Inclusive Design and the Bottom Line: How Can Its Value Be Proven to Decision Makers?

  • Anna Mieczakowski
  • Sue Hessey
  • P. John Clarkson
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8009)


Designing technology products that embrace the needs and capabilities of heterogeneous users leads not only to increased customer satisfaction and enhanced corporate social responsibility, but also better market penetration. Yet, achieving inclusion in today’s pressured and fast-moving markets is not straight-forward. For a time, inaccessible and unusable design was solely seen as the fault of designers and a whole line of research was dedicated to pinpointing their frailties. More recently, it has become progressively more recognised that it is not necessarily designers’ lack of awareness, or unwillingness, that results in sub-optimal design, but rather there are multi-faceted organisational factors at play that seldom provide an adequate environment in which inclusive products could be designed. Through literature review, a detailed audit of inclusivity practice in a large global company and ongoing research regarding quantification of cost-effectiveness of inclusive design, this paper discusses the overarching operational problems that prevent organisations from developing optimally inclusive products and offers best-practice principles for the future.


Inclusive Design Cost-Benefit Model Principles for Change 


  1. 1.
    Bias, R.G., Karat, C.-M.: Justifying cost – justifying usability. In: Bias, R.G., Mayhew, D. (eds.) Cost-Justifying Usability: An Update for the Internet Age, pp. 1–16. Academic Press, Boston (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bias, R.G., Mayhew, D.: Cost-justifying usability. Academic Press, Boston (1994)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bias, R.G., Mayhew, D.: Cost-justifying usability: An update for the internet age. Academic Press, Boston (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bevan, N.: Cost benefit analysis, European TRUMP Report (2000)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Browning, T.R.: Applying the design structure matrix to system decomposition and integration problems: A review and new directions. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 48(3), 292–306 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Conklin, E.: Bringing usability effectively into product development. In: Rudisill, M., Lewis, C., Polson, P.G., McKay, T. (eds.) Human-Computer Interface Design: Success Cases, Emerging Methods, and Real-World Context, pp. 24–36. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1995)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Donahue, G.M.: Usability and the bottom line. IEEE Software 18(1), 31–37 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dong, H.: Barriers to inclusive design in the UK. PhD Thesis, University of Cambridge, Cambridge (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dong, H., Clarkson, P.J., Ahmed, S., Keates, S.: Investigating perceptions of manufacturers and retailers to inclusive design. The Design Journal 7(3), 3–15 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ehrlich, K., Rohn, J.: Cost justification of usability engineering: A vendor’s perspective. In: Bias, R.G., Mayhew, D. (eds.) Cost-Justifying Usability, pp. 73–110. Academic Press, Boston (1994)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Goodman, J.A.: Strategic customer service: Managing the customer experience to increase positive word of mouth, build loyalty, and maximize profits. Amacom, US (2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Goodman-Deane, J., Langdon, P., Clarkson, P.J.: Key influences on the user-centred design process. Journal of Engineering Design 21(2/3), 345–373 (2009)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Karat, C.-M.: A business case approach to usability cost justification. In: Bias, R.G., Mayhew, D. (eds.) Cost-Justifying Usability, pp. 45–70. Academic Press, Boston (1994)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Karat, C.-M.: Iterative testing of a security application. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors Society, Denver, CO, pp. 273–277 (1989)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Keates, S., Clarkson, P.J.: Countering design exclusion: An introduction to inclusive design. Springer, London (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Larkin, J.H., Simon, H.A.: Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science 11(1), 65–100 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mauro, C.L.: Usability science: Tactical and strategic cost justifications in large corporate applications. In: Bias, R.G., Mayhew, D. (eds.) Cost-Justifying Usability: An Update for the Internet Age, pp. 265–296. Academic Press, Boston (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mayhew, D., Mantei, M.: A basic framework for cost-justifying usability engineering. In: Bias, R.G., Mayhew, D. (eds.) Cost-Justifying Usability, pp. 9–43. Academic Press, Boston (1994)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mieczakowski, A., Clarkson, J.: Ageing, adaption and accessibility: Time for the inclusive revolution! University of Cambridge (2012) ISBN 978-0-9545243-8-8Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mieczakowski, A., Langdon, P., Clarkson, P.J.: Investigating designers’ cognitive representations for inclusive interaction between products and users. In: Clarkson, P.J., Langdon, P., Robinson, P. (eds.) Designing Inclusive Interactions, pp. 133–144. Springer, London (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ohnemus, K.: Incorporating human factors in the system development life cycle: Marketing and management approaches. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Professional Communication Conference, pp. 46–53 (1996)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pressman, R.S.: Software engineering: A practitioner’s approach. McGraw Hill, New York (1992)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Prest, A.R., Turvey, R.: Cost benefit analysis: A survey. The Economic Journal 75(300), 683–735 (1965)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rajanen, M.: Applying usability cost-benefit models to nanotechnology tools development, TNT Project Report, Oulu, Finland (2006)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Simon, H.: The sciences of the artificial. MIT Press, Cambridge (1969)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    The Cambridge Engineering Design Centre: Inclusive Design Toolkit (2013),
  27. 27.
    Thomas, D.R.: A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation 27(2), 237–246 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    UK Government Legislation: Equality Act 2010 (2010),
  29. 29.
    United Nations: Population Ageing and Development 2009. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wixon, D., Jones, S.: Usability for fun and profit: A case study of the design of DEC RALLY Version 2. Internal Report, Digital Equipment Corporation (1992)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    World Health Organisation: World Report on Disability. World Health Organization (WHO) (2011)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Yang, M.C., Epstein, D.J.: Study of prototypes, design activity and design outcome. Design Studies 26, 649–669 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anna Mieczakowski
    • 1
  • Sue Hessey
    • 2
  • P. John Clarkson
    • 1
  1. 1.Engineering Design Centre, Department of EngineeringUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUnited Kingdom
  2. 2.BT Technology, Service and Operations, Adastral Park, Martlesham HeathIpswichUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations