Today users not only want to access a wider choice of products, they also want to purchase products that correspond exactly to their needs. To address this challenge, firms develop toolkits that support users to design... [ view full abstract ]
Today users not only want to access a wider choice of products, they also want to purchase products that correspond exactly to their needs. To address this challenge, firms develop toolkits that support users to design accurately a product responding to their needs or preferences prior to purchase (Franke and von Hippel, 2003).
Making use of the latest applications of information and communication technology in consumer products, certain firms have attempted today to develop novel approaches to better satisfy their users by means of digital/physical toolkits (e.g., Gross and Antons, 2009; Piller et al., 2010). These are set of coordinated design tools consisting of digital/physical user interfaces, sensors, software, microchips etc. and embedded in ordinary products i.e. sneakers or cars which make them smarter and more adaptable (Rijsdijk, 2006). However, the initial idea of the toolkit remains. They are here to empower users to self-design their uses (von Hippel and Katz, 2002). Eventually, the only hurdle with these digital/physical toolkits is that, as they are parts of purchased products, they have to fully satisfy users and subsequently have to promote their abilities to design. However, to support users with variable expertise levels to become designers in terms of uses is a subtle task. Whereas most of these toolkits present in the market place are equipped with a rather small and simple solution space i.e. ADIDAS One which makes it easy to utilize for all users, some others on the contrary operate on the basis of a rather large and complex solution space like the Apache software. The latest toolkits are proved to be mainly used by experts with high incentives (Franke and von Hippel, 2003). Consequently, it seems to be that designing with digital/physical toolkits could be more or less challenging for users with variable skills levels.
In this matter, literature has mainly focused on managerial recommendations like providing range of extra services i.e. user community in order to increase the knowledge of the user on how to employ the toolkits like Apache Software to their benefits (e.g., Lakhani and von Hippel, 2003). We proposed in this paper to extend this further by focusing on understanding the mechanisms of design activities carried out by different kinds of products with digital/physical toolkits. We especially wondered if all toolkits support users in designing a use in the same way and what are the natures of the design tasks assigned to them. In order to understand thoroughly these mechanisms, we exploited the contemporary design theories like the C-K design theory (e.g., Hatchuel and Weil, 2009) and developed accordingly a theoretical framework for use generation. We applied this framework on two types of products with digital/physical toolkits. The first one was the ADIDAS one running shoe which is equipped with a rather simple and small toolkit and the second the EMOTIO software composed of a rather large and complex solution space. By analysing these toolkits, we identified several characteristics and mechanisms proper to them. Most of all, this enabled us to extract knowledge on how a toolkit should be designed in order to generate uses exploration among users and guide these explorations in order to create uses. With these results, we aimed at providing further knowledge on how digital/physical toolkits should be designed in order for firms attempting to develop such products to do it at low risk. By the 1rst of August, we expect to be able to discuss in details the results of these studies. Currently, the theoretical framework has been developed and applied on the two products mentioned above.
