People research for

experience design
Generating great stories – new product development
Preface
This paper is based on Philips Design’s ‘Research through Design’ program, intended to develop
business options with high potential value and in a timely manner. The paper outlines an approach
to assessing and evaluating innovative experience solutions – presented as tangible experience
demonstrators – that are being developed to have people create their own relevant and meaningful
experiences.

This approach to Experience Assessment builds – in five steps – on the fundamentals of people’s
experiences. Such experiences are both dynamic (evolving over time); personal (an integral part
of each individual’s experience); and memorable (memory forms a frame of reference for new
experiences as well as a long term ‘data-source’ of past experiences).

As an example of how this approach can be applied, we present one of our recently conducted
research projects, intended to help with the development of new innovative solutions for home
entertainment. We show how the approach supports both the design of personalized and
meaningful solutions for people, yet remains quick and cost-efficient.

Slava Kozlov, Lucile Rameckers, Paul Schots

People research for experience design 

Human experiences:
new challenges for business and design
In their seminal book,The Experience Economy,
Pine and Gilmore (1999) argued that people will
increasingly value personalized and memorable
experiences that deliver meaningful solutions to
their rational needs, yet which are also rich both
emotionally and sensorially. Indeed today, many
signals show that our societies have been moving
from a ‘product and service economy’ towards an
‘economy of human experiences’ (Thakara, 2005).
In response to these profound changes, business
must also move from developing and manu­
facturing products – with a focus on new features
and functionalities – to designing complete
solutions that facilitate the creation of rich and
meaningful experiences for individuals.
To support this process of ‘experience design’,
it is essential to understand people’s behavior
in the contexts of their own lives and to involve
them in co-designing for the experience
(Prahalad and Ramaswamy 2004).The
Participatory Design approach also calls for the
active involvement of the end users in the design
process (Participatory Design,Wikipedia).We
believe that the same principles of active user
involvement should be applied to research phases
as well. Such a new, deeper level of understanding
of both people and new design practices
increases the chance of developing desirable –
and viable – business solutions.
In order to achieve this involvement of the end
user, we developed different research methods
and tools during the earlier stages of the design
process to generate insights into people.These
methods and approaches are described in ‘People
insights at the ‘fuzzy front’ of innovation: How to
achieve human-centered innovation?’ and
‘The seven steps of innovation,’
(Rameckers and Un, 2005).
Interacting with people in iterative loops, we
translate and develop these insights through the
following three (successive) phases.
I. Qualities of experiences – the key concepts
that capture essential aspects of the feelings
and emotions that an experiential solution
should evoke
2. Design implications – the features, functions,
relevant messages, associative triggers, and
look and feel of a solution.
3. Design concepts – draft ideas and sketches
that eventually evolve into a set of ‘experience
demonstrators’.
The primal goal of an experience demonstrator
is to enable experience formation, rather than
the presentation of specific product features and
the technology behind it.Therefore, they are not
necessarily fully workable prototypes, as the
technology behind the demonstrator is often still
in development (Andrews, Geurts, and Kyffin,
2005).That said, they must have a reasonably
‘finalized’ execution, and as such are particularly
suited to involving the end-user in exploring
both the medium-term and distant possibilities.
In short, they help people to envisage and
experience, in as tangible a manner as possible,
potential future solutions that are in many other
aspects no more than vague descriptions
(Gardien, 2006). (See figure 1)
Figure 1
Examples of
experience
prototypes
This paper will focus on involving end users in
the third stage of the design process, that is, the
actual creation of experience demonstrators. In
this phase, the team needs specific tools and
methods that actively involve people to explore,
refine, and validate developed experience
solutions vis-à-vis previously defined experience
qualities; they need this to make sure that they
are on the right track in their design.The
fundamentals of a person’s experience (section 2)
formed the basis for setting up this Experience
Assessment approach (section 3) and is
illustrated with a case example in section 4.
People research for experience design 
Designing for experiences:
from discoveries to memories
We have been guided in our research activities
by the fundamentals of a person’s experience
formulated in Cass and Gridley (2004), and the
experience design principles that resulted from
this formulation.
One of the key fundamentals of ‘experiences’ is
that they cannot be ‘provided’ or ‘delivered’ to
people. People create personal experiences using
multiple available enablers and environments
that obtain meaning within a certain social,
cultural, and historical context (Cass and Gridley,
2004, page 5). Therefore, the first principle
of experience design is that it has to enable,
support, and facilitate people in creating their
own experiences, rather than delivering ‘ready-
made’ experiences, for it is only experiences in
which people play an active role themselves that
provide personal meaning.
A second principle builds upon the historical
context in which experiences are shaped: every
person builds their own, personal memory of
the experiences they encounter. A memory
contains previous personal experiences as
well as the interpretation of it from a shared
cultural reference (Cass and Gridley, 2004, page
7). A memory, therefore, creates a frame of
reference for interpreting experiences: using our
memory, we continuously create expectations
and interpret perceptions. Our memory is also
affected and developed through our experiences,
which makes every experience a personal
endeavor.
A third principle of experience design is that
people are bound in their lives to the notion
of time: they perceive things and events in
terms of time and, with every action leading to
another, sequences of events flow together into
an overall experience. When people describe
their experiences, they recall them as stories, as
successions of contexts, interactions and events
that flow together in a meaningful way.
These dynamics of an experience as it evolves
over time can be represented as four separate
phases through which people travel (Cass and
Gridley, 2004, page 6).
Experience in time
affected
impression discovery
Figure 2
The flow of experiences over time
• Impression. The very first feelings and ideas
people have at the beginning of an experience.
This first evaluation determines the subsequent
course of action.
• Discovery. The discovery of an experience at
the beginning of the interaction.
• Use/do. The active interaction with the
solution.
• Memory. The end of the formation of an
experience, which also affects the beginning of
a new experience
Memory affects all three other phases of
experience formation: people form expectations
based on previous experiences, and the memory
of the experience affects future experiences.
(See figure 2.)
expectation
Individual memory
use/do and cultural reference
People research for experience design 
Assessing experiences:

the five-step approach

As product and concept testing is designed
to explore concrete features, functionalities,
and propositions, we felt that we needed to
make use of an approach that also captures the
dynamic, personal and memorable aspects that
are so typical of an experience. This led us to
develop a rapid yet very productive method to
assess experience solutions and provides the
required feedback loops to the designers.
Following the principles of experience design, we
developed an Experience Assessment approach
that consists of five major stages
1. Creating a personalized space.
2. Investigating expectations and impressions, and
interacting with the experience demonstrator.
3. Putting the solution into a broader context.
4. Exploring the meaning of the solution.
5. Triggering and eliciting memory aspects.
We therefore developed an assessment site that
allows for customization and personalization by
participants. Instead of testing the demonstrators
in an artificial environment such as a research
lab, we created a space in which people can
imitate their own home environment. We expect
that this not only makes participants feel at
ease but also helps them translate their test
experiences to their own contexts of use.
The participants then shape and create their
own personal test spaces, using a selection of
familiar and preferred triggers (objects and
posters), as shown in figure 3.
2. Investigating expectations and
impressions, and interacting with the
experience demonstrator
As it is so important that an experience builds
over time, we need to account for the whole
trajectory of experiences as people move
from initial expectation to memory formation.
Therefore, the second stage is to explore
the first three parts in this trajectory (that is,
impression, discovery, and use/do).
We ask people to describe their initial
expectations after a brief explanation of the
experience demonstrator but before they see

1. Creating a personalized space

Building the context of personal meaning into
our experience-assessment site is a serious
challenge. Ideally we place the demonstrators
in actual homes, but they are often not robust
enough to be placed in such ‘real life’ situations
and they also required regular back-stage
support and technical maintenance. Figure 3
Poster (left) and home objects (right) used
to personalize the test environment

People research for experience design 

any part of it. Subsequently, upon arrival at the
test location, people are asked to describe their
first impressions.
Similarly, we continue by exploring the different
applications of the demonstrator, constantly
focusing on the users’ first impressions during
their first interactions with it. In so doing, we
witness how initial first impressions evolve,
or sometimes change into different overall
evaluations and memories of the experience
demonstrators, information that is crucially
important to defining the exact qualities of an
experience demonstrator.
3. Putting the solution into a broader
context
The third stage relates to people’s experiences
with alternative products and solutions. This
also influences and shapes their memory and
expectations and, as such, serves multiple goals.
Firstly, it broadens people’s minds, enabling
them to put things into perspective rather than
tempting them to offer the unrealistic – and
unquestioning – amount of attention they
might give a finished product during a standard
‘market survey’ test. Forcing people to think
about alternative solutions may make them
more critical towards the proposed experience
demonstrator. In addition, it enables people to
place their experience with the demonstrator
in the context of their own personal history of
interaction with products and patterns of use. To
cover this aspect of alternative solutions, people
have to indicate the ‘likeability’, and ‘newness’,
of a wide range of products. The experience
demonstrator was one of these products.
4. Exploring the meaning of the solution
An experience is personal; people participate
in creating their own experiences through
an interplay between context, behavior, and
memory (references and expectations). This
interplay ‘manifests itself to the individual’
through what they perceive and how they
interact with enablers and environment of the
experience.
To get a better understanding of the personal
meaning of an experience, the team wanted
to capture – by using both observation and
dialogue–istinct levels of the perception of, and
interaction with, the experience demonstrator.
On an emotional level, we focus on the feelings
and reactions to a solution, from the beginning
right through to the end of experience
formation; that is, understanding whether feelings
are positive or negative, and – on a deeper level
– identifying precisely the emotions experienced:
surprise, anger, sadness, fear, love, and joy (Shaver,
Schwartz, Kirson, and O’Connor, 2001).
On a rational level, we focus on the experienced
usefulness of the different applications within a
solution. This is to see whether people’s insights
were properly translated into design qualities.
It also provides an opportunity to validate the
importance of the people insights identified.
For example, is the experienced benefit of an
application the fact that it helped the user ‘to
share with friends’ or ‘to be on top of things’?
On an interaction level, we focus on how
the applications fit to the behavior of people:
behavior with regards to the direct interaction
with the demonstrator. This means that
interaction with the demonstrator should always
remain in line with how people are used to
interacting with products.
Accounting for these distinct levels helps us to
understand whether it is:
• The experience itself that is (not) desired;
• The intended experience that has (not) been
properly ‘provided’;
• The combination of interactions, perceptions,
and events that has influenced the flow of the
experience.
People research for experience design 
5.Triggering and eliciting memory aspects
Finally, the last phase addresses – in two ways
– the important role of memory as part of an
experience.
Firstly, people’s short-term memory of
their interaction and experience with the
demonstrator contains an implicit evaluation
of it. Using a carefully structured interview, we
explored this short-term memory to identify
the design implications of the demonstrator
that do, and do not, contribute to the overall
experiences. The information gathered helps
the design team to fine-tune the experience
demonstrator.
Secondly, one of the dangers of proposing
experience demonstrators to people is that
they may form very positive reactions to it
based on nothing more than its newness and
technological innovation. It is, therefore, also
important to capture what people retain in their
long-term memory after a test, when they have
‘cooled down’. So, to allow them time to ‘take’
the experience home and let it ‘sink in’ in their
own context of use, we give them a token with
pictures of the demonstrator they have just
encountered.
We ask people to put this token in their homes,
in the spot where they would normally have
placed the ‘real’ demonstrator. Two weeks later,
we evaluate how the experience has sunk into
their long-term memory. We also ask them
to tell us how they would have used certain
applications of the demonstrator in their own
homes, and how it would have fit in with the
products they already had.
People research for experience design 
 Experience exploration in action:
a case study
We developed our Experience Assessment
approach within the framework of AMEC,1) and
designed it for the development of new digital
systems and solutions that can help people to
transform their home environment and enable
new activities, either by supporting existing
lifestyles, or adopting new ones.
This project was informed by extensive in-
depth research into people’s everyday lives,
their behaviors, needs and wants. Based on
this research, we compiled three distinctive
Personas2) (called Alejandra, Sietske, and Jeroen)
Figure 4
to represent target groups and help designers
The setting of the experience
translate their abstract people insights into
demonstrator
tangible solutions.
The experience demonstrators developed by
the design team provide solutions for in-home
entertainment.They combine external TV
content with local/self-created digital content
(such as home movies or downloaded films,
pictures and music, etc.), with access to Internet
services.The entire setting is based around the
television in the home. (See figure 4.)
The experience demonstrator was based on
one technological platform consistent across the
three target groups. It consisted of:
• A ‘set-top box’ containing all the appropriate
technology
• ‘personalizable’ home menu displayed on a TV
• Various objects to make the content mobile.
It is important to note that the experience
demonstrators were based on one technological
platform.This was to show that the same
technology can be worked out in different
applications evoking distinctively personalized
experiences for various target groups and
enabled us to construct three experience
demonstrators, each targeted at one of our
personas.
1. Alejandra’s demonstrator was designed
to create easy access to digital content
to enhance a balanced, personal home
environment. In addition to a TV and E-hub,
it includes ‘OpenFrames’.The functionality of Figure 5
an ‘OpenFrame’ is open to whatever the user Experience prototype
desires so that it can, for example, become for alejandra (left) and
a photo viewer, radio, or recipe book. Each ‘openframe’ (right)
functionality can be downloaded and organized
in the HomeMenu. (See figure 5.)
2. Sietske’s demonstrator was designed to enable
the physical flexibility of digital content. In
addition to a TV and E-hub, it includes the
‘LifeBook’, a personal and flexible tablet
onto which you can load multiple content.
This makes it become whatever you want,
whenever you want: a photo album, a
collection of news and business services, a
storybook, scrapbook, a communication tool
and so on. (See figure 6.)
Figure 6
Experience prototype for sietske (left) and ‘lifebook’ (right)
People research for experience design 
 3. Jeroen’s demonstrator was designed to
enhance the way he experienced his hobbies
(such as music) in his home environment. In
addition to a TV and E-hub, it includes the
‘Pure Music Browser’ – an application on the
HomeMenu which can be used to browse
and play music collections – and a ‘Touchpad
remote’ controller for browsing the Pure
Music Browser using natural gestures.
(See figure 7.)
Figure 7
Experience prototype for jeroen
The research was conducted at Philips Design
(left) and ‘touchpad remote’ (right)
in Eindhoven in the Netherlands over a period
of two weeks, with 18 participants (six for every
persona). In line with our approach, we created
three different test sites, or ‘islands’ (as shown in
the picture below) for each persona.
(See figure 8.)
Step 1: Personalizing the test islands
At the start of the experience assessment,
participants were allowed to personalize the
test site with a personal object brought from
their homes, together with lifestyle posters and
other items provided by the researchers.The
participants very much appreciated the whole
process of personalizing the test island: it gave
them a sense of more intimacy and a feeling of
being genuinely involved.
Step 2: Exploring the demonstrators value in the subtleties of experiencing the
Participants were first given a short verbal personalized and natural interaction with the
introduction to the experience demonstrator demonstrator: “I think you now will access your
and asked for their expectations before entering photos quicker and more often because you
the test site.They then started interacting with don’t have to sit behind your pc or get out the
the demonstrator. A researcher continuously photo albums anymore”.
observed and elicited people’s impressions of the • Initial expectations were often that the TV
demonstrators, on each level of understanding, screen was similar to a regular TV screen.
and the way they explored various applications. However, as they discovered that they could
It was essential to not focus only on task analysis, display a picture on the entire screen, they
but rather on feelings, emotions, and reactions to grew more enthusiastic and understood the
the ‘look and feel’. opportunity for transforming the TV into a
large painting.
It proved to be important that the way we
presented the demonstrators was well-staged:
that is, participants discovered certain features,
Figure 8
were then asked by us for their reaction, then
Example of a personalized test island
discovered new facets while we observed their
reaction, and then were asked for their reaction
again, etc. By such a staging of the experience,
we were able to discover a range of reactions to
an entire experience, rather than just the overall
impressions of the demonstrator, as is shown by
the following examples:
• Overall impressions were often positive, while
first impressions were sometimes indifferent
or even negative: “All these things you just
explained can already be done with a regular
laptop”. However, as the entire flow of the
experience unfolded, this persons’ view turned
into a positive, pleasant perception, recognizing
People research for experience design 
 Step 3: Creating a product chart
After in-depth exploration of the demonstrators,
we asked people to place them – on charts –
within the broader context of the more familiar
solutions they may already have experienced
today.This also produced a ‘cooling down’ effect
after the test. (See figure 9.)
Figure 9
The construction of these product charts
Product graph (left)
triggered discussions on the role of technology
to trigger discussion (right)
and products in people’s lives “I am from another
on alternative solutions
era: pen, paper,TV,” and “I am not that interested
in new technologies”.This helped us to interpret
people’s experiences with the demonstrators
because it told us something about their level
of openness to innovations.The exercise
also provided a frame of reference for the
participants. Using the chart, people were better
able to compare the demonstrator with existing
products or solutions. One of the participants of
the Jeroen Persona didn’t like that music would
only be available digitally: “I miss the feeling of
holding a CD”.
Step 4: Understanding the experiences
The participants’ feedback was carefully
structured around the three levels of
understanding of the experiences. For the
middle-aged Alejandra Persona, for example,
current technology is complex, difficult, and
confusing.Therefore we defined as a target
for this demonstrator the need to experience
technology in a humanized way – as if there was
no technology at all – in a manner congruent
with existing behavior.
To realize this, the team developed a ‘drag &
drop’ interface that allowed Alejandra to interact
with content in a more natural and intuitive way:
pictures, movies, and music could be moved from
one device to another simply by pointing to the
content with a remote control, ‘capturing’ it, and
‘dragging’ it to another device. (See figure 10.)
The feedback on the drag & drop solution was
very reassuring to the team.
• On the emotional level, people like Alejandra
indicated that they found the application very
desirable and said that they were surprised that
technology could work in such a simple way:
“Wow, it is like a magic wand!”. It even gave
some of the participants a sense of pride, as
they were now able to do something that they’d
considered too difficult in the past: “It is really
good that someone who cannot do anything,
can do this”.
• On the rational level, because most of the
participants were now able to deal with
technological applications they’ve never used
before, it opened up a new world for them and
added value to their lives: “That I can actually
do it, you have more at your fingertips now!”.
• On the interaction level, the main goal of the
drag and drop quality was to make technology
less complex, difficult, and confusing.This
experience was clearly attained: “I have
mastered this much quicker than I thought was
possible for a product such as this” Figure 10
‘Dragging & dropping’
The design team did, however, receive some content from tv to
less positive feedback on the experience openframe
demonstrators as well. In case of Jeroen’s
demonstrator, the touch pad was felt to be tiring
to use because it was too sensitive. Fortunately,
this problem could be easily overcome. Most
of the criticism, in fact, was directed at the level
of interaction, demonstrating the importance
of assessing whether it is the experience itself
that is not desired, or whether the intended
experience has not been properly ‘provided’.
People research for experience design 
 Step 5:Triggering and eliciting memory
Two weeks after the assessments, we probed the
memories participants had built. Overall, people
remembered very well the different applications
and solutions of the experience demonstrators.
However, contradicting what we had expected
– that they would have ‘cooled down’ by then
and be less enthusiastic – the memory of the
experience had become even more positive.
Not only had the new and exciting technical
innovations contributed to this feeling, but also
the imagined usefulness of the demonstrator had
increased over time.
• “… over the past two weeks, I thought about
it often and I think it is a good and useful
product. It saves space, it looks beautiful, and it
is extraordinary functional and divers“.
• “The positive feeling I initially had is still there.
It may have even strengthened. I still think it is
a beautiful and useful device.The tablet is still
very useful, though it is a bit lumpish, big”.
(See figure 11.)
Figure 11
Allowing the experiences to ‘settle’ and then
Token to trigger and elicit people’s
memory
reflecting on them in their homes – as opposed
to the test area – also helped participants
to recommend additional applications and
improvements to the demonstrators. It helped
them determine the activities and routines that
are important to them in their everyday lives
and what, therefore, should be added to the
demonstrators.The additions proposed were
mainly related to managing the household and
maintaining, or changing to, a more (healthy)
lifestyle (for example, health services, banking
services and reminders).
