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

net/publication/371957198

Shaping the Future of Safety and Mobility Experience: A Design Theory for
Augmented Automotive Spaces

Conference Paper · August 2023

CITATION READS

1 164

4 authors:

Martin Böhmer Victor-Alexander Mahn

Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg 3 PUBLICATIONS 4 CITATIONS
14 PUBLICATIONS 5 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Stephan Kühnel Johannes Damarowsky

Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg
82 PUBLICATIONS 222 CITATIONS 15 PUBLICATIONS 16 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Stephan Kühnel on 30 June 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Association for Information Systems
AIS Electronic Library (AISeL)

AMCIS 2023 Proceedings SIG HCI - Human Computer Interaction

Aug 10th, 12:00 AM

Shaping the Future of Safety and Mobility Experience: A Design

Theory for Augmented Automotive Spaces
Martin Böhmer
Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg, martin.boehmer@wiwi.uni-halle.de

Victor-Alexander Mahn
DENKUNDMACH, vam@denkundmach.de

Stephan Kuehnel
Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, stephan.kuehnel@wiwi.uni-halle.de

Johannes Damarowsky
Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, johannes.damarowsky@wiwi.uni-halle.de

Follow this and additional works at: https://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2023

Recommended Citation
Böhmer, Martin; Mahn, Victor-Alexander; Kuehnel, Stephan; and Damarowsky, Johannes, "Shaping the
Future of Safety and Mobility Experience: A Design Theory for Augmented Automotive Spaces" (2023).
AMCIS 2023 Proceedings. 4.
https://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2023/sig_hci/sig_hci/4

This material is brought to you by the Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS) at AIS Electronic
Library (AISeL). It has been accepted for inclusion in AMCIS 2023 Proceedings by an authorized administrator of
AIS Electronic Library (AISeL). For more information, please contact elibrary@aisnet.org.
 A Design Theory for Augmented Automotive Spaces

Shaping the Future of Safety and Mobility

Experience: A Design Theory for Augmented
Automotive Spaces
Completed Research Full Paper

Martin Böhmer Victor-Alexander Mahn

Martin Luther University Halle- DENKUNDMACH
Wittenberg, Germany Halle (Saale), Germany
martin.boehmer@wiwi.uni-halle.de vam@denkundmach.de

Stephan Kuehnel Johannes Damarowsky

Martin Luther University Halle- Martin Luther University Halle-
Wittenberg, Germany Wittenberg, Germany
stephan.kuehnel@wiwi.uni-halle.de johannes.damarowsky@wiwi.uni-halle.de
Abstract
The rise in distraction-related traffic accidents necessitates in-car infotainment systems that prioritize
safety, as current systems often prioritize entertainment and convenience, contributing to the high number
of distracted driving fatalities. Therefore, this paper applied a design science research approach to develop
a design theory for Augmented Automotive Spaces that holistically consider safety, interface, interaction,
and attention requirements. The main artifact is a design theory intended to help researchers and
practitioners understand the design requirements and principles of intuitive, immersive, and attention-
grabbing infotainment user interfaces that enhance safety and overall mobility experience. The design
theory was further implemented in a prototypical reference scenario and positively evaluated for
developmental usefulness, conciseness, explanatory power, and extendibility. Overall, the authors' work
contributes to the research areas of user interface design, infotainment, automotive information systems,
and safety measures as well as providing a comprehensive guideline for the development of immersive and
safe automotive infotainment systems.
Keywords
User interface design, Design theory, In-car infotainment systems, Augmented automotive spaces, Safety

Introduction
In an era of ever-increasing environmental awareness and sustainability, the automotive industry must
adapt and rethink the role of the car as we know it. We see a shift toward futuristic, electric, and autonomous
mobility, which logically should improve not only sustainability and environmental performance but also
safety. For example, autonomous driving using deep learning techniques results in greater safety, reliability,
and performance (Muhammad et al., 2020). However, nearly 1.3 million people die each year as a result of
road traffic accidents, with the number increasing every year (World Health Organization, 2018). A non-
negligible proportion of these accidents is caused by driver distraction, overstress, and uncontrolled
interaction. Moreover, in recent years, automotive information systems have turned into infotainment
systems which are responsible for the fact that these fatal distractions occur more frequently. Current
infotainment system design accounts for these safety issues (Holstein et al., 2015), and the not fully
elaborated user interface interaction leads to many accidents (Ramnath et al., 2019). This is tragic because
user interface design has a significant impact on trust and system perception (Frison et al., 2019). Therefore,
immersive and intuitive car infotainment systems are needed to enhance driver safety and overall mobility
experience. Research on the design of and the requirements for such systems has been conducted in the
areas of different graphical interfaces (Blankenbach, 2019; Strayer et al., 2019; Varala & Yammiyavar,
2018), the use of intuitive voice-command control (Cohen et al., 2004; Pearl et al., 2016; Strohmann et al.,

Twenty-ninth Americas Conference on Information Systems, Panama, 2023 1

 A Design Theory for Augmented Automotive Spaces

2019), and the use of highly connected systems and sensors (Choi et al., 2019; Coutinho et al., 2018).
However, these theoretical interface requirements only cover certain aspects (e.g. intuitiveness,
adjustability, interaction) of automotive infotainment systems and lack a holistic approach to guiding the
development of such systems. In addition, they neglect or only superficially cover the most important part
that infotainment systems should epitomize: safety. From a more practical perspective, car manufacturers
employ their own developed infotainment systems (e.g. Volkswagen ID.4) with augmented reality head-up
displays, ambient and navigation lighting, speech assistance, and several graphical interfaces. Despite the
prevalence of car infotainment systems in modern vehicles, there is a significant research gap in
understanding how to holistically design and implement these systems to prioritize safety. While some car
manufacturers have made efforts to incorporate theoretical safety features stemming from literature into
their infotainment systems, such as voice recognition and hands-free operation, there is little research on
how effective these features are at reducing distracted driving and improving overall safety. Furthermore,
there is a need to delineate these safety-focused infotainment systems from current systems, which often
prioritize entertainment and convenience over safety. As such, there is a need for research to identify and
evaluate the features that should be prioritized in a holistically safety-focused infotainment system and how
this system can be effectively implemented to reduce distracted driving and improve overall safety and
mobility experience. Consequently, we define our research question (RQ) as follows:
RQ: What are the design requirements and design principles of an immersive augmented automotive
space to enhance safety and general mobility experience in an automotive context?
We address this question by applying a design science research (DSR) approach following the DSR
paradigm (Vaishnavi & Kuechler, 2015) to develop a design theory (DT) for immersive infotainment
systems holistically utilizing safety, interface, interaction, and attention requirements, which we term
Augmented Automotive Spaces (AAS). The design theory is targeted at helping researchers and
practitioners understand design requirements (DR) and design principles (DP) of intuitive, immersive, and
attention-steering infotainment user interfaces that enhance safety and the overall mobility experience. Our
contribution therefore simultaneously extends the research field of interface design, infotainment,
automotive IS, and safety measures by defining user-specific as well as technical design requirements for
an augmented automotive space which stemmed from a moderated focus group (MFG), the literature, and
the ISO standard. In addition, design principles are identified as general solution approaches for the
underlying DRs. Further ensuring tangibility and feasibility, we implemented the design theory in a
prototypical reference scenario and evaluated the design theory concerning performance and effort
expectancy (i.e. its usefulness for development) as well as its conciseness, explanatory power, and
extendibility.
Related Work
The design of augmented automotive spaces has the potential to enhance both safety and overall mobility
experience in the car. The design of such spaces requires a comprehensive understanding of the principles
of user interface design, which has been the focus of several studies. Pearl et al. (2016) and Cohen et al.
(2004) present principles for general voice-based user interface design, while Nielsen et al. (2020) provide
general usability heuristics for user interface design. Among others, these include user control, consistency,
error prevention, or recognition rather than recall. Regarding the application of such underlying theories,
Strohmann et al. (2019) provide design guidelines for user experiences with an in-car assistant, and Strayer
et al. (2019) highlight interface requirements for infotainment systems, including adjustability and
adaptability. Moreover, Blankenbach (2019) outlines interface requirements for heads-up displays, such as
non-invasiveness, readability, adjustability, adaptability, facilitator role, and pro-activeness. Varala &
Yammiyavar (2018) further present interface requirements for graphical displays, including intuitiveness,
clearness, simplicity, adjustability, and adaptability. Politis et al. (2018) focus on interface requirements for
inclusiveness, such as intuitiveness, clearness, simplicity, facilitator role, and pro-activeness, whereas Lee
& Ji (2018) highlight interface requirements for complexity reduction, including intuitiveness, clearness,
simplicity, structure, and consistency. Regarding the target of complexity reduction proposed by Lee & Jin
(2018), Garzon (2012) emphasizes the importance of simplifying the execution of a preferred action (e.g.
adjusting the volume) by short-cutting, while Frison et al. (2019) demonstrate that interaction significantly
influences trust and safety with users diverting their attention from the road. On a more meta-level of
connectivity, Coutinho et al. (2018) provide design guidelines for network protocolling of infotainment
systems which involves the communication between different components of the system. In addition,

Twenty-ninth Americas Conference on Information Systems, Panama, 2023 2

 A Design Theory for Augmented Automotive Spaces

Külzer et al. (2020) proposed a framework for wireless data flow in infotainment systems and autonomous
driving. Choi et al. (2019) conducted further research on an IoT connection perspective for infotainment
systems and emphasized the importance of a seamless connection between the general system and sensor
data.
Despite the considerable research in this field, there is still a research gap in the development of a holistic
approach to guide developers and researchers in the process of developing safety- and mobility experience-
enhancing infotainment systems. The existing research has focused primarily on specific aspects of user
interface design, such as voice-based interfaces, graphical displays, and network protocolling. In addition,
these approaches lack a sufficient focus on safety, either in terms of interacting with the system or providing
safety warnings/notifications. Since that should be the top priority for infotainment systems and mobility
experience, we found a substantial void regarding the relevant literature. Therefore, a comprehensive,
immersive, and integrated approach that incorporates safety measures as well as all relevant aspects of user
interface design, including user control, consistency, flexibility, adjustability, and adaptability, is required
to develop a safer and more effective augmented automotive space.

