Skip to main content
Disciplines
Automotive Business IT + Informatics Construction + Real Estate Electrical Engineering + Electronics Energy + Sustainability Insurance + Risk Finance + Banking Management + Leadership Marketing + Sales Mechanical Engineering + Materials
Events
DE
EN
Books
Journals
Topic Page
Marketing
Start single access now
Access for companies
EXTENDED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Universal Access in the Information Society
Published in: Universal Access in the Information Society 2/2015

01-06-2015 | Long paper

Identifying and explicating knowledge on method transfer: a sectoral system of innovation approach

Author: Ebba Thora Hvannberg

Published in: Universal Access in the Information Society | Issue 2/2015

Log in

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

With the advances in information technology and its increasing impact on humans and society, there has been an expanding need to spread knowledge from domain to domain. This need is not least in the area of human–computer interaction, which includes a rich culture of carrying out usability evaluations in many different domains and technology platforms. This paper aims to show how transfer of methods takes place, by explicating and formalizing the process. It will contribute to the quest for knowledge on the constituents of the process of transferring methodological knowledge and their relationships. A sectoral system of innovation approach is used to analyse the constituents of a selected sector, crisis management, where training is essential and which is rapidly adopting technology for operations and training. Two case studies are described where heuristics evaluation and user testing were applied on simulation software that allows training for crisis management. The analysis results in a process model, describing the transfer of methodological knowledge within the sectoral system of innovation framework.
previous article On the transferability of a meta-design model supporting end-user development
next article Integrating the strengths of cognitive emotion models with traditional HCI analysis tools

