4.1. Overview

In this chapter, an argument is made to use retrospective case study research for answering empirical data that has been constructed from selected cases, exemplified in the author’s previous articles. Moreover, a choice is made to use the term research organization rather than “research method” in characterizing this chapter. A “within-case analysis” is proposed to critically reflect on the processes, methods and results for each case according to the following dimensions: orientation, method, practice and value creation. Hereby, ergonomic and design interventions, as well as units of analysis and dimensions, are deduced from the theoretical framework and concepts. Following the within-case analysis, a cross-case analysis is used to compare cases within and across the quadrants. Using a cross-case comparison, subtle similarities and differences between cases are sought after. The juxtaposition of similar cases dissects simplistic frames, while the search for similarities in seemingly different pairs leads to a more sophisticated understanding of prospective ergonomics (PE). As a result, forced comparisons reveals new methods, products and services, which the investigator did not anticipate.

Since the aim of this work is to outline and frame the field of PE influenced by established ergonomic perspectives (corrective/preventive), strategic management, as well as strategic and industrial design concepts, relationships are drawn with knowledge fields in ergonomics, business management, innovation and design sciences to complement theory building in PE. This means that the attention of the ergonomic and design community may need to be drawn upon to develop new approaches, models and methods to redefine the field of ergonomics to be more proactive and prospective. Furthermore, this work also attempts to build upon different generic business strategies and design reasoning modes, which in turn function as a classification framework for positioning various business, ergonomic, and design methods and tools.

The redefinition of innovation-driven PE from a strategic management and different ergonomic and design interventions have led to the following research questions:

• – What are the similarities and differences in terms of attitudes and approaches between PE and strategic design, preventive ergonomics and industrial design, corrective ergonomics and detail design?
• – From a pluralistic business strategy perspective, does the balancing of performance/productivity, on the one hand, and well-being, on the other hand, supports the spirit of PE?
• – Does a systemic business strategy, supported by a structured usercentered and context-driven design approach, represents the field of PE in the development of innovative products, systems and services?
• – To what extent are prescriptive approaches, methods and tools applicable for solving strategic design problems within the context of PE?
• – What are the possible design education strategies, processes, methods and tools to be considered for PE and strategic design issues?

Because this emergent piece of work is constructed from a selection of articles, written throughout the author’s academic career of 20 years, it is more suitable to use the term research organization rather than “research method” to characterize this chapter. The empirical data have been constructed from selected cases, which were embedded in the selected articles. A two-stage process was used to classify the cases. In the first stage, cases were categorized according to ergonomic and design interventions as shown in Table 3.1. In the second stage, the cases were mapped according to generic strategies, worldviews and models of design reasoning to be analyzed according to the following dimensions: “orientation”, “method”, “practice” and “value creation”. The mapping is shown in section 6.5 as part of the case cluster comparison across the four quadrants.

4.2. What is case study research and how can it be applied here?

Case study research is a strategy, which focuses on understanding the dynamics present within single settings. It can be used to accomplish various aims: to provide description [KID 82], test theory [PIN 86] or generate theory [GER 88, HAR 86]. Evidence from case studies, which may be qualitative, quantitative, or both, are typically derived from combining data collection methods such as archives, interviews, documented project work and observations [YIN 84]. Because the aim of this work is to relate selected theories from philosophy, innovation management and design to create epistemologies on PE, selected cases have been chosen based on the concept of “appropriate population”, which means that a set of entities from which the research sample is drawn is defined by the population.

Sampling of cases from the chosen population is a common practice when building theory from case studies and depends on theoretical sampling (i.e. cases are chosen for theoretical, not statistical reasons [GLA 67]). The cases may be selected to replicate previous cases or develop emergent theory, or they may be chosen to substantiate theoretical categories and provide examples of polar types [EIS 89]. While the cases may be chosen randomly, in some cases it may be preferable to choose the cases selectively.

