Shaping the Experience of a Cognitive Investment Adviser

  • Heloisa CandelloEmail author
  • Claudio Pinhanez
  • David Millen
  • Bruna Daniele Andrade
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10290)


In this paper we describe the design process of a multi-bot conversational system to assist people to make more informed decisions about finance. Several user activities were held to understand the experience of investment decisions, the opportunities to design financial cognitive advisers, and the user perceptions of such systems. Valuable information was gathered from four user studies which assisted the project team to decide what would be the best approach to help people to make more informed decisions about investments using technology. The user studies findings highlighted that financial decisions are made based on information people receive from friends, news, and social networks, which led us to explore intelligent systems that would gather such information and play the role of financial advisers in a multiparty conversational system. We discuss the main design implications of our studies in the context of a prototype called CognIA and conclude discussing several challenges of designing conversational systems.


Conversational interfaces Dialogue systems Multiparty dialogue User experience 


  1. 1.
    Olson, P.: Get Ready for the Chat Bot Revolution: They’re Simple, Cheap and About to be Everywhere. Forbes (2016). Accessed 19 Aug 2016
  2. 2.
    Nieveen, N., Mckenney, S., Van Den Akker, J.: Educational design research: the value of variety. In: Van Den Akker, J., et al. (eds.) Educational Design Research: The Design, Development and Evaluation of Programs, Processes and Products. Paperback, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zimmerman, J., Forlizzi, J., Evenson, S.: Research through design as a method for interaction design research in HCI. ACM (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
  5. 5.
    Kahneman, D., Tversky, A.: Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica: J. Econom. Soc. 263–291 (1979)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zhang, Y., Bellamy, R.K.E., Kellogg, W.A.: Designing information for remediating cognitive biases in decision-making. In: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM (2015)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zhao, J.C.: To risk or not to risk? Improving financial risk taking of older adults by online social information. In: Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing. ACM (2015)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gunaratne, J., Nov, O.: Informing and improving retirement saving performance using behavioral economics theory-driven user interfaces. In: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM (2015)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chase, R.B.: It’s time to get to first principles in service design. Manag. Serv. Qual. 14(2/3), 126 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Holmlid, S.: Service design methods and UCD practice. In Proceedings of the INTERACT 2005 Workshop on User Involvement in e-Government Development Projects, Rome, Italy (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mager, B., Gais, M.: Service Design. Fink, Paderborn (2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Curedale, R.: Service Design: 250 Essential Methods. DCC Press, Topanga (2013)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Goldstein, S.M., Johnston, R., Duffy, J., Rao, J.: The service concept: the missing link in service design research? J. Oper. Manag. 20(2), 121–134 (2002). doi: 10.1016/S0272-6963(01)00090-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Steinfeld, A., Odest, C.J., Scassellati, B.: The Oz of wizard: simulating the human for interaction research. In Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot Interaction, HRI 2009, pp. 101–108. ACM, New York (2009). doi: 10.1145/1514095.1514115
  15. 15.
    Grill, T., Tscheligi, M.: The ConWIZ protocol: a generic protocol for wizard of Oz simulations. In: Moreno-Díaz, R., Pichler, F., Quesada-Arencibia, A. (eds.) EUROCAST 2013. LNCS, vol. 8112, pp. 434–441. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-53862-9_55 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bryman, A.: Social Research Methods. Oxford University Press, Great Britain (2008)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Goodman, E., Kuniavsky, M., Moed, M.: Observing the User Experience: A Practitioner’s Guide to User Research. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2012)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chang, H.M., Díaz, M., Català, A., Chen, W., Rauterberg, M.: Mood boards as a universal tool for investigating emotional experience. In: Marcus, A. (ed.) DUXU 2014. LNCS, vol. 8520, pp. 220–231. Springer, Cham (2014). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-07638-6_22 Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mcdonagh, D., Storer, I.: Mood boards as a design catalyst and resource: researching an under-researched area. Des. J. 7(3), 16–31 (2004)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Benedek, J., Miner, T.: Measuring desirability: New methods for evaluating desirability in a usability lab setting. Proc. Usability Professionals Assoc. 2003, 8–12 (2003)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Love, S.: Understanding Mobile Human-Computer Interaction. Elsevier, Oxford (2005)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Preece, J., Rogers, Y., Sharp, H.: Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction. Wiley, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Candello, H., Andrade, B.D.: Evaluating multi-agent conversational interfaces in the early stages of the design process. Revista de Design, Tecnologia e Sociedade 3(1), 1–15 (2016)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Traum, D.: Issues in multiparty dialogues. In: Dignum, F. (ed.) ACL 2003. LNCS, vol. 2922, pp. 201–211. Springer, Heidelberg (2004). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-24608-4_12 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dignum, F.P.M., Vreeswijk, G.A.W.: Towards a testbed for multi-party dialogues. In: Dignum, F. (ed.) ACL 2003. LNCS, vol. 2922, pp. 212–230. Springer, Heidelberg (2004). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-24608-4_13 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Heloisa Candello
    • 1
    Email author
  • Claudio Pinhanez
    • 1
  • David Millen
    • 2
  • Bruna Daniele Andrade
    • 1
  1. 1.IBM ResearchSão PauloBrazil
  2. 2.IBM WatsonCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations