Articulating User Needs in Collaborative Design: Towards an Activity-Theoretical Approach

dc.contributor.authorMiettinen, Reijo
dc.contributor.authorHasu, Mervi
dc.date.accessioned2020-06-06T09:06:37Z
dc.date.available2020-06-06T09:06:37Z
dc.date.issued2002
dc.date.issued2002
dc.description.abstractThis paper analyses the collaborative design ofa high-technology product, a neuromagnetometerused in the analysis of the activity of thehuman cortex. The producer, Neuromag Company istrying to transform the device from a basicresearch instrument into a means of clinicalpractice. This transition is analyzed as asimultaneous evolution of the product,producer-user network and user activities. Thenetwork is analyzed as a network of activitysystems. Each activity has a historicallyformed object and a motive of its own, as wellas a system of cultural means and expertise. Weuse these to explain and understand theinterests and points of view of the actors inrelation to the product and the contradictionsof the producer-user network. It is suggestedthat the emerging user needs of collectiveactors must be analyzed at three levels. At thefirst level, the use value of the product, itscapacity of solving the vital problems andchallenges of developing user activities, ischaracterized. The second-level analysisconcerns the creation and development of thenecessary complementary tools and services thatmake the implementation and use of the productpossible. This task presupposes collaborationbetween several communities of the innovationnetwork. The third level is the situatedpractical use of the product. In ourexperience, it is advantageous that researcherscontribute with their data to a dialogue inwhich the user needs are articulated.de
dc.identifier.doi10.1023/A:1015256909032
dc.identifier.pissn1573-7551
dc.identifier.urihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1015256909032
dc.identifier.urihttps://dl.eusset.eu/handle/20.500.12015/3601
dc.publisherSpringer
dc.relation.ispartofComputer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW): Vol. 11
dc.relation.ispartofseriesComputer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW)
dc.subjectactivity theory
dc.subjectcollaborative design
dc.subjectinnovation network
dc.subjectuser needs
dc.titleArticulating User Needs in Collaborative Design: Towards an Activity-Theoretical Approachde
dc.typeText/Journal Article
gi.citation.endPage151
gi.citation.startPage129
gi.citations.count27
gi.citations.elementSyed Ghulam Sarwar Shah, Ian Robinson (2007): Benefits of and barriers to involving users in medical device technology development and evaluation, In: International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 1(23), doi:10.1017/s0266462307051677
gi.citations.elementJudith M. Brown, Gitte Lindgaard, Robert Biddle (2011): Collaborative Events and Shared Artefacts: Agile Interaction Designers and Developers Working Toward Common Aims, In: 2011 AGILE Conference, doi:10.1109/agile.2011.45
gi.citations.elementAnita Woll, Tone Bratteteig (2017): Activity Theory as a Framework to Analyze Technology-Mediated Elderly Care, In: Mind, Culture, and Activity 1(25), doi:10.1080/10749039.2017.1375528
gi.citations.elementFrederick M. C. van Amstel, Vedran Zerjav, Timo Hartmann, Mascha C. van der Voort, Geert P. M. R. Dewulf (2014): Expanding the representation of user activities, In: Building Research & Information 2(43), doi:10.1080/09613218.2014.932621
gi.citations.elementQingchuan Li, Yan Luximon (2019): Older adults’ use of mobile device: usability challenges while navigating various interfaces, In: Behaviour & Information Technology 8(39), doi:10.1080/0144929x.2019.1622786
gi.citations.elementJenni Korpela, Reijo Miettinen, Teppo Salmikivi, Jaana Ihalainen (2015): The challenges and potentials of utilizing building information modelling in facility management: the case of the Center for Properties and Facilities of the University of Helsinki, In: Construction Management and Economics 1(33), doi:10.1080/01446193.2015.1016540
gi.citations.elementWardah Zainal Abidin, Lorna Uden, Rose Alinda Alias (2014): E-portfolio Development Through Activity Theory in Action Research, In: Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, doi:10.1007/978-3-319-08618-7_30
gi.citations.elementClay Spinuzzi (2011): Losing by Expanding, In: Journal of Business and Technical Communication 4(25), doi:10.1177/1050651911411040
gi.citations.elementSyed Ghulam Sarwar Shah, Ian Robinson (2006): User involvement in healthcare technology development and assessment, In: International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance 6(19), doi:10.1108/09526860610687619