Research Method
To ensure scientific rigor and a structured approach to developing an Augmented Automotive Space (AAS),
we adopted Vaishnavi and Kuechler's (2015) DSR methodology, which consists of five steps: awareness of
problem, suggestion, development, evaluation, and conclusion. We chose this methodology over other
approaches because of its emphasis on developing theoretically sound design requirements (DRs) and
design principles (DPs) to guide the development of an innovative IS architecture. The DSR methodology
is an appropriate approach for conceptualizing requirements and principles for information systems in
automotive systems research (Peffers et al. 2007). Our research design follows the work of Meth et al. (2015)
and involves a single completed design science research cycle (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Design Science Research Approach.

Our paper focuses primarily on the development of a nascent design theory and its prototypical
implementation. The design requirements and principles are discussed in detail and form the foundation
of a design theory that contributes to solving the problem (Baskerville and Pries-Heje, 2010). Here, the
design requirements describe the principle objectives and, in a sense, represent meta-requirements for the
subsequent prototype artifact (Baskerville and Pries-Heje, 2010; Walls et al., 1992) while the design
principles are prescriptive and universal in the context of specifying how the prototype should be designed
to meet the DRs (Fu et al., 2016). The DPs were derived through a supportive approach following Möller et
al. (2020) with prescriptive wording. Moreover, our DSR approach is aligned with the ISO 9241-210:2020
standard and human-centered design of interactive systems.
Awareness of Problem
Our classified problem-centered research motivation draws from a real-world issue, namely, the
enhancement of safety and the overall mobility experience of users within cars. Hereby, the current increase
in the number of accidents contrasts with the rapid development of autonomous driving and the resulting
improvement in safety. As aforementioned, information systems incorporating safety measures as well as
context-aware functionalities are needed to improve safety and the mobility experience through tailor-
made, highly individual yet scalable and modular augmentations. Current approaches include user interface
and interaction principles, yet they lack a focus on safety measures, and therefore, a holistic perspective.

Twenty-ninth Americas Conference on Information Systems, Panama, 2023 3

 A Design Theory for Augmented Automotive Spaces

Figure 2: Analysis of the Moderated Focus Group Results (according to Gioia et al., 2013).

From the analysis of the relevant research streams from which we drew the kernel theories and initial meta-
prerequisites for augmented automotive spaces, we further conducted a moderated focus group (MFG) with
automotive, mixed reality, and information systems experts that was aimed at rigorously deriving design
requirements, match them to the theoretical grounding and establish them in the nascent design theory.
According to Morgan (1997), the qualitative research method of moderated focus groups is especially
predestined for extensive insights into a subject and the development of prototypes. For this purpose, our
MFG consisted of n=12 participants, including six automotive IT executives in the field of infotainment and
safety, three mixed reality engineers, and three IS researchers with automotive system development
backgrounds. The MFG was subjected to a qualitative content analysis according to Gioia et al. (2013), the
analysis results of which can be seen in Figure 2. It was aimed at assessing the varying perceptions regarding
safety, information augmentation, attention steering, and mobility experience as well as eliciting user-
specific requirements based on this assessment. The goal of the conducted MFG was to grasp a better
understanding of what drives human attention in the car, how distraction is triggered and how it can be
countered, which information augmentation techniques are useful, and what kind of interaction and
communication is desirable. Hereby, the MFG acted as a rigorous qualitative method to raise meta-
requirements that augmented automotive spaces should epitomize. In this respect, and based on the 1st
order concepts and 2nd order themes, we were able to develop five aggregate dimensions upon which the
design requirements are built: safety measures (AD1); information representation (AD2); attention
steering (AD3); interaction levels (AD4); and interior/exterior distinction (AD5). The following section
thoroughly depicts how these aggregate dimensions and literature findings were used to derive theoretically
sound design requirements for the design theory.

Suggestion of a Design Theory for Augmented Automotive Spaces

The present study adopted a design science cycle approach to propose a nascent design theory. This design
theory was informed by a thorough review of the relevant literature, the ISO norm, and an extensively
described focus group. The development of the design theory followed the systematic approach proposed
by Möller et al. (2020), resulting in the identification of design principles that are generalizable and
applicable across various application scenarios and target groups.