According to Pettigrew [PET 88], given the limited number of cases, which can usually be studied in extending emergent theories, it makes sense to choose cases based upon extreme situations where diverse interests are “clearly observable”. However, for this work, the author adopts a broader view in selecting typical practice-derived cases, which are relevant for building theory.

Frequent iterations between data analysis and data collection is a striking feature of theory building through case studies research. For example, with respect to a grounded theory approach, Glaser and Strauss [GLA 67] argue for joint collection, coding and analysis of data, which not only gives the researcher an analytical head start, but essentially allows researchers to take advantage of flexible data collection. Moreover, the freedom to make adjustments during the data collection process is a typical key feature of theory building in case study research. Hereby, adjustments can be made through the addition of cases to probe particular themes or strengthen the argument of the author, whether, for example, to support or decline an emergent phenomenon.

As the cases presented in this dissertation were selected from the author’s past and diverse research and project work, a retrospective case study method has been adopted in conjunction with a within-case analysis approach [PET 88, THO 11].

Within-case analysis typically involves writing-up each case in a detailed and descriptive manner to generate key insights [GER 88, PET 88]. However, there is no standard format for analysis, because the volume of data is a compilation of the author’s previous articles.

The objective of adopting a within-case analysis for this work is to become intimately familiar with each case as stand-alone entity. The benefits of using “within-case analysis” are that unique patterns of each case are made to emerge before investigators generalize patterns across cases (cross-case analysis). In this work, a within-case analysis was conducted by critically reflecting on the processes, methods and results for each case according to the following dimensions: orientation, method, practice and value creation. Dimensions were deduced from theoretical frameworks and concepts, and can be seen as a customized format for analyzing the cases.

Following the within-case analysis, a cross-case analysis will be conducted based on a two-stage process. In the first stage, cases will be compared within their respective quadrants, whereas in the second stage case clusters are to be compared across quadrants of the generic strategy framework [WHI 01].

Using a within-case comparison, subtle similarities and differences between cases are sought after. The juxtaposition of seemingly similar cases by a researcher looking for differences can break simplistic frames [EIS 89, p. 541]. Equivalently, searching for similarity in a seemingly different pair also can lead to a more sophisticated understanding of PE. The result of making forced comparisons can lead to new categories and concepts, which the investigator was not able to foresee. Cross-case searching tactics may enhance the probability of capturing the novel findings, which may exist in the data as represented by the cases. The application of cross-case searching tactics seems to be effective in encouraging the investigator to go beyond initial impressions, especially by using structured and diverse lenses on the data. These tactics improve the likelihood of accurate and reliable theory. Furthermore, the central idea is that researchers constantly compare and conjecture between theory and data to sharpen the construct. In research, a construct is the abstract idea, underlying theme, hypothesis, research question or subject matter that one wishes to measure. Theory building is usually a two-part process involving (1) refining the definition of the construct and (2) building evidence that measures the construct in each case. This occurs through constant comparison between data and constructs so that accumulating evidence from diverse sources converges on a single, well-defined construct [EIS 89, p. 541].

4.3. Description and interpretation of dimensions of analysis

In the study of each individual case, “orientation”, “model of design reasoning”, “practice” and value creation” will be used as the dimensions of analysis. “Orientation” can be defined as the positioning of the cases according to ergonomic and design intervention, worldview and relationship to the broader context of strategizing. “Method” concerns the approach on how the concept is being addressed or realized. However, the objectives as put forward in some of the cases can also be a process or method in itself. The dimension practice frames the activities of the actors and stakeholders involved in the design and development processes of the respective cases.