gi.citations.elementPaul Adler (2009): Marx and Organization Studies Today, In: The Oxford Handbook of Sociology and Organization Studies, doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199535231.003.0004
gi.citations.elementAmanda Rotondo, Nathan G. Freier (2010): The problem of defining values for design, In: CHI '10 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, doi:10.1145/1753846.1754123
gi.citations.elementSAMPSA HYYSALO (2003): Some Problems in the Traditional Approaches to Predicting the Use of a Technology-driven Invention, In: Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research 2(16), doi:10.1080/13511610304518
gi.citations.elementReijo Miettinen, Janne Lehenkari (2016): Encounters and Extended Collaborative Creativity: Mobilization of Cultural Resources in the Development of a Functional Food Product, In: The Palgrave Handbook of Creativity and Culture Research, doi:10.1057/978-1-137-46344-9_13
gi.citations.elementHengyi Fu (2025): Understanding Community Dynamics of Peer Production Through Contradictions: An Activity Theory Analysis of Mathematics Stack Exchange Q&A Community, In: International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, doi:10.1080/10447318.2025.2539454
gi.citations.elementI. Scandurra, M. Hägglund, S. Koch (2008): From user needs to system specifications: Multi-disciplinary thematic seminars as a collaborative design method for development of health information systems, In: Journal of Biomedical Informatics 4(41), doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2008.01.012
gi.citations.elementSampsa Hyysalo (2009): Learning for learning economy and social learning, In: Research Policy 5(38), doi:10.1016/j.respol.2009.01.003
gi.citations.elementFranz Barjak, Julia Lane, Zack Kertcher, Meik Poschen, Rob Procter, Simon Robinson (2009): Case Studies of e-Infrastructure Adoption, In: Social Science Computer Review 4(27), doi:10.1177/0894439309332310
gi.citations.elementSturla Bakke (2014): Immediacy in User Interfaces: An Activity Theoretical Approach, In: Lecture Notes in Computer Science, doi:10.1007/978-3-319-07233-3_2
gi.citations.elementMonika Nerland, Mervi Hasu (2020): Challenging the belief in simple solutions: The need for epistemic practices in professional work, In: Medical Education 1(55), doi:10.1111/medu.14294
gi.citations.elementMaria Hägglund, Isabella Scandurra, Sabine Koch (2010): Scenarios to capture work processes in shared homecare—From analysis to application, In: International Journal of Medical Informatics 6(79), doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2008.07.007
gi.citations.elementChristine A. Halverson (2002): Activity Theory and Distributed Cognition: Or What Does CSCW Need to DO with Theories?, In: Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 1-2(11), doi:10.1023/a:1015298005381
gi.citations.elementClaudine Bonneau (2011): Co-configuration d’une plateforme à code source ouvert en organisation : analyser la transformation d’un outil et des pratiques de travail avec la théorie de l’activité, In: Revue internationale de communication sociale et publique 5, doi:10.4000/communiquer.417
gi.citations.elementEvgeny Zotov, Andrew F. Hills, Fabio L. de Mello, Parham Aram, Adrian Sayers, Ashley W. Blom, Eugene V. McCloskey, J. Mark Wilkinson, Visakan Kadirkamanathan (2020): JointCalc: A web-based personalised patient decision support tool for joint replacement, In: International Journal of Medical Informatics, doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2020.104217
gi.citations.elementClay Spinuzzi (2017): “I Think You Should Explore the Kinky Market”: How Entrepreneurs Develop Value Propositions as Emergent Objects of Activity Networks, In: Mind, Culture, and Activity 3(24), doi:10.1080/10749039.2017.1294606
gi.citations.elementBenoît Cordelier (2013): Mise en invisibilité des individus et reconnaissance des activités, In: Communication et organisation 44, doi:10.4000/communicationorganisation.4289
gi.citations.elementSotiria Drivalou (2018): Cognitive Engineer’s Multifaceted Role in Participatory Design Processes, In: Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, doi:10.1007/978-3-319-96071-5_93
gi.citations.elementSyed Ghulam Sarwar Shah, Ian Robinson, Sarmad AlShawi (2009): Developing medical device technologies from users' perspectives: A theoretical framework for involving users in the development process, In: International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 4(25), doi:10.1017/s0266462309990328

Files