As the design team of the AMEC project
consisted of multiple stakeholders – ranging
from designers to engineers, people researchers,
and project managers – the test site created
a unique platform for rapid yet efficient
discussion and development of the solutions. It
was extremely well suited to helping the more
technically oriented engineers in translating their
developments and applications to solutions that
would make sense in people’s everyday lives.
(See figure 12.)
The improved experience demonstrators have
since been demonstrated at an internal exhibition
aimed at bringing technology developments
closer to the business and have been received
very well. Initial communication has even been
started with business representatives to discuss
the potential commercialization of some of the
demonstrators’ specific solutions. Moreover,
the design team has been invited to exhibit
their results at the IFA 2006 (Internationale
Funkausstellung) in Berlin, the world’s largest Figure 12
consumer electronics trade fair. Amec team during and after the experience assessment
People research for experience design 10
Summary and discussion
The current experience economy has led to the
development of complete solutions that facilitate
the creation of rich and meaningful experiences
for individuals.
To support this process of ‘experience design’
and to develop both desirable – and viable
– business solutions, we need a deep level of
understanding people within the context of their
lives and we need to actively involve people in
both design and research activities.
At Philips Design, we create ‘experience
demonstrators’ to help people envisage and
experience potential future solutions that are,
in many other aspects, no more than vague
descriptions. They help people shape their
own personal experiences when triggered and
enabled by multiple technological and interaction
enablers.
Therefore, we developed an approach for
the assessment of experiences. The approach
consists of five steps – based on the theoretical
fundamentals of people’s experiences
– and, as such, goes far beyond product and
concept testing that is designed solely to
explore concrete features, functionalities, and
propositions.
For this reason, the approach enabled an commercialization of potentially innovative
understanding of the dynamic, personal, and solutions built on the true understanding,
memorable aspects that are so typical to an involvement and evaluation of ‘everyday’ people.
experience. It enabled us to witness the flow of
the actual experience – from first impression, We intend to use and build further upon this
discovery and use, to the memory of it - thereby Experience Assessment approach in areas
discovering a range of reactions to an entire beyond the context of digital experiences within
experience: the emotional and the rational, as the home environment: in particular, solutions
well as the interaction facets. for healthcare and communication.
The approach also provided an understanding
of the experience in a broader context: that of
the everyday life environment of the individuals,
as well as the internal reference frames that
influence their openness to innovations. Such
understanding could prevent an innovation
being forced in a specific – and inappropriate
– direction, thus ensuring that its potential value
would not be lost (Gardien, 2006).
As a result, we developed a rapid yet very
productive method for assessing experience
solutions. It provided the required feedback
loops for, and iterative discussions to, designers
and engineers – who took actively part – in the
early phases of the innovation process.
For business, we feel that such an approach
can offer investment opportunities for the
People research for experience design 11
Acknowledgements
The authors want to thank all people involved in the AMEC project.
Specifically we want to thank Anton Andrews, Angus Dick, Luc
Geurts, Robert Kortenoeven, Judith Peeten, Daniel Pezzutti, Stuart
Pill, Henk van de Weij, Pascal de Man for their technical, creative,
as well as intellectual support. We also want to thank Marlies
Bielderman and Juliana Kelly for their support in observing and
interviewing the participants, and Anja Janssen for her facilitation
support. Thanks to Gavin Proctor, Steven Kyffin, Paul Gardien,
Josephine Green and Geke Deetman for making this project
possible. Finally, special thanks go to Mili Docampo-Rama, Geke
Ludde (TU Delft, The Netherlands), Lesh Parameshwaran, Karen
References
Aarts, E. and Marzano, S., (2003) The New Everyday, Views on
Ambient Intelligence, 010 Publishers.
Aarts, E., Collier, R., van Loenen, E., de Ruyter, B. (Eds.) (2003).
Ambient Intelligence, Springer.
Andrews, A. (2003). Putting the customer first: Creating “Experience
Targets” to mange digital experiences, White Paper of Philips Design.
Andrews, A., Geurts, L. and Kyffin, S. (2005). TO:DO – Collaborative
experience innovation, White Paper of Philips Design.
Shaver, P., Schwartz, J., Kirson, D., and O’Connor, C. (2001).
Emotion Knowledge: Further Exploration of a Prototype
Approach. In Emotions in Social Psychology, Ed. By Parrott W.G.,
Psychology Press: Philadelphia.
Participatory design, article from Wikipedia
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_design)
Thackara, J. (2005). In the Bubble: Designing in a Complex
World. The MIT Press.

