**5.1 Other Brother**

"The Other Brother" is a semi- autonomous device that captures images and video of spontaneous moments in the course of everyday life to enable people to re-experience these moments in a playful way. It is designed by John Helmes during his final Master's graduate project in cooperation with Microsoft Research Cambridge (UK) Lab (Helmes at al., 2009). The overall goal of this project was to design a situated, tangible object for a domestic setting, capturing natural and spontaneous social situations. It focused on more serendipitous, lightweight ways in which moments can be captured instead of conventional photo and video cameras, which require a person to take the initiative and to control the framing of the shot, leading to somewhat predictable results.

The Other Brother is the result of an iterative process using the RTD process, from initial (interactive) sketches, concepts and physical explorations towards several prototypes and a final design that were tested several times throughout the process in a home environment.

Fig. 10. The Other Brother captures images and video of spontaneous moments at home.

The project aimed at designing a disruptive innovative system. The client, Microsoft Research Cambridge (UK) Lab, did not set a specific brief up front. They gave full freedom to John as long as the project would fit the overall focus of the Socio-Digital Systems (SDS) department of MSR. After seeing a variety of projects of the SDS department, John decided to focus on connectedness in the broadest sense of the word. He started formulating the

train their reflective practice. The activity of reflection is indicated in the model (figure 7) by the lines between the mutual activities, and between the activities and the deliverables. Reflection on and for action can also be related to the entire project, learning activity or overall

In addition, by making the activities explicit by visualising all the steps, it can also smoothen the conversation to other stakeholders involved in the process. We encourage our design students to document their process in a schematic way (see figure 9). There is not one way for doing this; it is related to the skills of the students and their preference for a certain way

The previous chapter described the model of the Reflective Transformative Design Process. In this chapter we describe and show the processes of two designs Other Brother and Ennea, in order to elucidate and discuss the possibilities of the RTD process to design disruptive

"The Other Brother" is a semi- autonomous device that captures images and video of spontaneous moments in the course of everyday life to enable people to re-experience these moments in a playful way. It is designed by John Helmes during his final Master's graduate project in cooperation with Microsoft Research Cambridge (UK) Lab (Helmes at al., 2009). The overall goal of this project was to design a situated, tangible object for a domestic setting, capturing natural and spontaneous social situations. It focused on more serendipitous, lightweight ways in which moments can be captured instead of conventional photo and video cameras, which require a person to take the initiative and to control the

The Other Brother is the result of an iterative process using the RTD process, from initial (interactive) sketches, concepts and physical explorations towards several prototypes and a final design that were tested several times throughout the process in a home environment.

 Fig. 10. The Other Brother captures images and video of spontaneous moments at home.

The project aimed at designing a disruptive innovative system. The client, Microsoft Research Cambridge (UK) Lab, did not set a specific brief up front. They gave full freedom to John as long as the project would fit the overall focus of the Socio-Digital Systems (SDS) department of MSR. After seeing a variety of projects of the SDS department, John decided to focus on connectedness in the broadest sense of the word. He started formulating the

development. This is represented in the model by the reflection line of the outer circle.

of learning.

**5. RTD process applied** 

**5.1 Other Brother** 

innovative intelligent systems for transformation.

framing of the shot, leading to somewhat predictable results.

overall goal to design a family of physical objects that are intertwined and enable people to be connected again in situations they are not connected right now. In order to explore the concept of connectedness, he used an extreme user paradigm to get inspired. Therefore, he started with generating 2D and 4D sketches for re-connecting people with a social phobia, and re-connecting inexperienced Internet users to experience privacy and security.

Fig. 11. Sketches to explore social phobia (left) and to explore Internet safety (right).

After finishing several 2D and physical sketches, John reflected upon his sketches and decided to focus on the creation of an object that could capture moments spent with others in the home. Four concepts were explored using computer sketches, evaluated with MSR and one concept was selected due to its serendipitous nature.

Fig. 12. Ideation and conceptualisation (left) and the evaluation of concepts (right).

Animation sketches were developed for watching the recorded files on an interactive table. Moreover, John started exploring cameras present in the market and research labs that have the option to respond in a dynamical way. This step, analysing existing products and literature, is generally done in an earlier stage when using other design processes. John explicitly decided to first develop his own vision and concepts, before being influenced by others.

Fig. 13. Animated sketches (left) and a market evaluation of related products (right).

He sharpened his vision further by integrating a level of serendipity within the captured photos, videos and sounds. He predicted that the captured results would be much more

Designing Disruptive Innovative Systems, Products and Services: RTD Process 165

It can be concluded that the Other Brother enables people to re-experience spontaneous moments from the past. Throughout the several studies it appeared that people found an emerging way of interacting with an innovative device that was radically new for them. The device and the captured fragments positively surprised them. This could have never been done without the working prototypes that John developed during the project. The studies enabled him to sharpen his vision, to study emerging behaviour and find possibilities for further development. Moreover, the RTD process enabled him to exploit his strength: ideation, conceptualisation and envisioning through interactive sketches and prototypes. John is someone who likes to use his making skills to initiate his decisions; truly reflection in, on and for action. He used this strategy at the start of the project too. The RTD process, which was new when he started using it for his project, legitimised him to start from making and envisioning, instead of analysing a problem. There were several people that questioned the validity and usefulness of starting with making and envisioning instead of analysing. But John proved them wrong. After having used the process during this project, he stuck

The client, Socio-Digital Systems (SDS) department of MSR, deliberately gave him an open brief to become immersed in the concerns and questions that interested the group, and for them to be inspired by his designs. "*We were both surprised and pleased with the way this single device was being developed as part of a larger ecosystem of devices within the home. We hadn't expected such a breadth of vision*." (feedback client). Especially that last remark fits one of the main values of the RTD process: envisioning transformation. *"By far the biggest surprise for us as a group, however, was the realisation that the device itself appeared to have a life-like quality to it*.*"*(feedback client). Again a remark that shows that disruptive innovation, and emerging behaviour and interaction is not something that one can imagine or reason upfront. It is something that grows in interaction, while making, envisioning, testing, analysing, creating,

As said earlier, the RTD process is flexible, open and person-dependent, meaning that it can be used in many ways. Therefore we show the process of another project called Ennea. Ennea is designed by Master's students Jasper Dekker, Laurens Doesborgh, Sjors Eerens, Jabe-Piter Faber an Jan Gillesen. It is a system that consists of several networked products that are coupled through an online platform. It is aimed at high school freshmen and is meant to guide them through their first year by analyzing their social behaviour and giving

teachers the opportunity to aid in undesired situations (e.g. social isolation).

Fig. 16. Solid Works model (left) and the final working prototype (right).

with it and is still using it in his job.

**5.2 Ennea** 

etcetera in a real life context during the entire design process.

surprising when it is not possible for the user to exactly know what is being captured. The concept was further explored by means of a first working prototype. The main component of this prototype consisted of a digital photo camera controlled by external sensors and actuators.

Fig. 14. First working prototype (left), explorative user study in the home situation (right).

Since meaning is generated in action, he initiated a first explorative user study with three families during Christmas to observe how people responded to the object and interact with it. Many questions arose during and after the study, which guided the direction of finetuning the vision. The fact that the first simple prototype was becoming an additional character within the group, a character taking part in the social activity, was further developed within the second prototype. The second prototype of The Other Brother was equipped with a front and back cover, a LED display and RGB-LEDs to change its colour. Moreover a website was made to view the photos made by The Other Brother, and a possible table-top interface was explored by means of a flash animation.

Fig. 15. Second working prototype (left) and a website to see the photos and videos (right).