Twenty-ninth Americas Conference on Information Systems, Panama, 2023 4

 A Design Theory for Augmented Automotive Spaces

Figure 3. Design Theory for Augmented Automotive Spaces.

This approach allows for an intuitive adaptation of the system to different scenarios without requiring the
redefinition of design requirements and design principles. The resulting design theory comprises DPs that
are independent of specific target groups and therefore should be considered by any instantiation of the
augmented automotive space for safety and mobility experience enhancement. Through analysis of the
literature and focus group findings, we identified four essential DRs, which are further elaborated by 13
target group-specific DPs. As such, the DRs and DPs are derived from the literature findings as well as the
MFG’s aggregate dimensions and represent fundamental components that should be incorporated into any
design aimed at enhancing the safety and mobility experience in augmented automotive spaces.
Theoretically grounded on the ISO 9241-11:2018 standard for “usability” we derived the meta-prerequisites
user satisfaction (MP1), efficiency (MP2), and effectiveness (MP3) that should be inherited by all
information systems aimed at supporting human users and, thus, build the theoretical foundation for the
separate design theory. We aim to make AAS human-centered and usable to account for the best possible
user satisfaction that comes with a high-performing, effective, and efficient information system. Derived
from the meta-prerequisites, we developed four design requirements that embody a set of criteria or
constraints that guide the design process for augmented automotive spaces and ensure that the resulting
artifact meets the needs of its intended users and stakeholders. These requirements typically address
functional, technical, and non-functional aspects, such as usability, performance, security, scalability, and
so on. They also reflect the goals, values, and context of the design domain, as well as any relevant
regulations, standards, or best practices. Here, the design requirements are defined as interaction (DR1),
drawing from AD4 and specifying the human-system-interaction level and modes to account for a seamless
user experience (Frison et al., 2019; Lee & Ji, 2018; Pearl et al., 2016; Politis et al., 2018); attention (DR2),
drawing from AD2/AD3 and specifying the attention guidance for non-distraction information display and
representation (Blankenbach, 2019; Varala & Yammiyavar, 2018; Strayer et al., 2019); safety (DR3),
drawing from AD1 and specifying the priority of superimposed safety alerts/messages/warnings; and
context-awareness (DR4), drawing from AD5 and specifying the relevant functionalities of the information
system and their contextual relevance to minimize the cognitive load of the user (Choi et al., 2019; Lee & Ji,
2018; Strohmann et al., 2019).
DP1 stresses the importance of simplicity and safety in designing an augmented automotive space. This
involves straightforward interaction without complex menus or interfaces (AD4), reducing cognitive load
and distraction risk (Strayer et al., 2019; Strohmann et al., 2019). Due to the distractions inherent in the
automotive context, users would have to constantly reorient themselves in hierarchical/nested systems,
resulting in less safety. The goal is a user-friendly, seamless, and intuitive experience that enhances safety
without overwhelming or confusing users (cf. Figure 4). DP2 achieves DR1 through ergonomic controls
(AD4), intuitive interfaces (Lee & Ji, 2018; Politis et al., 2018; Varala & Yammiyavar, 2018), voice

Twenty-ninth Americas Conference on Information Systems, Panama, 2023 5

 A Design Theory for Augmented Automotive Spaces

Figure 4: Prototypical Implementation of an Augmented Automotive Space.

commands (Cohen et al., 2004; Pearl et al., 2016), and heads-up displays (Blankenbach, 2019) while always
prioritizing safety. Other features such as automatic emergency braking and lane departure warning should
be incorporated. The system should also be user-friendly, with clear instructions and minimal steps needed
to complete tasks, while incorporating the most complex simplicity (AD4).
DP3 utilizes color psychology's intuitive color schemes and visual cues, utilizing visual representation
theory to create a consistent and easily interpretable visual language that reduces cognitive load (Strayer et
al., 2019; Strohmann et al., 2019; Varala & Yammiyavar, 2018). It further considers various brightness
levels and environments, adjusting accordingly to maintain optimal visibility (cf. Figure 4). This creates a
seamless and enjoyable experience, enhancing safety and allowing for attention without distraction (AD2;
AD3). DP4 utilizes visual hierarchy, contrast, color, and size to direct the user's gaze toward critical
information such as speed, obstacle, or navigation instructions (AD2; AD3). Information placement in the
driver's line of sight is also important, while dynamic elements like animations can grab the driver's
attention effectively without distraction (Politis et al., 2018; Varala & Yammiyavar, 2018). This enhances
the user's experience and ensures safety by reducing time spent looking away from the road. DP5 offers
personalized and relevant information through user-friendly and intuitive interfaces that are easy to
navigate, even while driving. Voice or gesture control and hands-free communication minimize distractions
and stress for the driver (Cohen et al., 2004; Frison et al., 2019; Pearl et al., 2016). Natural language
processing and speech synthesis technology create familiar, calm, and intuitive communication – auditorily
and textual. The goal is a safe, comfortable, and enjoyable driving experience that helps people get where
they need to go safely and confidently which was a key outcome of the focus group (AD1; AD2). DP6
requires flexible and intuitive output formats for information in augmented automotive spaces, adaptable
to various devices, such as heads-up displays (Blankenbach, 2019), spatial augmented reality environments
(Böhmer et al., 2022), screens (Varala & Yammiyavar, 2018), and headsets. Accompanying DP5, yet
focusing on the presentation of the information rather than the characteristic, design considerations should
include device size, resolution, viewing angle, and orientation (Frison et al., 2019). The aim is to create an
immersive and interactive experience that supports drivers' decision-making process in real-time, and thus,
enhances safety (AD1; AD2; AD3).
DP7 is of paramount importance and requires the expanded automotive space to prioritize safety in an
overriding manner as highlighted by the focus group (AD1, AD3). Safety priorities must be defined,
including legal and manufacturer requirements, and consider the user's needs. Safety features should be
integrated into all aspects of the space and continuously monitored for effectiveness (cf. Figure 4). This
principle aims to create a safe and enjoyable mobility experience that current infotainment systems lack

Twenty-ninth Americas Conference on Information Systems, Panama, 2023 6

 A Design Theory for Augmented Automotive Spaces

(Holstein et al., 2015; Ramnath et al., 2019). DP8 distinguishes between interior and exterior information
augmentation in an augmented automotive space (AD5). Interior augmentation provides information
relevant to driving, such as destination, performance data, and entertainment options, displayed on the
dashboard or other interior displays (AD2). Exterior augmentation extends the environment to provide
information about road conditions, location, weather, or navigation. This data is also displayed in the
interior, but with an exterior reference through lighting or extended displays (cf. Figure 4). To ensure a safe
driving experience, the system must present the most relevant information without compromising safety
(AD3).
DP9 proposes context-awareness using sensors inside and outside the vehicle. This enables the car to
perform context-dependent functions and provide relevant information to enhance safety and user
experience (AD1). Application-oriented context-awareness creates a personalized and intuitive experience
for users (Choi et al., 2019; Strohmann et al., 2019) and is based on the reference architectures for context-
aware systems (Alegre et al., 2016; Costa et al., 2005). DP10 prioritizes user privacy and security while
integrating external information systems through standardized APIs (cf. Figure 4). Customizable settings
should fit driver and passenger preferences for a personalized experience. The system should continuously
learn and adapt to changing needs and behaviors, using advanced technologies such as deep learning for
intelligent, real-time decision-making (Choi et al., 2019; Coutinho et al., 2018). The goal is a seamless and
efficient ecosystem that prioritizes safety, comfort, and convenience (AD1). DP11 integrates advanced
technologies such as deep learning and personalized interfaces that adapt to individual needs and
preferences (AD5). It further accommodates physical limitations or disabilities, and prioritizes comfort,
safety, and ease of use, ensuring high individualization and adaptability (Blankenbach, 2019; Strayer et al.,
2019; Varala & Yammiyavar, 2018). This design principle aims to create a personalized and efficient
automotive environment that enhances the user's safety. DP12 offers functionalities based on the user's
position in the car for optimal safety and mobility experience (AD1; AD2). For instance, the driver's seat
should focus on enhancing driving with navigation and safety systems, while the passenger seat prioritizes
entertainment and comfort (Figure 4). This principle considers occupants' different needs and preferences
to provide tailored experiences, using sensors to detect the user's position and adjust functionalities
accordingly (Politis et al., 2018; Strohmann et al., 2019). The goal is to create a more enjoyable, convenient,
and safe mobility experience for everyone in the car. DP13 connects to DP12, emphasizing location and
context in determining features for improved safety and mobility (AD5). It incorporates GPS for
personalized settings, weather adjustments, and sensors for road detection (Choi et al., 2019). The design
enables an adaptive and personalized journey by considering the vehicle's surroundings and context.
In regards to the prototypical implementation of an AAS, Figure 4 showcases our exemplary
implementation, but also serves as a means of harmonizing the theoretical ideation (DT) with the pragmatic
execution of the artifact, by leveraging the DRs and DPs.
Evaluation
Regarding the evaluation of augmented automotive spaces, there should be a distinction between the direct
and indirect targeted audience. While the general benefit of augmented automotive spaces is directed at
human car users to improve their mobility experience, the design theory aims to help researchers,
practitioners, and engineers to develop such systems that ultimately benefit the users. To assess the
usefulness of the design theory in a broader context, we conducted a survey to evaluate the performance
expectancy (PE) and effort expectancy (EE) among potential developers and executives of an augmented
automotive spaces system, specifically IS and AR architects, automotive developers, and researchers. As PE
and EE are abstract constructs that cannot be directly measured, we employed the well-established scale
items developed by Venkatesh et al. (2003). The PE scale items included usefulness (PE1), quickness (PE2),
productivity (PE3), and increased chance of getting a raise (PE4), while the EE scale items were clarity
(EE1), easiness to master (EE2), easiness to use (EE3), and easiness to learn (EE4). We tailored the PE and
EE constructs to our specific application context, which involved developing an augmented automotive
space for a car manufacturer. In addition, we also asked the experts about the conciseness (CON),
extendibility (EXT), and explanatory power (EXP) of the design theory artifact, following the approach to
subjective ending conditions from Nickerson et al.'s (2013) taxonomy development method. The survey
questionnaire consisted of an introduction to the research project, the DT approach, a prompt to imagine
an application scenario for the DT as well as statements on the EE, CON, EXT, and EXP. We used 7-point
Likert-style scales to collect interval-scaled verbal numeric data.

