The Future SupermarketA Case Study of Ethnographic Experiential Futures

Tom JenkinsDepartment of Digital Design, IT University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark, tomje@itu.dk

Laurens BoerDepartment of Digital Design, IT University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark, laub@itu.dk

Juliane Brigitta BusboomIT University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark, jubu@itu.dk

Ivar Østby SimonsenIT University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark, ivsi@itu.dk

Ethnographic Experiential Futures (EXF) is an approach to foresight that aims to increase the accessibility, variety and depth of images of the future for design. In this paper, we present a EXF-based case study imagining the future supermarket. Rooted in already-existing images of future supermarkets, we propose that the future supermarket experience is autonomous, efficient, informed, local and personal. Based on the idea of four "generic futures" we illustrate each of these categories with a set of scenarios in a variety of experiential forms. These were exhibited first in an open exhibition and second in a closed exhibition for experts. To close, we offer reflections on the use of Ethnographic Experiential Futures in the form of a set of questions to inspire future research.

CCS CONCEPTS• Human-centered computing~Interaction design~Interaction design process and methods

KEYWORDSEthnographic Experiential Futures; Futures; Scenarios; Exhibition; Interaction Design, Design Research.

1 Introduction: The Future of SupermarketsSupermarkets are a quotidian, almost banal site that nonetheless could be at the center of major social changes in the

future. Contemporary concerns about the role of automation and work, patterns of urban and rural living, and the carbon impact of different kinds of consumption are all bound up in brick-and-mortar retail locations that could soon be heavily disrupted via a shift to online retail. At the time of writing (but after the study had been completed), supermarkets are at the front lines of both commerce and medicine, where essential workers remain at work in the midst of a global pandemic. Nobody is able to predict exactly how the food industry will develop, and what the future of supermarkets will look like. As design researchers, our role is to ask questions about whether technological developments in supermarkets are realistic or desirable for the wider public. Beyond just evaluating futures, it is the role of designers to articulate and

expand on what might be considered “the future” with the intention of including more in those futures than what is already expected.

This paper has two aims. The goal of the case study is to speculate upon future technologies for supermarkets and their possible wider consequences. This is done in order to produce knowledge about future supermarkets, to map out which possible futures are perceived as desirable or undesirable and generate a broader understanding of ‘the supermarket of the future’ and the technologies and interactive practices that might be a part of it. This knowledge can be used to inform decision makers and developers of future technologies to avoid possible negative consequences of their use. The second aim moves beyond specific knowledge about supermarkets and offers an example of methods for generating and interpreting futures that can contribute to methods and tools within HCI and design.

1.1 HCI and the future Fundamentally, the goal of design is to imagine futures and bring them into being by producing design materials—

sketches, scenarios, prototypes or other objects. These design materials make claims about what the future could offer, generating what Polak and Bolding call ‘images of the future’ [33]. Especially in contemporary HCI and design studies, where speculative design, design futures, design fictions, speculative enactments, critical design, and so on are major avenues for creating and reflecting on the possible roles of future technology, how we do the work of creating futures is mattering more and more [4,11,22,29].

A task for HCI and design scholarship is therefore threefold: it is first incumbent upon researchers to identify and examine the major alternative futures which exist at a given time and place; second to bring them into being by producing materials that articulate them, thereby making claims about what these futures could offer; and finally to select the futures that are the most promising for future research. As the reason to engage in futures work is to create futures that ‘enrich our perceptions and options in the evolving present’ [1], understanding futures in a richer way can aid in finding new opportunities for design while anticipating and mitigating possible risks. However, different groups have different images of the future, and there is therefore no single future to design for—rather, there is a multitude of possible futures that are the subject of design [1,3,7,19].

It is simple to imagine a future, but it is not always as clear what futures are worth pursuing. Generating alternative future scenarios—forecasting—is one of the main tools to aid thinking about the future in this respect. One practical question with respect to generating futures for designing concerns the breadth of future scenarios. Often, imagined futures in design look to be quite similar to the present, or conversely, devolve into nihilistic dystopia. Futures theorist Stuart Candy describes this tendency towards that dualism as “too often narrow, shallow, unimaginative, cliche-ridden, and on the whole, simply not up to the challenge of helping us survive, let alone do better than that, under the conditions we face.” As designers and imaginers of future worlds, we have a tendency to commit to utopian ideals, where design can and does in fact save the world; or to dystopia, where designers or the outcomes of design have already doomed it ([7], building on [12] and [24]). To articulate real concerns that matter in ways that are subtle enough to affect future outcomes, there needs to be a range of middle futures—futures that capture a range of possibilities between the extremes.

This paper offers a case study that developed a variety of future scenarios following Candy and Kornet’s ‘Field Guide to Ethnographic Experiential Futures’ [8]. This particular guide was chosen because its purpose is to generate a broad range of future scenarios that are rooted in present images of the future. In articulating both the making and analyzing of these scenarios through this process, the project offers an exemplar for other designers looking to produce wide varieties of futures for design. Based on these experiences, we consider a set of themes for doing futures work more broadly and offer reflections in the form of a set of questions to inspire future research. We believe that this set of techniques offers a way to not only generate a wider breadth of futures, but also to establish what futures are worth developing into more refined research agendas and design proposals.

2 Background So far, the food industry has taken the lead in imagining futures for food retailing. At the Institute for the Future in

Palo Alto, for example, researchers are hired by companies and governments to forecast where the food retail industry will go over the next few decades. Like other research groups in this space, they are evaluating the advantages and

2

disadvantages of new technologies and try to imagine what opportunities and risks they might bring [43]. As futurists, they use “blue sky thinking” to translate today’s trends and signals into future experiences that increase people’s decision-making and creative capacity when considering the future [18,43]. Max Elder from the Food Futures Lab believes that engaging in speculation is critical to shaping the future world: “Fail to dream about the future, and you forfeit your role in its creation.” He goes on to explain that “the idea is to push people beyond notions of what’s plausible to what’s possible. What are the values implicit in the question? What will the food system look like if we optimize for different values?” [18].

Industrial researchers are not alone in this imagining. Many researchers in HCI have developed speculative activities and systems around food and food distribution. Food research has covered imagining futures of urban living [16,17,30], speculating on different systems of gathering and distributing food via foraging and automated technology [14,15], and everyday food science as a means of imagining bottom-up production [28]. What is missing in these projects is an approach that imagines futures of food distribution from already-existing contexts such as the supermarket. In HCI, the supermarket is understood so far as primarily a venue for optimizing stocking or shopping [2,25,27]. We hope to explore how this everyday location can be a starting point for speculation into technological trends and how they those trends could become banal and familiar using scenarios for supermarket futures.

2.1 Scenarios Scenarios are a common method to capture future possibilities around simple stories based on trends and events. In

the design process, scenarios cover a family of techniques in which the use of a future system is concretely described at an early point in the design and development process [10]. In particular for futures work, the issues that a scenario may wish to address often follow a particular structure [5] ranging from probable scenarios, to plausible scenarios, to possible scenarios, and finally to preferable scenarios.

To make these scenarios legible, Auger argues that one key factor is a bridge between the audience’s perception of their current world and the fictional element of the future concept. He calls this a perceptual bridge between the present and future, and he roots imagined futures in present familiar objects in his speculative design work [1]. The process of scenario building allows the viewer to ‘reperceive’ an issue [39]. This means that a viewer can see an issue from another point of view and limit their possible prejudices about design outcomes [34]. Scenarios create a perception of the future that is linked to conditions in the present through an unfolding sequence of events. These narrative descriptions of envisioned usages and situations are employed to guide the development of a system that will enable reflection on the experiences of use. Fundamentally, scenarios enrich contemporary perceptions and options in the evolving present for design.

