See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/259650087

Enhanced ergonomics approaches for product design: A user experience

ecosystem perspective and case studies

Article  in  Ergonomics · January 2014

DOI: 10.1080/00140139.2013.861023 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS
14 738

1 author:

Wei Xu
Miami University
51 PUBLICATIONS   226 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Human Centered AI and ML (Robot...) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Wei Xu on 23 October 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article was downloaded by: [wei xu]
On: 11 February 2014, At: 15:32
Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Ergonomics
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/terg20

Enhanced ergonomics approaches for product design:

a user experience ecosystem perspective and case
studies
a
Wei Xu
a
Human Factors Engineering Department, Intel Corporation, Folsom, CA95630, USA
Published online: 10 Jan 2014.

To cite this article: Wei Xu (2014) Enhanced ergonomics approaches for product design: a user experience ecosystem
perspective and case studies, Ergonomics, 57:1, 34-51, DOI: 10.1080/00140139.2013.861023

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2013.861023

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 Ergonomics, 2014
Vol. 57, No. 1, 34–51, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2013.861023

Enhanced ergonomics approaches for product design: a user experience ecosystem perspective
and case studies
Wei Xu*
Human Factors Engineering Department, Intel Corporation, Folsom, CA 95630, USA
(Received 2 December 2012; accepted 9 September 2013)

This paper first discusses the major inefficiencies faced in current human factors and ergonomics (HFE) approaches:
(1) delivering an optimal end-to-end user experience (UX) to users of a solution across its solution lifecycle stages;
(2) strategically influencing the product business and technology capability roadmaps from a UX perspective and
(3) proactively identifying new market opportunities and influencing the platform architecture capabilities on which the UX
of end products relies. In response to these challenges, three case studies are presented to demonstrate how enhanced
ergonomics design approaches have effectively addressed the challenges faced in current HFE approaches. Then, the
enhanced ergonomics design approaches are conceptualised by a user-experience ecosystem (UXE) framework, from a UX
ecosystem perspective. Finally, evidence supporting the UXE, the advantage and the formalised process for executing UXE
and methodological considerations are discussed.
Downloaded by [wei xu] at 15:32 11 February 2014

Practitioner Summary: This paper presents enhanced ergonomics approaches to product design via three case studies to
effectively address current HFE challenges by leveraging a systematic end-to-end UX approach, UX roadmaps and emerging UX
associated with prioritised user needs and usages. Thus, HFE professionals can be more strategic, creative and influential.
Keywords: human factors and ergonomics; ergonomic product; user-experience ecosystem; end-to-end user experience;
user experience roadmap; emerging user experience

1. Introduction
It has been identified in the human factors and ergonomics (HFE) community that HFE should make great contributions to
product design, as HFE is a unique discipline that focuses on the nature of human– artefact interactions (Dekker and Nyce
2004; Dul et al. 2012; Karwowski 2005). To make contributions to product design, HFE professionals, such as ergonomics
specialists and human factors engineers, have implemented a human-centred approach to delivering ergonomic products
(Dul et al. 2012; IEA 2003; Karwowski 2001, 2005). HFE practices and approaches have largely promoted the emergence
and growth of the human– computer interactions (HCIs) field as computing technology advances. In HCI, a user-centred
design approach, echoing the human-centred approach, has been deployed to emphasise on end users in computing product
development by understanding and realising user needs in products through interaction design on the product user interface
(UI) to achieve optimal user experience (UX) (Cooper 2004; Mayhew 1999; Nielsen 1993). Products with optimal UX built
in are essentially what HFE professionals have been pursuing; that is, ergonomic products that are shaped around the
capacities and aspirations of humans such that performance and well-being are optimised (Dul et al. 2012).
Much progress has been made towards increasing HFE influences on product design by HFE professionals in addition to
HCI colleagues, such as usability specialists and interaction designers (Dekker and Nyce 2004; Harris and Stanton 2010;
Nielsen 2005; Stanton and Baber 2006). For instance, HFE professionals are now involved in product development earlier
than they used to be; they gather user needs, define personas and drive interaction design, instead of merely running ad hoc
UI usability testing (Cooper 2004). However, current HFE practices contributing to product design aim primarily at
interaction design and the usability of product UI (Cooper 2004; Hackos and Redish 1998; Mayhew 1999; Nielsen 1993;
Shneiderman 2010; Soares and Rebelo 2012; Xu 2007), current HFE approaches still face major challenges, thus limiting
the potential for greater contributions to product design as follows.

1.1 Inefficiency in delivering optimal end-to-end user experience to end user across solution lifecycle stages
It is worthwhile to revisit the definition of UX, as achieving optimal UX was identified in the very beginning when HCI was
boomed by HFE. Norman (1999) coined the classic definition for UX when promoting the user-centred design approach:
‘all aspects of the user’s interaction with the product: how it is perceived, learned, and used’. The latest definition of ISO

*Email: wei.xu@intel.com

q 2014 Taylor & Francis

 Ergonomics 35

(2010) considers UX as ‘a person’s perceptions and responses that result from the use or anticipated use of a product, system
or service’. Although the ISO standards do not go further in clarifying the relationship between UX and usability, the ISO
definition of UX includes all user emotions, beliefs, preferences, perceptions, physical and psychological responses,
behaviours and accomplishments that occur before, during and after use. The ISO definition of UX is essentially what an
ergonomic product means to the HFE community (Karwowski 2005). In addition to the ISO standard, there exist several
other definitions for UX (Allaboutux.org 2012; Garret 2010; Law et al. 2009). For instance, Revang (2007) defines a UX
wheel that considers UX as a series of phases: findability, accessibility, desirability, usability, credibility and usefulness,
and there are 30 factors contributing to UX.
Clearly, those definitions suggest that when designing products, one emphasises on UX that is beyond the product UI
and its usability, which unfortunately has been the focus of current HFE practices in many cases. Recent advances in
computing technology (e.g. mobile, ubiquitous, social computing) have moved HCIs into practically all areas of human
activity. This has led to a shift away from usability to a much richer scope of UX, where user feelings, motivations and
values are given as much, if not more, attention than traditional usability metrics, such as efficiency, effectiveness and
subjective satisfaction (Green and Jordan 2002; Jordan 2000; Nielson 1993; Shneiderman 2010).
As illustrated in Figure 1, an end user interacts with all aspects of a solution (i.e. a product or service) across its lifecycle
stages, such as initial marketing, select/order/install, use, content service, support, upgrade and eventually end-of-life
activities. User interactions with all aspects of a solution are realised through multiple touch points with anything related to
the solution, such as marketing materials, functionality, workflow, UI, online help, user support, service and the like. The
user gains his/her UX through a continuous involvement with these multiple touch points: how it is perceived (e.g.
Downloaded by [wei xu] at 15:32 11 February 2014

marketing), learned (e.g. service content, training), used (e.g. workflow, UI, functionality), supported (e.g. customer
support, online help) and so on. All of these aspects constitute the end-to-end UX (E2E UX) across the solution lifecycle
stages; any breakdown of these touch points would negatively impact the delivery of an optimal E2E UX to the end user.
In the HFE community, there have been increased efforts that intend to address the various components of UX in a broad
scope. However, these previous works either did not frame UX in the context of a solution lifecycle from an E2E UX
perspective (e.g. Mack and Sharples 2009; ISO 2010; Göbel and Zschernack 2012; Norman 1999; Revang 2007; Soares and
Rebelo 2012) or still concentrated on the product UI when considering interaction design (Cooper 2004). As a result, user
interactions with all aspects across the solution lifecycle stages and the dependencies for achieving an optimal E2E UX have
not been explored thoroughly. Conversely, although previous studies attempted to address the E2E UX issues across a
solution lifecycle (Finstad et al. 2009; Swards 2006; Vredenburg, Isensee, and Righi 2001), no formalised approach or
process has been proposed. Overall, there is no mature and systematic approach available to effectively guide current HFE
practices to broadly address E2E UX.
Thus, there is a definite need for the HFE community to further explore effective methods and approaches to address
E2E UX beyond merely defining a rich UX or addressing the interaction design of a product UI. The much richer E2E UX
that a user receives today is far beyond that which the user received from a relatively simple solution many years ago. UI

Figure 1. E2E UX concept.

 36 W. Xu

and its usability comprise only one of the key interaction touch points from an E2E UX perspective. Without a systematic
approach, one can only address a single aspect of E2E UX, making it impossible to deliver an optimal E2E UX to end users.

1.2 Inefficiency in influencing product capability roadmaps from UX perspective

A product roadmap is a common method used to match short-term and long-term goals with specific technology or business
capabilities (Loch and Kavadias 2007). These roadmaps largely determine UX of a final product delivered to users.
Currently, the development of product roadmaps is mainly driven by technology and business people (e.g. architects,
product managers). In most cases, HFE professionals typically do not get involved and do not have much influence on the
development of these roadmaps. When developing roadmaps, the technology and business people previously based
innovations on customer requirements and technological trends, but UX (e.g. user gaps, needs) was not fully considered. In
many cases, customer requirements directly come from business stakeholders, who may not be the actual end users of the
proposed product. This means that the customer requirements may not truly represent the end users’ requirements. Thus,
there is a gap in the process from the UX perspective.
In current HFE practices, HFE professionals collect UX data, such as end user needs and usage models through various
activities. The challenge for HFE professionals, in most cases, falls into the following three scenarios (Wooding and Xu
2011): (1) they do not proactively conduct user research to fully understand user needs and usages from a long-term
perspective, due to their narrowed engagement scopes or lack of a long-term strategic view; (2) they do not leverage the
collected data to generate the predictive UX data (e.g. UX roadmaps) due to lack of good methods in developing UX
Downloaded by [wei xu] at 15:32 11 February 2014

roadmaps or (3) they generate UX roadmaps, but they either do not have a chance to influence product roadmaps or fail to
effectively influence product roadmaps in the early product planning stage, due to other reasons, such as the typical late
engagement in the product lifecycle, lack of influence skillset and lack of a mature organisational culture for promoting UX.
Without considering UX, a delivered product may provide great technological capabilities that match a business
strategy, but it may not be the right product or capabilities that users want at the time it is released to the market, and is thus
not useful. As a result, the product may fail to achieve business goals (e.g. market share).
Thus, if HFE professionals do not predictively consider UX over time, they may lose the opportunity to influence
product roadmaps. A gap may have existed from the beginning, when technology and business people defined the strategic
direction for current (at the time) and future products as documented in their roadmaps. Lack of such an influence on these
roadmaps would limit HFE professionals’ work to a passive and tactical mode only within the predefined scope of a current
project. Such a work mode would not only limit HFE professionals’ ability to deliver the optimal UX in current release
(because user needs may not be sequentially optimised), but also limit HFE professionals’ strategic influence on product
directions. In either case, any effort on interaction design as promoted within a narrowed project scope may not deliver its
optimal UX to end users as desired (e.g. Cooper 2004).
A few formalised approaches have emerged out of the popularity UX roadmaps that have received (e.g. HP 2011;
Netsoft 2012). However, there is little information of formal approaches on how to develop UX roadmaps and how these
roadmaps should be represented in the HFE academic world. When presenting a UX roadmap, professionals in the IT
industry have either developed it in a technology-centric or a narrow project-centric manner (HP 2011; Netsoft 2012).

1.3 Inefficiency in identifying market opportunities of new products and platform architecture capabilities
from UX perspective
Current practices in identifying market opportunities for new products are primarily driven by market methods. These
methods are limited in terms of understanding actual UX and user behaviours in end users’ real-life settings because the data
collections are based mainly on user opinions or preferences gathered through various methods, such as surveys and focus
groups sessions. Furthermore, these methods do not fully explore users’ behaviours and usages in their real-life settings.
In many cases, what users report may not truly represent their needs.
However, in today’s HFE practices, there are many methods available that help HFE professionals identify actual user
needs and usage models in a social-tech environment through direct user behavioural studies, such as ethnography and
contextual inquiry. These identified user needs and usage models may lead to new market opportunities in the very early
stages, that is even before a product development lifecycle starts. However, although HFE professionals have tried to get
involved in the early stages of a product’s lifecycle and have made great progress, they are not proactive enough to explore
emerging UX associated with new user needs and usages. Therefore, their contributions to the process of identifying new
market opportunities are limited, where UX may not be fully considered.
The challenge continues on. Once a new marketing opportunity is defined, the definitions of platform architecture
capabilities begin as part of the product’s requirements in the early stage of the product development lifecycle. Platform
 Ergonomics 37

capabilities determine the foundation for technical capabilities (both hardware and software) of a product, which determines
the HCI functionality and the UI technology that can be developed in order to design a usable product. For instance, a
computing platform architecture consists of a CPU (central processing unit), chipset, and system hardware and software, all
of which determine the functionality and UI technology for an end product (e.g. laptop, tablet) that will be built based on
those platform architecture capabilities.
However, in today’s practices, a technology-centric approach is typically used in defining platform architecture
capabilities in the computer chip manufacturing industry (Bell 2001; Bell et al. 2003; Dourish and Bell 2011). In the case of
defining the platform architecture for CPUs, people previously concentrated on system performance (e.g. CPU computing
speed) and neglected user needs in foreseeing UI capabilities to be used in the end products built on the CPU, such as
wireless, touch-screen UI, 3D graphics, instant boost and multimedia. Without these types of capabilities built into the
platform architecture which are delivered by a platform vendor (e.g. a CPU vendor), the developers of the end interactive
products that rely on these platform capabilities would limit user needs-sensitive UI capabilities in their end products.
In addition, HFE professionals of these products may participate early enough in the development of their own products
by following valid HFE approaches or methods, such as goal-directed interaction design (Cooper 2004). Lack of these types
of fundamental platform architecture capabilities will restrict HFE professionals from developing rich UX for end users
through their UIs. Therefore, if there is a lack of UX considerations in defining platform architecture capabilities in the very
beginning, delivered UX of an end product will be greatly impacted.
In summary, HFE professionals are not sufficiently proactive in defining new market opportunities of products and the
platform architecture capabilities from a UX perspective. Without HFE professionals’ involvement from the very
Downloaded by [wei xu] at 15:32 11 February 2014

beginning, a UX gap may have already existed when individuals defined market opportunities for new products and the
platform architecture capabilities on which the UX of end products depends. In this case, HFE professionals who work on
end products will not be able to deliver optimal UX to meet end user needs, regardless of how much effort they put into the
practices (such as interaction design and usability testing of a product UI) because the end product may have been wrongly
defined without a UX validation in the first place, and/or the platform architecture may not provide necessary capabilities
that support necessary HCIs on the UI.

2. Enhanced ergonomics approaches and case studies

To address the three major challenges previously discussed, current HFE approaches were enhanced and implemented in
the following three case studies. Although the enhanced approaches were executed differently in method, each of them has
enhanced the current HFE approaches and addressed the challenges accordingly.
Each of the three case studies has three parts. First, problem statements are described; second, details of the approach are
discussed to illustrate how the problems have been addressed through the enhanced approach; and finally, the impacts of the
enhanced approach are summarised.

