The Use of Live-Prototypes as Proxy Technology in Smart City Living Lab Pilots

  • Michelle BoonenEmail author
  • Bram LievensEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10921)


With the rise of Internet-of-Things (IoT) a new wave of so-called smart technologies and related services have been introduced. When applied within an urban context, they tend to be ubiquitous, enabling a real-time interaction between the city, its environment and users, leading to a new set of human-computer interactions and user experiences. For the design of such technologies and services, researchers are challenged in finding effective methodologies that take into account this complex context of use. Especially in the very early phases of technology design, it can be rather complex to capture accurate user insights and requirements. In this paper, we investigate whether implementing a “live-prototyping tool” can respond to this need. By combining elements from both lo-fi prototyping as well as Proxy Technology Assessment (PTA), we investigated the benefits of an IoT-enabled proxy device as “live-prototyping tool”, that can be used during the first stages of development and deployed in the real-life environment of end-users. Results show that the use of such tool enables (HCI) researchers to collect more detailed data, interact more accurately and by so provide quick wins for the design and development process.


Proxy Technology Assessment HCI User experience  Smart city design Live-prototype 


  1. 1.
    Korsgaard, H., Brynskov, M.: Prototyping a smart city. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop Digital Cities, Munich, Germany, p. 4 (2013)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    de Sá, M., Carriço, L.: A mobile tool for in-situ prototyping. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services, MobileHCI 2009, No. 20. ACM Press, New York (2009).
  3. 3.
    de Sá, M., Carriço, L.: Designing and evaluating mobile interaction: challenges and trends. Found. Trends Hum.–Comput. Interact. 4(3), 175–243 (2011). Scholar
  4. 4.
    Reichwald, R., Meyer, A., Engelmann, M., Walcher, D.: Der Kunde als Innovationspartner. Konsumenten integrieren, Flop-Raten reduzieren, Angebote verbessern. Gabler, Wiesbaden (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Von Hippel, E.: Democratizing Innovation. The MIT Press, Cambridge (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Oudshoorn, N., Pinch, T.: How Users Matter. The Co-construction of Users and Technologies. MIT Press, Cambridge (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Barberà-Guillem, R., Campos, N., Biel, S., Erdt, S., Gámez Payá, J., Ganzarain, J., Vidal Cabello, U.: User involvement: how we integrated users into the innovation process and what we learned from it. In: Moritz, E.F. (ed.) Assistive Technologies for the Interaction of the Elderly. ATSC, pp. 33–47. Springer, Cham (2014). Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gruner, K.E., Homburg, C.: Does customer interaction enhance new product success? J. Bus. Res. 49, 1–14 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hoyer, W.D., Chandy, R., Dorotic, M., Krafft, M., Singh, S.S.: Consumer cocreation in new product development. J. Serv. Res. 13(3), 283–296 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Witell, L., Gustafsson, A., Johnson, M.D.: The effect of customer information during new product development on profits from goods and services. Eur. J. Mark. 48(9/10), 1709–1730 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hoffmann, E.: User Integration in Sustainable Product Development: Organisational Learning Through Boundary-Spanning Processes, 2nd edn. Routledge, New York (2017)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kujala, S.: User involvement: a review of the benefits and challenges. Behav. Inf. Technol. 22(1), 1–16 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Damodaran, L.: User involvement in the systems design process-a practical guide for users. Behav. Inf. Technol. 15(6), 363–377 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hastreiter, I., Krause, S., Schneidermeier, T., Wolff, C.: Developing UX for collaborative mobile prototyping. In: Marcus, A. (ed.) DUXU 2014. LNCS, vol. 8517, pp. 104–114. Springer, Cham (2014). Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kjeldskov, J., Skov, M.: Evaluating the usability of a mobile collaborative system: exploring two different laboratory approaches. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Collaborative Technologies and Systems, pp. 134–141 (2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kjeldskov, J., Graham, C.: A review of mobile HCI research methods. In: Chittaro, L. (ed.) Mobile HCI 2003. LNCS, vol. 2795, pp. 317–335. Springer, Heidelberg (2003). Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pedell, S., Graham, C., Kjeldskov, J., Davies, J.: Mobile evaluation: what the data and the metadata told us. In: Proceedings of OzCHI 2003, pp. 96–105 (2003)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jumisko-Pyykkö, S., Vainio, T.: Framing the context of use for mobile HCI. Int. J. Mob. Hum. Comput. Interact. 2(4), 1–28 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kim, C.-M., Heo, S., Jeong, K. A., Lim, Y.-K.: Formula one: mobile device supported rapid in-the-wild design and evaluation of interactive prototypes. In: HCI Korea 2016 (2016).
  20. 20.
    Schmitt, H., Thomassen, J.J.A.: Dynamic representation. Eur. Union Polit. 1(3), 318–339 (2000). Scholar
  21. 21.
    Segura, V.C.V.B., Barbosa, S.D.J., Simões, F.P.: UISKEI: a sketch-based prototyping tool for defining and evaluating user interface behavior. In: AVI 2012. ACM, Capri (2012)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Claes, S., Slegers, K., Vande Moere, A.: The bicycle barometer. In: Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI 2016, pp. 5824–5835 (2016)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    De Sá, M., Churchill, E.F.: Mobile augmented reality: exploring design and prototyping techniques. MobileHCI 2012. ACM, San Francisco (2012)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Silverstone, R., Haddon, L.: Design and the domestication of information and communication technologies: technical change and everyday life. In: Communication by Design: the Politics of Information and Communication Technologies, pp. 44–74. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1996)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bleumers, L., Naessens, K., Jacobs, A.: How to approach a many splendoured thing: proxy technology assessment as a methodological praxis to study virtual experience. J. Virtual Worlds Res. 3(1), 3–24 (2010)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pierson, J., Jacobs, A., Dreessen, K., Van Den Broeck, I., Lievens, B., Van Den Broeck, W.: Walking the interface: uncovering practices through ‘proxy technology assessment’. In: Proceedings of EPIC 2006: The Second Annual Ethnographic Praxis in Industry Conference, pp. 40–54. National Association for the Practice of Anthropology, Portland (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Imec-SMIT-VUBBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations