Developing a toolkit to support collaboration

for new product development

Anne Bruseberg

Deana McDonagh

Dept of Computer Science

University of Bath
Bath, BA27AY
0044 1225 384422

School of Art and Design

128 Art and Design Building, 408 East Peabody
Drive, Champaign, Illinois 61820, USA
217 333 1459

[email protected]

[email protected]

ABSTRACT

Identifying needs and aspirations of potential users for future

products becomes ever more challenging as technology advances
to fulfill new functions in all areas of peoples activities. Within
the domain of industrial design, we have developed a number of
techniques that capture a variety of requirements.
These
techniques were developed to enable users to express their needs
in more effective and efficient ways. They were combined into a
toolkit to support the design process by enabling collaboration
between designers, design researchers, and users. Through these,
designers can gain access to essential information about users
through a number of communication channels through group
discussion, creative user activities, questionnaires, use of images,
and observation of user activities. These techniques were
specifically chosen to support designers creative processes
directly, and enable their direct involvement into user research
activities.

Categories and Subject Descriptors

H.1.2 [Models And Principles]: User/Machine System human

factors. H.5.2 [Information Interfaces And Presentation] User
Interfaces ergonomics, evaluation/methodology, prototyping,
theory and methods, user-centered design.

General Terms

Design, Human Factors.

Keywords

Industrial design, design collaboration, user research, design

research, creativity.

1. INTRODUCTION

New product design can be driven both by the availability of new

technologies, as well as the requirements of people for how to

support the activities they aim to do. The advance of new

technologies such as networking capabilities, or mobile and
pervasive computing, often precedes an understanding of suitable
uses. On the other hand, peoples requirements for making tasks
easier (or more enjoyable) often remain undiscovered. This is
often because (potential) users may be difficult to identify, and
often because users find it difficult to ascertain and express their
own needs and aspirations.
A central activity in designing new products is to envisage, and
often create, new activities and tasks. Whilst every technology will
have an impact in how people act and interact, it may also enable
activities that previously were not possible. In order to identify
opportunities for these, we need to understand peoples existing
activities, motivations, and constraints. With this very wide
perspective, designing becomes a process of eliminating existing
constraints through new technology. This perspective is certainly
crucial for ground-braking, blue-sky design, but also applies to
more small-scale design.
Computer technology can often break existing boundaries of
domains since they are applicable in any area. Within traditional
design domains, the underlying objectives driving the design of
new products may differ substantially. In safety-critical domains,
for example, reducing workload and error opportunities are major
objectives besides achieving economical operation. Architectural
design often aims for both social functionality and providing spaces
that enhance peoples lives through pleasing aesthetics. When
designing information services (e.g. libraries, government
services), the ease of access to the desired data is the most crucial
target. In industrial design, the driving factor is often how well a
new product will sell. However varied the design objectives may
be, the process of designing is always faced with three main
challenges:
1) Designing requires creativity. Requirements are often illdefined and emerge out of the process. Designing is a complex
problem-solving activity since it aims for unknown solutions.
No two design projects are the same. Design involves change
and requires dealing with uncertainty. Hence designing usually
requires several iterations.
2) Designing is a collaborative process partly since design
projects are complex in nature and require a number of
specialists to contribute, and partly because the synergy
between collaborators can improve creativity.

3) Designing relies on anticipating future uses and applications of

the designed product. In some cases, a particular user group
may be easily identified; in others it may diverse; in others it
may be entirely unknown.
Understanding the needs,
aspirations and characteristics of potential users is the most
central aspect of design, especially at the initial design stages.
In this paper, we will present methods and tools, developed within
the domain of industrial design, which support collaboration
between designers, design researchers and users. We will discuss
our perspectives on how such a collaboration may function, share
our experiences for facilitating such collaboration from practical
design projects, and present a variety of techniques that enabled
such collaboration.

of design. However, the initial design brief is usually produced

by market researchers or clients.
Thirdly, what is being communicated to designers is not always
appropriate both in terms of format and content. It is not easy to
communicate user research results in a way that supports the
creativity of designers. For example, designers find it often
difficult to relate to the results of market-research-driven survey
results or user feedback to concept evaluation when remotely
observing focus groups [2]. In the area of industrial design,
consideration of emotional, cultural, and social issues beyond basic
functionality and usability is an additional component of
requirements capture. Conventional ergonomics and market
research methods are often not equipped for this.

