Analyzing Interaction Dynamics at the Fuzzy Front-End of Innovation Projects: A Tool for Prospective Ergonomics

  • Julien NelsonEmail author
  • Xavier Malon
  • Nicolas Férey
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 824)


Prospective ergonomics is defined as an emerging mode of ergonomic intervention focused on the anticipation of future user needs and activities for innovation design. This is a fairly new topic of research for ergonomics and implies the development of new methods of intervention, a sustained dialog with other domains such as innovation management, and a better understanding of the activity deployed by design teams at the fuzzy front-end of design projects. In order to address this need, we analyzed verbal communication between members of an ad hoc team whose goal was to structure future projects for the development of systems making use of emerging technologies in the field of bioinformatics, during a KCP workshop for innovation management. Our results show that the activity deployed by this team – composed of software developers, user representatives and an ergonomist - comprises epistemic and argumentative aspects, just as the subsequent design activity does. We discuss these results in terms of research on prospective ergonomics and on design activities.


Prospective ergonomics Bioinformatics KCP workshops 


  1. 1.
    Dul J, Neumann WP (2009) Ergonomics contributions to company strategies. Appl Ergon 40:745–752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Robert JM, Brangier É (2012) Prospective ergonomics: origin, goal, and prospects. Work 41:5235–5242Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nelson J, Buisine S, Aoussat A (2013) Anticipating the use of future things: towards a framework for prospective use analysis in innovation design projects. Appl Ergon 44(6):948–956CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Liem A (2017) Prospective ergonomics. Wiley, HobokenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wheelwright SC, Clark KB (1992) Revolutionizing product development: quantum leaps in speed, efficiency, and quality. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Midler C (1995) ‘Projectification’ of the firm: the renault case. Scand J Manag 11(4):363–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cooper RG (1990) Stage-gate systems: a new tool for managing new products. Bus Horiz 33(3):44–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Barcellini F, Détienne F, Burkhardt JM, Sack W (2008) A socio-cognitive analysis of online design discussions in an Open Source Software community. Interact Comput 20(1):141–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Visser W (2006) Cognitive artifacts of designing. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, MahwahCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Détienne F (2006) Collaborative design: managing task interdependencies and multiple perspectives. Interact Comput 18(1 Spec. Iss.):1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Baker M, Détienne F, Lund K, Séjourné A (2009) Étude des profils interactifs dans une situation de conception collective en architecture. In: Détienne F, Traverso V (eds) Méthodologies d’analyse de situations coopératives de conception: Corpus MOSAIC. Presses Universitaires de Nancy, Nancy, pp 183–220Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Barcellini F, Détienne F, Burkhardt JM (2014) A situated approach of roles and participation in open source software communities. Hum-Comput Interact 29(3):205–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Barcellini F, van Belleghem L, Daniellou F (2015) Design projects as opportunities for the development of activities. In: Falzon P (ed) Constructive ergonomics. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 187–203Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Reid SE, de Brentani U (2004) The fuzzy front end of new product development for discontinuous innovations: a theoretical model. J Prod Innov Manag 21(3):170–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Moenaert RK, De Meyer A, Souder WE, Deschoolmeester D (1995) R&D/marketing communication during the fuzzy front-end. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 42(3):243–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Férey N et al (2009) Multisensory VR interaction for protein-docking in the CoRSAIRe project. Virtual Real 13(4):273–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Huerta M, Downing G, Haseltine F, Seto B, Liu Y (2000) NIH working definition of bioinformatics and computational biology, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Agogué M, Hooge S, Arnoux F, Brown I (2014) An introduction to innovative design - elements and applications of C-K theory. Presses de l’Ecole des Mines, ParisGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Elmquist M, Segrestin B (2009) Sustainable development through innovative design: lessons from the KCP method experimented with an automotive firm. Int J Automot Technol Manag 9(2):229–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hooge S, Béjean M, Arnoux F (2016) Organising for radical innovation: the benefits of the interplay between cognitive and organisational processes in KCP workshops. Int J Innov Manag 20(4):1640004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hatchuel A, Weil B (2009) C-K design theory: an advanced formulation. Res Eng Des 19(4):181–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bastien JMC, Brangier E, Dinet J, Vivian R (2009) The expert community staff: an innovative method for capturing end-users’ needs. In: Norros L, Koskinen H, Salo L, Savioja P (eds) Designing beyond the product: understanding activity and user experience in ubiquitous environments. ACM Press, New York, pp 374–379Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Couix S, Darses F, de la Garza C (2012) From needs to requirements for computer systems: the added value of ergonomics in needs analysis. Work 41(Suppl. 1):737–744Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Barcellini F, Prost L, Cerf M (2015) Designers’ and users’ roles in participatory design: what is actually co-designed by participants? Appl Ergon 50:31–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Darses F, Détienne F, Visser W (2001) COMET: a method for analyzing collective design processes. RocquencourtGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Détienne F, Baker M, Fréard D, Barcellini F, Denis A, Quignard M (2016) The Descent of Pluto: interactive dynamics, specialisation and reciprocity of roles in a Wikipedia debate. Int J Hum Comput Stud 86:11–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Nelson J, Buisine S, Aoussat A, Gazo C (2014) Generating prospective scenarios of use in innovation projects. Trav Hum 77(1):21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Barcellini F, Delgoulet C, Nelson J (2016) Are online discussions enough to constitute communities of practice in professional domain? A case study of ergonomics’ practice in France. Cogn Technol Work 18(2):249–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Daniellou F (2004) L’ergonomie dans la conduite de projets de conception de systèmes de travail. In: Falzon P (ed) Ergonomie. PUF, Paris, pp 359–373Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Vinck D (2011) Taking intermediary objects and equipping work into account in the study of engineering practices. Eng Stud 3(1):25–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Université Paris Descartes, LATIParisFrance
  2. 2.LIMSI-CNRS, Université Paris SudParisFrance

Personalised recommendations