People research for experience design


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

People research for experience design

  1. 1. People research forexperience designGenerating great stories – new product development
  2. 2. Preface This paper is based on Philips Design’s ‘Research through Design’ program, intended to develop business options with high potential value and in a timely manner. The paper outlines an approach to assessing and evaluating innovative experience solutions – presented as tangible experience demonstrators – that are being developed to have people create their own relevant and meaningful experiences. This approach to Experience Assessment builds – in five steps – on the fundamentals of people’s experiences. Such experiences are both dynamic (evolving over time); personal (an integral part of each individual’s experience); and memorable (memory forms a frame of reference for new experiences as well as a long term ‘data-source’ of past experiences). As an example of how this approach can be applied, we present one of our recently conducted research projects, intended to help with the development of new innovative solutions for home entertainment. We show how the approach supports both the design of personalized and meaningful solutions for people, yet remains quick and cost-efficient. Slava Kozlov, Lucile Rameckers, Paul Schots People research for experience design
  3. 3. Human experiences:new challenges for business and design In their seminal book,The Experience Economy, In order to achieve this involvement of the end 005).That said, they must have a reasonably Pine and Gilmore (999) argued that people will user, we developed different research methods ‘finalized’ execution, and as such are particularly increasingly value personalized and memorable and tools during the earlier stages of the design suited to involving the end­user in exploring experiences that deliver meaningful solutions to process to generate insights into people.These both the medium­term and distant possibilities. their rational needs, yet which are also rich both methods and approaches are described in ‘People In short, they help people to envisage and emotionally and sensorially. Indeed today, many insights at the ‘fuzzy front’ of innovation: How to experience, in as tangible a manner as possible, signals show that our societies have been moving achieve human­centered innovation?’ and potential future solutions that are in many other from a ‘product and service economy’ towards an ‘The seven steps of innovation,’ aspects no more than vague descriptions ‘economy of human experiences’ (Thakara, 005). (Rameckers and Un, 005). (Gardien, 006). (See figure ) Figure 1 In response to these profound changes, business Interacting with people in iterative loops, we Examples of must also move from developing and manu­ translate and develop these insights through the experience facturing products – with a focus on new features following three (successive) phases. prototypes and functionalities – to designing complete I. Qualities of experiences – the key concepts solutions that facilitate the creation of rich and that capture essential aspects of the feelings meaningful experiences for individuals. and emotions that an experiential solution should evoke To support this process of ‘experience design’, . Design implications – the features, functions, it is essential to understand people’s behavior relevant messages, associative triggers, and This paper will focus on involving end users in in the contexts of their own lives and to involve look and feel of a solution. the third stage of the design process, that is, the them in co­designing for the experience 3. Design concepts – draft ideas and sketches actual creation of experience demonstrators. In (Prahalad and Ramaswamy 004).The that eventually evolve into a set of ‘experience this phase, the team needs specific tools and Participatory Design approach also calls for the demonstrators’. methods that actively involve people to explore, active involvement of the end users in the design refine, and validate developed experience process (Participatory Design,Wikipedia).We The primal goal of an experience demonstrator solutions vis­à­vis previously defined experience believe that the same principles of active user is to enable experience formation, rather than qualities; they need this to make sure that they involvement should be applied to research phases the presentation of specific product features and are on the right track in their design.The as well. Such a new, deeper level of understanding the technology behind it.Therefore, they are not fundamentals of a person’s experience (section ) of both people and new design practices necessarily fully workable prototypes, as the formed the basis for setting up this Experience increases the chance of developing desirable – technology behind the demonstrator is often still Assessment approach (section 3) and is and viable – business solutions. in development (Andrews, Geurts, and Kyffin, illustrated with a case example in section 4. People research for experience design
