Establishing shared understanding of product use through collaboratively generating an explicit frame of reference
- 3 July 2014
- journal article
- Published by Taylor & Francis in CoDesign
- Vol. 10 (3-4) , 171-190
Abstract
Recent studies have shown that there is a need to improve usability-related decision-making in product development teams to prevent usability problems in the final product. Those decisions are heavily influenced by the knowledge those teams have of future use situations and expected usability issues. Our previous research showed that design team members often implicitly hold this type of knowledge, but do not share it within the team. This lack of a shared understanding of product use negatively influences the decision-making process. In this paper we present the iterative development of a set of guidelines to support design teams in sharing knowledge of product use through the generation of flexible, explicit and evolving frames of reference. A series of studies in which the guidelines were evaluated suggest that particularly the activity of collaboratively creating the explicit frame of reference contributes to a shared understanding of product usKeywords
This publication has 26 references indexed in Scilit:
- Investigating design cognition in the construction and enactment of team mental modelsDesign Studies, 2013
- The research-practice gapInteractions, 2010
- Dogmas in the assessment of usability evaluation methodsBehaviour & Information Technology, 2009
- Optimal sharedness of mental models for effective group performanceCoDesign, 2007
- Designing as Construction of Representations: A Dynamic Viewpoint in Cognitive Design ResearchHuman–Computer Interaction, 2006
- Evaluating usability methodsInteractions, 2003
- Team mental models in a team knowledge framework: expanding theory and measurement across disciplinary boundariesJournal of Organizational Behavior, 2001
- Design as storytellingInteractions, 1996
- Making work visibleCommunications of the ACM, 1995
- Team mental model: construct or metaphor?Journal of Management, 1994