Papers: Incorporating user needs into engineering design

Pattern Analysis of IDEO's Human-Centered Design Methods in Developing Regions

[+] Author and Article Information
Mark Fuge

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
University of Maryland,
College Park, MD 20740
e-mail: fuge@umd.edu

Alice Agogino

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Berkeley Institute of Design,
University of California,
Berkeley, CA 94709
e-mail: agogino@berkeley.edu

IDEO.org has since change the name of HCD Connect to simply the DesignKit, which can be found at: http://www.designkit.org

For example, the difference between intra- and inter-stage correlations is +0.04 for the full 809 cases, but reduces to −0.03 when one analyzes only cases that use methods from all phases. This difference is confirmed via statistical permutation tests (with p ≈ 0.0054 and p ≈ 0.99, respectively) available via the paper's supplemental research code.

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Design Automation Committee of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL DESIGN. Manuscript received September 14, 2014; final manuscript received January 18, 2015; published online May 19, 2015. Assoc. Editor: Wei Chen.

J. Mech. Des 137(7), 071405 (Jul 01, 2015) (10 pages) Paper No: MD-14-1571; doi: 10.1115/1.4030047 History: Received September 14, 2014; Revised January 18, 2015; Online May 19, 2015

While there is increasing interest in designing for the developing world, identifying appropriate design research methods for understanding user needs and preferences in these unfamiliar contexts is a major challenge. This paper demonstrates how to apply a variety of statistical techniques to an online design case study repository, Human-Centered Design (HCD) Connect, to discover what types of methods designers use for identifying user needs and preferences for developing-world problems. Specifically, it uncovers how the following factors correlate to method usage: application area (e.g., farming versus healthcare), affiliation of the person using the method (IDEO designer versus not), and stages of the user research process. It finds that designers systematically use certain types of methods for certain types of problems, and that certain methods complement each other in practice. When compared with non-IDEO users, professional designers at IDEO use fewer methods per case and focus on earlier stages of the process that involve data gathering. The results demonstrate the power of combining data-driven statistical techniques with design case studies to identify user research methods for different developing-world problems, as well as locating which research methods complement each other. It also highlights that professionals designing for developing-world contexts commit more time to earlier stage user research efforts, rather than in concept generation or delivery, to better understand differences in needs and design contexts.

Copyright © 2015 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.



Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

An example of an HCD case. Some common elements include: (a) a title and description discussing the problem and methods used, (b) information about the user submitting the case study, (c) a list of focus areas applicable to the case, and (d) a list of HCD Toolkit methods that the case used

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Percent method usage by case. Overall, users use methods from earlier design stages more frequently.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Over every case, certain methods more positively correlate with other methods with almost no negative correlation between methods. The shaded boxes indicate the correlation coefficient between methods—darker indicates increasing positive correlation. The diagonal is thresholded to 0.4 for clarity of presentation, since it always has correlation of one. Methods from later stages (create and deliver) have higher correlation within each category, as well as across categories. Deliver, Create, and Hear methods are clustered together in that order from top to bottom [10,33].

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

By restricting the cases to only those that used methods across all cases, one can remove certain temporal relationships between methods

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

A normal probability plot for focus area method t-statistics. Most methods in each focus area are not appreciably difference from their usage overall; however, for selected methods on the left and right hand side, their usage patterns differ from other focus areas. Table 4 lists the methods, whose usage differs across particular focus areas.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Method usage grouped by organizational affiliation. Combined columns, such as “hear+create,” indicate cases where at least one method from each category was used in the case. IDEO members contribute case studies that typically focus on the first design stage (hear), and rarely submit cases that combine methods across different design stages. In contrast, non-IDEO members contribute cases that use a more even distribution of methods from different design stages, and typically combine methods from different stages in a single case study. The error bars around the percentage estimates represent 95% confidence intervals calculated through bootstrap resampling.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Differences in particular method usage between IDEO and non-IDEO members. The methods are grouped by green, orange, and purple for hear, create, and deliver, respectively. As noted in Fig. 6, IDEO members tend to use fewer methods per case overall, and particularly focus on the first design stage (hear) on user needs and preferences. The bars represent 95% confidence intervals around the usage percentage, created using bootstrap resampling.




Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In