sketching ideas.
How – Establish a good size team and clearly define the scope and purpose of the
activity. Each team member should write, describe or sketch 3 ideas on a piece of
paper. (Participants at this stage should be encouraged to sketch ideas). This stage
should last for around 5 minutes and concepts should be passed to the next person
around the table. It is recommended that this process is repeated 5 times to
encourage combination, development and refinement of ideas.
 Resources: 1) Pens, structured table to record ideas (one for each participant), stopwatch
2) A large display area where ideas can be displayed to provoke thought and refinement
3) A neutral and relaxing atmosphere where participants can relax and induce creativity

64
 You may be tempted to use safe combinations, but
challenging yourself can lead to innovative, counter-intuitive
component combinations.
 The combination of components can yield conflicts, with two
separate component ideas which cannot physically be put
together in the final solution.
 The ‘random’ nature of combining components to create an
overall solution allows no bias or personal preference to
become involved with selection.
 Can be difficult and time consuming defining the parameters
on which to generate ideas, this will require the use of the PDS
and possibly a function-means tree to aid this process,
however this will require a large time specification.
 Can repeat the process of generating a morphological chart
several times in order to create a large number of different
ideas in a very short space of time.

Future Situation Assessment – Morphological chart
Why – To generate ideas in an analytical and systematic manner.
How – Possible components are listed on the basis of their functions. The
components are concrete and specific, specifying the parameter of that
category. Parameters are identified by focusing on commonalities of the
components. The morphological chart splits the product’s purpose into a set
of sub-functions. For each sub-function, ideas are generated and combined
into an overall solution. The carefully chosen combination of components
forms a conceptual solution.
 Resources: 1) Pens, pencils, structured table to record ideas, PDS, function-means tree
2) A large display area where ideas can be displayed to provoke thought and refinement of ideas after
generation of morphological chart and enable identification of areas on which to generate subsequent morphological
charts
3) Should be conducted around a circular table to encourage discussion between the design team

65
 Generates very random ideas which would normally not
come to the fore during any other more traditional creative
method.
 Results in producing a lot of ideas which may not be feasible,
relevant or technically or physically achievable.
 Can be applied quickly.  Becomes difficult to narrow ideas and evaluate which ideas
are best for further development and which will not succeed
and in the long run become irrelevant.
 Encourages the design team to think ‘outside of the box’. 
 The method has an infinite nature. The process can be
repeated as many times as is deemed necessary with as
many different everyday items as is required.

Future Situation Assessment – Force Fitting
Why – To generate options and ideas, using characteristics of other unrelated
items, to help develop a new product.
How – Find everyday items which can be gathered and brought to a design
team meeting to be used as visual and physical aids during the process. Use
every item systematically and methodically and try and generate ideas for the
new product by taking characteristics and features from the existing product
and trying to fit them together. Ideas should be ideally be sketched.
 Resources: 1) A collection of everyday items (advisable to have them entirely unrelated to the project), paper, pens
2) A large display area where ideas can be displayed to provoke thought and refinement of ideas and
highlight areas which can be taken further within the design.
3) Should be conducted around a circular table to encourage discussion between the design team and
enable the team to touch and become familiar with the objects being used.

66
 The method is useful for generating empathy for users.  Involves role playing and improvisation which may be difficult
for some members of a product team.
 Provides clues about the impact of the environment on the
user.

 Gets the design team more active and involved, activities
requiring a lot of participation lead to more innovation and
emergence of creative ideas.

Future Situation Assessment – Body storming
Why – An immersive ideation method for exploring ideas through role-playing
and physical interaction with props, prototypes, actual products and physical
spaces.
How – Gather a small group and define the locations where the product or
service will be used. Visit these locations and observe how people interact
with each other and with other artefacts in the environment. Develop
prototypes and props that you will need to explore an idea. Identify the
personas and roles that are important for understanding your product, service
or environment. Role play different scenarios, feel free to improvise and role
play new situations and scenarios that emerge from your initial round of body
storming. Reflect on the body storming experience, what did you learn? what
new questions emerged? You are likely to find new possibilities as well as
gnarly problems.
 Resources: 1) Prototypes, listed scenarios, pens, paper (to record and sketch ideas)
2) A large display area where ideas can be displayed to provoke thought and refinement of ideas and
highlight areas which can be taken further within the design.
3) A team of 6 or more will provide the best outcome, especially with a mix of knowledge areas. The
activity should be conducted in a large, open space to enable movement and to provide adequate space for role plays.

Document 2 - Interns@Strathclyde

Document 2 - Interns@Strathclyde

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Document 2 - Interns@Strathclyde

Similar to Document 2 - Interns@Strathclyde (20)

More from Kerrie Noble

More from Kerrie Noble (20)

Document 2 - Interns@Strathclyde