Twenty-ninth Americas Conference on Information Systems, Panama, 2023 7

 A Design Theory for Augmented Automotive Spaces

Figure 5: Boxplots for Design Theory Evaluation with Scale Items.

In determining the sample size, we used the "10±2 rule" proposed by Hwang and Salvendy (2010), sending
the questionnaire to a total of 23 experts with an actual response rate of 52.2%. The respondents had varied
professional roles, including two automotive project managers for a large-size car enterprise, five IS
automotive project leads, three IS senior researchers, one mixed-reality multimedia developer, and one
usability engineer, all with 4-15 years (median: 10.5, mean: 9.83) of experience in the automotive, IS, and
mixed-reality domain. Among the experts, nine worked in large companies/organizations, while three
worked in micro-sized companies/organizations. Figure 5 depicts the boxplots of the responses. For the
design theory, we received high levels of agreement for all items, with medians of m=5, m=6, and m=7.
Thus, the sum scores of the PE and EE for the design theory with medians of m=25 and m=27 on a 7-28
scale summarize the overall evaluation well. Overall, the participants of the survey found the design theory
useful in their job (i.e. designing an AAS) and agreed on the statement that it would enable them to
accomplish this task more quickly. They found the design theory easy to use, clear and understandable, and
saw increased productivity as a result. The majority of the participants stated that the design theory is
meaningful without being unwieldy or overwhelming, easily extendable, and provides self-explanatory
relationships between design requirements and principles.

Performance Expectancy Design Theory Effort Expectancy Design Theory

Usefulness .815 Clarity .769
Quickness .684 Easy to Master .463
Loadings Loadings
Productivity .666 Easy to Use .839
Chance of Raise .808 Easy to Learn .748
AVE .557 AVE .517
CCR .833 CCR .805

Table 1: Construct Validation.

To validate the quality of the constructs PE and EE, we examined individual item reliability (loadings),
composite construct reliability (CCR), and average variance extracted (AVE) (Hulland, 1999). Item
reliability is examined by evaluating the loadings of the measured items on their respective construct. We
performed a confirmatory factor analysis in R for this purpose (Table 2). It is generally known that items
with low loadings (rule of thumb: < 0.4) should be carefully scrutinized as they offer little additional
explanatory power but attenuate (and thus bias) parameter estimates (Nunnally, 1978; Hulland, 1999). In
our models, all item loadings exceed the 0.4 limits. The average variance extracted (AVE) is also above the
limit of 0.5 for all items and artifacts, indicating that the variance captured by the construct is greater than
the measurement error (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Composite construct reliability (CCR) measures the
overall reliability of items loading on a construct and should exceed the threshold of 0.7 (Hulland, 1999;
Nunnally, 1978), which is given for all items and artifacts. Based on these validity criteria, our measurement
models with four items each for the constructs PE and EE are suitable for evaluation. Extending the positive
formative and qualitative evaluations, we further validated the quality of the revised DT by applying the
framework of Gregor and Jones (2007). The framework defines six mandatory and two facultative
components that should be included in a DT. To this effect, we are convinced that our revised DT fully
complies with this framework (Table 2).