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now
Literature
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Shepherd, I.D.H., Bleasdale-Shepherd, I.D.: The design-by-adaptation approach to universal access: learning from videogame technology. Univ. Access Inf. Soc. 10(3), 319–336 (2011)CrossRef
6.
Sutcliffe, A., Gault, B.: Heuristic evaluation of virtual reality applications. Interact. Comput. 16(4), 831–849 (2004)CrossRef
7.
Nielsen, J.: Enhancing the Explanatory Power of Usability Heuristics. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Boston, Massachusetts (1994)
8.
Hvannberg, E.T., Halldórsdóttir, G., Rudinsky, J.: Exploitation of heuristics for virtual environments. In: Proceedings of the 7th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Making Sense Through Design, pp. 308–317. ACM, New York (2012)
9.
Cronholm, S., Neubauer, M., Stary, C.: Guiding Situated Method Transfer in Design and Evaluation: Exploring Concepts, Activities and Process. Univ. Access Inf. Soc. 14(2). doi:10.​1007/​s10209-013-0336-x (in this issue)
10.
Woolrych, A., Hornbæk, K., Frøkjær, E., Cockton, G.: Ingredients and meals rather than recipes: a proposal for research that does not treat usability evaluation methods as indivisible wholes. Int. J. Human Comput. Interact. 27(10), 940–970 (2011)CrossRef
11.
Malerba, F., Orsenigo, L.: Technological regimes and patterns of innovation: a theoretical and empirical investigation of the Italian case. In: Heertje, A., Perlman, M. (eds.) Evolving Technology and Market Structure, pp. 283–305. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor (1990)
12.
Malerba, F., Orsenigo, L.: Technological regimes and firm bebavior. Ind. Corp. Change 2(1), 45–71 (1993)CrossRef
13.
14.
Rosenberg, N.: Inside the Black Box: Technology and Economic Change. Cambridge University Press, New York (1982)
15.
Mowery, D.C., Nelson, R.R.: Sources of Industrial Leadership: Studies of Seven Industries. Cambridge University Press, New York (1999)CrossRef
16.
Pavitt, K.: Sectoral patterns of technical change: towards a taxonomy and a theory. Res. Policy 13(6), 343–373 (1984)CrossRef
17.
Nelson, R.R., Sidney, G.: Winter (1982) An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Belknap, Cambridge (2005)
18.
Lang, K.R., Arakji, R.Y. Evolution of innovations across Web 2.0 service platforms through mutation, natural selection and reuse. In: System Sciences (HICSS), 2010 43rd Hawaii International Conference on, 5–8 Jan. 2010. pp. 1–10. doi:10.​1109/​hicss.​2010.​193
19.
20.
Gulliksen, J., Sandblad, B.: Domain-specific design of user interfaces. Int. J. Human Comput. Interact. 7(2), 135–151 (1995)CrossRef
21.
Redish, J.: Expanding usability testing to evaluate complex systems. J. Usability Stud. 2(3), 102–111 (2007)
22.
Rudinsky, J., Hvannberg, E.T.: Consolidating requirements analysis models for a crisis management training simulator. In: Proceedings of the 8th International ISCRAM Conference–Lisbon (2011)
23.
Van Merriënboer, J.J., Kirschner, P.A., Kester, L.: Taking the load off a learner’s mind: instructional design for complex learning. Educ. Psychol. 38(1), 5–13 (2003)CrossRef
24.
25.
26.
27.
Barnett, J., Wong, W., Westley, D., Adderley, R., Smith, M.: Startle reaction: capturing experiential cues to provide guidelines towards the design of realistic training scenarios. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting. SAGE Publications, pp. 2477–2481 (2012)
28.
29.
Roberts, A.R.: Crisis intervention handbook: assessment, treatment, and research. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2005)
30.
Lindemann, E.: Symptomatology and management of acute grief. Am. J. Psychiatry 151(6 Suppl), 155–160 (1944)
31.
Gislason, S.R., Hassenkam, T., Nedel, S., Bovet, N., Eiriksdottir, E.S., Alfredsson, H.A., Hem, C.P., Balogh, Z.I., Dideriksen, K., Oskarsson, N., Sigfusson, B., Larsen, G., Stipp, S.L.S.: Characterization of Eyjafjallajökull volcanic ash particles and a protocol for rapid risk assessment. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 108(18), 7307–7312 (2011). doi:10.​1073/​pnas.​1015053108 CrossRef
32.
33.
Graafland, M., Schraagen, J., Schijven, M.: Systematic review of serious games for medical education and surgical skills training. Br. J. Surg. 99(10), 1322–1330 (2012). doi:10.​1002/​bjs.​8819 CrossRef
34.
Halldorsdottir, G., Hvannberg, E.: An Analysis of a Plane Crash Training Event After Action Review (trans: Sciences SoEaN). University of Iceland, Reykjavik (2011)
35.
Van Merriënboer, J.J., Clark, R.E., De Croock, M.B.: Blueprints for complex learning: the 4C/ID-model. Educ. Tech. Res. Dev. 50(2), 39–61 (2002)CrossRef
36.
Rubin, J., Chisnell, D.: Handbook of Usability Testing: Howto Plan, Design, and Conduct Effective Tests. Wiley, New York (2008)
37.
Gulliksen, J., Boivie, I., Göransson, B.: Usability professionals—current practices and future development. Interact. Comput. 18(4), 568–600 (2006)CrossRef
38.
39.
Petrie, H., Bevan, N.: The evaluation of accessibility, usability and user experience. The Universal Access Handbook, pp. 10–20 (2009)
40.
Chilana, P.K., Wobbrock, J.O., Ko, A.J.: Understanding usability practices in complex domains. In: Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 2337–2346. ACM, New York (2010)
41.
Nielsen, J., Molich, R.: Heuristic evaluation of user interfaces. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Seattle, Washington (1990)CrossRef
42.
Hertzum, M., Molich, R., Jacobsen, N.E.: What you get is what you see: revisiting the evaluator effect in usability tests. Behav. Inf. Technol. (ahead-of-print), 1–19 (2013)
43.
Nielsen, J.: Finding usability problems through heuristic evaluation. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 373–380. ACM, New York (1992)
44.
45.
Muller, M.J., Matheson, L., Page, C., Gallup, R.: Methods and tools: participatory heuristic evaluation. Interactions 5(5), 13–18 (1998)
46.
Chattratichart, J., Brodie, J.: Extending the heuristic evaluation method through contextualisation. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, pp. 641–645. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks (2002)
47.
Hornbæk, K., Frokjaer, E.: Usability inspection by metaphors of human thinking compared to heuristic evaluation. Int. J. Human Comput. Interact. 17(3), 357–374 (2004)CrossRef
48.
Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila, K., Wäljas, M.: Developing an expert evaluation method for user eXperience of cross-platform web services. In: Paper Presented at the Proceedings of the 13th International MindTrek Conference: Everyday Life in the Ubiquitous Era, Tampere, Finland (2009)
49.
Ling, C., Salvendy, G.: Extension of heuristic evaluation method: A review and reappraisal. Ergonomia IJE&HF 27(3), 179–197 (2005)
50.
Hollingsed, T., Novick, D.G.: Usability inspection methods after 15 years of research and practice. In: Paper Presented at the Proceedings of the 25th Annual ACM International Conference on Design of Communication, El Paso, Texas, USA (2007)
51.
ISO/IEC: International standard 9241-210: ergonomics of human–system interaction, part 210: human-centered design for interactive systems (2010)
52.
ISO/IEC: International standard 9241-110: ergonomics of human–system interaction, part 110: dialogue principles systems (2006)
53.
54.
Baker, K., Greenberg, S., Gutwin, C.: Heuristic evaluation of groupware based on the mechanics of collaboration. In: Engineering for Human–Computer Interaction, pp. 123–139. Springer, New York (2001)
55.
Squires, D., Preece, J.: Predicting quality in educational software: evaluating for learning, usability and the synergy between them. Interact. Comput. 11(5), 467–483 (1999)CrossRef
56.
Bevan, N.: Extending quality in use to provide a framework for usability measurement. In: Kurosu M. (ed.) Human Centered Design, vol 5619. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 13–22. Springer, Berlin (2009). doi:10.​1007/​978-3-642-02806-9_​2
57.
Bøegh, J.: A new standard for quality requirements. IEEE Softw. 25(2), 57–63 (2008)CrossRef
58.
Schmettow, M., Vos, W., Schraagen, J.M.: With how many users should you test a medical infusion pump? Sampling strategies for usability tests on high-risk systems. J. Biomed. Inf. doi:10.​1016/​j.​jbi.​2013.​04.​007
59.
Law, E.L.-C., Abrahão, S., Vermeeren, A.P., Hvannberg, E.T.: Interplay between user experience evaluation and system development: state of the art. In: International Workshop on the Interplay Between User Experience (UX) Evaluation and System Development (I-UxSED 2012), Copenhagen, Denmark, 2012. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, p. 1
60.
Law, E.L.C.: Evaluating the downstream utility of user tests and examining the developer effect: a case study. Int. J. Human Comput. Interact. 21(2), 147–172 (2006)CrossRef
61.
Kirkpatrick, D.L., Kirkpatrick, J.D.: Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels, 3rd edn. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Fransisco (2006)
62.
63.
McGrath, J.E.: Groups: Interaction and Performance, vol. 14. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ (1984)
64.
Reason, J.T.: The Human Contribution: Unsafe Acts, Accidents and Heroic Recoveries. Ashgate Publishing, Farnham (2008)
65.
Gutwin, C., Greenberg, S.: The mechanics of collaboration: developing low cost usability evaluation methods for shared workspaces. In: Proceedings IEEE 9th International Workshops on Enabling Technologies: Infrastructure for Collaborative Enterprises, 2000 (WET ICE 2000), pp. 98–103. IEEE (2000)
66.
Brooke, J.: SUS: a “quick and dirty” usability scale. In: Jordan, P.W., Thomas, B., Weerdmeester, B.A., McClelland, A.L. (eds.) Usability Evaluation in Industry. Taylor & Francis, London (1996)