  4. 4. Designing for experiences:from discoveries to memories We have been guided in our research activities and interpret perceptions. Our memory is also • Impression. The very first feelings and ideas by the fundamentals of a person’s experience affected and developed through our experiences, people have at the beginning of an experience. formulated in Cass and Gridley (004), and the which makes every experience a personal This first evaluation determines the subsequent experience design principles that resulted from endeavor. course of action. this formulation. • Discovery. The discovery of an experience at A third principle of experience design is that the beginning of the interaction. One of the key fundamentals of ‘experiences’ is people are bound in their lives to the notion • Use/do. The active interaction with the that they cannot be ‘provided’ or ‘delivered’ to of time: they perceive things and events in solution. people. People create personal experiences using terms of time and, with every action leading to • Memory. The end of the formation of an multiple available enablers and environments another, sequences of events flow together into experience, which also affects the beginning of that obtain meaning within a certain social, an overall experience. When people describe a new experience cultural, and historical context (Cass and Gridley, their experiences, they recall them as stories, as 004, page 5). Therefore, the first principle successions of contexts, interactions and events Memory affects all three other phases of of experience design is that it has to enable, that flow together in a meaningful way. experience formation: people form expectations support, and facilitate people in creating their based on previous experiences, and the memory own experiences, rather than delivering ‘ready­ These dynamics of an experience as it evolves of the experience affects future experiences. made’ experiences, for it is only experiences in over time can be represented as four separate (See figure .) which people play an active role themselves that phases through which people travel (Cass and provide personal meaning. Gridley, 004, page 6). A second principle builds upon the historical context in which experiences are shaped: every person builds their own, personal memory of the experiences they encounter. A memory Experience in time contains previous personal experiences as affected expectation well as the interpretation of it from a shared Individual memory cultural reference (Cass and Gridley, 004, page impression discovery use/do and cultural reference 7). A memory, therefore, creates a frame of Figure 2 reference for interpreting experiences: using our The flow of experiences over time memory, we continuously create expectations People research for experience design 3
  5. 5. Assessing experiences:the five-step approach As product and concept testing is designed We therefore developed an assessment site that 2. Investigating expectations and to explore concrete features, functionalities, allows for customization and personalization by impressions, and interacting with the and propositions, we felt that we needed to participants. Instead of testing the demonstrators experience demonstrator make use of an approach that also captures the in an artificial environment such as a research As it is so important that an experience builds dynamic, personal and memorable aspects that lab, we created a space in which people can over time, we need to account for the whole are so typical of an experience. This led us to imitate their own home environment. We expect trajectory of experiences as people move develop a rapid yet very productive method to that this not only makes participants feel at from initial expectation to memory formation. assess experience solutions and provides the ease but also helps them translate their test Therefore, the second stage is to explore required feedback loops to the designers. experiences to their own contexts of use. the first three parts in this trajectory (that is, impression, discovery, and use/do). Following the principles of experience design, we The participants then shape and create their developed an Experience Assessment approach own personal test spaces, using a selection of We ask people to describe their initial that consists of five major stages familiar and preferred triggers (objects and expectations after a brief explanation of the posters), as shown in figure 3. experience demonstrator but before they see . Creating a personalized space. . Investigating expectations and impressions, and interacting with the experience demonstrator. 3. Putting the solution into a broader context. 4. Exploring the meaning of the solution. 5. Triggering and eliciting memory aspects. 1. Creating a personalized space Building the context of personal meaning into our experience­assessment site is a serious challenge. Ideally we place the demonstrators in actual homes, but they are often not robust enough to be placed in such ‘real life’ situations and they also required regular back­stage support and technical maintenance. Figure 3 Poster (left) and home objects (right) used to personalize the test environment People research for experience design 4
  6. 6. any part of it. Subsequently, upon arrival at the place their experience with the demonstrator Schwartz, Kirson, and O’Connor, 00).test location, people are asked to describe their in the context of their own personal history offirst impressions. interaction with products and patterns of use. To On a rational level, we focus on the experienced cover this aspect of alternative solutions, people usefulness of the different applications within aSimilarly, we continue by exploring the different have to indicate the ‘likeability’, and ‘newness’, solution. This is to see whether people’s insightsapplications of the demonstrator, constantly of a wide range of products. The experience were properly translated into design qualities.focusing on the users’ first impressions during demonstrator was one of these products. It also provides an opportunity to validate thetheir first interactions with