2.1 Case study 1: effectively delivering optimal E2E UX through addressing multiple interaction touch points
2.1.1 Problem statements
A few years ago, Intel planned to upgrade a large enterprise back-end database system. As a result, upgrades of some web-
based, front-end applications were also required. The external vendor of the back-end system offered a web-based front-end
enterprise hiring management application (HMA1) at no cost. HMA1 includes applications that allow hiring managers to
manage the whole hiring process (e.g. create and post job requisitions, set up interviews, make decision, write offer) and
human resources staff to support the hiring process. To save on costs during the economic downturn, as part of the system
upgrade programme, the vendor’s application suite was chosen to replace the existing hiring management application suite.
After HMA1 was released, significant post-release issues were reported. Overall, end users perceived the upgrade as a
step back, from a UX perspective. Two root causes were identified: (1) vendor-side issues: HMA1 was the first-generation,
web-based, front-end solution built by the vendor; the vendor had not done sufficient UX work on it, creating many UX
issues; (2) enterprise-side issues: as influenced by the overall cost policy adopted for the back-end system upgrade, a vanilla
(i.e. no customisation) approach was executed for front-end applications and UX work was not considered a high priority in
the process.

2.1.2 Approach
2.1.2.1 E2E UX data collection methods and analyses. To address the significant post-release issues, phase 2 work
(HMA2) commenced. The HFE group was requested to provide support for HMA2. The assigned HFE specialist conducted
 38 W. Xu

Table 1. Distribution of identified HMA1 post-release issues across E2E UX.

Issue category Distribution (%)
Tool usability and UI design 8
System and data integration 7
Business process 16
Marketing/communication/change management 15
Functional/data errors 12
Tool functionality 29
User support 8
System performance 5
Total 100

an E2E UX gap analysis based on HMA1 post-release issues across all the identified issues through methods such as a user
survey, service call logs and interviews. The analysis found that the issues users encountered were distributed across many
of the touch points associated with E2E UX (see Table 1), such as business process, UI usability, functionality and user
support and so on.

2.1.2.2 An E2E UX approach. The HFE specialist proposed an E2E UX approach for HMA2 based on the E2E UX
Downloaded by [wei xu] at 15:32 11 February 2014

analysis (Finstad et al. 2009), which aimed to address all these touch points of E2E UX across the solution lifecycle stages.
Three major measures were taken to facilitate the execution of the E2E UX approach.
. Creating an E2E UX team: The HFE specialist led the E2E UX team; members included representatives from various
functional areas (quality assurance, business process, training, user support and others), each corresponded to one of
the E2E UX touch points. The HFE specialist worked as a facilitator of the team. Each of the team members owned
the planning and execution of the corresponding E2E UX touch point in his or her functional area.
. Including the HFE specialist as a member of the programme management office: This is different from conventional
HFE approaches, where HFE professionals are typically embedded somewhere within a programme as a project
member. Becoming a member of the management team helped promote the E2E UX approach and increased the
visibility of the E2E UX work to management.
. Defining an E2E UX scorecard and a tracking process: The E2E UX scorecard not only defined success criteria for
usability in a typical HFE process (e.g. task completion time, success rate), but also covered success criteria for other
E2E UX touch points (see Table 2). Besides, various check points were defined across all of these E2E UX touch
points in alignment with the programme lifecycle. Such a tracking process enabled the programme management to
closely monitor the progress of E2E UX activities and take necessary actions, if needed. This process also increased
the overall awareness of an E2E UX culture within the programme.

2.1.2.3 Major E2E UX activities. Specifically, various E2E UX activities were executed during the process across major
E2E UX touch points as highlighted below:
(1) Incorporating the E2E UX approach into the product purchase decision-making process: During the selection of a
new product vendor for HMA2, E2E UX was incorporated into a vendor assessment scorecard and counted as 20%
of the total score amongst the five components (i.e. business requirement fit, solution compliance, vendor viability,
cost and E2E UX). An E2E UX assessment template was defined to score items across these various E2E UX touch
points. A new vendor was chosen amongst three candidate vendors based on the total score. This ensured that E2E
UX was fully considered in the vendor selection process.
(2) Leveraging the E2E UX data to optimise business processes: A new vendor was chosen, partially due to its flexible
configuration capability of business processes in its product. In order to achieve the right balance between UX and
the corporate business processes, four usability tests were separately conducted to assess four configured business
processes in terms of the average scores of major E2E UX aspects, such as ease of use, business capability,
functionality and overall satisfaction (see Figure 2). As shown in Figure 2, an optimal business process with
configuration 3 was chosen in terms of the criteria, but without violating necessary business processes, such as legal
requirements.
(3) Improving tool UI design and usability: Twenty hiring managers participated in a usability test to assess the UI
usability. The results identified two major tasks with low success rates of about 20% (see Figure 3): (1) making a
 Downloaded by [wei xu] at 15:32 11 February 2014

Table 2. Illustration of E2E UX scorecard template (simplified and partial).

E2E UX touch points Metrics Owner HMA1 baseline indicator HMA2 success criteria Validation methods
App usability Task completion time HFE specialist .45 min (create job , 20 min Final E2E UX test
requisition)
App usability Satisfaction score HFE specialist ,3 (1– 7 scale) . 5 (1 – 7 scale) Final E2E UX test
System performance Page response time Technical team N/A 8 s on average (complex loads) Performance test
Business process % of meeting business Business team Gaps identified All major needs met Business stakeholder validation,
requirements and effectiveness usability tests
Tool functionality % of meeting business and user Technical team Gaps identified All major needs met Vendor product E2E UX
needs assessment, usability test
Functional defects # of defects Quality assurance N/A No showstopper & high issues, Functional test
Ergonomics

team 90% medium issues closed

User training % of target users trained with Training team N/A . 75% of target users trained Pre-release surveys
% satisfied with 80% satisfied
User support Effectiveness of user escalation User support team Many issues escalated 95% of issues can be solved at Final E2E UX test
support model to levels 2 and 3 level 1 support
support
Communication and % of target users communicated Marketing and N/A . 90% of target users communicated Pre-release surveys
end user awareness with . % satisfied communication with . 80% satisfied
team
39
 40 W. Xu

7
Ease of use
6 Business capability
Functions needed
5 Overall satisfaction

1
Configuration 1 Configuration 2 Configuration 3 Configuration 4

Figure 2. Comparison of subjective ratings from 64 end users (1– 7 scale with 1 as the most negative score and 7 as the most positive
score) among four business process configurations.

80
Downloaded by [wei xu] at 15:32 11 February 2014

60

40

20

0
My Requisition Apply/Done trap Revert confusion Withdraw/Reject
vs. My Candidate

Figure 3. Average success rates of 20 hiring managers when performing four major tasks.