2.2 Experiential Scenarios As a type of scenario, experiential scenarios are manifestations of one or more fragments of an ostensible future

world in any medium or combination of media, including image, artifact, and performance [7:3]. Experiential scenarios typically operate on a relatively long or open-ended timeline, as opposed to other forms of scenarios that often target more confined and strategic problems based in the nearer future. Experiential scenarios focus more specifically on the design and staging of interventions that address a wide array of human experiences and senses, with the aim of inviting a deeper engagement with futures. As such, they differ in terms of depth from scenarios that use only textual and statistical means to convey a future.

There are various strands within design research that use material expression as a central component to doing futures work. These efforts are most often framed as speculative design [1,19], critical design [20,21], design fiction [3], or discursive design [37]. What is shared between these threads is that they mobilize the language of designed and seemingly utilitarian objects to communicate ideas, operate as a tool for thinking through issues, and raise awareness around issues of psychological, sociological and ideological consequence [37]. Each of these approaches can produce ways of encountering the future by creating scenarios that are experienced through design materials. As such, these ‘experiential scenarios’ do not have a preferred form—the medium to disseminate a particular future is open.

3

2.3 Four Generic Futures and the Corners of Possibility SpaceOne way to explore possible futures is to consider a set of four ‘generic’ futures. This is a structured and systematic

way used to maximize difference across possible futures. Put differently, the generic futures suggest specific stories that define the possibility space for a particular topic and help create design scenarios that take broader and more fundamentally different ideas into account. In [13], Dator proposed that there are four basic types of story that people tell each other about the future that can be used to classify as well as generate futures as four corners of a possibility space. These are stories where growth continues in all key social and economic indicators; stories of collapse that brings ‘progress’ to a standstill or backslide; stories of discipline, where enforced constraints conserve what progress there is left; and finally stories about a futures where something unprecedented shifts our trajectory entirely—a transformational image of the future.

These four narratives can each include a wide range of specific scenarios that address global, national or societal concerns. The four corners offer a heuristic for structuring, managing and investigating nuanced difference that make its variety possible to describe—enabling scenarios that cover breadth as well as depth. This creates ‘normative complexity,’ scenarios that represent the complicatedness and multivariable nature of the world, as opposed to simplistic and polarizing caricatures of the future [7].

2.4 Ethnographic Experimental FuturesCandy and Kornet’s Ethnographic Experiential Futures (EXF) combine two modes of future research, Ethnographic

Futures Research (EFR) and the experiential scenarios described above [8,9]. EFR [36] provides a social-cultural approach to eliciting images of a ‘middle range’ future from interviewees about ‘possible’ and ‘preferable futures’ for their society. A middle range future is approximately 20 to 30 years from the present: far enough into the future so that the imagination is freed from the perceived limitations and constraints of the present, while also not so far into the future as to become irrelevant [35]. Here, the term ‘possible’ has to do with a sense of perceived realism, and the term ‘preferable’ refers to the kind of cultural development that is desired. The preferable and possible is given equal emphasis in EFR.

EXF combines this mode of inquiry with experiential scenarios that build from descriptive images of possible and preferable futures: multisensory scenarios designed for a particular audience. EXF futures can come from individuals, groups, companies or governments. While both formal and informal processes can be used to develop images of the future, it leaves as an open question whether or not they should be made more diverse—by seeing them through a lens of four generic futures, for example—or whether representations of the futures should be screen-based, physical objects or time-based. Exploring these factors became the basis of our case study. The EXF process consists of 4 steps: collecting images of the future (map), analyzing and generating new futures scenarios (multiply and mediate), staging those scenarios to participants (mount), and finally considering the possibilities of these alternative futures (map2). These steps will be described in more detail in the approach and process section below.

Fundamentally, EXF aims to create a set of experiential scenarios as inquiry into what is considered possible and preferable in a particular setting. In section 3, we describe our EXF process, making clear how the generic process has been adapted for our case study. In section 4, we report on what was perceived as possible and preferable by the expert and non-expert visitors of our case study’s mounting phase, an exhibition of supermarket futures. Finally, in section 6 we discuss the relevance of this project first for supermarkets, and then for HCI and design.