2. USER-CENTRED DESIGN
COLLABORATION

Dewulf and Baillie define creativity as shared imagination [6].

Creative activities are, to a large extent, based on a deep
immersion into the designing problem [1, 3, 4]. Pereira [12]
suggests that originality may reside in the way we find problems
and not in the way we generate solutions (pp. 228), and
emphasises that the creative act must be an immersion into the
situation of use, a truly felt empathy, not because we voluntarily
acknowledge the user but because we need that connection in
order to create (pp. 227).
The importance of user research, carried out as early as possible
during the design process, is a well-established requirement for
effective user-centred design. Since designers are often in a
situation where they are to design for people whos needs,
characteristics, lifestyle, background, culture, and values may vary
from their own, they need to widen their empathic horizon [10]
through exploration of user needs and contact with users.
However, practitioners are often faced with a number of practical
problems.
Firstly, it is difficult to ask users about their needs. Designers
often perceive users as being bad in identifying their own
problems, and in suggesting ideas for solutions. It should not be
underestimated how difficult individuals may find sharing,
expressing and communicating their needs. Often researchers are
requesting responses to questions that the average user may not
have considered before. Identifying needs and then articulating
them to someone else requires significant effort and skill. They
often think in purely practical terms (e.g. it would be too
expensive; it is not technically possible according to their
knowledge). Some designers discount user feedback as they feel
that they do not have the ability to envisage new activities and
products. In the authors experience, users can offer the designer
a rich design resource. However, it does rely upon the designer to
elicit data/information in a user-friendly way. Likewise, users may
not always know best. Moreover, it may not be easy to identify
people who are suitable users.
Secondly, user research is carried out by research specialists.
Designers often identify with user requirements as creativitystifling constraints. Moreover, designers are often isolated from
the user research. They are brought in after market researchers
and/or human factors specialists have acquired a list of
requirements. Often, these are additionally filtered through
clients or managers who assign design projects (see Figure 1). It
is often overlooked that requirements specification is the first step

market researchers/
ergonomists

clients

designers

users

Figure 1. Traditional ways of informing designers about

user needs.
Whilst designing tends to be collaborative (design teams), the
(potential) users are not always considered as a crucial part of this
collaboration. We believe that it benefits designers creative
processes if a stronger link can be established between them and
people with expertise regarding their own tasks and constraints
which determine product use. In other words, designers should be
more closely involved in user research activities, and users should
be involved closer into all stages of the designing processes. By
drawing designers into user research activities (see Figure 2),
traditional roles may be challenged. Likewise, users, as well as
design researchers, may be involved into creative activities. We
believe that efficient user research has the potential of bringing
together a range of experts. However, suitable techniques need to
be developed to enable such design research activities. Beyond
that, designers need to be trained in conducting, or at least
participating in, such activities. Either designers or design
researchers may act as mediators between users, specialist
consultants (e.g. ergonomists), clients, and designers.
research
market researchers/
ergonomists

clients

designers

users
design

Figure 2. New roles for design and design research.

In practice, manufacturing companies tend to involve users at the

concept evaluation phase (at the end of the concept designing
stage). User research is able to provide a substantial knowledge
base about user needs and aspirations, before designing activities
commence. This approach helps to avoid design fixations [8]. If
designers begin concept generation prior to being immersed in the
user experience, they tend to invest heavily in their earlier concept
work. Later research findings may indicate a need for a change in
direction. Due to this early investment, designers may become
resistant to alternative avenues of exploration as a design fixation
may have developed. Once concept generation has began, the
research and designing process should continually inform each
other in an iterative manner from the identification of users
needs, through concept generation, selection, and evaluation (see
Figure 3).

Figure 3. The interaction between industrial design and

user research.