selection between the ‘My Requisition’ versus ‘My Candidate’ link that would lead to an incorrect work flow and
(2) making a selection between the ‘Apply’ versus ‘Done’ status selection dialogue screen that would result in an
additional and incorrect status being applied. The vendor was convinced by the usability data to directly fix the
issues. This saved Intel substantial costs by avoiding customisation-coding work. The other two issues (i.e. ‘Revert’
and ‘Withdraw/Reject’) were addressed through a change of configuration capability.
(4) Incorporating user-centric approach to deliver effective training and user support: Driven by the E2E UX
approach, the training and user support teams shifted their focus from a conventional ‘quantity’ approach (e.g.
percentage of users trained) to a ‘quality’ approach (e.g. effectiveness of the training delivered). The teams
conducted training and support-need analysis across the target user segments and implemented effective training
delivery methods based on the needs and priorities identified. Each training delivery (e.g. web-based training, in-
classroom training) was tested through E2E UX validation activities (e.g. surveys, usability tests) prior to release,
facilitated by the E2E UX scorecard and the tracking process. Similarly, user support and escalation models were
also optimised.
(5) Validating user awareness and readiness prior to release: Different from most current HFE approaches, a more
proactive approach was taken to raise end user’s awareness and readiness for the new HMA2 release. Based on the
E2E UX scorecard, validation work of user awareness and readiness occurred prior to the release. Communication
materials were delivered (e.g. email) according to the E2E UX tracking process. Two surveys were conducted to
check the progress of user awareness and readiness, and necessary actions were taken based on feedback.
(6) Conducting an integrated E2E UX test to validate all E2E UX touch points: Unlike typical usability testing, which
mainly focuses on UI design and is not typically conducted in an environment that emulates a realistic working
environment, an integrated E2E UX test was conducted with end users in two different ways: (1) a simulated
working environment was set up which included various people who represented different roles in the hiring
process, such as staffing consultant, call centre agents (with support scripts provided), various user help materials
and a back-end system support team; (2) the end users (e.g. job applicants and hiring manager, staffing specialist)
tested all major E2E UX touch points by following a simulated end-to-end hiring process from ‘search for job
 Ergonomics 41

Table 3. Comparison in key UX indicators between HMA1 and HMA2 (partial).

Key E2E UX indicators HMA1 (post-release) HMA2 (post-release)
Usability score (1– 7 rating scale) ,3 ,5
User satisfaction (survey) 43% 78%
Task completion time (create a job requisition) .45 min , 20 min
User call support ratio 54% 14%
User-support call volume 1.23 call/1000 transactions 0.81/1000 transactions

openings’ (by applicants) to the end of ‘accept offer’ (by applicants) based on the test scripts and materials. There
were several medium and many low-rated issues identified from test, all medium-rated issues and most low-rated
issues were fixed. The E2E UX test enabled the program to fix possible E2E UX issues across all the E2E UX touch
points with real scenarios prior to release.

2.1.3 Impacts
The HMA2 solution was released with a great success (see Table 3). As shown in Table 3, the results indicate the significant
improvements of HMA2 over HMA1 across some key E2E UX indicators.
Downloaded by [wei xu] at 15:32 11 February 2014

2.2 Case study 2: developing a UX roadmap to influence strategic direction of product development
2.2.1 Problem statements
An internal business portal is a platform that provides corporate users with a collaborative workspace by aggregating a
variety of web content, applications and reports. It allows users to access the content in a one-stop-shop approach. The UX
problems in this case study pertain to a corporate business portal for internal financial users. The portal was released in the
early 2000s with a personalisation capability. The capability allowed users to turn some content on and off or manoeuvre it,
similar to what iGoogle and Yahoo! provide today. However, users felt frustrated when using the personalisation; they were
not familiar with this type of capability, so it was eventually removed. This example shows that if a product capability is
ahead of UX and user readiness, it will not be accepted by users and eventually will not deliver business value.
The Intel portal program had defined a product roadmap with various technology capabilities to be rolled out over the
next several years to enhance internal business portals. On one hand, business and technology people are looking for
predictable UX data to help guide their roadmaps to match the optimal UX sequence based on the lessons learned; on the
other hand, the program had only the UX data that defined the current UX states (e.g. user needs), which were typically
delivered by a project HFE specialist in terms of short-term user needs. There was no predictable UX data that could help
the program optimise the proposed product roadmaps.

2.2.2 Approach
2.2.2.1 UX data collection methods. To address the problems, the Intel HFE team launched a project (Wooding and Xu
2011). The methods used in collecting UX data are summarised in Table 4. The participants represented portal users with an
average of 5.5 years of working experience at Intel ranging from 2 months to 35 years, combined with 30 work titles within
13 business units, across 63 sites in 24 countries at Intel. The data collection generated totally 75,258 words of data, 56
interview transcripts and 26 information process maps for analyses.

Table 4. Summary of UX data collection methods.

Methods Data sources
Industry best practice review Industry reports, external benchmarking data, vendor visits
Information process mapping 1:1 sessions conducted with 32 representative portal users who mapped out the typical information
processes they used to support their daily jobs
User interviews 1:1 sessions and observations conducted with 24 portal users on their work environment, daily work
patterns and portal usages
User surveys 904 valid surveys received with a 29% response rate on user needs and usage, including ranking/
ordering questions in the survey
 42 W. Xu

2.2.2.2 Data analyses. A commercial qualitative data analysis software, which was designed for qualitative research with
large volumes of rich text-based data, was used for the data analyses. The procedure, which created the building blocks for
the UX roadmap, was as follows: (1) entering and coding all collected data into the software; (2) classifying and sorting the
data into larger UX patterns in terms of user needs and usages, and looking for themes within themes (e.g. ‘I access targeted
job content’, ‘I choose/personalise what I see’) and (3) creating the building blocks of the UX roadmap (see Table 5,
Figures 4 and 5).

2.2.2.3 Development of the UX roadmap. The building blocks were used to build the UX roadmap by following the format
as shown in Figure 6. Figure 6 only partially illustrates the UX roadmap.
. The vertical axis defines various UX elements in order, from basic to advanced, as illustrated by the level 2 of the
hierarchy (Figure 4). Basic user needs as defined by basic UX elements must be satisfied prior to advanced UX needs.
For instance, ‘I make decisions with the portal’ is the most advanced user need, but basic user needs must be satisfied
first, such as ‘I access targeted job content’.
. The horizontal axis defines a sequence of sublevel UX goals over time for each of the UX elements, as illustrated by
the level 3 of the hierarchy (Figure 4). For instance, to achieve the ‘I access targeted job content’ UX element, users
want to access the ‘push’ content per their job role first (i.e. the targeted content is displayed by default based on job
roles), then choose and personalise what they can access. Eventually, the long-term goal, as defined by ‘I create or
share content with others’, will be achieved, providing the opportunity for employees to collaborate with others.
Downloaded by [wei xu] at 15:32 11 February 2014

. Figure 6 presents only a high-level view of the UX roadmap. A detailed view was also developed in terms of near-
term measurable UX goals. For instance, for the near-term UX goal of ‘I access “push” content per my role’, at the
detailed level, UX goals were broken down into: (1) ‘I can access major job content by default with fewer than three
clicks’ for a project phase 1 deliverable and (2) ‘I can access major job content by default with just one click’ for a
project phase 2 deliverable. Here, the measurable UX goals can be validated by typical project HFE activities.
. Notice that no actual technology capabilities or product labels are defined in the UX roadmap shown in Figure 6. A
UX roadmap presents only user needs in a technical agnostic way. Actual product capabilities should be documented
in a product roadmap by mapping the UX roadmap and technology capability accordingly.

2.2.3 Impacts
The proposed UX roadmap was presented to the portal program with positive feedback received. The program accordingly
made adjustments to the existing product roadmap by mapping both predictable UX data and product capabilities
accordingly. As a result, the release sequence of product capabilities was optimised in a revised product capability roadmap
based on the optimal UX sequence, as defined in the UX roadmap. For instance, the implementation sequence of technology
capabilities (e.g. corporate social media technology, enterprise workspaces technology) should be carefully defined to best
satisfy user needs (i.e. ‘I collaborate with others’) over time (Chouhan, Xu, and Manohar 2011).

Table 5. Building blocks of UX roadmap.