3 Approach and ProcessTo make the EXF approach clear, as well as to emphasize the role that design materials played in this project, we

have chosen to combine the traditional method and process sections, structuring them through the EXF process. Broadly, we identified five contemporary images of the future supermarket that served as starting points for a set of four alternative future scenarios based on each of the images, following the Four Generic Futures described above [7]. Those futures were given form as written scenarios, videos, posters, and interactive prototypes that were presented at an

4

exhibition, where the reactions of attendees were recorded in order to assess the value of the various supermarket futures on display.

We will present each phase of this design case following the steps from the Ethnographic Experimental Futures. Each method phase is first introduced, followed by a discussion the portion of the project.

3.1 MapThis project began by constructing a corpus of current ideas about the future of supermarkets to map and identify

current trends and developments within the food retail industry, based on a middle range future. These were drawn from a patent [23], news articles [26,32,42,44,45], technology and food retail company websites (e.g. Amazon [46–48], Samsung [49], Target [50], Microsoft [51] and Coop [52]), research institutes (e.g. the Institute for the Future [43], the Innovative Retail Lab [28], Space 10 [41] ), and a consultancy report [40], as well as interviews with a strategist of a national retailer, who not least helped point to other existing future images. These current trends and developments can be understood as existing images of the future of supermarkets as they represent what industry and research within and around the food retail industry are working towards. Affinity diagrams [31] were used to cluster different ideas about the future into different thematic categories. This mapping led to five categories that emerge as images of the future supermarket:

3.1.1 The future supermarket experience is autonomous.This category is based on the concept of autonomous shopping and delivery. It includes technologies like the

MobyMart, a fully autonomous, self- driving supermarket which can be ordered anywhere by a mobile app [41] IBM’s coffee drone [23] and others, such as Robomart, the 7-Eleven mobile store, Dispatch Local Food delivery, Nuru: Same day grocery delivery, and Starship, a local delivery service [41]. All of these technologies already exist today as either prototypes or first-generation products in selected areas.

3.1.2 The future supermarket experience is efficient.The goal of many future shopping technologies and concepts is to make the shopping both easier and more efficient.

These include Target’s shopping app [50], applications for easy checkout [40,48,53] and home-assistants [49,53,54] that aim to make people spend less time shopping for groceries. Fully-autonomous grocery warehouses [44], automated delivery platforms [22] and new supermarket layouts [18,40] make large parts of the supply chain more efficient in both time and cost.

3.1.3 The future supermarket experience is informed.Future technologies like smart screens, smart counters, and smart assistants seek to give customers instant

information about a product’s origin, ingredients, nutritional value, and carbon footprint [53,55]. Beyond helping the customer make informed product decisions, these technologies are able to interact with the customer directly in the store, triggered by movement and eye contact. These concepts can be used to increase product transparency for the customer, but also to promote retailer content. This exchange of data collects information on customer demographics and preferences [55], improving service and response time.

3.1.4 The future supermarket experience is local.In the future, supermarkets are not as dependent on vast international supply chains. In-house food production offers

great potential for future food offerings, where “technological innovations like 3D printing, hydroponic growing and cell-cultured meat could have a big impact on how we experience and consume our products” [18]. Microsoft envisions the supermarket of the future as “an ultramodern sustainable take on the traditional local food market, with the benefits of high-tech equipment such as cloud technology, IoT and mobile technology” [55].

3.1.5 The future supermarket experience is personal.Data produced by wearables, ingestible sensors and apps might be used to recognize consumption patterns, create

tailor-made product offers and individualized displays [18,45,47,53]. Through this personalization, every customer’s shopping experience can be tailored to their needs and desires.

5

These five categories are existing images of possible futures for supermarkets. Each of them is based on current or emerging technologies and form the basis for a set of future design scenarios, described below.

3.2 MultiplyThis step of the EXF process seeks to diversify the researched images of the future by generating alternatives that

operate within them. We began this stage with five categories of existing images of the future: autonomous, efficient, informed, local, and personal. Each of these became a starting point for new futures based on Candy’s ‘Four Generic Futures’ [7] described above: continue, collapse, discipline, and transform.