it. In so doing, we importance of the people insights identified.witness how initial first impressions evolve, 4. Exploring the meaning of the solution For example, is the experienced benefit of anor sometimes change into different overall An experience is personal; people participate application the fact that it helped the user ‘toevaluations and memories of the experience in creating their own experiences through share with friends’ or ‘to be on top of things’?demonstrators, information that is crucially an interplay between context, behavior, andimportant to defining the exact qualities of an memory (references and expectations). This On an interaction level, we focus on howexperience demonstrator. interplay ‘manifests itself to the individual’ the applications fit to the behavior of people: through what they perceive and how they behavior with regards to the direct interaction3. Putting the solution into a broader interact with enablers and environment of the with the demonstrator. This means that context experience. interaction with the demonstrator should alwaysThe third stage relates to people’s experiences remain in line with how people are used towith alternative products and solutions. This To get a better understanding of the personal interacting with products.also influences and shapes their memory and meaning of an experience, the team wantedexpectations and, as such, serves multiple goals. to capture – by using both observation and Accounting for these distinct levels helps us to dialogue–istinct levels of the perception of, and understand whether it is:Firstly, it broadens people’s minds, enabling interaction with, the experience demonstrator. • The experience itself that is (not) desired;them to put things into perspective rather than • The intended experience that has (not) beentempting them to offer the unrealistic – and On an emotional level, we focus on the feelings properly ‘provided’;unquestioning – amount of attention they and reactions to a solution, from the beginning • The combination of interactions, perceptions,might give a finished product during a standard right through to the end of experience and events that has influenced the flow of the‘market survey’ test. Forcing people to think formation; that is, understanding whether feelings experience.about alternative solutions may make them are positive or negative, and – on a deeper levelmore critical towards the proposed experience – identifying precisely the emotions experienced:demonstrator. In addition, it enables people to surprise, anger, sadness, fear, love, and joy (Shaver, People research for experience design 5
  7. 7. 5.Triggering and eliciting memory aspects technological innovation. It is, therefore, alsoFinally, the last phase addresses – in two ways important to capture what people retain in their– the important role of memory as part of an long­term memory after a test, when they haveexperience. ‘cooled down’. So, to allow them time to ‘take’ the experience home and let it ‘sink in’ in theirFirstly, people’s short­term memory of own context of use, we give them a token withtheir interaction and experience with the pictures of the demonstrator they have justdemonstrator contains an implicit evaluation encountered.of it. Using a carefully structured interview, weexplored this short­term memory to identify We ask people to put this token in their homes,the design implications of the demonstrator in the spot where they would normally havethat do, and do not, contribute to the overall placed the ‘real’ demonstrator. Two weeks later,experiences. The information gathered helps we evaluate how the experience has sunk intothe design team to fine­tune the experience their long­term memory. We also ask themdemonstrator. to tell us how they would have used certain applications of the demonstrator in their ownSecondly, one of the dangers of proposing homes, and how it would have fit in with theexperience demonstrators to people is that products they already had.they may form very positive reactions to itbased on nothing more than its newness and People research for experience design 6
  8. 8. Experience exploration in action: a case study We developed our Experience Assessment The experience demonstrators developed by it includes ‘OpenFrames’.The functionality of Figure 5 approach within the framework of AMEC,) and the design team provide solutions for in­home an ‘OpenFrame’ is open to whatever the user Experience prototype designed it for the development of new digital entertainment.They combine external TV desires so that it can, for example, become for alejandra (left) and systems and solutions that can help people to content with local/self­created digital content a photo viewer, radio, or recipe book. Each ‘openframe’ (right) transform their home environment and enable (such as home movies or downloaded films, functionality can be downloaded and organized new activities, either by supporting existing pictures and music, etc.), with access to Internet in the HomeMenu. (See figure 5.) lifestyles, or adopting new ones. services.The entire setting is based around the television in the home. (See figure 4.) . Sietske’s demonstrator was designed to enable This project was informed by extensive in­ the physical flexibility of digital content. In depth research into people’s everyday lives, The experience demonstrator was based on addition to a TV and E­hub, it includes the their behaviors, needs and wants. Based on one technological platform consistent across the ‘LifeBook’, a personal and flexible tablet this research, we compiled three distinctive three target groups. It consisted