Journal of Korean Society for Quality Management (품질경영학회지)

Korean Society for Quality Management (한국품질경영학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Development of a User Experience Evaluation Methodology for Smart Safety Living Lab

스마트안전 리빙랩 환경에서의 사용자경험 평가를 위한 방법론 개발

  • Choi, Jae-Rim (Department of Industrial and Management Engineering, Pohang University of Science and Technology) ;
  • Ryu, Do-Hyeon (Department of Industrial and Management Engineering, Pohang University of Science and Technology) ;
  • Kim, Kwang-Jae (Department of Industrial and Management Engineering, Pohang University of Science and Technology) ;
  • Yun, Jung-Min (Korea National Industrial Convergence Center, Korea Institute of Industrial Technology) ;
  • Kim, Min-Sun (Korea National Industrial Convergence Center, Korea Institute of Industrial Technology)
  • 최재림 (포항공과대학교 산업경영공학과) ;
  • 류도현 (포항공과대학교 산업경영공학과) ;
  • 김광재 (포항공과대학교 산업경영공학과) ;
  • 윤정민 (한국생산기술연구원 국가산업융합지원센터) ;
  • 김민선 (한국생산기술연구원 국가산업융합지원센터)
  • Received : 2021.02.19
  • Accepted : 2021.04.05
  • Published : 2021.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: Smart Safety Living Lab is a Living Lab facility, constructed and operated by KITECH in Korea, to support the user experience(UX) evaluation, planning and certification of smart safety products and services. The purpose of this study is to develop a UX evaluation methodology that accommodates the characteristics of the Living Lab and smart safety products and services for a systematic and efficient UX evaluation in the Smart Safety Living Lab. Methods: A generic model of UX evaluation was first derived based on a review of related literature. Then, the generic model is revised to accommodate the characteristics of the Smart Safety Living Lab and smart safety products and services, resulting in the UX Evaluation Methodology for Smart Safety Living Lab (SSLL-UXEM). Results: The developed SSLL-UXEM consists of a structured process for UX evaluation, a guideline for conducting each step of the process, and a set of forms for recording the major evaluation results in each step. Conclusion: SSLL-UXEM can help to enhance the efficiency of the UX evaluation process and the consistency of the UX evaluation results. SSLL-UXEM is also expected to serve as a basis for UX evaluation in various living lab environments in the future.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

본 연구는 산업통상자원부와 한국산업기술진흥원의 "산업융합기반구축사업 스마트 안전분야 융합신제품 및 서비스실증 리빙랩 기반구축 사업"(과제번호 N0002430) 으로 수행된 연구결과 입니다.

References

  1. Amidon, T. R., Williams, E. A., Lipsey, T., Callahan, R., Nuckols, G., and Rice, S. 2018. Sensors and Gizmos and Data, Oh My: Informating Ffirefighters' Personal Protective Equipment. Communication Design Quarterly Review 5(4):15-30. https://doi.org/10.1145/3188387.3188389
  2. An, K. H., Lee, S. B., Lee, S. B., and Suh, Y. H. 2018. An Effect of O2O Service Users' Motivation on Loyalty through Expectation-Confirmation and Satisfaction. Journal of the Korean Society for Quality Management 46(4):923-938. https://doi.org/10.7469/JKSQM.2018.46.4.923
  3. Bae, J. H., Park, J. H., Lee, H. N., and Choi, J. I. 2019. A Study of Factors Affecting Intention to Use of Using Technology-based Self-services for Smart Airport. Journal of Korean Society for Quality Management 47(4):795-806.
  4. Bergvall-Kareborn, B., and Stahlbrost, A. 2009. Living Lab: An Open and Citizen-centric Approach for Iinnovation. International Journal of Innovation and Regional Development 1(4):356-370. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJIRD.2009.022727
  5. Chae, H. S., Ko, M. S., Kim, H. C., Kim, K. S., Choi, D. P., Kim, K. R., and Lee, K. S. 2017. Development Trends of Smart Personal Protective Equipment for Agricultural Health and Safety. Journal of the Ergonomics Society of Korea 36(6):677-691. https://doi.org/10.5143/JESK.2017.36.6.677
  6. Chen, H. E., Lin, Y. Y., Chen, C. H., and Wang, I. F. 2015. BlindNavi: A Navigation App for the Visually Iimpaired Smartphone User. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference Extended Abstracts on Hhuman Factors in Computing Systems 19-24.
  7. Cooper, R. G. 2008. Perspective: The Stage-gate® idea-to-launch process-Update, What's New, and Nexgen Systems. Journal of Product Innovation Mmanagement 25(3):213-232. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2008.00296.x
  8. Desmet, P., Overbeeke, K., and Tax, S. 2001. Designing Products with Added Emotional Value: Development and Appllcation of an Approach for Research through Design. The Design Journal 4(1):32-47. https://doi.org/10.2752/146069201789378496
  9. Dong, Y., and Liu, W. 2018. Research on UX Ealuation Method of Design Concept under Multi-modal Experience Scenario in the Earlier Design Stages. International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing 12(2):505-515. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12008-017-0393-0
  10. European Network of Living Labs. [Internet]. 2021 Feb 03. Available from: https://enoll.org/about-us/what-are-living-labs/.
  11. Hartson, R., and Pyla, P. S. 2012. The UX Book: Process and Guidelines for Ensuring a Quality User Experience. Elsevier.
  12. Hassenzahl, M., and Tractinsky, N. 2006. User Experience-A Research Agenda. Behaviour & Iinformation Technology 25(2):91-97. https://doi.org/10.1080/01449290500330331
  13. International Organization for Standardization. 2019. ISO 9241-210: 2019 (en) Ergonomics of Human-system Interaction-Part 210: Human-centred Design for Interactive Systems. Available from: https://www.iso.org/standard/77520.html
  14. Jakobi, T., Ogonowski, C., Castelli, N., Stevens, G., and Wulf, V. 2017. The Catch (es) with Smart Home: Experiences of a Living Lab Field Study. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 1620-1633.
  15. Jang, R., Molesworth, B. R., Burgess, M., and Estival, D. 2014. Improving Communication in General Aviation through the Use of Noise Cancelling Headphones. Safety Science 62:499-504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2013.09.012
  16. Jaspers, M. W. 2009. A Comparison of Usability Methods for Testing Interactive Health Technologies: Methodological Aspects and Empirical Evidence. International Journal of Medical Informatics 78(5):340-353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2008.10.002
  17. Jung, K. B., and Choi, S. B. 2020. The Effect of Employee Authenticity on Customer Loyalty via Rapport: A Moderated Mediation Model. Journal of the Korean Society for Quality Management 48(3):361-379. https://doi.org/10.7469/JKSQM.2020.48.3.361
  18. Kaasinen, E., Roto, V., Hakulinen, J., Heimonen, T., Jokinen, J. P., Karvonen, H., ... and Turunen, M. 2015. Defining User Experience Goals to Guide the Design of Industrial Systems. Behaviour & Information Technology 34(10):976-991. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2015.1035335
  19. Kim, H., Han, S., Park, J., and Park, W. 2015. How User Experience Changes Over Time: A Case Study of Social Nnetwork Services. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries 25(6):659-673. https://doi.org/10.1002/hfm.20583
  20. Kim, M., Kim, P., and Yoon, J. 2020. Establishment and Application of Living Lab, Industrial Innovation Platform. IE Magazine 27(2):38-45.
  21. Laugwitz, B., Held, T., and Schrepp, M. 2008. Construction and Evaluation of a User Experience Questionnaire. In Symposium of the Austrian HCI and Usability Engineering Group 63-76.
  22. Leminen, S., Westerlund, M., and Nystrom, A. G. 2012. Living Labs as Open-Innovation Networks. Technology Innovation Management Review 2(9):6-11. https://doi.org/10.22215/timreview602
  23. Nascimento, I., Silva, W., Gadelha, B., and Conte, T. 2016. Userbility: A Technique for the Evaluation of User Experience and Usability on Mobile Aapplications. In International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction 372-383.
  24. Nawaz, A., Skjaeret, N., Ystmark, K., Helbostad, J. L., Vereijken, B., and Svanaes, D. 2014, Assessing Seniors' User Experience (UX) of Exergames for Balance Training. In Proceedings of the 8th Nordic Conference on Human-computer Interaction: Fun, Fast, Foundational 578-587.
  25. Nesterova, N., and Quak, H. 2015. CITYLAB Deliverable 3.1. Practical Guidelines for Establishing and Running a Ccity Logistics Living Laboratory. Available from: https://civitas.eu/tool-inventory/city-logistics- living-lab-handbook.
  26. Park, J., Han, S. H., Park, J., Park, J., Kwahk, J., Lee, M., and Jeong, D. Y. 2018. Development of a Web-based User Experience Evaluation Ssystem for Hhome Aappliances. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 67:216-228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2018.05.017
  27. Parker, R., Vitalis, A., Walker, R., Riley, D., and Pearce, H. G. 2017. Measuring Wildland Fire Fighter Performance with Wearable Technology. Applied Ergonomics 59:34-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2016.08.018
  28. Rajeshkumar, S., Omar, R., and Mahmud, M. 2013. Taxonomies of User Experience (UX) Evaluation Methods. In 2013 International Conference on Research and Innovation in Information Systems 533-538.
  29. Schrepp, M. 2015. User Experience Questionnaire Handbook. All You Need to Know to Apply the UEQ Successfully in Your Project.
  30. Seong, J., Song, W., Jung, B., Choi, C., Yoon, C., Jeong, S., and Han, K. 2017. Current Status of Korean Living Labs and Its Development Plan. Sci Technol Policy Institute 9:1-194.
  31. Stahlbrost, A., and Holst, M. 2012. The Living Lab Methodology Handbook. Social Informatics at Lulea University of Technology and CDT-Centre for Distance-spanning Technology
  32. Turunen, M., Hakulinen, J., Melto, A., Heimonen, T., Laivo, T., and Hella, J. 2009. SUXES-user Experience Evaluation Method for Spoken and Multimodal Interaction. In Tenth Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association.
  33. Vaziri, D. D., Aal, K., Ogonowski, C., Von Rekowski, T., Kroll, M., Marston, H. R., ... and Wulf, V. 2016. Exploring User Experience and Technology Acceptance for a Fall Prevention System: Results from a Randomized Clinical Trial and a Living Lab. European Review of Aging and Physical Activity 13(1): 6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s11556-016-0165-z
  34. Winckler, M., Bernhaupt, R., and Bach, C. 2016. Identification of UX Dimensions for Incident Reporting Systems with Mobile Applications in Urban Contexts: a Longitudinal Study. Cognition, Technology & Work 18(4): 673-694. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-016-0383-1
  35. Wu, Y. H., Wrobel, J., Cornuet, M., Kerherve, H., Damnee, S., and Rigaud, A. S. 2014. Acceptance of an Assistive Robot in Older Adults: a Mixed-method Sstudy of Hhuman-robot Iinteraction Over a 1-month Priod in the Living Lab Setting. Clinical Interventions in Aging 9:801. https://doi.org/10.2147/cia.s56435