These generic futures were used as guidelines for a sketching session to break up the five categories of existing images of the future and bring them into new, alternative directions. After refining the categories into short and concrete experiences of the future, we facilitated an ideation session inspired by the method of “Crazy 8’s” from the Google Design Sprint Kit [56]. We had five rounds of ideation, each round focussing on one of the five existing images of the future, from the perspective of all four of the generic futures. After each ideation round, we had a sharing and voting session in order to discuss one anothers ideas and converge the many possibilities into the most appealing alternative future scenarios. Choosing the scenario took four criteria into account. First, the scenarios must be bound in one of the five existing images of the future. Second, a scenario must be relevant to all five images of the future (autonomous, efficient, informed, local, and personal). Third, and relatedly, each resulting scenario must have a clear connection to one of the four generic futures (continue, collapse, discipline, and transform). Finally, each scenario must utilize a perceptual bridge, after Auger [1]. This process resulted in 20 ideas for future scenarios that describe alternative futures which challenge or extend existing thinking (Table 1).

Table 1: Scenarios generated during the multiply phase.

Continue Collapse Discipline Transform

Autonomous Mobile autonomous supermarkets deliver food

anywhere, anytime

Automation of supply chain leads collapse of jobs

AI-enforced social credit system to avoid unwanted interactions with mobile

autonomous supermarkets

Automobile and pedestrian accidents from autonomous

markets on the roadways

Efficient IoT refrigerator manages for food needs in the

home, tracks consumption of residents

Home refrigerator tracks e.g. cholesterol and fines residents for going over

limits

Food is bought by fridge and billed monthly—no idea of consumption for resident

Supermarkets no longer a physical place

Informed Products at the supermarket displays provenance, distance

travelled

Limitations to the distance goods can travel to be sold

Pressure to buy as local as possible, pop-ups at food

displays

Shift from “emotional” to “objective” shopping

Local In-house 3D-printed meat offer variety and minimize

CO2 footprint

Poisonous 3D-printed meat widespread

Rationing of meats for health and climate purposes

Radical change in number of vegans and vegetarians

Personal Cameras detect a shopper and produce customized

prices and specials

Personalized prices become arbitraged on social media

Ingestible sensors monitor residents for healthy eating

Prices of goods in the supermarket regulated to

proportion of income level

3.3 MediateIn the mediate phase, the goal was to move from ideas about the future to more specific representations through

design using both world- and story-building. For us, this meant that each of the 20 ideas above were expanded to full-scale scenarios with corresponding physical artefacts and visuals which would later be presented at the exhibition. World-building offers a means for an audience to imagine themselves inside a scenario based on the world that it

6

presents [11]. Likewise, story-building helps an audience imagine themselves as the protagonist of a story that takes place in the world of the scenario [1,11]. We created a world around each of the five images of the future supermarket (autonomous, efficient, informed, local, and personal) by creating stories and visualizing them according to four principles. Based on Auger’s perceptual bridge [1] and Dunne & Raby’s suggestion that there should be a “path from where we are today to where we are in the scenario” [19] the first guideline was to ground each world in a relatable context from today while adding details from the future. Inspired by Bleeker [3] who emphasizes of making evocative materials instead of relying on text alone we developed a guideline that emphasized finding the right balance between design, science fact and science fiction: provoke people’s imagination by creating conversation pieces that blend real and fake facts through interactive, visual and written material. Another goal was to put an emphasis on the consequences of possible alternative futures. According to Tonkinwise, this is more important than exploring whether those futures work or not [38]. This became the guideline to make visible what’s around the corners. Finally, one of Tonkinwise’s points when creating futures is to use affirmative, concrete examples of what should be rather than “discrete artefacts with hints of context” [34], leading to our last guideline, dare to be decisive and concrete in the creation of alternative futures.

For each of our twenty scenarios, we created physical or visual ‘artifacts from the future’ that would make it easier for the audience to imagine concrete supermarket futures. The mediating phase resulted in five physical artifacts (two posters, one video, one interactive app and one interactive artifact) as well as fifteen written scenarios taking the form of newspaper articles, app mockups, and images. Beyond these materials, these scenarios were written and visualized as stories around the artifacts giving the audience an idea of which consequences could arise from these futures to support reflection from an eventual audience. These took the form of A5 cards containing both the written scenario as well as a material representation (Figure 1).