3. TECHNIQUES TO ACCESS USERS

NEEDS AND ASPIRATIONS

Design researchers deal with the difficulties of making user data

comprehensible to product developers. Designers often find
quantitative data formats, as well as verbatim reports, inaccessible
as they are not sufficiently inspirational and can be perceived to
dampen the creative process. This may be due to the time
constraints that designers have typically to deal with, but also
because such data formats may not convey user information at an
emotional level.
In the area of industrial design, user research involves identifying
desired functionality, but also criteria for both the perceived and
experienced usability of the product. Beyond this, designers need
to have insight into needs beyond the utilitarian functional. These
supra-functional needs include emotions (e.g. attachment, aesthetic
preferences and associations, personal experiences) and cultural
values (e.g. social belonging, stereotypes, status expression, ideals,
values, fashion, norms). Identifying such intangible aspirations
towards products largely requires the collection of qualitative data.
Since users often find it difficult to both identify and express their
needs at all of these levels, the most challenging problem for
effective user research is how to ask the most appropriate

questions, and how to obtain feedback in a useful format. Rather

than simply asking users what they want to have designed, we need
to gain insight into peoples daily lives, as well as their motivations
and constraints. People can be led towards creative activities by
letting them reflect about ideal tasks and scenarios. We have
explored a variety of techniques that retrieve different types data in
different formats. All of them were carried out as part of group
sessions with users, which we like to term focus groups, although
some readers may prefer the terms user workshop or participatory
group discussion.

3.1 Synergy of group discussion

Focus groups are group interviews, and involve gathering together

people with knowledge about a specific topic or issue (e.g. target
users) for a relatively informal discussion. A chairperson or
moderator promotes the discussion amongst the group, while
carefully ensuring not to direct, but guide the group through the
issues of importance to them.
The synergy between the
participants (the interaction amongst the individuals based on a
mutual interest) assists in uncovering or highlighting less tangible
issues. This provides an opportunity to increase understanding,
awareness and empathy with group of participants interviewed. It
helps researchers to become immersed in the users world of
thought and terminology.
Focus groups provide qualitative data. The content of the
discussion might take unexpected directions or open up new
topics. Whilst the technique provides a high degree of flexibility in
the way questions are asked, answers vary and standardisation of
the data is not the focus of the research. The data provide detailed
insights into peoples beliefs and experiences, rather than
statistically secured facts [11]. Focus groups can be used to
investigate complex behaviour and motivations, and to uncover
subconscious notions. Through discussion, participants become
more explicit about their needs. Likewise, the technique is suitable
to retrieve data that is not readily formulated or knowledge not
thought out in detail [11].
User research techniques based on group sessions can be used as a
mediation tool between users and designers, to enable effective
communication.
Activity sessions provide opportunities for
designers to integrate a range of activities and tasks that support
the elicitation of user information, experience and dreams in
diverse formats. Group work can exploit the synergetic effect
created through discussion and activities conducted within a shared
environment.

3.2 Use of images to express values and

emotions

Images are a powerful resource to convey meanings, particularly

emotional values and experiences. Their application can serve as
an important tool to communicate values that cannot be expressed
easily through words [7]. Images are able to convey less tangible
aspects of the users experience (feeling, mood), thus giving users
a medium to express them. Likewise, designers often tend to
prefer visual information due to its accessibility. The image can
offer the designer and user a shared language thus aiding the
communication.