67.
Jeffries, R., Miller, J.R., Wharton, C., Uyeda, K.: User interface evaluation in the real world: a comparison of four techniques. Paper Presented at the Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, New Orleans, Louisiana (1991)CrossRef
68.
Olmsted-Hawala, E.L., Murphy, E.D., Hawala, S., Ashenfelter, K.T.: Think-aloud protocols: a comparison of three think-aloud protocols for use in testing data-dissemination web sites for usability. Paper Presented at the Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Atlanta, Georgia (2010)CrossRef
69.
Kjeldskov, J., Skov, M.B., Stage, J.: Instant data analysis: conducting usability evaluations in a day. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Nordic Conference on Human–Computer Interaction, pp. 233–240. ACM, New York (2004)
70.
Bruun, A., Stage, J.: Training software development practitioners in usability testing: an assessment acceptance and prioritization. In: Proceedings of the 24th Australian Computer–Human Interaction Conference, pp. 52–60. ACM, New York (2012)
71.
Norgaard, M., Hornbæk, K.: What do usability evaluators do in practice? An explorative study of think-aloud testing. In: Paper Presented at the Proceedings of the 6th Conference on Designing Interactive Systems, University Park, PA, (2006)
72.
Folstad, A., Law, E.L.-C., Hornbæk, K.: Analysis in usability evaluations: an exploratory study. In: Paper Presented at the Proceedings of the 6th Nordic Conference on Human–Computer Interaction: Extending Boundaries, Reykjavik, Iceland (2010)
73.
Kim, J.H., Gunn, D.V., Schuh, E., Phillips, B., Pagulayan, R.J., Wixon, D.: Tracking Real-Time User Experience (TRUE): A Comprehensive Instrumentation Solution for Complex Systems. Paper Presented at the Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Florence, Italy (2008)
74.
Tuch, A.N., Trusell, R., Hornb, K.: Analyzing users’ narratives to understand experience with interactive products. Paper Presented at the Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Paris, France (2013)CrossRef
75.
76.
77.
Bangor, A., Kortum, P., Miller, J.: Determining what individual SUS scores mean: adding an adjective rating scale. J. Usability Stud. 4(3), 114–123 (2009)
78.
van den Haak, M., De Jong, M., Jan Schellens, P.: Retrospective vs. concurrent think-aloud protocols: testing the usability of an online library catalogue. Behav. Inf. Technol. 22(5), 339–351 (2003). doi:10.​1080/​0044929031000
79.
Hays, R.T., Singer, M.J.: Simulation Fidelity in Training System Design: Bridging the Gap Between Reality and Training. Springer, New York (1989)CrossRef
80.
Hvannberg, E.T.: Impact of sensory and collaborative contexts on usability evaluation methods resources. In: CHI 2013 Workshop Made for Sharing: HCI Stories of Transfer, Triumph and Tragedy, Paris, April 27th 2013, pp. 23–28 (2013)
81.
Bjorner, D.: Software Engineering 3: Domains, Requirements, and Software Design vol 3. Texts in Theoretical Computer Science. An EATCS Series. Springer, Berlin (2006)
82.
83.
Paulk, M.C., Curtis, B., Chrissis, M.B., Weber, C.V.: Capability maturity model, version 1.1. Softw. IEEE 10(4), 18–27 (1993). doi:10.​1109/​52.​219617
84.
Ferreira, A.L., Machado, R.J., Paulk, M.C.: Quantitative analysis of best practices models in the software domain. In: Software Engineering Conference (APSEC), 2010 17th Asia Pacific, Nov. 30 2010–Dec. 3 2010, pp. 433–442 (2010). doi:10.​1109/​apsec.​2010.​56
85.
Webster, M.: The requirements for managing the geographically distributed development organization and the collabnet solution. White Paper, IDC (2005)
Metadata
Title
Identifying and explicating knowledge on method transfer: a sectoral system of innovation approach
Author
Ebba Thora Hvannberg
Publication date
01-06-2015
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Universal Access in the Information Society / Issue 2/2015
Print ISSN: 1615-5289
Electronic ISSN: 1615-5297
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-013-0340-1

Other articles of this Issue 2/2015

Universal Access in the Information Society 2/2015 Go to the issue

Long paper

Integrating the strengths of cognitive emotion models with traditional HCI analysis tools

Long paper

Guiding situated method transfer in design and evaluation

Long paper

Investigating the effects of web-mediated design thinking and co-regulated learning on developing students’ computing skills in a blended course

Long paper

On the transferability of a meta-design model supporting end-user development

Editorial

Method transfer across domains and disciplines: enriching universal access development

Long paper

Culture effects in online social support for older people: perceptions and experience

Premium Partner

    Image Credits