7

8

Figure 1: A selection of four future scenarios. From top to bottom: informed (continue and discipline) and local (continue and collapse).

3.4 MountTogether, the mediate and mount stages are meant to materialize and present future scenarios in ways that participants

can then encounter. The goal is to create “diegetic integrity” that helps those being exposed to the scenario understand it richly—how would it look and feel if this future were really happening?

We produced an exhibition that presented our visions of the future supermarket, as a way to spark discussion about possible, impossible, desirable, and undesirable futures. This exhibition took place was organized in a local project house and networking hub in Copenhagen that focuses on cultural and social organizations and startups. It brought together young entrepreneurs, creative practitioners and people involved in temporary projects. At the same time, we were also curious which thoughts and ideas experts working at the intersection between design, research and industry would have on our alternative future scenarios, and indirectly our method. To get both layperson and expert perspectives, we decided to facilitate an open exhibition for a wider audience as well as a closed exhibition and discussion for invited experts.

3.4.1 Open exhibition.As most people can relate to grocery shopping, we wanted a large and varied group of participants to encounter the

scenarios. A few weeks before the exhibition, we created a public Facebook event and posted it both on our private profiles and selected groups, including three different study programs from our university. The purpose of the open exhibition (Figure 2) was to create a place for discussion about the future of supermarkets and collect responses and reactions to our design proposals [8]. We created reflection sheets for visitors interested in giving feedback that contained three questions: 1) Which scenario had the strongest impact on you; Which scenario was the most desirable; Which scenario was the most undesirable? These instructions and questions followed EXP’s aim to assess what is deemed possible and preferable which we aimed to inquire into based on our varied set of scenarios.

Figure 2: The open exhibition gave the public a chance to encounter the supermarket futures.

9

Figure 3: Expert participants in the closed exhibition (right) and booklets describing future scenarios (left).

3.4.2 Closed Exhibition.We also held a closed exhibition and discussion for experts (Figure 3, right). Here, we invited five experts from four

different institutions and organizations. E1, an assistant professor focusing on research through design and speculative design; E2, a visual artist and designer; E3, a creative at a commercial research and design lab; and E4 and E5 from a local foresight and design studio. All participants in the discussion came from different countries, including the organizers seven countries in total from three different continents.

The closed exhibition lasted about an hour and a half. It started with a short introduction of all participants and an exhibition visit to look at all artifacts and read the scenarios, including informal discussions in between. We explained to the participants that our intention was as much to generate opinions and reflections about the scenarios as it was to get overall impressions and thoughts on the topic of future supermarkets. To capture their reflections, we created small booklets describing all 20 scenarios that were given to the experts beforehand (Figure 3, left). Each spread described a scenario and illustration, and the last three pages were empty for notetaking. Each page included a post-it note that contained a set of axes representing “desirability” on the y-axis and “believability” on the x-axis. These dimensions directly follow from the EXF and were used to help us record the impact of each scenario, as well as to measure how successful we had been in creating our attempt to create a widest range of possible futures in them. At the exhibition, the experts were asked to draw a point on the axes where they would position each scenario. The map functioned as a first look into the preference and plausibility of the scenarios for people who are used to working with scenarios and futures. After viewing the exhibit and marking the scenarios on different axes, the experts discussed their overall impressions and thoughts of the scenarios, and on a wider level, how the scenarios offered value or could be used to affect decision making, and the patterns and affect that the scenarios had across one another.

By hosting two different exhibitions, we wanted on the one hand to test and verify the quality and impact of our scenarios on people who have little or no experience with futuring or scenario-building. Their reflections and thoughts are especially important in order to figure out which futures they might consider possible and desirable. We also hoped to verify and test whether our method was successful in developing a broad range of futures. To that end, we found it fruitful to work with experts from research, industry and arts, all with a background in either future studies, the future of food or foresight activities.