Building block Purpose
UX vision Define the long-term strategic goal of the UX
roadmap
UX guiding principles Guide the development of a UX roadmap and
define the scope and boundaries of the
UX roadmap
Hierarchy of user needs and Define the means-end relation across levels of
usages user needs and usages; that is the items at a
lower level help achieve the goal defined at
the upper level
Prioritisation and dependency of user Define the sequence of user needs and usages
needs and usages to be implemented over time based on
collected UX data (e.g. ranking data)
Examples
A portal not only provides news and
information, but also provides
transactional data to support their jobs
and make decision in one easy place
The portal should enable more
collaboration with integrated and targeted
content based on job roles
The content should be more relevant and
personalisable
See Figure 5
See Figure 6
 Ergonomics 43

Figure 4. Illustration of user needs/usages hierarchy (partial).

Downloaded by [wei xu] at 15:32 11 February 2014

Figure 5. Example of prioritised user needs for the ‘I choose/personalize what I see’ user need.

Figure 6. UX roadmap example for business portal. Only high-level information is presented for subset area of portal business domain.

As driven by the revised product roadmap, some basic corporate social media capabilities have been implemented first,
including ‘Unified Employee Profiles’, ‘Expert Finder’ and so on. As a result, the user need of ‘I find the expert I need’ is
realised, and then the program has a plan for the next user need of a shared workspace (i.e. ‘I collaborate with others in real
time in a shared workspace’).
 44 W. Xu

2.3 Case study 3: identifying emerging UX to influence definitions of new market opportunities and platform
architecture capabilities
2.3.1 Problem statements
Traditional TV technology has failed to progress in the way other technologies have, leaving the living room with a
comfortable void, since Internet experience, social networking and contextual information are basically offered by other
devices, such as smartphones, netbooks and laptops. Industry has been looking for new technological solutions and
marketing opportunities for traditional TV technology. More specifically, the integration of the Internet experience into
traditional TV usage seems to be the most promising opportunity (Loi 2011).
However, many UX-related questions must be addressed before such a new opportunity is identified to support a new
emerging UX (Loi 2011). What kind of UX do consumers expect from Internet access via a TV? How can one integrate the
Internet experience while preserving the best of a TV medium, which continues to inspire 1.3 billion households around the
world? Moreover, what type of interaction models do consumers expect, and what are its implications to the TV screen
design and user control UI design? What content do people want to watch and store? From a marketing perspective, what
type of new market opportunity will this merge bring in if the new UX can be justified? From product development
perspective, what type of processing power and platform architecture capabilities is required to support the new TV
experience and UI technology, based on desired interactions?

2.3.2 Approach
Downloaded by [wei xu] at 15:32 11 February 2014

2.3.2.1 UX data collection methods. In the past several years, Intel HFE professionals, including anthologists and
ethnographers, have conducted a number of exploratory studies. They have visited hundreds of people in their homes across
many countries (Bell 2007; Loi 2009, 2011). Due to the large scale of the studies, the data collection methods are
qualitatively summarised in Table 6. These studies were aimed at various aspects of people’s UX with computing
technologies, including TV experience and the social lives of television users. Unlike traditional user research (e.g. user
groups), these studies intended to understand how people in various cultural settings are touched by TV technology in their
daily lives through direct observations and daily living with them. The HFE professionals also conducted field studies on the
retail floor (e.g. Best Buy) in USA, where they gathered information from salespeople and consumers to understand what
consumers needed from TV technology.

2.3.2.2 HFE activities. A series of HFE activities were conducted. Figure 7 highlights the key steps and activities to
illustrate how these activities influenced the definitions of the new market opportunity and the platform architecture
capabilities (Loi 2009, 2011).
(1) Identifying the emerging UX: The series of studies revealed a variety of user needs and usages. For instance, they
wanted to browse online while communicating and collaborating through social media while watching TV; they
needed to access personal media on TV; they needed a way they could get whatever they wanted on demand.
Furthermore, consumers wanted the UX quality of this new technology to be simple and interactive. After
modelling and prioritising all the needs and usages through methods such as personas and use scenarios, a new UX
pattern was clearly emerging: the intersection of television and the Internet.
(2) Conceptualising the emerging UX: Based on the identified emerging UX, the HFE professionals partnered with
interaction designers, architects and other technical people to conceptualise the new UX associated with various UX

Table 6. Summary of UX data collection methods (partial) (Bell 2007; Loi 2009, 2011).
Methods
Interviews, shadowing,
cultural probes, photo
diaries, surveys
Interviews, observations
Field study
Objectives
Understand the daily lives of
people and their relationships
with technology
Understand the digital storage
practices at home
Understand what consumers
needed from TV technology
User segments and pools
100 þ households, 300 þ
interviews (conducted aligned
with other research agenda,
e.g. relationships with
technology such as PC, mobile
phone, TV)
8 – 10 houses per country; 5 – 7
expert interviews per country
Salespeople and consumers
Country/year
India, China, USA and
UK/2005 – 2006
Sweden, China and
Indonesia/2007
US retail stores
(e.g. Best Buy)/2008
 Ergonomics 45

Figure 7. HFE approach for identifying the new emerging UX that influences the definition of a new product market opportunity and
platform architecture capabilities (Loi 2009, 2011).

components through UI prototyping. These UX components include home media aggregation, TV widget (rich
Internet apps), a 3D UI, the ability to share/send personal content with/to others or to access/receive contextual
information and recommendations, gesture-based navigation and voice-based search.
(3) Validating UX concepts: Numerous usability tests (and field studies) were conducted to iteratively assess and
improve these proposed interaction models and UI concepts through quantitative and qualitative UX assessment
Downloaded by [wei xu] at 15:32 11 February 2014

metrics. During the iterative process and interactive discussions amongst the UX professionals, interaction
designers, marketing people and technical personnel, these concepts also deeply influenced the thinking and
development approach of all parties involved.

2.3.3 Impacts
The newly identified emerging UX, along with the support data from both qualitative and quantitative UX data, helped open
up new opportunities with internal stakeholders to conceptualise a new marketing opportunity and technological
frameworks. As a result, a new TV experience and new market opportunity were defined: the smart TV. The smart TV
allows users to do the following: access the Internet; search online, create personal content and enjoy broadcast
programming from a single TV interface; access downloadable apps; connect to social networks while watching favourite
programmes or movies; control the TV with a unique new remote control or voice commands and access an infinite number
of entertainment possibilities.
In addition, the UX work eventually influenced the definitions of platform architecture capabilities. As a result, an Intel
CPU was designed specifically for powering the smart TV. The CPU offers platform capabilities to help design a usable smart
TV, such as home-theatre quality, audio/video performance, signal processing, surround sound, 3D graphics and so on.
The deliverables through these efforts met corporate strategic marketing needs and also provided a reference design for
Intel when a vendor approached the company looking for hardware and platform solutions for new generation of TV
technology. It opened a door for the smart TV, which is not just a product, but rather a completely new product category of
TV (Lois 2011). In addition, the CPU capabilities as influenced by the emerging UX provided a foundation for the platform
architecture capabilities that enabled TV vendors to develop usable products to meet consumer needs.

3. A proposed user-experience ecosystem framework

Based on the three case studies, the enhanced HFE approaches as demonstrated above are conceptualised into a user-
experience ecosystem (UXE) framework (see Figure 8). The UXE framework has its roots in the current HFE approaches
but is beyond them. As illustrated in Figure 8, the UXE framework expands its boundaries far beyond current HFE
approaches that primarily focus on UI design and its usability; it emphasises on the UX landscape for HFE professionals to
contribute to product design from the context of a broad UX ecosystem, intending to address the challenges faced in current
HFE practices. The UXE framework can be characterised as follows.

3.1 Systematically optimising E2E UX by addressing multiple touch points across solution lifecycles
The UXE framework approaches product design from the E2E UX standpoint, that is a continuous involvement of end users
through various interaction touch points with all aspects of a solution across its lifecycle stages (see Figure 1), such as
business process, functionality, usability, user support and so on, before, during and after interacting a solution. All of these
aspects constitute a variety of artefacts that a user may interact within a broad UX landscape today, i.e. a UX ecosystem.
 46 W. Xu

Figure 8. Illustration of the UXE conceptual framework from a UX ecosystem perspective.

Downloaded by [wei xu] at 15:32 11 February 2014

The UXE framework calls for efforts in the HFE community to address E2E UX when making contributions to product
design from such a broad UX ecosystem perspective, where HFE professionals should systematically address all these E2E
UX touch points, instead of focusing on a single one. They should collectively address E2E UX through collaborating with
owners of these multiple touch points in the UX ecosystem, so that they can jointly and effectively deliver an optimal E2E
UX to end users.

3.2 Strategically addressing UX evolution through developing UX roadmaps associated with prioritised user needs
and usages over time
The UXE framework considers UX evolution from the UX ecosystem perspective. UX, like any ecosystem, may
dynamically evolve in terms of user needs and usages. User needs and usages advance over time in a sequential order, which
may be influenced by improvements in technology and people’s living conditions. One user’s needs or usage may have to be
satisfied before subsequent user needs and usages while the products’ initial UXs mature; otherwise, optimal UXs will not
be delivered.
The UXE framework suggests that HFE professionals analyse and prioritise user needs and usages based on the UX data
collected from end users. These sequential and predictable UX data may help HFE professionals build UX roadmaps in
terms of the evolutionary nature of UX in a particular order, instead of narrowly approaching UX within the pre-defined
scope from a near-term perspective. Thus, HFE professionals can more effectively and strategically influence product
capability roadmaps from a long-term perspective, eventually delivering products and capabilities in a sequential order to
match the optimal UX sequence so that an optimal UX can be delivered over time, as needed.

3.3 Proactively identifying emerging UX by identifying and prioritising new user needs and usages
The UXE framework also considers emerging UX associated with new user needs and usages in the UX ecosystem, which
likes any ecosystem where new components always emerge over time. A variety of new user needs and usages may emerge
daily. Although premature, some are emerging as patterns with valid usages that represent a new UX. Such a promising UX,
which may have been previously unknown, creates a potential marketing opportunity for a new product that meets the
emerging user need and usage. In today’s competitive market, whoever captures a new valid UX early enough and builds a
product at the right time may win the market.
As a result, the UXE framework suggests that HFE professionals proactively identify and prioritise new emerging UX in
the early exploration stages of a product lifecycle by exploring and modelling new user needs and usages. This helps them
define market opportunities for new products and the platform architecture capabilities on which end products rely for
enhanced HCIs and UI design, which eventually results in the delivery of optimal UX.
 Ergonomics 47

4. Discussions and recommendations

4.1 Evidence supporting the proposed UXE framework that addresses the challenges in current HFE approaches
This paper presents three case studies, which support the proposed UXE framework. In Case study 1, the UX of the
previously released tool (HMA1) was impacted by the issues identified across multiple touch points in the solution lifecycle
(see Table 1). If the project program had just fixed these UI usability issues by following the currently typical HFE
approach, they would have been able to only fix the issues accounting for 8% of the total post-release UX issues, and
eventually the team still would have not been able to enhance E2E UX in the Phase 2 release (HMA2). Instead, Case study 1
demonstrates how the enhanced HFE approach was executed to address multiple E2E UX touch points, resulting in a
significantly enhanced E2E UX in the new released product (HMA1) as evidenced by the phase 2 post-release UX data (see
Table 3). Therefore, the UXE framework can address the challenge in current HFE approaches as discussed earlier, which
has inefficiency in delivering optimal E2E UX to end users across solution lifecycle stages.
Case study 2 shows that user needs and usages evolve over time; users have different priorities in terms of needs and
usages over time, as evidenced by the UX data collected, such as the hierarchy of the identified user needs/usages and
prioritisation of user needs/usages (see Figures 4– 6). To achieve optimal UX of a product as its capabilities release over
time, one has to consider the evolutionary nature of UX from the UX ecosystem perspective as represented by the UXE
framework, where UX (e.g. user needs and usages) evolves over time. Case study 2 also shows that a UX roadmap, which
was built based on the evolutionary nature of UX over time, helped HFE professionals document and communicate
predictable UX data in a more influential way. The UX roadmap helped technology and business people understand UX and
validate their portal product roadmap to ensure that their roadmaps are well aligned to deliver an optimal UX over time. By
Downloaded by [wei xu] at 15:32 11 February 2014

doing this, the HFE professionals are able to overcome the inefficiency in current HFE approaches in influencing product
capability roadmaps from a UX perspective.
Finally, Case study 3 demonstrates that there are a variety of new user needs and usages that may emerge daily as their
UXs mature. The HFE professionals were able to identify a valid emerging UX by modelling new user needs and usages
with a much earlier involvement in the product development lifecycle; they eventually helped define the market opportunity
for the new smart TV product and the platform architecture capabilities in much earlier stages than typical HFE practices.
Obviously, the enhanced HFE approaches as conceptualised by the UXE framework outperforms typical practices
deploying current HFE approaches. Based on the quantitative and qualitative case studies that are presented, it can be
concluded that the UXE framework will enable HFE professionals to further explore UX in a broad UX ecosystem, which
may promote new thinking and approaches. Although these case studies may not be sophisticated enough to fully
demonstrate the whole picture of the proposed UXE framework from the UX ecosystem, they do show promise for a better
approach amongst HFE professionals.
The UXE framework approaches HFE’s contributions to design from a broad UX ecosystem perspective. It is rooted in
the HFE discipline that applies the human-centred approach to work system design by considering broad relevant factors,
such as physical, cognitive, social, organisational and environmental factors (Dul et al. 2012; IEA 2003; Karwowski 2001,
2005). The broad UX ecosystem perspective approached by the UXE framework echoes some efforts in the HFE
community (Harris and Stanton 2010; Mack and Sharples 2009). For instance, the macro-ergonomic approach deployed by
a series of studies aimed at addressing human factor considerations in aviation, a socio-technical ‘system of systems’, that
encompasses pilots’ interactions with components, such as usability, training, design, maintenance, safety, procedures,
communications, automation and so on. (Harris and Stanton 2010). However, the UXE framework, along with the enhanced
ergonomics approach, goes beyond these efforts with more tactical and strategic approaches to empower HFE professionals
to address the challenges that were discussed earlier, such as the E2E UX, UX roadmaps and emerging UX to influence
product direction and platform capability definitions.

4.2 Differences in the scope of applying ergonomics in product development lifecycle between the UXE framework
and current HFE approaches
The UXE framework implies a broader application scope of ergonomics in the product development lifecycle in terms of
the timing for HFE professionals to start their engagement and the extended scope of their deliverables in the product
lifecycle (see Figure 9). Figure 9 compares the differences in the application scope in the product lifecycle between the
UXE framework and current HFE approaches.
As illustrated in Figure 9, currently, HFE professionals typically start their engagement when projects commence, and
the scope and the high-level product requirements have been clearly defined. HFE professionals contribute to product
design through activities, such as documenting user needs, transferring the needs into UI interaction design and validating
UI design through iterative usability tests (Nielsen 1993; Cooper 2004; Hartson and Pyla 2012). With such an approach,
 48 W. Xu

Figure 9. Comparison of scope of applying ergonomics in product development lifecycle between UXE framework and current HFE
approach.