of: onto which you can load multiple content. Personas) (called Alejandra, Sietske, and Jeroen) • A ‘set­top box’ containing all the appropriate This makes it become whatever you want,Figure 4 to represent target groups and help designers technology whenever you want: a photo album, aThe setting of the experience translate their abstract people insights into • ‘personalizable’ home menu displayed on a TV collection of news and business services, ademonstrator tangible solutions. • Various objects to make the content mobile. storybook, scrapbook, a communication tool and so on. (See figure 6.) It is important to note that the experience demonstrators were based on one technological platform.This was to show that the same technology can be worked out in different applications evoking distinctively personalized experiences for various target groups and enabled us to construct three experience demonstrators, each targeted at one of our personas. . Alejandra’s demonstrator was designed to create easy access to digital content to enhance a balanced, personal home Figure 6 environment. In addition to a TV and E­hub, Experience prototype for sietske (left) and ‘lifebook’ (right) People research for experience design 7
  9. 9. 3. Jeroen’s demonstrator was designed to Step 2: Exploring the demonstrators value in the subtleties of experiencing the enhance the way he experienced his hobbies Participants were first given a short verbal personalized and natural interaction with the (such as music) in his home environment. In introduction to the experience demonstrator demonstrator: “I think you now will access your addition to a TV and E­hub, it includes the and asked for their expectations before entering photos quicker and more often because you ‘Pure Music Browser’ – an application on the the test site.They then started interacting with don’t have to sit behind your pc or get out the HomeMenu which can be used to browse the demonstrator. A researcher continuously photo albums anymore”. and play music collections – and a ‘Touchpad observed and elicited people’s impressions of the • Initial expectations were often that the TV remote’ controller for browsing the Pure demonstrators, on each level of understanding, screen was similar to a regular TV screen. Music Browser using natural gestures. and the way they explored various applications. However, as they discovered that they could (See figure 7.) It was essential to not focus only on task analysis, display a picture on the entire screen, theyFigure 7 but rather on feelings, emotions, and reactions to grew more enthusiastic and understood theExperience prototype for jeroen The research was conducted at Philips Design the ‘look and feel’. opportunity for transforming the TV into a(left) and ‘touchpad remote’ (right) in Eindhoven in the Netherlands over a period large painting. of two weeks, with participants (six for every It proved to be important that the way we persona). In line with our approach, we created presented the demonstrators was well­staged: three different test sites, or ‘islands’ (as shown in that is, participants discovered certain features, Figure 8 the picture below) for each persona. were then asked by us for their reaction, then Example of a personalized test island (See figure .) discovered new facets while we observed their reaction, and then were asked for their reaction Step 1: Personalizing the test islands again, etc. By such a staging of the experience, At the start of the experience assessment, we were able to discover a range of reactions to participants were allowed to personalize the an entire experience, rather than just the overall test site with a personal object brought from impressions of the demonstrator, as is shown by their homes, together with lifestyle posters and the following examples: other items provided by the researchers.The • Overall impressions were often positive, while participants very much appreciated the whole first impressions were sometimes indifferent process of personalizing the test island: it gave or even negative: “All these things you just them a sense of more intimacy and a feeling of explained can already be done with a regular being genuinely involved. laptop”. However, as the entire flow of the experience unfolded, this persons’ view turned into a positive, pleasant perception, recognizing People research for experience design
  10. 10. Step 3: Creating a product chart only be available digitally: “I miss the feeling of some of the participants a sense of pride, as After in­depth exploration of the demonstrators, holding a CD”. they were now able to do something that they’d we asked people to place them – on charts – considered too difficult in the past: “It is really within the broader context of the more familiar Step 4: Understanding the experiences good that someone who cannot do anything, solutions they may already have experienced The participants’ feedback was carefully can do this”. today.This also produced a ‘cooling down’ effect structured around the three levels of • On the rational level, because most of the after the test. (See figure 9.) understanding of the experiences. For the participants were now able to deal with middle­aged Alejandra Persona, for example, technological applications they’ve never used current technology is complex, difficult, and before, it opened up a new world for them and confusing.Therefore we defined as a target added value to their lives: “That I can actually for this demonstrator the need to experience do it, you have more at your fingertips now!”