10

3.5 Map2 This iteration of the mapping stage completes the research cycle. It is similar to but not identical to the first mapping

stage, as in this version, the researcher is recording responses and reactions to the design outcomes. This phase might directly involve interviewing the people and participants whose images of the future were originally mapped, or be more indirect, and use observation of people encountering the experiential scenarios [8]. For this project, we used both a direct form of mapping through the expert discussions as well as more undirect insights for mapping through the open exhibition.

After the exhibition and the expert discussion, we mapped the different insights to find patterns and themes in the data. In this process, we attended method as well as content, using quantitative and qualitative approaches that varied depending on the kind of material under scrutiny. In the following section, we describe how we analyzed our data from both exhibitions.

4 Reflections on Supermarket FuturesIn this section, we describe and discuss the results of the study from both the open and closed exhibitions. For each,

we provide an account of which supermarket futures attendees thought were preferable or realistic, while for the closed exhibition we draw out some additional themes that followed from discussion.

4.1 Open Exhibition The open exhibition produced 16 anonymous feedback cards reflecting on the most desirable, least desirable, and

most impactful scenarios for visitors. First, we performed a quantitative analysis of how frequently the scenarios were mentioned in each of the three questions to get an overview of whether certain scenarios were particularly provocative. After that, we analyzed the content of the reflections qualitatively to reveal what kind of responses the experiential scenarios evoked, particularly in terms of what scenarios were considered plausible and preferable. Overall, we found that the informed category contained the most desirable scenarios and autonomous the least desirable scenarios. However, both were also deemed the least impactful. In contrast, exhibition visitors’ reflections on the categories personal, local and efficient were mixed and controversial.

4.1.1 Desirable and Undesirable Future Supermarket Experiences.Most visitors to the exhibition felt that the scenarios in the informed category were the most desirable. The overall

tendency of being able to make better-informed decisions based on an additional layer of product information (as articulated by the continue scenario) was regarded positive and realistic in terms of making right decisions or raising awareness of food impacts. As expressed by one participant: For today's society, I think that the informed scenario is the most desirable one as people tend to be up to date on the products they buy when it comes to origin, etc. Furthermore, it seems as the one scenario that is not too futuristic for our era. Worries were expressed about misinformation, misuse or manipulation (as in the collapse scenario, where goods to be sold could only travel a certain distance), but also concerns about who actually is providing the information: I do worry about how the “recommendations” are made/calculated. Is it better to buy organic from Spain or non-organic from Denmark? Tomatoes grown in carbon-heavy Danish greenhouses or under the open air in Italy?”

The autonomous category, illustrated by food delivery services, was perceived the least desirable due to what was perceived as a “massive negative societal impact.” The visitors repeated elements from one of the four corners of possibility, such as job loss (the collapse scenario) or increased traffic (the transform scenario) and pointed out that futures in this direction would not make a city greener or support the social interaction that supermarkets today allow for. One visitor acknowledged that there was value in the ‘localness’ of an autonomous supermarket and turned what others had seen as a disadvantage into an advantage: “Autonomous can help build up a local community in your area. Instead of taking your own car and driving it to the next city, autonomous grocery stores would come to your local community.”

The informed and autonomous categories above were seen as least impactful of the five. Combined with the clearly stated preferences warranted us to reflect on them as categories in relation to the other three categories. For the visitors, all the scenarios in the informed category seemed to operate on a five-to-ten-year future timeline, rather than the 20-30

11

years from now. The concepts were perhaps too close to the present to be provocative in a productive way. Further, two of the four scenarios in the autonomous category were quite extreme, making the possible consequences of the scenarios (death and job loss) clearer. This likely contributed to their undesirability in relation to scenarios in other categories. More similar-seeming timelines across categories and a similar level of extremeness towards the corners of possibility could have helped overcome this. Nonetheless, the detailed responses showed that the four corners of possibility space did support a considered and rich dialogue within a set of scenarios in a category.

