Within user-centered innovation a pragmatic framework is used to analyse, evaluate and design solutions in which both humans and machines take part. Below the major concepts are briefly explained:
The concepts are described below:
Humans. A biped carbon-based lifeform on Earth, third rock from the sun :-). On a more serious note: humans are characterised by having a purpose, exhibiting (spontaneous) behaviour and being capable of interaction with other humans, machines and the world.
User. A human, cast in a specific role that is considered separate from, e.g., a provider (of a product or service).
Machine. A human-made construct on Earth, third rock from the sun. ‘Machine’ is generic denominator to include traditional computers, smartphones, tablets, car, watches, glasses, aircraft, etc. Basically: something that has a purpose, runs processes (programs, applications) of some sort, and has means for interaction with humans and/or other machines and/or the world.
Solution. A solution is a combination of humans and machines brought together for a specific purpose, such as e.g. a webstore, smart-grid application, supply-chain network, et cetera. Note that we deliberately avoid the term ‘system’, as that may mean ‘solution’ but also has a (traditional) meaning that excludes the participation of humans.
Participant. Generic name for humans and/or machines that are part of a solution. With ‘participant’ a class (or ‘group’) of humans or machines is described, where all members of the class are similar. This similarity holds for their purpose and behaviour.
Relationship. Whenever two participants interact, they have a relationship. These relationships are about added-value: the ‘reason’ why the two participants are interacting.
Added-value. Tangible or insubstantial advantage to a participant. May be directly related to the purpose of the participant: why the participant takes part in the solution.
Interaction. Within a relationship one or more interactions may exist. In an interaction, one participant delivers added-value to another participant. The receiving participant has desired added-value.
Added-value match. Within an interaction: the discrepancy, if any, between delivered added-value and desired added-value.
Autonomy.The ‘degree of freedom’ that is allowed in an interaction. The autonomy may differ for the delivering and receiving participants in an interaction. Examples of degrees of freedom, from ‘a lot’ to ‘almost none’: Full control over own behaviour, restricted set of behaviour allowed, not allowed to undo / recover, must precisely follow protocol to the end (no breakout / exceptions), micromanaged: is often provided with new protocols that must be followed exactly.
Jump to the top.