HFE professionals typically work in a passive work mode by following predefined requirements constrained by the near-
term scope of the current product release. Thus, HFE professionals basically address the UX of a product from a narrow
project-view perspective.
Downloaded by [wei xu] at 15:32 11 February 2014

There are few suggestions on what involvements HFE professionals should follow or how the engagement should be
effectively defined (Cooper 2004; Sanders and McCormick 1993). For instance, in Sander and McCormick’s book, as a
classic ergonomic design handbook, there is a lack of guidance on the HFE application scope in a product development
lifecycle, just providing ergonomic design guidance (Sanders and McCormick 1993). Recently, Göbel and Zschernack
(2012) proposed a systematic approach for modelling the ergonomics involvement in a product design process, but the
approach only provides a modelling concept that adopts system design concepts to model how problem-solving ability of
humans can be integrated in the design for different design problems, without providing constructive suggestions on the
practice.
In contrast, the UXE framework, as illustrated in Figure 9, encourages HFE professionals to broaden their applications
in a product development lifecycle in three ways: (1) in much earlier stages of a product lifecycle, they should help define a
new product marketing opportunity and the platform architecture capabilities based on identified emerging UX as well as
identify prioritised user needs that should be addressed for a current program based on a developed UX roadmap; (2) during
a product development process, they should address broader UX touch points across the solution lifecycle stages through a
systematic E2E UX approach and more collaborative efforts, instead of just focusing on UI interaction design and its
usability and (3) in the post-release and future release stages, they should be more strategic in influencing future design
directions by leveraging UX roadmaps from a long-term perspective.
It is obvious that the application scope promoted by the UXE framework spans the entire product lifecycle from pre-
development phases to future release from a broad UX ecosystem perspective, which is much broader than current HFE
approaches. Put together, the UXE framework enhances current ergonomics design approaches in terms of the application
scope and engagement process, so that HFE professionals can be more creative, strategic and influential than today when
making contributions to product design.
Besides, current product development approaches in most cases may not effectively encourage and facilitate such
earlier and broader engagements for HFE professionals. Thus, implementing the UXE framework also encourages a culture
shift in an organisation to increase the awareness of UX. HFE professionals should proactively and strategically partner
with others to optimise their engagement and involvement in a product development lifecycle so that they can maximise the
opportunities to influence.

4.3 A formalised ergonomic design process of executing the UXE framework and methodological considerations
Table 7 summarises the major steps taken in the three case studies from an ergonomic design process perspective when
executing the enhanced ergonomics approaches. As shown in Table 7, the three case studies share a similar execution
process by starting from the ‘Gather UX Data’ step at the beginning to the end of the ‘Manage Influence’ step, which
represents a formalised process of executing the UXE framework. Overall, from the process perspective, there are some
common steps that are aimed at in human-centred design approaches shared between the UXE framework and current HFE
processes, that is gathering UX data, building UX deliverables (e.g. UI concepts), conducting UX tests to validate UX
deliverables (e.g. usability testing of UI concepts) with end users and so on. (Cooper 2004; Mayhew 1999; Nielsen 1993).
 Ergonomics 49

Table 7. Formalised process of executing UXE framework.

Formalised ergonomic Emerging UX
process E2E UX (Case study 1) UX roadmap (Case study 2) (Case study 3)
1. Gather UX data UX issues identified across touch User needs and usage User needs and
points usages
2. Identify the relevant Define the major human– artefact Prioritise user needs and Model emerging
UX ecosystem interaction touch points to be usages in an optimal user usages and
components addressed by prioritising the sequence over time prioritise ident-
UX issues ified usages
3. Create UX building E2E UX scorecard and tracking Vision, guiding principles, Identified emerging
blocks process, plans for addressing hierarchy, priority of user UX associated
prioritised touch points needs/usage over time with prioritised
user needs and
usages
4. Build UX Optimise touch points (biz pro- UX Roadmap Leading new UX,
deliverables cess, UI, training, user sup- Conceptualised
port, etc.) future UX (UI
concept, etc.)
5. Conduct UX Integrated E2E UX test Validation through mapping Prototype UX test
validation with technology/product
roadmap
Downloaded by [wei xu] at 15:32 11 February 2014

6. Manage influences Close UX gaps as tracked in the Influence product roadmaps Influence new pro-
E2E UX scorecard duct definition
and platform
architectures

However, there are a few specific steps, which are different from the current HFE approach, that are required to support the
UXE framework.
First of all, HFE professionals need to identify and prioritise the relevant UX ecosystem components as defined by the
UXE framework; that is identify the artefacts interacting with all aspects of a solution across its lifecycle stages in order to
address the most pertinent UX touch points, identify user needs and usages in an optimal sequence over time and model
emerging user usages. Once identified, the following step is to prioritise the components based on the characteristics of UX
ecosystem (e.g. the UX evolution in terms of the optimal sequence of user needs and usages over time, the emerging UX
associated with prioritised user needs and usages).
Second, HFE professionals need to create building blocks based on the identified UX ecosystem components. Here,
current HFE processes and methods need to be enhanced and more research is needed to facilitate some key activities, such
as an E2E UX success scorecard and the tracking system, the effective development and representations of UX roadmaps,
and the modelling of emerging UX based on new user usages of technology both quantitatively and qualitatively.
Lately, HFE professionals need to ‘sell’ the deliverables in order to influence product design. This is a unique need as
compared to current HFE approaches. Individual influence management skillset is more desired here than current HFE
approaches, as HFE professionals now work towards more strategic tasks and should be able to manage influences once a
UX roadmap or an emerging UX associated with new usage models is defined. Besides, an organisation’s maturity in
promoting product UX is a major factor in contributing to the success of the UXE framework. This also entails more
collaborations than current HFE approaches. For instance, to effectively address the E2E UX, HFE professionals need to
closely collaborate with business partners who own each touch point in the corresponding domain; to influence product
roadmaps, HFE professionals need to closely work with technology and business people who own the product roadmaps,
new definitions of marketing and platform architecture.
There are some concerns in the HFE community regarding how ergonomics can influence design by leveraging research
findings from a methodology perspective (Dekker and Nyce 2004; Farrington-Darby et al. 2006). Specifically, Dekker and
Nyce (2004) argue that a crucial issue in ergonomics is the translation of research findings into design guidance. They
assessed three methods, such as experiments, surveys and ethnography, and concluded that each of them can contribute to
design by leveraging valid data from human work. This paper echoes their argument. Correspondingly, the methods
deployed in the three case studies include usability and integrated E2E UX tests as an experimental approach to address E2E
UX with high priority on E2E UX gap analysis (Case study 1), the surveys used to identify prioritised user needs and usages
to help develop UX roadmaps (Case study 2) and the ethnographic method deployed to identify emerging UX associated
with prioritised user needs and usages (Case study 3). A key contribution also made in this paper is to provide an enhanced
 50 W. Xu

ergonomic design process, so that HFE professionals can leverage the process to prioritise the UX data collected in
developing the building blocks as highlighted in Table 5. This complements current HFE’s approach such as UI interaction
design and usability tests (e.g. Cooper 2004; Nielson 2005). Thus, the enhanced HFE process and methods can more
effectively and strategically influence product design.
Finally, although the three case studies and the enhanced HFE approaches are presented in the context of a high-tech
enterprise environment and specifically in the corporate environment of a chip-making manufacturer, the UXE framework
and the enhanced HFE approaches may be generalised beyond this specific context. It is believed that the UX ecosystem is
independent of business domains. More specifically, any product that is built for end users should engineer its E2E UX with
multiple touch points across its lifecycle stages; the variation in the multiple touch points depends on the domain
complexity. UX roadmaps and emerging UX that drives new product market opportunities also apply to any products that
intend to deliver optimal UX. However, further research is still needed for further validation.
All in all, as technology advances and human life improves, the UX ecosystem will continuously evolve, and new
components will be added to existing UX ecosystems, all of which make UX richer and more versatile. Additional best
practices should be developed to help HFE professionals contribute to the UX of product design within rich UX ecosystems
in today’s dynamic and versatile social-tech environment.

