PRAXLABS : A sustainable framework for user-centered ICT development Cultivating research experiences from Living Labs in the home (

In this chapter, we suggest PRAXLABS as a framework to reflect on, and implement, elements of sustainable empirical research and design in Living Lab studies. In recent years the Living Lab approach has widely evolved into a common ground for researchers aiming at practice-based collaborative design. This design approach, amongst others, includes intensive stakeholder and end-user participation as well as long-term orientation in R&D projects. For the explication of the PRAXLABS framework, we present a comparative analysis of three Living Lab projects aiming at different design themes in the domestic domain: home entertainment, energy monitoring, and ambient assisted living. In each project users were involved as co-creators in the research and design of new domestic IT artifacts. By analyzing and comparing these cases, we will specify experiences which may be transferred to other projects located in the domestic context. In addition, we discuss conditions which enable the transfer of insights across the borders of the home domain into other fields of application, e.g. work spaces, public spaces or into the field of mobile applications. Overall, we claim that the PRAXLABS framework makes experiences from different Living Lab studies manageable in a systematized and sustainable manner. 1 Researching the home During the 1980’s the home became a prominent field for research of human computer interaction. Empirical work, especially ethnographically oriented methods like observation were applied to the understanding of certain aspects of the role of technology within home life. TV and video, especially, played a major role as a focus of research activities. Lull, for example, investigated the social use of TV within families (Lull, 1990). With the mass adaptation of PC technologies since the mid 90’s, plenty of new research interests became visible. New devices like interactive TV sets changed the way services were used and also influenced usage practices, e.g. those related to an early set-top box trial (O’Brien et al., 1999) or the usage of new services for communication and individual media consumption (e.g. streaming providers like Netflix etc.) on a variety of different devices, e.g. smartphones, tablet PCs (Hess et al., 2012a). Nowadays, smart home devices and wearables with smart functions are further shaping the consumer market and household practices. New devices will continue to impact on usage practices in a long run. Researchers in CSCW and HCI hence have investigated different dimensions of the home ecosystem. A variety of empirical research work focuses on different aspects of how technology is used and managed within families, e.g. computer help at home or technical support (Poole, 2012) home networking (Grinter et al., 2009), home automation (Brush et al., 2011; 2011), and research on the routine nature of communication (Crabtree and Rodden, 2004). To foster practice-based design in the home, the Living Lab approach has evolved in the last years (Eriksson et al., 2005), comprising many different methods and tools applied during the diverse research phases. Ethnographic stances and action research-based methods are commonly during the pre-design phase in order to gain a better understanding of the practice contexts and for the construction of a common understanding of the design goals between design teams, end-users and other involved stakeholders (Müller et al., 2012a, 2015a). For an overview of participatory methods see (Muller, 2001). Another pivotal element of Living Labs is that design and development is informed by continuous feedback from (potential) customers and represented in form of mock-ups and other intermediate design products which support ongoing negotiation processes between design team and end-userand stakeholdergroups (Ogonowski et al., 2013). To support such processes, self-documentation methods are widely used, e.g. in form of cultural probes (Gaver et al., 1999), or in variations such as playful and creative probes (Bernhaupt et al., 2008), and diary studies (Sohn et al., 2008). Evaluation of designed products is another important element of Living Labs. In the ideal case, prototypes are given to households as early as possible to learn how technology is being appropriated in the real social practice environment (Stevens et al., 2009). Methodologically speaking, many different methods are being used to gain empirical insights, often in form of a mixture of interviews, workshops, observation studies, usability tests and online questionnaires. However, the many approaches of scholars under the “umbrella” of Living Lab vary considerably, often because of their proximity to real practice contexts varies. Techniques for evaluating the use of IT artefacts in the home, and how such artefacts are appropriated, will be contingent on the degree to which the target group representatives’ real life circumstances are investigated. In addition, little has been done when using Living Lab approaches, thus far, tosystemize research findings so as toto build up of a scientific corpus, e.g. by a systematic comparative approach. That is why we suggest the PRAXLABS framework, one which addresses these shortcomings in the Living Lab research. The PRAXLABS framework is part of a systematic approach to the generation of a scientific corpus of practice-based design work, described as Grounded Design (Stevens et al., this book), in turn based on the Design Case Study approach by Wulf et al. (2015). In this work we describe, compare and analyze the participatory design process across three projects aiming at the development of new technologies for domestic contexts: a cross-platform entertainment concept, an energy management system and an internet platform aiming at supporting informal help for elderly adults in a local neighborhood. Each project entailed setting up a Living Lab and included user representatives as well as stakeholders (service providers, industry partners) in a long-term oriented manner to inform potential design solutions. We discuss the benefits and issues of Living Labs as an innovation infrastructure and research methodology by focusing on the question of how research experience can be made available in a more sustainable manner and strategically allowing future projects to benefit from their predecessors. To create a systematic understanding of design case studies in Living Lab environments we describe the three projects in more detail and develop categories of experiences which may be transferred across Living Lab projects within the home and across the borders of the domestic application field. In the form of the PRAXLABS framework, we bring our results together to provide for the comparative analysis of the three different Living Lab studies. 2 Practice-based computing 2.1 From participatory design to practice-based computing Participatory design aims to involve different stakeholders in the development process to reach a more democratic design (Bjerknes and Bratteteig, 1995) and – more generally – to develop software that will successfully be accepted by users. Applying the methods and tools of PD aims at fostering a software design process grounded, in some sense, in practice. Traditionally, work in PD addresses the context of the workplace (Bødker et al., 2004). Bødker et al. highlight the importance of a design that really is informed by the needs of actual users. Such process requires establishing a mutual learning process between designer and users (to address questions such as “What is needed?” and “What is possible?”). Instead of involving users as informants only, genuine participation results in a shared understanding of needs, problems and options toward solutions (see Wagner, this book, for a more detailed analysis). Related to PD is the concept of infrastructuring (Pipek and Syrjänen, 2006; Pipek and Wulf, 2009). Infrastructuring refers to a design process informing the development of an “infrastructure in use” rather than purely focusing on the IT artifact itself. Such a process of infrastructuring needs to include knowledge about the context and the sociotechnical environment. Several aspects become important then, such as: How can the artifact support established practices of group work? How can new tools improve the work of a group to be more successful? How can articulation work be managed more easily? To continuously improve the work environment, infrastructuring can be seen as an ongoing process, also including and accompanying the adoption of artifacts and recognizing changes of practices. Thus, the activities of infrastructuring inform a continuous design schedule with respect to existing work culture, tools and practices. “Points of infrastructure” become visible when infrastructure breakdowns occur and when (socio-) technical innovations are introduced (e.g. when a new software is being installed or new practices are being established to support the processes of learning or adaptation of software). With the wider distribution of new technologies the domestic context have come increasingly into focus for PD. In HCI, applying PD for the home has become equally popular, such as in the context of home care, ageing at home, family interactions around new media, or energy management and sustainability (Crabtree and Rodden, 2004; Palen and Aaløkke, 2006). Several concepts have proven successful in providing for transferability from the work to home context, such as the design for social awareness (Crabtree et al., 2003), at least to a degree. However, other authors have claimed that the occupation with the new research domains beyond the workplace revealed the need for acknowledging the unique demands of domestic technology appropriation and use. Rather than designing for efficiency and utilitarian pursuits, home technologies aim at fostering sociability, inclusion and social awareness, thus calling for a taking into account of different underlying design aspec