After the initial deployment and re-design, a diary study in combination with an interview was executed within two different families as well as during a social meeting with a larger group of people. The main goal of this study was to deploy The Other Brother within a domestic environment for a longer period of time, and a social setting with a large group and observe people's behaviour around it. The families were instructed to use The Other Brother for one week and were asked to keep track of their activities within a provided diary. They could view the photos and videos on the web and in a photo frame. The social meeting had an open character without instructions. The outcomes of these user studies were used to adjust the vision and re-design The Other Brother.

After creating a new design using computer sketches, the iterative process continued by means of translating the design into several Solid Works structures allowing to use 3D printing technologies in order to create a museum quality model. At the end of this process John reflected on his actions, as he had done regularly during the entire process.

Fig. 16. Solid Works model (left) and the final working prototype (right).

It can be concluded that the Other Brother enables people to re-experience spontaneous moments from the past. Throughout the several studies it appeared that people found an emerging way of interacting with an innovative device that was radically new for them. The device and the captured fragments positively surprised them. This could have never been done without the working prototypes that John developed during the project. The studies enabled him to sharpen his vision, to study emerging behaviour and find possibilities for further development. Moreover, the RTD process enabled him to exploit his strength: ideation, conceptualisation and envisioning through interactive sketches and prototypes. John is someone who likes to use his making skills to initiate his decisions; truly reflection in, on and for action. He used this strategy at the start of the project too. The RTD process, which was new when he started using it for his project, legitimised him to start from making and envisioning, instead of analysing a problem. There were several people that questioned the validity and usefulness of starting with making and envisioning instead of analysing. But John proved them wrong. After having used the process during this project, he stuck with it and is still using it in his job.

The client, Socio-Digital Systems (SDS) department of MSR, deliberately gave him an open brief to become immersed in the concerns and questions that interested the group, and for them to be inspired by his designs. "*We were both surprised and pleased with the way this single device was being developed as part of a larger ecosystem of devices within the home. We hadn't expected such a breadth of vision*." (feedback client). Especially that last remark fits one of the main values of the RTD process: envisioning transformation. *"By far the biggest surprise for us as a group, however, was the realisation that the device itself appeared to have a life-like quality to it*.*"*(feedback client). Again a remark that shows that disruptive innovation, and emerging behaviour and interaction is not something that one can imagine or reason upfront. It is something that grows in interaction, while making, envisioning, testing, analysing, creating, etcetera in a real life context during the entire design process.

#### **5.2 Ennea**

164 Industrial Design – New Frontiers

surprising when it is not possible for the user to exactly know what is being captured. The concept was further explored by means of a first working prototype. The main component of this prototype consisted of a digital photo camera controlled by external sensors and

 Fig. 14. First working prototype (left), explorative user study in the home situation (right). Since meaning is generated in action, he initiated a first explorative user study with three families during Christmas to observe how people responded to the object and interact with it. Many questions arose during and after the study, which guided the direction of finetuning the vision. The fact that the first simple prototype was becoming an additional character within the group, a character taking part in the social activity, was further developed within the second prototype. The second prototype of The Other Brother was equipped with a front and back cover, a LED display and RGB-LEDs to change its colour. Moreover a website was made to view the photos made by The Other Brother, and a

 Fig. 15. Second working prototype (left) and a website to see the photos and videos (right). After the initial deployment and re-design, a diary study in combination with an interview was executed within two different families as well as during a social meeting with a larger group of people. The main goal of this study was to deploy The Other Brother within a domestic environment for a longer period of time, and a social setting with a large group and observe people's behaviour around it. The families were instructed to use The Other Brother for one week and were asked to keep track of their activities within a provided diary. They could view the photos and videos on the web and in a photo frame. The social meeting had an open character without instructions. The outcomes of these user studies

After creating a new design using computer sketches, the iterative process continued by means of translating the design into several Solid Works structures allowing to use 3D printing technologies in order to create a museum quality model. At the end of this process

John reflected on his actions, as he had done regularly during the entire process.

possible table-top interface was explored by means of a flash animation.

were used to adjust the vision and re-design The Other Brother.

actuators.