Twenty-ninth Americas Conference on Information Systems, Panama, 2023 8

 A Design Theory for Augmented Automotive Spaces

Component Description
The goals of an AAS are providing different interaction modes without multi-layered user interaction
Purpose (DR1), steering the user’s attention without distraction (DR2), prioritizing superimposed safety measures
and scope and notifications (DR3), and offering contextual functionalities without increasing cognitive load (DR4),
to enhance the overall mobility experience within cars.
Constructs Augmentation, Infotainment, IS mobility, Automotive, AI, Context-Awareness, Immersive Technologies
Principles DP1: levels, DP2: modes, DP3: representation, DP4: gaze-guidance, DP5: communication, DP6: display,
of form and DP7: security, DP8: augmentation, DP9: context-reasoning, DP10: integration, DP11: individualizability,
function DP12: user-position, DP13: automotive-position
AAS can be used in different automotive environments regardless of the manufacturer or type of car as its
Artifact underlying IS core does not relate to specific hardware/software. Through high context-awareness and
mutability individualization, the augmented automotive space can be tweaked to the user’s preferences, needs, and/or
prerequisites as well as legal regulations.
Testable An AAS to enhance the people’s mobility experience offers higher user satisfaction, attention, safety, and
propositions context-awareness than alternative and conventional infotainment and automotive IS approaches.
A theoretical grounding on the IS automotive literature and ISO as well as a moderated focus group justify
the derivation of the design requirements and principles. A summative design cycle evaluation hereby
justified that the design theory for AAS was overall perceived as useful for developing such
Justificatory
augmentation/infotainment systems from a practitioner and researcher perspective. An evaluation of the
knowledge
UTAUT constructs performance expectancy (usefulness, quickness, productivity, chance of raise), effort
expectancy (clarity, easy-to-master, easy-to-use, easy-to-learn) as well as conciseness, explanatory power,
and extendibility of the design theory was conducted through a questionnaire.
Expository Development of a technical IS architecture and thereupon a prototype implementation, encompassing the
instantiation derivable components of the DT within a reference scenario.

Table 2: Components of a Design Theory for AAS (following Gregor and Jones 2007).

Conclusion
The paper has presented a general design theory for augmented automotive spaces, which has been
implemented in a prototype scenario and embodies a promising solution to improve safety and the overall
mobility experience through immersive user interface design. Consequently, to answer the originally
formulated research questions of this paper, we presented the results of our DSR approach throughout a
complete design cycle and presented a design theory alongside its prototypical implementation. The
positive evaluation substantiates the practical relevance of the DT, as researchers and practitioners can
adapt our DT to develop new, related, and immersive AAS systems using the generally applicable design
principles. Moreover, our defined design requirements and principles have been fused into an inter-field
DT (Darden and Maull, 1977), contributing to the prescriptive knowledge base of the IS community
according to Gregor and Hevner (2013) and the IS design science knowledge base according to Woo et al.
(2014). Meanwhile, in the context of the usefulness of our DT and prototype, the following limitations
should be considered: On the one hand, even after rigorous literature reviews or MFGs, design
requirements and principles are based on the subjective creativity of researchers. However, not all design
decisions can or should be derived from behavioral or mathematical theories, as a certain degree of
creativity is essential to develop an innovative design artifact (Hevner and Chatterjee, 2010; Baskerville et
al., 2016). Our DT is further supported by the methodological approaches of Möller et al. (2020) and Fu et
al. (2016) regarding scientific rigor. On the other hand, as with any other evaluation, our results describe
only a sample, which means that different results could be expected by choosing other participants or a
different focus. We cannot assume that our DT contains all necessary DRs and DPs for the development of
an augmented automotive space and future research could as well evaluating the usability of the prototype
artifact using the three components of usability identified by Venable et al. (2017).

REFERENCES
Alegre, U. et al. 2016. “Engineering context-aware systems and applications: A survey,” J. Syst. Soft., pp. 55-83.
Baskerville, R. and Pries-Heje, J. 2010. “Explanatory Design Theory,” BISE (2:5), pp. 271-282.
Baskerville, R., Kaul, M., Pries-Heje, J., Storey, V. C. and Kristiansen, E. 2016. „Bounded creativity in design
science research,“ ICIS 2016, Dublin.
Böhmer, M. et al. 2022. „Preserve Autonomy – Developing and Implementing a Design Theory for Augmented
Living Spaces.” Proceedings of the Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems 2022.
Blankenbach, K. 2019. “Requirements and system aspects of AR-head-up displays,” IEEE CEM, 8(5), pp. 62-67.
Choi, D. K. et al. 2019. “In-vehicle infotainment management system in Internet-of-Things networks,” 2019
International Conference on Information Networking (ICOIN), pp. 88-92. IEEE.
Cohen, M. H. et al. 2004. “Voice user interface design,” Addison-Wesley Professional.

