2. Chapter 2: Literature review
2.8 Making UCD and Usability as a novel basis for the development of a new Innovation metrics
Indians can do without much resources’. Most of the products resulting from the Jugaad approach are of very low quality, unreliable and inefficient from all respects. Other countries call such innovations as frugal innovations. An example of Jugaad are given below in Fig. 2.13.
Figure 2.13: Examples of Jugaad, Coffee making with pressure cooker and pumping water by bike
At best, Jugaad approach can be a starting point for idea generation. Jugged products do have possibilities of being developed into full-fledged innovation. This would be possible, if a systematic method of adding value by measuring the incremental improvements is brought into the jugged schema. There are no models for upward movement of transforming Jugaad ideas into commercially sale-able innovative product.Attempts by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) such as SRISTI [Honey bee] have been encouraging grass route innovators and jugged contraptions but their total efforts seem to indicate marginal gains. Micro enterprises to whom jugged appeals do not have better models for innovation which is a gap that, this research takes into consideration.
2.8 Making UCD and Usability as a novel basis for the development of an
1. User is the only constant in a system and all other variables are dependent on each other.
2. In conceptualization phase users are the initial starting point for all designs.
3. For all design considerations users are the final datum of reference.
4. User is the fundamental unit of any scale developed for measurement.
As the user is the evaluator based on the user’s needs, adopting UCD will result in higher degree of innovation. In the book "The Design of Everyday Things", Norman [2013] has emphasized fulfilling needs of the user being more important than aesthetics while designing the products.
When a product is designed it is important to utilize the usability standards (ISO standards), leading to a good experience of product and it is the job of a designer to do so. Usability and UCD are the core concept of industrial design from the past two decades [Tom, 2003; Ulrich, 2003; Neville Stanton, 1998].
Usability standards ISO 9241 defines usability as ‘The extent to which a product can be used by specified set of users to achieve specified effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction in specified context of use’. Usability is the measure of the quality of the user’s experience while interacting with the product.
Designing with user involvement i.e. user is actively co-collaborating in the design process, often leads to better user insights being incorporated into the product resulting in value addition through usability and utility. Several methods in UCD have been mentioned in published literature [Dix, 2009; Rogers et. al., 2011]. These are - Contextual Design, Content analysis, Focus group protocols, Empathic Design, Persona, Scenarios, Essential Use Cases, Card Sorting, Participatory Design and Protocol Analysis to name a few.
Usability Engineering (UE) is the process of deriving, specifying, measuring, constructing and evaluating usability features in a product or system. The goals of usability engineering are 5 E’s and they are as follows: Effective to use, Efficient to use, Error free in use, Easy to use and Enjoyable to use.
Usability has constituents such as Visual Quality, Semantics, Physiognomy, all of which are related to the term ‘Aesthetics’ in Design. Physiography or physical features and Ergonomics includes safety, comfort, utility etc. Functional aspects that manifest themselves as anatomy of a product include parts, configuration, materials, production, structural properties etc. The three aspects – Aesthetics, Ergonomics and Function define a products design space [Yammiyavar, 1993]. Usability and Design are the two faces of the same coin. Without usability, design (in the traditional sense of the word) alone cannot achieve higher levels of innovation. In any product usability must be induced in the designing phase as stated in ISO standards 9241, IEE 90, ISO 13407.
2.9 Making Design Space theory as basis for measuring user driven inputs to innovation
Design Space is defined as combinatorial space generated by set of parameters, which are also the operands (Aesthetics+ Ergonomics+ Function=1, Design ratio) [Yammiyavar, 2004]. It is the base for developing a proposed fractal triangle of innovation, which is discussed in further chapters.
Design Space is as depicted in Fig. 2.14 and Product Proximity Factors – (PPF) [Yammiyavar, 2004], are intended to indicate the product’s proximity to the user in terms of quality interaction.
User being at center, the highest level of innovation which is considered as the ideal product having
value of ‘1’. Such highest level of innovative products does not exist as it is an idealized state of a perfect product in all respects. Any product can reach the value towards ‘1’ but is likely to always be lesser than ‘1’ as user needs and aspirations as well as technology keep evolving rapidly. An explanatory example would be ‘Contact Lenses’. Earlier contact lenses were thick and irritating to use. They were essentially glass lenses miniaturized and manufactured using softer polymers. So compared to spectacle glasses contact lenses definitely tended towards zone 1 However, they have not reached an ideal perfect product. The latest development in contact lenses are soft very thin lenses that have reduced eye irritation. Their usability is a result of innovation in materials and manufacturing technology but their innovation was forced by the user’s irritability with earlier thick contact lenses. Yet these contact lenses have potential to reach an ideal design state.
However, now researchers are trying to change the DNA, at the genetic level (stem cells) which can correct the eyes defects in one’s lifetime. If successful one can declare it as highest level of innovation, falling under Product Proximity Factor zone 1 (PPF) as shown in Fig. 2.14. As we move away from center/user the interaction with product goes down and are called PPF zone 2, watches, shoes, clothes are examples of this zone. And it continues till PPF zone 5 and above.
Maximum products that are used by user in their daily life fall under PPF zone 2 and 3. To achieve innovation in products one needs to come closer towards the user. This is the underlying philosophy of User Centered Design –UCD [Yammiyavar, 2004].
Figure 2.14 a: Showing design space adopted from [Yammiyavar, 2004]
Figure 2.14 b: Showing PPF zones adopted from [Yammiyavar, 2004]
Maximum number of products used in our daily life fall under PPF zone 2 and 3. Majority of similar products manufactured by the MSMEs would fall under zone 2 or 3. From Design Space concept and Product Proximity Factors – (PPF) [Yammiyavar, 2004], around 450 plus products were analyzed to understand the interaction time of each product with the user. The same have been categorized as PPF zones. In which ‘1’ being the highest level of interaction and it is ideal.
As the interaction time with product is lesser the product moves away from the user (PPF zone 4, 5). For the study, 100s of products were visually analyzed and observed. Most of them fall under PPF zone 2 and 3 (day to day products, from pen to computers, utensils to electronic gadgets).
In this thesis it is posited that if one were to be able to analyze such products (falling under zone 2 and 3) manufactured by MSMEs for their degree of ‘fitment’ in zone 2 & zone 3, it would be possible to identify design deficiencies. Further these functional deficiencies or short-comings could yield insights to designers as to the particular spots or features in a product’s subassembly that have potential for design improvement. One can then maximize the innovation effort if one has a means of comparing two creative solutions that emerge through design thinking process attempting to eliminate defects or add value. In this thesis this method of value addition has been adopted.