3.2.1 Mood boards

For example, designers can use mood boards to immerse

themselves into a particular state of emotions associated with a

task or product. Mood boards are a collection of visual images

(e.g. photographs, material samples) gathered together to
represent an emotional response to a design brief [7]. Designers
may use this tool to communicate intangible and abstract emotions
such as happiness, sadness, and calm. This can also be an internal
process for designers to support them in clarifying and interpreting
their own understanding of the design brief and the wider
implications of the design project. There are no prescribed
formulae for mood board creation. Abstract images provoke more
emotional responses than literal images, as this may be too specific
and restrict the idea generation process of designers.
The technique can also be employed to enable users to
communicate their emotional responses to products and tasks, as
well as their experiences, through abstract images. Images can
convey powerful meanings. Hence, they are an ideal method to
unlock feelings that users may otherwise find difficult to express.
Designers can then work directly with the image collection as
inspirational material. Mood boards produce a direct visual output
and can be used throughout the designing process. Sanders uses
similar techniques (image collages) as part of a broad toolkit to
identify the aspirations of everyday people rather than customers
or consumers long before concrete product ideas have been
developed [13].
This technique enables communication beyond linguistic
restrictions. Thus, mood boards can be used effectively to support
users in communicating a range of emotions and attitudes to
designers. The technique can be used within focus group sessions.
The activity can be used as a warm-up for the focus group
discussion. Users may either be asked to create their own mood
boards from a selection of images, or may choose from a smaller
set of pre-selected images. It is also beneficial to create test mood
boards by the design research team members, if possible, to prejudge the suitability of the images and gain initial insights into the
topic and the formulation of the task.
A study was conducted by the authors that focused on the essence
of play with regard to the design of playground equipment . The
user sample included children between 7-9 years of age (n=5), and
parents of 5-9 year-olds (n=11). During a 3-hour participative
workshop with the children, mood boards where generated. The
parents and children were provided with a sample of diverse
images that had been gathered beforehand by the design team.
About 80-100 images were available in several identical sets.
Ideally, a large number and wide variety of images should be
available to avoid pre-determining the outcomes. Participants
were asked to select images that represent play to them, and
assemble them on a sheet of paper. The participants completed
this task individually. Figure 4 shows an example result including
verbal comments. This is important because only then the choice
of images can be usefully interpreted by the design team.

Figure 4. Example of a childs mood board with descriptive

terms for What is play to you?

3.2.2 Images as symbols

Images can also be used as more literal symbols that can be used to
categorise thoughts and provide an evaluation. We found this
particularly useful when working with children. For example, for
the exercise Magnet Play Area (see Figure 5) we showed children
a picture of an unattractive urban environment and asked them:
What would you like to be there? How could this area be made
nice? They could then choose from a number of items printed onto
sheets (e.g. trees, animals, play equipment, water, sand, seats,
benches, textures). We asked them to them cut and stick them to
magnets. Then we asked them to pick out good and bad items,
and choose most important item. Finally, they were asked to stick
them on their section in the play area marked on the board (fixed
to a metal surface). It is important to ask participants for feedback
regarding their choices. They may reveal surprising insights. Since
all choices are on one sheet it is easy to make comparisons, and to
see which items are chosen most often.

Figure 5. Using images as symbols.

3.2.3 Visual product evaluation

Visual product evaluation simulates conditions of mail

order/internet purchasing by allowing product assessment through
an image only. By not providing physical, three-dimensional, or
exact texture feedback, people tend to react to product semantics,
based on appearance only. To retrieve data for these exercises we
developed two types of visual questionnaires. One focused on a
number of details for one product at a time, the other one aimed at
comparing a range of products regarding their aesthetic
appearance. Both qualitative and quantitative data can be
retrieved, and the exercises can be the basis of subsequent group
discussion. The technique can provide a rich design resource
material to evaluate the visual quality of product concepts, as well
as highlight the benefits and drawbacks of existing products.

experiences. They often find it much easier to recall their daily

experiences and difficulties. Moreover, the presence of product
samples can offer a valuable source of visual reference material in
subsequent group discussions.
The product handling exercise can involve a physical examination
of products without actually using them (e.g. filling water in kettle
and boiling it), thus simulating a retail showroom scenario. People
are asked for rapid visceral reactions to the products. Having
obtained the product samples, the exercise requires relatively
minimum effort since it retrieves rich user feedback on products in
a short amount of time and without concerns about safety and
waiting times.

