Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T17:23:38.115Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Doll Based Design Tool in Corporate Contexts: A Qualitative Comparison with Storyboard in a New Product Development Project

Part of: Design Methods and Tools

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2019

Kaho Kagohashi ,
Yuki Taoka ,
Takehiko Ohno ,
Nana Hamaguchi ,
Xinlei Chen ,
Kenta Amano  and
Shigeki Saito
Kaho Kagohashi*
Affiliation:
Tokyo Institute of Technology, School of Engineering, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Graduate Major of Engineering Design and Science;
Yuki Taoka
Affiliation:
Tokyo Institute of Technology, School of Engineering, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Graduate Major of Engineering Design and Science;
Takehiko Ohno
Affiliation:
NTT TechnoCross Corporation, ICT Design Office;
Nana Hamaguchi
Affiliation:
NTT TechnoCross Corporation, ICT Design Office;
Xinlei Chen
Affiliation:
NTT TechnoCross Corporation, ICT Design Office;
Kenta Amano
Affiliation:
NTT TechnoCross Corporation, ICT Design Office;
Shigeki Saito
Affiliation:
Tokyo Institute of Technology, School of Environment and Society, Department of Transdisciplinary Science and Engineering, Graduate Major of Engineering Design and Science
*
Contact: Kagohashi, Kaho, Tokyo Institute of Technology, School of Engineering, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Japan, [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.

Various tools for participatory design approach have been developed to support users to engage design process. Doll scenario is proposed as a generative tool for letting participants make and enact scenarios. However, suitable context to practice doll scenario is unclear in comparison with other tools using scenario. Therefore, our overall objective is to increase understanding of characteristics of making scenario in two different ways of expression; with doll and storyboard. We developed a doll scenario method, doll staging. The tool was evaluated in comparison to storyboard at a workshop which is a part of a new product development project in a corporate. The workshop was evaluated by semi-structured interviews with the participants and observations of the workshop and design outcome. The result suggests that doll staging allows participants to think from users’ perspective in developing new idea. These findings provides new direction to choose scenario based design tools according to objective or context of design project. We also discuss potentials and research directions to use tools for developing scenario in corporate contexts.

Keywords

Participatory designDoll scenarioService designDesign methods
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , July 2019 , pp. 1473 - 1482
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) 2019

References

Andersson, J. and Eriksson, Y. (2011), “THE USE OF STORYBOARD TO CAPTURE EXPERIENCES”, INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ENGINEERING DESIGN.Google Scholar
Brandt, E. and Grunnet, C. (2000), “Evoking the future: drama and props in user centered design”, Proceedings of Participatory Design Conference PDC 2000, No. December, pp. 11–20.Google Scholar
Carli, G. and Carli Lorenzini, G. (2017), “USER INVOLVEMENT IN PHARMACEUTICAL PACKAGING DESIGN-A CASE STUDY”, 21ST INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ENGINEERING DESIGN, VANCOUVER.Google Scholar
Carroll, J.M. (1999), “Five reasons for scenario-based design”, Proceedings of the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, pp. 1–11.Google Scholar
Halse, J., Brandt, E., Clark, B. and Binder, T. (2010), “Rehearsing the Future”, The Danish Design School Press.Google Scholar
Hanington, B. and Martin, B. (2012), Universal Methods of Design: 100 Ways to Research Complex Problems, Develop Innovative Ideas, and Design Effective Solutions, Rockport Publishers.Google Scholar
Hansen, S.M.O. (2017), Designing an Interactive Installation with Sounds from Rural Areas Explorations of the Interactivity with Sounds.Google Scholar
Jakobsen, C. (2012), “Towards Doll based design – framework, guidelines and research potentials”, Proceedings of the 7th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Making Sense Through Design, pp. 388–397.Google Scholar
van der Lelie, C. (2006), “The value of storyboards in the product design process”, Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, Vol. 10 No. 2–3, pp. 159–162.Google Scholar
Lettl, C. (2007), “User involvement competence for radical innovation”, Journal of Engineering and Technology Management - JET-M, Elsevier, Vol. 24 No. 1–2, pp. 53–75.Google Scholar
Rosson, M.B., Carroll, J.M., Tech, V. and Va, B. (2002), “Scenario-Based Design”, Human-Computer Interaction, Boca Raton, FL, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 1–35.Google Scholar
Sanders, E.B.-N. (2002), “From User-Centered to Participatory Design Approaches”, in Frascara, J. (Ed.), Design and the Social Sciences, Taylor & Francis Books Limited.Google Scholar
Sanders, E.B.-N., Brandt, E. and Binder, T. (2010), “A framework for organizing the tools and techniques of participatory design”, Proceedings of the 11th Biennial Participatory Design Conference on - PDC ’10, ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, p. 195.Google Scholar
Sanders, E.B.-N. and Stappers, P.J. (2008), “Co-creation and the new landscapes of design”, CoDesign , Taylor & Francis, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 5–18.Google Scholar
Simonsen, J. and Robertson, T. (2012), Routledge International Handbook of Participatory Design, Routledge International Handbooks, Routledge, available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662512444848.Google Scholar
Truong, K.N., Hayes, G.R. and Abowd, G.D. (2006), “Storyboarding: an empirical determination of best practices and effective guidelines”, Proceedings of the 6th ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems - DIS ’06, pp. 12–21.Google Scholar
van der Velden, M. and Mörtberg, C. (2014), “Participatory Design and Design for Values”, Handbook of Ethics, Values, and Technological Design, pp. 1–22.Google Scholar
Visser, F.S., Stappers, P.J., van der Lugt, R. and Sanders, E.B.-N. (2005), “Contextmapping: experiences from practice”, CoDesign, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 119–149.Google Scholar
Wikström, A. and Verganti, R. (2013), “Exploring storyboarding in pre-brief activities”, Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering Design, ICED, pp. 11–20.Google Scholar
Witell, L., Kristensson, P., Gustafsson, A. and Löfgren, M. (2011), “Idea generation: Customer co-creation versus traditional market research techniques”, Journal of Service Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 140–159.Google Scholar
Yasuoka, M., Nakatani, M. and Ohno, T. (2013), “Towards a culturally independent participatory design method: Fusing game elements into the design process”, International Conference on Culture and Computing, Culture and Computing 2013, IEEE, pp. 92–97.Google Scholar
Yndigegn, S.L. and Foverskov, M. (2011), “Props to evoke ‘the new’ by staging the everyday into future scenarios”, Seniorinteraktion.DkParticipatory Innovation Conference.Google Scholar