From a technology perspective, value creation can be seen as a motivator to create new possibilities and solutions as well as to make cost reductions on a solution to an existing problem [CHE 02]. Moreover, this fourth dimension, “value” should not exclusively be appreciated from a monetary perspective. Neither involvement or four perspectives on value is a suitable framework for analyzing the contribution of each of the selected cases as it does not only reside in the product purchased, in the brand chosen, or the object possessed, but rather in the experience(s) of interacting with it [HOL 99, p. 8]. As argued by Den Ouden [DEN 11], the value of a product or service is not a property that can be directly measured scientifically, like other properties such as weight or volume. It should be a relational property that only exists in relation to a human. In this context, it is therefore more important to deeply understand the motivational values of the various stakeholders, especially for innovations that aim to change user behavior [FOG 09]. The value creation model as elaborated by den Ouden (2011) according to four levels of stakeholder involvement and four perspectives on value, is a suitable framework for analysing the contribution of each of the selected cases.

4.4. Preparing cases and summarizing terminologies; worldviews, modes of design reasoning, generic strategies and interventions

In the last sections of Chapter 5, all cases will be evaluated according to applied worldviews, design reasoning modes and generic strategies, as well as cross-analyzed based on different types of ergonomic and design interventions. In addition, each of the cases will specifically be analyzed according to worldview and design reasoning mode. Finally, all the cases will be compared on how we intervene in them from a design as well as from an ergonomic perspective.

Before embarking on the different forms of case study analysis, which are outlined in Chapters 4 and 5, a summary of the different terms will be given below:

• – philosophical worldviews with respect to design research and designing can be interpreted as a way of scientifically explaining the different mindsets, attitudes and perspectives in developing new products and services;
• – design reasoning modes are designers’ intellectual and practice-oriented stances toward how the design of products and services should be executed;
• – according to Whittington [WHI 01], generic strategies describe the options, which are available for a company to pursue competitive advantage in the “real World”, either by aiming for profit maximizing or plural outcomes. To achieve these outcomes, the company may use deliberate/structured processes or emergent ones;
• – PE can be defined as the part of ergonomics that attempts to anticipate and create new and useful artifacts, based on human needs and activities, so as to provide positive user experience [ROB 09]. The anticipation of human needs and activities is derived from analyzing numerous factors and data as well as scenario planning, done in prospection. This implies that individual, social, cultural, political, economic, scientific, technological and environmental factors should be considered when proposing future human-centered innovations. Its multidisciplinary nature justifies the use of a wide range of theories, models, methods and tools from the human and social sciences;
• – strategic design is a field of study and practice, where different actors are involved in planning and generating integrated systems of products, services and communications that are coherent with the medium-and long-term perspective of sustainable innovations, being, at the same time, economically feasible and socially applicable today [MAN 03]. Its intention is to develop ways to address these medium- and long-term goals based on new forms of organizations, new systems of values, new stakeholder configurations and new market opportunities;
• – in conceptual or industrial design, both applied art and applied science are used to improve aesthetic, ergonomic and technical functionality, and/or usability of a product. Furthermore, it may also be used to improve the product’s marketability and even production. In this context, the role of an industrial designer is to solve problems, create and execute design solutions with respect to form, usability, physical ergonomics, marketing, brand development and sales [NOB 93];
• – preventive ergonomics is the science of fitting the task to the user to avoid a mismatch between the physical requirements of the activity and the physical capacity of the user. It encompasses the practice of designing equipment, tools and work tasks to conform to the capability of this user (Ergonomics and the Prevention of Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders. Department of Health, New Jersey, http://nj.gov/health/peosh/ergonomics.shtml. retrieved 11.03.2014);
• – detail design is the phase where the design is refined by optimizing ergonomic, aesthetic, technological, marketing and environmental solutions, which were earlier proposed in the design conceptualization stages of the process. In practice, plans, specifications and estimates are created for prospective manufacturing. The output of detailed design activities includes 2D and 3D models, prototypes, cost build up estimates, procurement plans, etc. In this phase, a majority of the project expenses will be consumed;
• – corrective ergonomics is reactive and deals with correcting existing artifacts through scientific studies [MON 67, LAU 86].