3.2.4 Product personality profiling

Product Personality Profiling (PPP) is a projective technique that

has been adapted from Market Research. The technique provides
an insight into who the user perceives to be the target consumer.
Participants are asked to imagine a product as a person with a
particular personality, and provide information regarding its
character and lifestyle (e.g. gender, age and occupation). The
technique helps to reveal social value systems and emotional
responses to products. The technique provides an abstract way of
revealing user perceptions and hidden information which can be
used to understand aspects that many people are unaware of or
which they find difficult to express [9]. It generates lists of user
terms and points of reference.
Initially, responses were captured through questionnaires. Users
tend to appreciate the opportunity to discuss their responses and
enjoy the interaction with the group. By discussing their actual
perceptions of each product with each other, previously
unexpressed views and feelings may be revealed. Some people
were reluctant in filling in the forms because they feared that
attributes such as age may lead to making stereotypical
assumptions about peoples aspirations. The technique can be
used both for existing products as well as product design
proposals.
The interpretation of the responses is not an exact science as it
relies upon subjective data and interpretation of feedback all of
which is qualitative and culturally based. For example, gaining
awareness and understanding of how users interpret and respond
to visual data is of paramount importance. Through the use of
materials, colour, texture, product semantics and semiotics, users
are attracted or distracted, intrigued or repulsed, wish to engage or
resist interaction with products, leading to final purchase, or
products remaining unsold on the shelf. The communication
between the product and the user is a complex area. For the
designer, immediate visceral responses from users provide valuable
insight on which to base their own design decision making. By
capturing this type of data, the design team can gain an overall
impression of the perceived target user from the sample group of
actual users.

3.3 Providing mind references

3.3.1 Product handling

Exercises such as product handling, as well as visual product

evaluation, provide people with opportunities to reflect about
products, regarding their perceptions, values and personal

Figure 6. Product handling (feedback captured in booklet).

3.3.2 Discussion of design concepts

During the concept generation and selection stages, designers

should take part actively in the sessions to introduce their design
concepts to participants and discuss their feedback. However, care
needs to be taken that the participants are not influenced by the
designer who is responsible for the concepts being presented, as
this may influence their responses. They may wish to please and/or
avoid offering any negative feedback, thus rendering the feedback
and results less valuable. Simple rating questionnaires may be used
as well. The concepts may be in the form of initial concept
drawings with functional explanations (see Figure 7) or physical
models (e.g. blue foam models, wooden painted and appearance
models).

Figure 7. Example concept drawings presented to users.

Figure 8. A theme sheet providing visual material and topical guidance.

3.3.3 Gradually building up the discussion towards

considering ideals

Users need to be led gradually towards reflecting about needs and

aspirations. For example, discussions about users ideals can be
evoked by the following tasks (in this order):

enabled participants to play with forms and space to explore

solutions to everyday tasks. The use of simple standard building
blocks and buttons which can be stuck together using Velcro
enables users to communicate their ideas through very easy-to-use
but powerful means [13].

Ask users: What do you find most annoying/most likable in

these products?
Ask users to describe their own experiences, including scenarios
and environment of current product use.
Ask users to describe their values for purchasing products.
Retrieve their attitudes towards given extreme trends (e.g. the
kitchen of the future the techno-kitchen)
Ask users: What do you think about these futuristic technologies
(give examples)?
Ask users to describe their ideals: If you could have anything,
what would you like to have?
Feedback about the future, or ideals, can be retrieved through
discussions or embedded questionnaires. We found it useful to
provide theme sheets (see Figure 8) which provide space for
written comments if participants feel the need to give them. They
also provide visual stimuli and function as a reminder and prompt
for the current theme of discussion. They can be part of a booklet
that every participant uses throughout the session.

3.4 Creative user activities

3.4.1 Brainstorming activities

Through purposefully disregarding all (technological) constraints,

participants may be asked to note down (or discuss) a wish list for
imaginary kitchen appliances, assuming that anything goes (e.g.
self-cleaning oven, instant boiling kettle, totally non-stick appliance
surfaces). By completely suspending reality, the users creative
potential is encouraged, their lateral thinking can supported, and
novel ideas or solutions may be generated. Lateral thinking is
concerned with breaking out of the concept prison of old ideas.
This leads to changes in attitudes and approach; to looking in a
different way at things, which have always been looked at in the
same way. Liberation from old ideas and the stimulation of new
ones are twin aspects of lateral thinking (pp. 11-12) [5].
Involving participants within brainstorming activities can produce
revealing results. Such involvement does not aim to, nor could it
in actual fact, turn users into designers.

3.4.2 Drawing the ideal product

Towards the end of the session, participants may be asked to draw

their ultimate ideal product. This exercise enables users to
summarise and express their aspirations visually, thus providing a
different way of communication for the user. They also provide
excellent visual stimuli for designers. The advantage is that users
can easily attach labels, names and comments. Again, these
drawings are not aimed to become prototypes. They are means for
users to express their aspirations in different ways.
Alternatively, users may be asked to create 3D forms through use
of materials (e.g. modelling clay, cardboard) and tools to express
their ideas and wishes. Although the material and time effort may
be larger, the task may perceived as easier by users than drawing.
Sanders has conducted extensive trials and exploratory work with
users within their home environments, where modelling has

Figure 9. Example of participants drawing.

4. DESIGN COLLABORATION DURING

DESIGN PROJECT
4.1 Design project

A variety of these techniques were explored during a design

project that covered the concept design stage for developing
appearance models of a toaster, a kettle and a coffeemaker. In the
following, we present our experiences of the design research and
collaboration.
During this study, a total of 14 Focus Group sessions were
conducted, involving a total of 74 participants. Due to commercial
constraints, the designer could only take part during the second
part of the design research project. After an initial stage to explore
user needs and aspirations (6 sessions), the designer was involved
for 6 weeks for the rest of the project during the stages of initial
concept generation, concept development, concept selection, and
final concept evaluation.
After becoming immersed into the
results of the first stage of the research to elicit user needs and
aspirations, the consultant designer
developed a variety of initial concepts;
co-moderated parts of the sessions during the concept
evaluation phase;
developed the concepts based on notes and the data analysis
carried out by the researchers;
worked in close collaboration with the design researchers.

It became clear that the late involvement of the designer was a

major drawback since he had to assimilate a large amount of data.
The designer proceeded to generate a number of initial concepts.
As a design aid, he produced a series of mood boards. He then
made a selection of the most diverse concepts to be presented to
the users (5 toasters, 5 kettles, and 5 coffeemakers) and prepared a
short presentation for each one.
During the stage of evaluating concepts, the consultant designer
took active part in four focus group sessions introducing the
concepts and making notes of the user feedback. He remained in
constant close contact with the design research team discussing
the concept ideas, evaluating the concepts, and making design
decisions. The designer benefited from skills in leading a group
discussion (e.g. lack of user feedback, promoting discussion).
Moderating skills help to increase the confidence of designers.
The dual moderator role between the design researcher and the
designer has shown to be very beneficial as it distributes
activities, helps to keep the session going when it seems to run out
of ideas, and ensures that nothing is forgotten.
Taking an active part in the discussion was considered as a vital
source of information. At this stage, he preferred a brief
presentation in the form of a specification list, rather than video
samples or transcript summaries. The collected data were analysed
by the design researchers. The depth of the analysis was to be kept
to a minimum mainly due to time constraints. The summaries
provided served as a reminder to the designer, having been present
in each session. The designer commented that he would have
preferred more access to observing the use of products in different
situations, either directly or on video. He found the users
drawings a rich source of information and suggested this activity
should be extended, and possibly include the use of tools such as
modelling clay.
He regarded the (weekly) consultations with the design team as
valuable, setting out issues for the next focus group sessions,
discussing the design concepts, reviewing the meeting of user
requirements, deciding on the selection of concepts to be taken
further. These sessions and the user discussions were productive
in examining the designing tasks to generate solutions, by
involving different points of view.

analysed through summaries of what was said (informally), and

through categorizing the emergent thoughts (more formally)
2) Images attached to meanings: through the use of abstract
images carrying emotional meaning; through use of images
carrying symbolic values; through capturing perceptions to
product images captured through image collages (mood
boards, magnet play area), drawings (ideal product),
questionnaires (product personality profiling, visual product
evaluation), and through written and verbal comments.
3) Written summaries: feedback regarding purchasing priorities;
and product evaluation captured through questionnaires
analysed partly quantitatively; partly through providing
summaries of qualitative feedback. May be combined with
product images.
4) Observation: through product handling exercises observed
directly and captured on video. May include emotional
reactions to products (e.g. facial expressions; stroking
favourable object).
These provided not only different opportunities for users to
express their concerns in different ways, and methods of effective
data extraction, but also provided opportunities for triangulation of
the results.