As said earlier, the RTD process is flexible, open and person-dependent, meaning that it can be used in many ways. Therefore we show the process of another project called Ennea.

Ennea is designed by Master's students Jasper Dekker, Laurens Doesborgh, Sjors Eerens, Jabe-Piter Faber an Jan Gillesen. It is a system that consists of several networked products that are coupled through an online platform. It is aimed at high school freshmen and is meant to guide them through their first year by analyzing their social behaviour and giving teachers the opportunity to aid in undesired situations (e.g. social isolation).

Designing Disruptive Innovative Systems, Products and Services: RTD Process 167

 Fig. 19. Adjusted vision (left) roles temporarily appear and scenario with a first concept (right) From there they went to the high school freshmen themselves and commenced in a codesign session in context. The results of this activity were analyzed and slowly but certainly their understanding of the design opportunity became more fine-grained. They solidified

Fig. 20. Co-design session with freshmen (left), exploration of form and interaction (right).

They finalized the design by creating a set of working prototypes that were tested in context.

Fig. 21. Fully working prototypes (left) and testing designs in context with freshmen (right). The process was very iterative in the sense that all activities were done multiple times throughout the process. Because the students reflected on what they did and on what they learned they were aware of the process they were going through (sometimes helped by

their proposal with a thorough exploration of form and interaction.

Fig. 17. Ennea is designed to support social behaviour of high school freshmen.

The Ennea 'nodes' are handed out to high school freshman when they enter high school and are carried by the pupils at all times. The nodes measure the proximity of other nodes and thus map the social structures in the group of high school freshmen. To be more specific, the measurements are condensed into two variables: (1) duration of contacts and (2) diversity of contacts. Based on these two variables each pupil gets assigned a 'social' role by the system that is representing her type of social behaviour. By rubbing two nodes together the pupils can see these roles temporarily appear on the small round screen of the node and can reflect on how they are doing in their new situation. Throughout the year these roles and social patterns are also discussed by teachers so as to make sure that nobody is 'left behind' and isolated.

The Ennea system was the result of a six-week master class that was sponsored by Microsoft research (USA). The students were asked to design a product or system within the context of learning and education using the RTD process (then at its infancy). The process that led to Ennea started rather analytical. By quickly cycling through analytical activities (reading literature, studying online information) and envisioning activities the students created an understanding of what their opportunity for design was to be. When they were satisfied with their vision they went on to explore through interactive and tangible sketches how their vision could take form.

Fig. 18. Vision that led to Ennea (left) and exploration through tangible sketches (right).

They presented a vision, a scenario and a prototype that was scrutinized by coaches and fellow students. This led to a process of reflection on the starting points for their project and a rewritten vision.

The Ennea 'nodes' are handed out to high school freshman when they enter high school and are carried by the pupils at all times. The nodes measure the proximity of other nodes and thus map the social structures in the group of high school freshmen. To be more specific, the measurements are condensed into two variables: (1) duration of contacts and (2) diversity of contacts. Based on these two variables each pupil gets assigned a 'social' role by the system that is representing her type of social behaviour. By rubbing two nodes together the pupils can see these roles temporarily appear on the small round screen of the node and can reflect on how they are doing in their new situation. Throughout the year these roles and social patterns are also discussed by teachers so as to make sure that

The Ennea system was the result of a six-week master class that was sponsored by Microsoft research (USA). The students were asked to design a product or system within the context of learning and education using the RTD process (then at its infancy). The process that led to Ennea started rather analytical. By quickly cycling through analytical activities (reading literature, studying online information) and envisioning activities the students created an understanding of what their opportunity for design was to be. When they were satisfied with their vision they went on to explore through interactive and tangible sketches how

Fig. 18. Vision that led to Ennea (left) and exploration through tangible sketches (right).

They presented a vision, a scenario and a prototype that was scrutinized by coaches and fellow students. This led to a process of reflection on the starting points for their project and

Fig. 17. Ennea is designed to support social behaviour of high school freshmen.

nobody is 'left behind' and isolated.

their vision could take form.

a rewritten vision.

Fig. 19. Adjusted vision (left) roles temporarily appear and scenario with a first concept (right)

From there they went to the high school freshmen themselves and commenced in a codesign session in context. The results of this activity were analyzed and slowly but certainly their understanding of the design opportunity became more fine-grained. They solidified their proposal with a thorough exploration of form and interaction.

Fig. 20. Co-design session with freshmen (left), exploration of form and interaction (right). They finalized the design by creating a set of working prototypes that were tested in context.

Fig. 21. Fully working prototypes (left) and testing designs in context with freshmen (right).

The process was very iterative in the sense that all activities were done multiple times throughout the process. Because the students reflected on what they did and on what they learned they were aware of the process they were going through (sometimes helped by

Designing Disruptive Innovative Systems, Products and Services: RTD Process 169

years designers find their own strength and weaknesses, and preferred approach. They have

Fig. 22. SWOT analysis comparing the RTD process used at MSR Cambridge (left) and the

Consequently, the different activities within the RTD process will intertwine and be less discernable. The preference for certain activities within the RTD process will differ per person, resulting in a kind of personal process profile for every designer, see figure 23..

Fig. 23. Over the years the different activities within the RTD process will intertwine and

result in a kind of personal process profile (right).

Value Proposition House process used at Philips Research (right).

incorporated the process and reflection in and on action has been internalised.

coaches) and consciously steered their process through the activities of the RTD process. Therefore, the order in which the activities were done was not the same for each iteration. When looking at their process in retrospect it is striking to see that the goal of the project (that what the students wanted to accomplish) was under development almost till the moment that they started making the final prototypes. This highlights a typical characteristic of the RTD process: the process offers students the ability to keep momentum in their projects even when important decisions are still based on assumptions. The process does not fix the decision points in the process (as a sequential process does) but encourages exploration and the gathering of insight by means of different activities and reflection. The students were able to fine-tune and even change parts of their point of departure because they were filling in their assumptions while exploring and contextualizing their insights through their activities. Next to this the students commented on how the process allowed them to 'make mistakes' during the process. They were encouraged to keep up the tempo of their activities, as there was only limited time for the project. This led to quick successions of activities and many moments of 'reflection on action'. Because they started so intensively and because they made multiple, quick design cycles they found the opportunities and the dead-ends of the project early on in the process leaving them much more time to ground and fine-tune the project.

### **6. Conclusions and future developments**

In this text we have shown that the changing field of industrial design and design education towards disruptive innovation for transformation, intelligent systems, open design and selfdirected competency-centred learning, asks for a new view on design processes. The Reflective Transformative Design process is created to address these developments and emphasis values like openness, flexibility, diversity, context- and person dependency, envisioning a new society, intuition, craftsmanship, design making and design thinking, knowledge, skills and attitudes, and development through reflection. Given the importance of these values, one can regard the RTD process as an attitude rather than a method. Moreover, we have seen that the process forms the solution. For example, The Other Brother was a result of John Helmes' attention for envisioning, making and testing in a real life context and his desire to follow his intuition and get surprised in his search for disruptive innovation. We have seen similar results during the class *Multi-disciplinary perspectives on the design process?* that was run together with Panos Markopoulos. In this class we compared and discussed the different perspectives, strengths and weaknesses of three design processes in comparison with the RTD process with help from Philips Research (Value Proposition House), Bright Innovation Pittsburgh (Sales, Learn, React, Build), Astcon Rozwiazania Informatyczne (Agile: SCRUM) and Microsoft Research Cambridge (RTD process). The results from this class showed that every process stresses specific values and has specific outcomes. The RTD process appeared to be especially suitable for creating a flexible product vision for unknown needs, see figure 22.

