Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T04:36:38.719Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE REPRESENTATION-USAGE-IMPACT (RUI) METHOD TO BETTER FRAME THE POTENTIAL SOCIAL IMPACTS OF A HIGHLY DISRUPTIVE PRODUCT—APPLICATION TO THE AUTONOMOUS VEHICLE

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 June 2023

Robin Lecomte ,
Bernard Yannou ,
Roland Cahen ,
Guillaume Thibaud  and
Fabrice Etienne
Robin Lecomte*
Affiliation:
Laboratoire Génie Industriel, CentraleSupélec, Université Paris-Saclay; Centre de Recherche en Design, ENSCi Les Ateliers / ENS Paris-Saclay, Université Paris-Saclay; Stellantis, Centre Technique Vélizy, France
Bernard Yannou
Affiliation:
Laboratoire Génie Industriel, CentraleSupélec, Université Paris-Saclay;
Roland Cahen
Affiliation:
Centre de Recherche en Design, ENSCi Les Ateliers / ENS Paris-Saclay, Université Paris-Saclay;
Guillaume Thibaud
Affiliation:
Stellantis, Centre Technique Vélizy, France
Fabrice Etienne
Affiliation:
Stellantis, Centre Technique Vélizy, France
*
Lecomte, Robin, CentraleSupélec, France, [email protected]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Innovative products can be highly prospective and apt to disrupt usages profoundly. They can lead to multiple long-term social impacts influencing people's way of life and behaviour. So it is necessary to anticipate them without delay. Due to high uncertainty, designers may face the problem that conventional user-centred methods, which assess design performances from today's users, are not adapted. We think sociologists can help characterise the likely social impacts of future products. So we propose an original framework called the Representation-Usage-Impact (RUI) method to stimulate sociologists' projection and capture relevant knowledge about probable social impacts. The method includes a database structure encoding the knowledge of sociologists for further use in the design process. Its goal is to help designers avoid making choices today that may be regretted in decades. We illustrate the method and its process with the design of autonomous vehicle scenarios, as it will likely bring many new usages in the future. As the method is still under construction, we present an intermediate validation step involving sociologists. The first results suggest that the method might be a safeguard for the design of disruptive products.

Keywords

Design methodologySocietal consequencesImpact assessmentInnovationFuture
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 3: ICED23 , July 2023 , pp. 3453 - 3462
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Al Maghraoui, O., Vallet, F., Puchinger, J., Yannou, B., 2019. Modeling traveler experience for designing urban mobility systems. Des. Sci. 5, e7. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsj.2019.6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnstein, S.R., 1977. Technology Assessment: Opportunities and Obstacles. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics 7, 571–582. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMC.1977.4309782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banta, D., 2009. What is technology assessment? Int J Technol Assess Health Care 25, 7–9. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462309090333CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Becker, H.A., 2001. Social impact assessment. European Journal of Operational Research 128, 311–321. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(00)00074-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bekhradi, A., Yannou, B., Cluzel, F., Vallette, T., 2017. Categorizing users pains, usage situations and existing solutions in front end of innovation: The case of smart lighting project.Google Scholar
Boujut, J.-F., Laureillard, P., 2002. A co-operation framework for product–process integration in engineering design. Design Studies 23, 497–513. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(01)00044-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burdge, R.J., 2015. A Community Guide to Social Impact Assessment. Society and Natural Resources Press.Google Scholar
Coates, J.F., 2001. A 21st Century Agenda for Technology Assessment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Technology Policy and Innovation in the Globalized Learning Society 67, 303–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0040-1625(01)00135-4Google Scholar
Coates, J.F., 1974. Technology Assessment: The Benefits … The Costs … The Consequences. IEEE Eng. Manag. Rev. 2, 41–47. https://doi.org/10.1109/EMR.1974.4306353Google Scholar
Collingridge, D., 1980. The social control of technology. Frances Pinter, London.Google Scholar
Davis, R., 1985. Product Policy: Concepts, Methods, and Strategy, By Y. J. Wind2. Journal of Product Innovation Management 2, 67–69. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5885.2100663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dumas, J.S., Dumas, J.S., Redish, J., 1999. A Practical Guide to Usability Testing. Intellect Books.Google Scholar
Earl, S., Carden, F., Patton, M.Q., Smutylo, T., 2001. Outcome mapping: building learning and reflection into development programs. International Development Research Centre, Ottawa.Google Scholar
Epstein, M.J., Yuthas, K., 2014. Measuring and Improving Social Impacts: A Guide for Nonprofits, Companies, and Impact Investors, 1st edition. ed. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco.Google Scholar
ERTRAC, 2019. Connected Automated Driving Roadmap.Google Scholar
Fontes, J., 2016. Handbook for Product Social Impact Assessment.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forum Vies Mobiles [WWW Document], 2022. URL https://forumviesmobiles.org/ (accessed 11.21.22).Google Scholar
Fox, M., Ruff, K., 2021. CIDS: An Ontology for Representing Social and Environmental Impact.Google Scholar
Suri, Fulton, Marsh, J., M., 2000. Scenario building as an ergonomics method in consumer product design. Applied Ergonomics 31, 151–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-6870(99)00035-6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gartner, 2020. 5 Trends Drive the Gartner Hype Cycle for Emerging Technologies [WWW Document]. Gartner. URL https://www.gartner.com/smarterwithgartner/5-trends-drive-the-gartner-hype-cycle-for-emerging-technologies-2020 (accessed 11.21.22).Google Scholar
Gazibara, I., 2011. Megacities on the move.Google Scholar
Gibbs, J., 2022. The top AV ready countries [WWW Document]. URL https://www.confused.com/car-insurance/av-readiness (accessed 11.21.22).Google Scholar
Green, P.E., Srinivasan, V., 1990. Conjoint Analysis in Marketing: New Developments with Implications for Research and Practice. Journal of Marketing 54, 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299005400402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hannon, E., McKerracher, C., Orlandi, I., Ramkumar, S., 2016. An integrated perspective on the future of mobility | McKinsey [WWW Document]. URL https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/sustainability/our-insights/an-integrated-perspective-on-the-future-of-mobility (accessed 11.21.22).Google Scholar
ISO, 2018. ISO 26262-1:2018 Road vehicles - Functional safety.Google Scholar
Jørgensen, A.H., 1990. Thinking-aloud in user interface design: a method promoting cognitive ergonomics. Ergonomics 33, 501–507. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139008927157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaufmann, V., Ravalet, E., 2016. From Weak Signals to Mobility Scenarios: A Prospective Study of France in 2050. Transportation Research Procedia 19, 18–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2016.12.064CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kreissl, R., Fritz, F., Ostermeier, L., 2015. Societal Impact Assessment, in: International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences. Elsevier, pp. 873–877. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.10561-6Google Scholar
Mcgrail, S., Gaziulusoy, Idil, 2014. Using futures inquiry to create low-carbon, resilient urban futures: a review of practice, theory and process options. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.2167.0641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McQuarrie, E.F., McIntyre, S.H., 1986. Focus Groups and the Development of New Products by Technologically Driven Companies: Some Guidelines. Journal of Product Innovation Management 3, 40–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5885.310040CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nielsen, J., Molich, R., 1990. Heuristic evaluation of user interfaces, in: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’90. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, pp. 249–256. https://doi.org/10.1145/97243.97281Google Scholar
Incorporated, Practical Concepts, 1979. The Logical Framework.Google Scholar
Rainock, M., Everett, D., Pack, A., Dahlin, E.C., Mattson, C.A., 2018. The social impacts of products: a review. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 36, 230–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2018.1445176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohr, C., Ecola, L., Zmud, J., Dunkerley, F., Black, J., Baker, E., 2016. Travel in Britain in 2035: Future scenarios and their implications for technology innovation. RAND Corporation.Google Scholar
International, SAE, 2021. Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles - J3016_202104.Google Scholar
Simon, H.A., 1996. The Sciences of the Artificial, third edition. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Network, SROI, 2012. A Guide to Social Return on Investment.Google Scholar
Startup Cemetery: Analyses on Why Have +120 Startups Failed [WWW Document], 2022. URL https://www.failory.com/cemetery (accessed 11.21.22).Google Scholar
The Impact Management Project, 2022. Five Dimensions of Impact | Impact Frontiers [WWW Document]. URL https://impactfrontiers.org/norms/five-dimensions-of-impact/ (accessed 11.21.22).Google Scholar
Trommer, S., Kolarova, V., Fraedrich, E., Kröger, L., Kickhöfer, B., Kuhnimhof, T., Lenz, B., Phleps, P., 2016. Autonomous Driving - The Impact of Vehicle Automation on Mobility Behaviour.Google Scholar
Understanding Impact Assessment, 2020.Google Scholar
UNDP (Ed.), 2020. The next frontier: human development and the Anthropocene, Human development report. United Nations Development Programme, New York, NY.Google Scholar
UNEP, 2021. Methodological Sheets for Subcategories in Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA ) 2021. Traverso, M., Valdivia, S., Luthin, A., Roche, L., Arcese, G., Neugebauer, S., Petti, L., D'Eusanio, M., Tragnone, B.M., Mankaa, R., Hanafi, J., Benoît Norris, C., Zamagni, A. (eds.). United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).Google Scholar
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, 2017. Consolidated Resolution on the Construction of Vehicles (R.E.3), Revision 6.Google Scholar
United Nations Environment Programme, 2020. Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products and organizations.Google Scholar
Urry, J., 2016. What is the Future? John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
van Velthoven, M.H., Powell, J., Powell, G., 2018. Problematic smartphone use: Digital approaches to an emerging public health problem. DIGITAL HEALTH 4, 2055207618759167. https://doi.org/10.1177/2055207618759167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanclay, F., 2003. International Principles For Social Impact Assessment. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 21, 5–12. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154603781766491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanclay, F., 2002. Conceptualising social impacts. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 22, 183–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0195-9255(01)00105-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiss, C.H., 1997. Theory-based evaluation: Past, present, and future. New Directions for Evaluation 1997, 41–55. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.1086CrossRefGoogle Scholar
What is an Autonomous Vehicle? - Definition from Techopedia [WWW Document], 2021. Techopedia.com. URL http://www.techopedia.com/definition/30056/autonomous-vehicle (accessed 11.21.22).Google Scholar
Yannou, B., 2015. Supporting need seeker innovation: the Radical Innovation Design methodology. Presented at the International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED), Milano, Italy, p. 10.Google Scholar
Yannou, B., Cluzel, F., Farel, R., 2018. Capturing the relevant problems leading to pain- and usage-driven innovations: The Dependency Structure Modeling Value Bucket algorithm. Concurrent Engineering 26, 131–146. https://doi.org/10.1177/1063293X16666311CrossRefGoogle Scholar