5. CONCLUSIONS

Users can expand the designers empathic horizon, whilst enriching

the designing process. They can inspire and provoke the designer.
Designers benefit from the breadth of different activities that can
be employed during focus group sessions, since the choice of
exercises can be adapted flexibly. In comparison to written
reports, visual data can provide a more immediate format, which is
more easily accessible and understandable by designers in a timeconstrained working environment. Designers particularly gain
from the output of creative user activities as an additional channel
for users to express their needs and aspirations. Incorporating user
research into designing activities has the potential of substantially
enhancing designers creativity as well as facilitating effective
ergonomic design.

6. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

To conclude the design project, the final designs (in the form of
appearance models) were presented to both cold and hot
participants, who had not taken part in previous sessions and those
who had. The participants were shown images of the designs, blue
foam models, appearance models and presentation boards outlining
the features and benefits.

This work was funded by the EPSRC (grant number GR/M98654).

4.2 Communication channels used

[2] Bruseberg, A. and McDonagh-Philp, D. Focus Groups to

support the Industrial/Product Designer: A review based on
current literature and designers'feedback. Applied
Ergonomics, 33, 1 (2002). 27-38.

A range of data formats including written documents, discussions,

drawings, and models, were used to communicate design
information within the design research team. The presence and
involvement of the designer in the process was extremely beneficial
not the least due to the reduction for the need to produce
complex documentation.
We have used the following channels to enable users to
communicate to us:
1) Speech: through directly talking to them during the discussion
sessions and listening to the discussion that users had with
each other captured on video and on-the-spot notes;

7. REFERENCES
[1] Baxter, M. Product Design: A practical guide to systematic
methods of new product development. Chapman & Hall,
London, 1995.

[3] Carroll, J.M. Making Use: Scenario-Based Design of

Human-Computer Interactions. MIT Press, London,
England, 2000.
[4] Cross, N. Engineering design methods: Strategies for
product design. Wiley, Chichester, 1994.
[5] DeBono, E. Lateral Thinking. Ward Lock Educational
Limited, London, 1970.

[6] Dewulf, S. and Baillie, C. How to Foster Creativity.

Department for Education and Employment., London, 1999.
[7] Garner, S. and McDonagh-Philp, D. Problem Interpretation
and Resolution via Visual Stimuli: The Use of '
Mood Boards'
in Design Education. The Journal of Art and Design
Education, 20, 1 (2001). 57-64.
[8] Jansson, D.G. and Smith, S.M. Design Fixation. Design
Studies, 12, 1 (1991). 3-11.
[9] McDonagh-Philp, D., Bruseberg, A. and Haslam, C. Visual
Product Evaluation: Exploring Users'Emotional
Relationships with Products. Applied Ergonomics: Human
Factors in Technology and Society, May, 33, 3 (2002). 237246.

[10] McDonagh-Philp, D. and Denton, H. Using focus groups to

support the designer in the evaluation of existing products: A
case study. The Design Journal, 2, 2 (1999). 20-31.
[11] Morgan, D.L. The Focus Group Guidebook. Sage, London,
1998.
[12] Pereira, L.Q., Divergent thinking and the design process. in
Proceedings of IDATER (International Conference of Design
and Technology Educational Curriculum Development),
(Loughborough, 1999), Department of Design and
Technology, Loughborough University, 224-229.
[13] Sanders, E.B.-N. Generative Tools for Co-Designing. in
Scrivener, S.A.R., Ball, L.J. and Woodcock, A. eds.
Collaborative Design (Proceedings of CoDesigning 2000,
UK, 11-13 September), Springer-Verlag, London, 2000, 3-12.