We believe that design processes including the RTD process are especially beneficial for novice designers who are learning to become a designer. It is a means to stress certain values, to make ones actions explicit and thus have an opportunity to reflect on those actions, to smoothen the conversation to other stakeholders involved in the process, and to guide novice designers towards new possible activities within the design process. Over the

coaches) and consciously steered their process through the activities of the RTD process. Therefore, the order in which the activities were done was not the same for each iteration. When looking at their process in retrospect it is striking to see that the goal of the project (that what the students wanted to accomplish) was under development almost till the moment that they started making the final prototypes. This highlights a typical characteristic of the RTD process: the process offers students the ability to keep momentum in their projects even when important decisions are still based on assumptions. The process does not fix the decision points in the process (as a sequential process does) but encourages exploration and the gathering of insight by means of different activities and reflection. The students were able to fine-tune and even change parts of their point of departure because they were filling in their assumptions while exploring and contextualizing their insights through their activities. Next to this the students commented on how the process allowed them to 'make mistakes' during the process. They were encouraged to keep up the tempo of their activities, as there was only limited time for the project. This led to quick successions of activities and many moments of 'reflection on action'. Because they started so intensively and because they made multiple, quick design cycles they found the opportunities and the dead-ends of the project early on in the process leaving them much more time to ground

In this text we have shown that the changing field of industrial design and design education towards disruptive innovation for transformation, intelligent systems, open design and selfdirected competency-centred learning, asks for a new view on design processes. The Reflective Transformative Design process is created to address these developments and emphasis values like openness, flexibility, diversity, context- and person dependency, envisioning a new society, intuition, craftsmanship, design making and design thinking, knowledge, skills and attitudes, and development through reflection. Given the importance of these values, one can regard the RTD process as an attitude rather than a method. Moreover, we have seen that the process forms the solution. For example, The Other Brother was a result of John Helmes' attention for envisioning, making and testing in a real life context and his desire to follow his intuition and get surprised in his search for disruptive innovation. We have seen similar results during the class *Multi-disciplinary perspectives on the design process?* that was run together with Panos Markopoulos. In this class we compared and discussed the different perspectives, strengths and weaknesses of three design processes in comparison with the RTD process with help from Philips Research (Value Proposition House), Bright Innovation Pittsburgh (Sales, Learn, React, Build), Astcon Rozwiazania Informatyczne (Agile: SCRUM) and Microsoft Research Cambridge (RTD process). The results from this class showed that every process stresses specific values and has specific outcomes. The RTD process appeared to be especially suitable for creating a

We believe that design processes including the RTD process are especially beneficial for novice designers who are learning to become a designer. It is a means to stress certain values, to make ones actions explicit and thus have an opportunity to reflect on those actions, to smoothen the conversation to other stakeholders involved in the process, and to guide novice designers towards new possible activities within the design process. Over the

and fine-tune the project.

**6. Conclusions and future developments** 

flexible product vision for unknown needs, see figure 22.

years designers find their own strength and weaknesses, and preferred approach. They have incorporated the process and reflection in and on action has been internalised.

Fig. 22. SWOT analysis comparing the RTD process used at MSR Cambridge (left) and the Value Proposition House process used at Philips Research (right).

Consequently, the different activities within the RTD process will intertwine and be less discernable. The preference for certain activities within the RTD process will differ per person, resulting in a kind of personal process profile for every designer, see figure 23..

Fig. 23. Over the years the different activities within the RTD process will intertwine and result in a kind of personal process profile (right).

Designing Disruptive Innovative Systems, Products and Services: RTD Process 171

Fleener, M.J. (2005). Introduction: chaos, complexity, curriculum, and culture. In: W. Doll,

Forty, A. (1986). *Objects of desire: design and society* 1750 - 1980. London: Thames & Hudson. Gent van, S., Megens, C., Peeters, M., Hummels, C., Lu, Y. and Brombacher, A. (2011).