The authors
Reddering, Liesbeth Scholten, Bruce Thomas, and Stefanie Un for
their valuable input. Rameckers, L. and Bueno, M. (2003). Research for Innovation:
Fitting the design process at Philips Design, presented at ESOMAR

Footnotes
Qualitative conference 2003 Slava Kozlov is Senior Consultant, Philips Design, Netherlands.

1. AMEC: AMbient ECologies is subsidized by ITEA (Information
Technology for European Advancement). It is a collaborative project
between several European partners to stimulate and encourage
European industry to take a leading role in digital technology
systems. (Aarts and Marzano, 2003; Aarts et al, 2003). More detailed
information about the project can be found at the project web-site:
http://www.amecproject.com/
2. Personas are fictional people with ‘real’ life stories, goals and tasks
(Grudin and Pruitt, 2002). The Personas developed for this project
are fictional yet realistic, meaning that they do not exist in real life,
but are based on extensive research into ‘real’ people. The method
used to develop research-based Personas is described in Research
for Innovation: Fitting the design process at Philips Design, Lucile
Rameckers and Monica Bueno, presented at ESOMAR’s Qualitative
Conference 2003
Cass, J. and Gridely, N. (2004). Experience Design. A positioning Lucile Rameckers is Senior Consultant, Philips Design,
paper for Philips Design, Royal Philips Electronics. Netherlands.
Grudin, J., and Pruitt, J. (2002). Personas, Participatory Design Paul Schots is Researcher, Philips Design, Netherlands.
and Product Development: An Infrastructure for Engagement.
Proceedings of Participatory Design Conference.
Pine, B, and Gilmore, J. (1999), Experience Economy: Work is
Theatre and Every Business a Stage, Harvard Business School Press.
Prahalad, C.K. and Ramaswamy,V. (2004). The Future of
Competition: Co-creating Unique Values with Customers, Harvard
Business Scholl Press.
Rameckers, L. and Un, S. (2005). “People insights at the ‘fuzzy
front’ of innovation”: How to achieve human-centered innovation?
Proceedings of ESOMAR Qualitative Conference, 2005.

People research for experience design 12

Headline
Sub headline

©007 Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V.

All rights reserved.