Advertisement

Enhancing Collaborative Creativity: Towards a New User-Centered Design Method, the Dynamic Persona Method

  • Nicolas Pichot
  • Nathalie Bonnardel
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 824)

Abstract

Regardless of the areas considered, designers need to develop products that are both innovative and user-friendly, and thus creative [5]. In order to favor their creative activities, the designers can use different methods, amongst which we propose a new kind of method of personas. The purpose of our study is to submit and test the ‘dynamic personas’ method we propose, by comparison with the use of the classical persona method (qualified here of ‘static’).

References

  1. 1.
    Agogué M, Arnoux F, Brown I, Hooge S (2013) Introduction à la Conception Innovante: éléments théoriques et pratiques de la théorie CK. Presses des MINESGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amabile TM (1982) Social psychology of creativity: a consensual assessment technique. J Pers Soc Psychol 43(5):997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baron-Cohen S, Wheelwright S (2004) The empathy quotient: an investigation of adults with Asperger syndrome or high functioning autism, and normal sex differences. J Autism Dev Disord 34(2):163–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Blanco E (1998) L’émergence du produit dans la conception distribuée Vers de nouveaux modes de rationalisation dans la conception de systèmes mécaniques (Doctoral dissertation)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bonnardel N (2006) Créativité et conception. Approches cognitives et ergonomiques. Solal Editions, MarseilleGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bonnardel N (2012) Designing future products: what difficulties do designers encounter and how can their creative process be supported? Work 41(Supplement 1):5296–5303Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bonnardel N, Forens M, Lefevre M (2016) Enhancing collective creative design: an exploratory study on the influence of static and dynamic personas in a virtual environment. Des J 19(2):221–235Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Burkhardt JM, Détienne F, Hébert AM, Perron L, Leclercq P (2009). An approach to assess the quality of collaboration in technology-mediated design situations. In: European conference on cognitive ergonomics: designing beyond the product— understanding activity and user experience in ubiquitous environments. VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, p 30Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Clark HH, Brennan SE (1991) Grounding in communication. Perspect Soc Shared Cogn 13:127–149Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cooper A (1999) The inmates are running the asylum. Macmillan, Indianapolis.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-99786-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chapman CN, Milham RP (2006) The personas’ new clothes: methodological and practical arguments against a popular method. In: Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting. SAGE Publications, Los Angeles, 50(4), 634–636Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dean DL, Hender JM, Rodgers TL, Santanen E (2006) Identifying good ideas: constructs and scales for idea evaluation. J Assoc Inf Syst 7(10):646–699Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fischer G, Giaccardi E, Eden H, Sugimoto M, Ye Y (2005) Beyond binary choices: integrating individual and social creativity. Int J Hum Comput Stud 63:482–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Goh CH, Kulathuramaiyer N, Zaman T (2017) Riding waves of change: a review of personas research landscape based on the three waves of HCI. In: International Conference on social implications of computers in developing countries. Springer, Cham, pp 605–616Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Milliken FJ, Barel CA, Kurstzberg TR (2003) Diversity and creativity in work groups. In: Paulus PB, Nijstad BA Group creativity innovation through collaborationGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nijstad BA, Stroebe W, Lodewijkx HF (2003) Production blocking and idea generation: does blocking interfere with cognitive processes? J Ex Soc Psychol 39(6):531–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Norman D (1988) The psychology of everyday things. Basic booksGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Osborn AF (1957) Applied imagination. Scribner, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ruiz-Dominguez GA (2005) Caractérisation de l’activité de conception collaborative à distance: étude des effets de synchronisation cognitiveGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Scapin DL, Bastien JC (1997) Ergonomic criteria for evaluating the ergonomic quality of interactive systems. Behav Inf Technol 16(4–5):220–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Spada H, Meier A, Rummel N, Hauser S (2005) A new method to assess the quality of collaborative process in CSCL. In: Proceedings of the 2005 conference on computer support for collaborative learning: learning 2005: the next 10 years! International Society of the Learning Sciences, pp 622–631Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Torrance EP, Ball OE, Safter HT (1966) Torrance tests of creative thinking. Scholastic testing serviceGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Aix-Marseille Univ, PSYCLE (Centre of Research in the Psychology of Cognition, Language and Emotion)Aix-en-ProvenceFrance

Personalised recommendations