Helmes, J., Hummels, C. and Sellen, A. (2009). The Other Brother: Re-experiencing

Hummels, C. (2011). Teaching attitudes, skills, approaches, structures and tools. In: B. van

Hummels, C. (2000). *Gestural design tools: prototypes, experiments and scenarios.* Doctoral

Hummels, C.C.M., Frens, J.W. (2008). Designing for the Unknown: A Design Process for the

Hummels, C. and Vinke, D. (2009). *Eindhoven designs; volume two: Developing the competence of* 

Kelly, K. (1994). *Out of Control: the new biology of machines, social systems and the economic* 

Markopoulos, P., MacFarlane, s., Hoysniemi, J. and Read, J. (2008). *Evaluating children's* 

Nelson, H.G. (1994). The necessity of being 'un-disciplined' and 'out-of- control'; design action and system thinking. *Performance Improvement Quarterly* Vol. 7/ No. 3. Norman, D. A. (2010). Technology first, needs last: the research-product gulf. *Interactions,* 

Nussbaum, B. (2008). "Innovation" is dead. Herald the birth of "transformation" as the key

Rittel, H. (1972). On the planning crisis: systems analysis of the 'first and second

Roozenburg, NFM and Eekels, J. (1995). *Product Design: Fundamentals and methods*. Wiley:

2/innovation\_is\_d.html?campaign\_id=rss\_ blog\_nussbaumondesign

concept for 2009. *BusinessWeek; NussbaumOnDesign*. Last accessed April 26, 2011: http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/NussbaumOnDesign/archives/2008/1

Matthews, E. (2006). *Merleau Ponty. A guide for the perplexed*, Continuum: London, UK. Meijers, A., Overveld van, C. and Perrenet, J.C. (2005). *Criteria for academic bachelor's and* 

*master's curricula*. Eindhoven: Technische Universiteit Eindhoven

*17*(2), pp. 38-42. http://interactions.acm.org/content/?p=1343

Piaget, J. (1971). *Biology and knowledge*. Chicago IL: University of Chicago press. Prigogine, I. and Stengers, I. (1984). *Order out of chaos*. New York: Bantam.

generations'. *Bedrifts Okonomen*. no. 8, pp. 390-396.

*remain exclusive*. Amsterdam: BIS publishers, pp. 162-167.

*EPDE2008*, Barcelona, Spain, Sep. 4-5, 2008, pp. 204-209.

dissertation, Delft University of Technology.

*conversation*. New York: Peter Lang, pp. 1-17.

7-8, 2011).

18, 2009). TEI '09, pp. 233-240.

*world*. Basic Books.

Chichester

Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.

Merleau-Ponty, M. (2002). *Causeries 1948*. Seuil, Paris.

M. Fleener, D. Trueit and J. Julien (eds*). Chaos, complexity, curriculum, and culture: a* 

Experiential Design Landscapes as a design tool for market research of disruptive intelligent systems. *Conference proceeding CADMC* 2011 (Cambridge, UK, September

spontaneous moments from domestic life. *Proceedings of the 3rd international Conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction 2009* (Cambridge, UK, February 16 -

Abel, L. Evers, R. Klaassen and P. Troxler (Eds.) *Open design now; why design cannot* 

Future Generation of Highly Interactive Systems and Products. *Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education –* 

*designing intelligent systems*. Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands.

*interactive products: principles and practices for interaction designers*. Burlington, MA:

We have used the RTD process the last few years and it is still developing. Students experiment with a variety of visualisations to encourage reflection. Moreover, we are exploring together with industrial partners how we can extend the value for industry. Furthermore, we are exploring the need for new design methods that accompany the process. For example, PhD student Carl Megens is developing a flexible and dynamic Personas method that complements the RTD process. Finally, we are exploring the possibilities of real life settings during the entire design process. We are developing Experiential Design Landscapes to trigger and study emerging patterns in interaction with disruptive innovative systems. The data obtained from Landscapes is monitored, and via data-mining techniques emerging patterns are detected and responded upon. In this manner design synthesis, emerging behaviour and market analysis become integrated (Gent van et al., 2011).