Twenty-ninth Americas Conference on Information Systems, Panama, 2023 9

 A Design Theory for Augmented Automotive Spaces

Coutinho, R. W. et al. 2018. “Design guidelines for information-centric connected and autonomous vehicles,”
IEEE Communications Magazine, 56(10), pp. 85-91.
Costa, P. D. et al. 2005. “Architectural Patterns for Context-Aware Services Platforms,” IWUC. pp. 3-18.
Darden, L. and Maull, N. 1977. “Interfield theories,” Philosophy of science (44:1), pp. 43-64.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. 1981. “Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and
Measurement Error,” JMR (18:1), pp. 39-50.
Frison, A. K. et al. 2019. “In UX we trust: Investigation of aesthetics and usability of driver-vehicle interfaces and
their impact on the perception of automated driving,” CHI 2019 Proceedings, pp. 1-13.
Fu, K. K., Yang, M. C., and Wood, K. L. 2016. “Design Principles: Literature Review, Analysis, and Future
Directions,” Journal of Mechanical Design (138:10), 101103.
Garzon, S. R. 2012. “Intelligent in-car-infotainment systems: A contextual personalized approach,” International
Conference on Intelligent Environments, pp. 315-318. IEEE.
Gioia, D. A. et al. 2013. “Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology,”
Organizational research methods, 16(1), pp. 15-31.
Gregor, S. & Hevner, A. R. 2013. “Positioning and Presenting Design Science Research for Maximum Impact,”
MISQ (37:2), pp. 337-355.
Gregor, S. & Jones, D. 2007. “The Anatomy of a Design Theory,” JAIS (8:5), pp. 312-335.
Hevner, A. & Chatterjee, S. 2010. “Design science research in information systems,” Design research in
information systems, Springer, Boston, pp. 9-22.
Holstein, T. et al. 2015. „Current challenges in compositing heterogeneous user interfaces for automotive
purposes,” Human-Computer Interaction: HCI 2015 Proceedings, pp. 531-542.
Hulland, J. 1999. “Use of Partial Least Squares (PLS) in Strategic Management Research: A Review of Four
Recent Studies,” SMJ (20:2), pp: 195-204.
Hwang, W. & Salvendy, G. 2010. “Number of people required for usability evaluation: the 10+-2 rule,”
Communications of the ACM (53:5), pp. 130-133.
Külzer, D. F. et al. 2020. „Novel QoS control framework for automotive safety-related and infotainment services,”
IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference (WCNC), pp. 1-7. IEEE.
Lee, S. C., & Ji, Y. G. 2019. “Complexity of in-vehicle controllers and their effect on task performance,”
International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 35(1), pp. 65-74.
Meth, H., Mueller, B., and Maedche, A. 2015. “Designing a Requirement Mining System,” Journal of the
Association for Information Systems (16:9), pp. 799-837.
Möller, F., Guggenberger, T. M., and Otto, B. 2020. „Towards a Method for Design Principle Development in
Information Systems,“ DESRIST 2020, Springer, Cham, pp. 208-220.
Morgan, D.L. 1997. “Qualitative Research Methods: Focus groups as qualitative research (2),” SAGE Inc.
Muhammad, K. et al. 2020. Deep learning for safe autonomous driving: “Current challenges and future
directions,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 22(7), pp. 4316-4336.
Nickerson, R. C. et al. 2013. „A method for taxonomy development and its application in information systems,”
EJIS. 22(3).
Nielsen, J. 2020. “10 Usability Heuristics for User Interface Design,” Nielsen Norman Group.
Nunnally, J. C. 1978. “Psychometric Theory,” 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Pearl, C. 2016. “Designing voice user interfaces: Principles of conversational experiences,” O'Reilly, Inc.
Peffers, K. Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M.A., & Chatterjee, S. 2007. “A design science research methodology for
information systems research,” JAIS (24:3), pp. 45-77.
Politis, I. et al. 2018. “An evaluation of inclusive dialogue-based interfaces for the takeover of control in
autonomous cars,” 23rd International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, pp. 601-606.
Ramnath, R. et al. 2020. “Interacting with Android Auto and Apple CarPlay when driving: The effect on driver
performance,” IAM RoadSmart Published Project Report PPR948.
Strayer, D. L. et al. 2019. “Visual and cognitive demands of carplay, android auto, and five native infotainment
systems,” Human factors, 61(8), 1371-1386.
Strohmann, T. et al. 2019. “Design guidelines for creating a convincing user experience with virtual in-vehicle
assistants,” HICSS 2019 Proceedings.
Vaishnavi, V. & Kuechler, W. 2015. “Design science research methods and patterns: Innovating information and
communication technology,” Second edition. Boca Raton: CRC Press LLC.
Varala, V., & Yammiyavar, P. 2018. “Product Graphical User Interfaces: A Study for the Meaning and Usability
on Automobile Dashboard User Interfaces in Indian Context,” HWWE 2015 Proceedings (pp. 267-272).
Venable, J. R., et al. 2017. „Choosing a design science research methodology,“ ACIS 2017 Proceedings.
Venkatesh, V. et al. 2003. “User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view,” MISQ.
Walls, J. G., Widmeyer, G. R., and El Sawy, O. A. 1992. “Building an Information System Design Theory for
Vigilant EIS,” Information Systems Research (3:1), pp. 36-59.
World Health Organization 2020. “Global Status Report on Road Safety”, ISBN 9789241565684.
Woo, C., et al. 2014. “What is a Contribution to IS Design Science Knowledge?” ICIS 2014 Proceedings.

Twenty-ninth Americas Conference on Information Systems, Panama, 2023 10

View publication stats