Involving users in innovation


Published on

Presentation in the NETworked 2010 seminar on 11.10.2010, Oslo, Norway

Published in: Design
1 Comment
  • I love these slides! Did you know we’re running a competition on SlideShare to win a 3M PocketProjector MP180? To enter, simply tag your presentation with ‘3MInform’. Head over to our page for more details... and don’t forget to follow us to find out if you get shortlisted!
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Involving users in innovation

  1. 1. Involving users in innovation NETworked 2010 Pirjo Näkki VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland
  2. 2. 201/30/15 Outline  User involvement in social media  Co-innovation in Owela (Open Web Lab)  User motivations  Facilitation of the process  Case:  Co-creation with multicultural users  Experiences of private and public sector innovation
  3. 3. 301/30/15 Why user/customer/consumer/citizen involvement?  Participatory design: Everyone has a right to be involved in the decisions affecting their life [1]  Co-creation: Customers add value to the product, when they are involved from the early phases of the innovation process [2]  User innovation: Users are a significant source of innovation especially at the site of using the product or service [3]  Community innovation: Innovation starts outside companies in distributed and networked user communities [4]
  4. 4. 401/30/15 Opportunities in social media  Reaching more users and customers  Easily, quickly and cost-efficiently  Participation regardless of time and place  Enough space for everyone’s voice  Users as innovators and design partners that are continuously connected with the developers  Voting mechanisms support decision-making  Open and transparent design process  More people can contribute with their knowledge and skills
  5. 5. 501/30/15 Social media as a space for open innovation  Crowdsourcing  Outsourcing part of the design work to the crowd on the web  Mostly short time contribution  Idea competitions  Design challenges: ”micro-tasks”  Feedback channel  Online design spaces  Participatory / collaborative design  User/stakeholder participation during the whole process  Transparent and community driven approach (e.g. open source)
  6. 6. 601/30/15 Share, vote and comment feedback and ideas!
  7. 7. 701/30/15 Suggest a better design!
  8. 8. 801/30/15 Design the user interface!
  9. 9. 901/30/15 Owela (Open Web Lab)  Online space for open innovation and co-design  Public idea forum  Design projects (public or restricted)  Social media tools are easy for users  Blog-like idea posting, commenting, rating, voting  Images, videos, slideshows  User profiles with background information  Activity points based on participation
  10. 10. 1001/30/15 User involvement in all phases of innovation process  Consumer studies as a basis for innovation  Online focus group discussion, diaries, chat sessions, surveys  Open ideation based on selected themes  Comments, rating, new ideas, selection by voting  Concept evaluation  Comments on (visual) scenario, mock-up or prototype  Prototype testing and feedback (online or real world)  Chat sessions, bug reports, discussion with developers  Co-design  (Long-term) user-driven innovation project, where users are seen as design partners Consumer study Open ideation Concept evaluation Test feedback Co-design
  11. 11. 1101/30/15 User motivations to participate in innovation  “The possibility to participate”: opportunity to express own opinions and influence, be part of decision-making  People: Networking, activity of others  Topic: Personal interest, learning, curiosity, fun  Result: change in society, better products for oneself  Tools: channel to express own creativity  Feedback: comments of others, reminders  Others: monetary rewards, CV entry, invitation
  12. 12. 1201/30/15 Facilitation needs attention  Structure and schedule of the process: Goals and tasks must be clear for users  Defining tasks: Simple tasks are easier to contribute than ”real” design issues  Continuous updating: The design space should not die. Reminders are needed.  Text-based communication: Ideas must be clearly presented, comments may be misunderstood  Moderation: Should negative comments be moderated? Web tools User-driven process Innovative people Heikot signaalit Ongelmat Ideat Owela-projekti 0. Aloituspäätös Tavoitteet, aikataulu 1. Ideointi Skenaarioiden kehittäminen 2. Arviointi Skenaarioiden kommentointi 3. LivingLab Prototyyppien testaus IdeaTube Kokemukset
  13. 13. 1301/30/15 Case Monimos  Social media service for immigrants (and associations) to enhance civic participation and collaboration with locals and public sector  Shared case study of two research projects  Somus: Social media for citizens and public sector collaboration (VTT, Aalto University, University of Tampere)  EPACE: Exchanging good practices for the promotion of an active citizenship in the EU (Ministry of Justice)  in collaboration with the network of multicultural associations in Helsinki capital area (Moniheli)
  14. 14. 1401/30/15 Monimos design process  Goal:  Transparent, open and democratic design process  Community-driven: users choose, what they need, and participate in the whole design process as design partners  Challenges:  How to involve an unknown user group in the design process?  How to make users involved in the design process over a long period of time?  How to make participation possible for everyone, who is interested in it?
  15. 15. 1501/30/15 15 Solution: Workshops + Online tools Needs, problems, ideas Workshops Service concept Owela discussion, Moniheli workshop Service pilot Online test, further development 2009 2010 Design and development w/ Monimos team Workshops + Owela Public service Continuous development
  16. 16. 1601/30/15 Using online tools in workshops Distance participation via Skype, Etherpad and Bambuser
  17. 17. 1701/30/15 Open co-design in Owela Discussion, feature suggestions, voting, layout, service name, testing
  18. 18. 1801/30/15 Result:  Meeting place for internationally minded people in Finland  Immigrants as active participants instead of objects of discussion  Associations as driving forces for networking, real world events and taking action 18
  19. 19. 1901/30/15 Public Everyone Democracy Everyone/No one Discussion: all voices are heard User involvement in public vs. private sector 1/2 Private Innovative users Strategy, money Product manager Decision-making Who takes part? Driving force? Ownership Way of acting?
  20. 20. 2001/30/15 Public Restriction Slow, hierarchies Lack of courage Civic participation, change, reputation User involvement in public vs. private sector 2/2 Private Goal Fast and agile Lack of time Better products, rewards Money? Processes? Challenges? User motivation?
  21. 21. 2101/30/15 How social media affects user involvement?
  22. 22. 2201/30/15 Thank you! Pirjo Näkki Research scientist VTT Media Technologies +358 20 722 5897 Twitter: priio ,
  23. 23. 2301/30/15 References [1] Schuler, D. and Namioka, A. (1993): Participatory design: Principles and practices. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey. [2] Piller, F. and Ihl C. (2009): Open Innovation with Customers – Foundations, Competences and International Trends. Aachen: RWTH ZLW-IMA 2009. Prahalad, C. K. and Ramaswamy V. (2004): The Future of Competition: Co- Creating Unique Value with Customers, Harvard Business School Press. [3] von Hippel, E. (1986): ‘Lead users: a source of novel product concepts’, Management Science, vol. 32, no. 7, pp. 791–805. von Hippel, E. (2001): ‘Perspective: User toolkits for innovation’, Journal of Product Innovation Management, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 247-257. von Hippel, E. (2005): Democratizing Innovation. The MIT Press. [4] Botero, A., Vihavainen, S., and Karku, K. (2009): ‘From closed to open to what? An exploration on community innovation principles’, in Proceedings of the 13th International MindTrek Conference: Everyday Life in the Ubiquitous Era, Tampere, Finland, ACM Press, pp. 198- 202.