Acknowledgements
The author would like to acknowledge that the case study 3 was based on the work done by the author’s fellow HFE professionals at Intel
as reported in their publications cited in this paper. Their work provides supporting evidence to the proposed UXE framework. Any
Downloaded by [wei xu] at 15:32 11 February 2014

opinion, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of
other individuals or any corporations.

References
Allaboutux.org. 2012. http://www.allaboutux.org/ux-definitions
Bell, G. 2001. “Looking Across the Atlantic: Using Ethnographic Methods to Make Sense of Europe.” Intel Technical Journal Q3.
Bell, G. 2007. “People, Platforms & Homes: Designing Digital Devices?” Intel Corporation, Technical Report. Digital Home Group.
Bell, G., M. Blythe, B. Gaver, P. Sengers, and P. Wright. 2003. “Designing Culturally Situated Technologies for the Home.” CHI EA ’03:
CHI ’03 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. CHI 2003 New Horizons 1062–1063.
Chouhan, H., W. Xu, and M. Manohar. 2011. “User Experience Design (UXE) Framework and Principles: Content, Collaboration, Portal,
and Search.” Intel Internal Technical Report (FM-89, 2011).
Cooper, A. 2004. The Inmates are Running the Asylum. Indianapolis, IN: Sams Publishing.
Dekker, S., and J. Nyce. 2004. “How Can Ergonomics Influence Design? Moving from Research Findings to Future Systems.”
Ergonomics 47 (15): 1624– 1639.
Dourish, P., and G. Bell. 2011. Divining a Digital Future: Mess and Mythology in Ubiquitous Computing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Dul, J., R. Bruder, P. Buckle, P. Carayon, P. Falzon, W. S. Marras, J. R. Wilson, and B. V. D. Doelen. 2012. “A Strategy for Human
Factors/Ergonomics: Developing the Discipline and Profession.” Ergonomics 55 (4): 377– 395.
Farrington-Darby, T., J. R. Wilson, B. J. Norris, and T. Clarke. 2006. “A Naturalistic Study of Railway Controllers.” Ergonomics 49 (12 –
13): 1370– 1394.
Finstad, K., W. Xu, S. Kapoor, S. Canakapalli, and J. Gladding. 2009. “Bridging the Gaps Between Enterprise Software and End Users.”
Interactions XVI.2 (March þ April): 10 – 14.
Garret, J. J. 2010. The Elements of User Experience: User-Centered Design for the Web and Beyond. 2nd ed. San Francisco, CA:
New Riders.
Göbel, M., and S. Zschernack. 2012. “A Systems Concept for Modelling the Ergonomics Design Process Within the Product
Conceptualisation and Development Frame.” Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science 13 (2): 169–186.
Green, W. S., and P. W. Jordan. 2002. Pleasure with Products: Beyond Usability. London: Taylor & Francis.
Hackos, J. T., and J. C. Redish. 1998. User and Tasks Analysis for Interface Design. New York, NY: Wiley.
Harris, D., and N. A. Stanton. 2010. “Aviation as a System of Systems: Preface to the Special Issue of Human Factors in Aviation.”
Ergonomics 53 (2): 145– 148.
Hartson, R., and P. Pyla. 2012. The UX Book: Process and Guidelines for Ensuring a Quality User Experience. Philadelphia, PA: Morgan
Kaufmann.
HP (Hewlett-Packard Development Company). 2011. “Harness, IT with Mission-Critical Converged Infrastructure-UX Roadmap.”
http://209.240.136.95/Hardware/Hewlett-Packard/PDFs/HP-UX_11i_v3-RoadMap.pdf
IEA (International Ergonomics Association). 2003. IEA Triennial Report 2000– 2003. Santa Monica, CA: IEA Press.
ISO (International Standards Organization). 2010. “Ergonomics of Human – System Interaction. Part 210. Human-Centred Design for
Interactive Systems (ISO 9241-210/:2000).” http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber¼52075
Jordan, P. W. 2000. Designing Pleasurable Products. London: Taylor & Francis.
Karwowski, W., ed. 2001. International Encyclopedia of Ergonomics and Human Factors. London: Taylor & Francis.
Karwowski, W. 2005. “Ergonomics and Human Factors: The Paradigms for Science, Engineering, Design, Technology and Management
of Human-Compatible Systems.” Ergonomics 48 (5): 436–463.
Law, E., V. Roto, M. Hassenzahl, A. Vermeeren, and J. Kort. 2009. “Understanding, Scoping and Defining User Experience: A Survey
Approach.” Proceedings of Human Factors in Computing Systems Conference, CHI’09, Boston, MA, USA, April 4 – 9.
 Ergonomics 51

Loch, C., and S. Kavadias. 2007. Handbook of New Product Development Management. New York, NY: Routledge.
Loi, D. 2009. “Leading Through Design Enabling: Practical Use of Design at Intel.” DesignConvexity – 8th International Conference of
the European Academy of Design, Aberdeen Scotland, April 1 – 3.
Loi, D. 2011. “Changing the TV Industry Through User Experience Design.” Proceedings of 14th Human Computer Interaction
International 465– 474, Orlando, FL, USA, July 9 – 14.
Mack, Z., and S. Sharples. 2009. “The Importance of Usability in Product Choice: A Mobile Phone Case Study.” Ergonomics 52 (12):
1514– 1528.
Mayhew, D. J. 1999. The Usability Engineering Lifecycle: A Practitioner’s Handbook for User Interface Design. Philadelphia, PA:
Morgan Kaufmann.
Netsoft. 2012. “Strategy and Technology Converge on the Same Critical Business Goal: Satisfying Your Users.” http://www.netsoft-usa.
com/UserExperienceGroup.aspx
Nielsen, J. 1993. Usability Engineering. Boston: Academic Press.
Nielsen, J. 2005. “Usability for the Masses.” Journal of Usability Studies 1 (Nov): 2 – 3.
Norman, D. 1999. The Invisible Computer: Why Good Products Can Fail, the Personal Computer is So Complex, and Information
Appliances are the Solution. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Revang, M. 2007. “User Experience Wheel.” http://userexperienceproject.blogspot.com/
Sanders, M. S., and E. J. McCormick. 1993. Human Factors in Engineering and Design. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Shneiderman, B. 2010. Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human– Computer Interaction. 5th ed. Boston, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Soares, M. M., and F. Rebelo. 2012. “Ergonomics in Design: Solutions and Proposals for a Better Interface with the User.” Theoretical
Issues in Ergonomics Science 13 (1): 1 – 3.
Stanton, N., and C. Baber. 2006. “The Ergonomics of Command and Control.” Ergonomics 49 (12 –13): 1131– 1138.
Sward, D. 2006. Measuring the Business Value of Information Technology. Santa Clara, CA: Intel Press.
Downloaded by [wei xu] at 15:32 11 February 2014

Vredenburg, K., S. Isensee, and C. Righi. 2001. User-Centered Design: An Integrated Approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Wooding, L., and W. Xu. 2011. “User Experience and Architecture from End-User Research to UX Roadmaps.” In Intel Enterprise
Architecture Summit 2011.
Xu, W. 2007. “Identifying Problems and Generating Recommendations for Enhancing Complex Systems: Applying the Abstraction
Hierarchy Framework as an Analytical Tool.” Human Factors 49 (6): 975–994.

View publication stats