. technology in a humanized way – as if there was • On the interaction level, the main goal of the no technology at all – in a manner congruent drag and drop quality was to make technology with existing behavior. less complex, difficult, and confusing.This experience was clearly attained: “I have To realize this, the team developed a ‘drag mastered this much quicker than I thought was drop’ interface that allowed Alejandra to interact possible for a product such as this” Figure 10Figure 9 The construction of these product charts with content in a more natural and intuitive way: ‘Dragging dropping’Product graph (left) triggered discussions on the role of technology pictures, movies, and music could be moved from The design team did, however, receive some content from tv toto trigger discussion (right) and products in people’s lives “I am from another one device to another simply by pointing to the less positive feedback on the experience openframeon alternative solutions era: pen, paper,TV,” and “I am not that interested content with a remote control, ‘capturing’ it, and demonstrators as well. In case of Jeroen’s in new technologies”.This helped us to interpret ‘dragging’ it to another device. (See figure 0.) demonstrator, the touch pad was felt to be tiring people’s experiences with the demonstrators to use because it was too sensitive. Fortunately, because it told us something about their level The feedback on the drag drop solution was this problem could be easily overcome. Most of openness to innovations.The exercise very reassuring to the team. of the criticism, in fact, was directed at the level also provided a frame of reference for the • On the emotional level, people like Alejandra of interaction, demonstrating the importance participants. Using the chart, people were better indicated that they found the application very of assessing whether it is the experience itself able to compare the demonstrator with existing desirable and said that they were surprised that that is not desired, or whether the intended products or solutions. One of the participants of technology could work in such a simple way: experience has not been properly ‘provided’. the Jeroen Persona didn’t like that music would “Wow, it is like a magic wand!”. It even gave People research for experience design 9
  11. 11. Step 5:Triggering and eliciting memory and what, therefore, should be added to the Two weeks after the assessments, we probed the demonstrators.The additions proposed were memories participants had built. Overall, people mainly related to managing the household and remembered very well the different applications maintaining, or changing to, a more (healthy) and solutions of the experience demonstrators. lifestyle (for example, health services, banking services and reminders). However, contradicting what we had expected – that they would have ‘cooled down’ by then As the design team of the AMEC project and be less enthusiastic – the memory of the consisted of multiple stakeholders – ranging experience had become even more positive. from designers to engineers, people researchers, Not only had the new and exciting technical and project managers – the test site created innovations contributed to this feeling, but also a unique platform for rapid yet efficient the imagined usefulness of the demonstrator had discussion and development of the solutions. It increased over time. was extremely well suited to helping the more • “… over the past two weeks, I thought about technically oriented engineers in translating their it often and I think it is a good and useful developments and applications to solutions that product. It saves space, it looks beautiful, and it would make sense in people’s everyday lives. is extraordinary functional and divers“. (See figure .) • “The positive feeling I initially had is still there. It may have even strengthened. I still think it is The improved experience demonstrators have a beautiful and useful device.The tablet is still since been demonstrated at an internal exhibition very useful, though it is a bit lumpish, big”. aimed at bringing technology developments (See figure .) closer to the business and have been received very well. Initial communication has even beenFigure 11 Allowing the experiences to ‘settle’ and then started with business representatives to discussToken to trigger and elicit people’smemory reflecting on them in their homes – as opposed the potential commercialization of some of the to the test area – also helped participants demonstrators’ specific solutions. Moreover, to recommend additional applications and the design team has been invited to exhibit improvements to the demonstrators. It helped their results at the IFA 006 (Internationale them determine the activities and routines that Funkausstellung) in Berlin, the world’s largest Figure 12 are important to them in their everyday lives consumer electronics trade fair. Amec team during and after the experience assessment People research for experience design 0
  12. 12. Summary and discussion The current experience economy has led to the For this reason, the approach enabled an commercialization of potentially innovative development of complete solutions that facilitate understanding of the dynamic, personal, and solutions built on the true understanding, the creation of rich and meaningful experiences memorable aspects that are so typical to an involvement and evaluation of ‘everyday’ people. for individuals. experience. It enabled us to witness the flow of the actual experience – from first impression, We intend to use and build further upon this To support this process of ‘experience design’ discovery and use, to the memory of it ­ thereby Experience Assessment approach in areas and to develop both desirable – and viable discovering a range of reactions to an entire beyond the context of digital experiences within – business solutions, we need a deep level of experience: the emotional and the rational, as the home environment: in particular, solutions understanding people within the context of their well as the interaction facets. for healthcare and communication. lives and we need to actively involve people in both design and research activities. The approach also provided an understanding of the experience in a broader context: that of At Philips Design, we create ‘experience the everyday life environment of the individuals, demonstrators’ to help people envisage and as well as the internal reference frames that experience potential future solutions that are, influence their openness to innovations. Such in many other aspects, no more than vague understanding could prevent an innovation descriptions. They help people shape their being forced in a specific – and inappropriate own personal experiences when triggered and – direction, thus ensuring that its potential value enabled by multiple technological and interaction would not be lost (Gardien, 006). enablers. As a result, we developed a rapid yet very Therefore, we developed an approach for productive method for assessing experience the assessment of experiences. The approach solutions. It provided the required feedback consists of five steps – based on the theoretical loops for, and iterative discussions to, designers fundamentals of people’s experiences and engineers – who took actively part – in the – and, as such, goes far beyond product and early phases of the innovation process. concept testing that is designed solely to explore concrete features, functionalities, and For business, we feel that such an approach propositions. can offer investment opportunities for the People research for experience design
  13. 13. Acknowledgements ReferencesThe authors want to thank all people involved in the AMEC project. Aarts, E. and Marzano, S., (2003) The New Everyday, Views on Shaver, P., Schwartz, J., Kirson, D., and O’Connor, C. (2001).Specifically we want to thank Anton Andrews, Angus Dick, Luc Ambient Intelligence, 010 Publishers. Emotion Knowledge: Further Exploration of a PrototypeGeurts, Robert Kortenoeven, Judith Peeten, Daniel Pezzutti, Stuart Approach. In Emotions in Social Psychology, Ed. By Parrott W.G.,Pill, Henk van de Weij, Pascal de Man for their technical, creative, Aarts, E., Collier, R., van Loenen, E., de Ruyter, B. (Eds.) (2003). Psychology Press: well as intellectual support. We also want to thank Marlies Ambient Intelligence, Springer.Bielderman and Juliana Kelly for their support in observing and Participatory design, article from Wikipediainterviewing the participants, and Anja Janssen for her facilitation Andrews, A. (2003). Putting the customer first: Creating “Experience ( Thanks to Gavin Proctor, Steven Kyffin, Paul Gardien, Targets” to mange digital experiences, White Paper of Philips Design.Josephine Green and Geke Deetman for making this project Thackara, J. (2005). In the Bubble: Designing in a Complexpossible. Finally, special thanks go to Mili Docampo-Rama, Geke Andrews, A., Geurts, L. and Kyffin, S. (2005). TO:DO – Collaborative World. The MIT Press.Ludde (TU Delft, The Netherlands), Lesh Parameshwaran, Karen experience innovation, White Paper of Philips Design. The authorsReddering, Liesbeth Scholten, Bruce Thomas, and Stefanie Un fortheir valuable input. Rameckers, L. and Bueno, M. (2003). Research for Innovation: Fitting the design process at Philips Design, presented at ESOMARFootnotes Qualitative conference 2003 Slava Kozlov is Senior Consultant, Philips Design, Netherlands. Cass, J. and Gridely, N. (2004). Experience Design. A positioning Lucile Rameckers is Senior Consultant, Philips Design,1. AMEC: AMbient ECologies is subsidized by ITEA (Information paper for Philips Design, Royal Philips Electronics. Netherlands.Technology for European Advancement). It is a collaborative projectbetween several European partners to stimulate and encourage Grudin, J., and Pruitt, J. (2002). Personas, Participatory Design Paul Schots is Researcher, Philips Design, Netherlands.European industry to take a leading role in digital technology and Product Development: An Infrastructure for (Aarts and Marzano, 2003; Aarts et al, 2003). More detailed Proceedings of Participatory Design Conference.information about the project can be found at the project web-site: Pine, B, and Gilmore, J. (1999), Experience Economy: Work is Theatre and Every Business a Stage, Harvard Business School Press.2. Personas are fictional people with ‘real’ life stories, goals and tasks(Grudin and Pruitt, 2002). The Personas developed for this project Prahalad, C.K. and Ramaswamy,V. (2004). The Future ofare fictional yet realistic, meaning that they do not exist in real life, Competition: Co-creating Unique Values with Customers, Harvardbut are based on extensive research into ‘real’ people. The method Business Scholl Press.used to develop research-based Personas is described in Researchfor Innovation: Fitting the design process at Philips Design, Lucile Rameckers, L. and Un, S. (2005). “People insights at the ‘fuzzyRameckers and Monica Bueno, presented at ESOMAR’s Qualitative front’ of innovation”: How to achieve human-centered innovation?Conference 2003 Proceedings of ESOMAR Qualitative Conference, 2005. People research for experience design
  14. 14. HeadlineSub headline©007 Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V.All rights reserved.