Early Validation of User Needs in Concept Development: A Case Study in an Innovation-Oriented Consultancy

  • Marianne KjørstadEmail author
  • Kristin Falk
  • Gerrit Muller
  • José Pinto
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 876)


An innovation consultancy applies human-centered methods to explore user needs in the early phase of concept development. This paper compares methods applied by the consultancy with theory from the body of knowledge within Design Thinking and Systems Engineering. The basis for this research is observations and interviews for three specific cases for three different customers. This paper presents criteria and impacting factors on how effective the innovation consultancy performs early validation of user needs. A properly planned co-creation session with the customer is the core. Using a key driver graph we found the main impacting factors to be research on user needs, technology and market trends, techniques used for analyzing the problem and solution domain, selection of participants, and the competence of the facilitator. We conclude that in these three cases the methods are effective in communicating innovative ideas and concepts with the purpose of early validation of user needs.


Human centered design Systems Engineering Early validation Design Thinking User needs Innovation Co-creation sessions 



This research is part of a larger research project on Human Systems Engineering Innovation Framework (H-SEIF), funded by the Norwegian government through Oslofjordfondet.


  1. 1.
    Yin, R.K.: Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage, Los Angeles (2014)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kossiakoff, A., Sweet, W.N., Seymour, S.J., Biemer, S.M.: Systems Engineering: Principles and Practice. Wiley, Hoboken (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wheatcraft, L.: ConOps vs OpsCon – What’s the Difference?
  4. 4.
    Solli, H., Muller, G.: Evaluation of illustrative ConOps and decision matrix as tools in concept selection. In: INCOSE International Symposium, pp. 2361–2375 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    INCOSE: Systems Engineering Handbook. Wiley, Hoboken (2015)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cockburn, A.: Writing Effective Use Cases. Addison-Wesley, Boston (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Muller, G.: Challenges in teaching conceptual modeling for systems architecting. In: Jeusfeld, M., Karlapalem, K. (eds.) Advances in Conceptual Modeling, ER 2015. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 317–326. Springer, Cham (2015)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Plattner, H.: An Introduction to Design Thinking PROCESS GUIDE (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brown, T., Wyatt, J.: Design thinking for social innovation (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kelley, T., Kelley, D.: Creative Confidence: Unleashing the Creative Potential Within us All. William Collins, London (2015)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Beckers, J.M.J., Muller, G.J., Heemels, W.P.M.H., Bukkems, B.H.M.: Effective industrial modeling for high-tech systems: the example of happy flow. In: INCOSE International Symposium, pp. 1758–1769 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y.: Business Model Generation. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken (2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y., Bernarda, G., Smith, A., Papadakos, T.: Value Proposition Design: How to Create Products and Services Customers Want. Wiley, Hoboken (2014)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Maurya, A.: Running Lean: Iterate from Plan A to a Plan That Works. O’Reilly, Sebastopol (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marianne Kjørstad
    • 1
    Email author
  • Kristin Falk
    • 1
  • Gerrit Muller
    • 1
  • José Pinto
    • 2
  1. 1.University of South-Eastern NorwayKongsbergNorway
  2. 2.Semcon Devotek ASKongsbergNorway

Personalised recommendations