4.1.2 Impactful Future Supermarket Experiences.The categories personal, local, and efficient were mentioned as most impactful in equal amounts among visitors to the

exhibition. Each of these categories were less distinctly desirable or undesirable, and each inspired relatively strong positive and negative responses.

The personal category revolved around personalized prices in the supermarket, posing consequences like the formation of a black market, economic impact, and a potential lack of motivation for people to pursue high-paying jobs and education. The issue of privacy and surveillance became a reference point for discussion, as captured by this quote: “I think that the different pricing system at first glance seem as a good social initiative, but I became more skeptical when reading about how people abuse it (the collapse scenario). Also, the pill seems like a good health initiative (the discipline scenario), but at the same time it is scary to imagine the possible negative consequences (privacy, surveillance, manipulation, etc.).”

The local category was centered around in-store 3D-printed meat. This prompted discussions around ethical concerns. One visitor reflected upon the person owning the 3D meat printer and the power this person would have. Similarly, another pictured people 3D-printing their own meat in a ‘god-like’ position, being able to create any meat imaginable. Several visitors pointed to the lack of freedom as well as production concerns, which would make them “rather not eat meat often, [choosing] it for special occasions.” One visitor stressed the environmental advantage of 3D printed meat: “We would solve many of our worlds environmental and food-production problems. I can see many multinational companies that would fight this technology.”

The efficient category that envisioned a smart fridge with voice control that managed food purchasing in the home was deemed controversial. The smart fridge was seen as an undesirable alternative future when reflecting on societal impact or personal independence. An appliance mandating consumption was anathema: the ability of a machine to make the ‘right’ decision for an individual was strongly questioned. One visitor reflected upon who would benefit from this technology: “I don’t think an automated future is beneficial in all aspects. There is less benefit for the consumer than the state and corporations—but I guess it is already like that.” Some visitors were quite positive towards the idea of a smart fridge ordering groceries, particularly in terms of personal and environmental advantages. Saving time and effort was an upside, while not buying more products then needed could reduce food waste. A scenario about increased loneliness coupled with the last physical grocery store closing triggered many emotional reflections, as illustrated by this quote: “Especially the notifications on the phone about depression and loneliness in society due to the lack of need for going outside/interacting with others. It relates to thoughts and fears I have myself about such a future.”

These reflections show that perceived tensions emerged across a variety of themes, such as physical and psychological health, privacy, economics, personal motivation, power relations, environmental issues, and automation. These themes reflect that the width of a category led to broader reflections in which down and up-sides were put up against each other. For the open exhibition, many of these discussions in these categories did not reach a resolution, but rather, displayed that the four corners of possibility when combined successfully set out various trajectories of possible futures that went beyond simply acceptance or rejection.

4.2 Closed Exhibition and Expert DiscussionThe closed exhibition and discussion with the experts was two-parted. Our analysis follows that structure and firstly

presents a visual analysis of the matrix mappings that each expert made throughout the exhibition. Secondly, we analyze the expert discussion based on the ‘cirka script’ that was used to capture conversations [6]. These resulted in reflections on supermarket futures specifically, but also included broader reflections about engaging with futures in general.

12

4.2.1 Mapping Desirability and Realism of Scenarios.Each of the experts were asked to map the desirability and realism of each scenario in their exhibition booklet. The

mappings were digitally combined into figures and allowed us to see various patterns emerge (Figure 4). Broadly in line with the open exhibit attendees, the informed category was seen as desirable, while the autonomous but also the efficient categories mostly had dots on the undesirable side of the matrix. The local and personal scenarios were a bit more dispersed. In terms of realism, the informed category stands out as most realistic, while autonomous and local were perceived as mostly realistic.

Figure 4: From the left, expert mappings for Autonomous, Efficient, Informed, Local, and Personal.

Second, we looked at each of the four generic futures used to produce the scenarios (Figure 4). This was to assess whether or not one of the generic futures stood out as creating futures that particularly (un)desirable and/or (un)realistic. Continue stands out as leaning towards the realistic and desirable side. This is explained by the continue scenario being most strongly related to existing images of the future, and the familiarity that comes with it. Discipline and collapse are slightly more often judged as undesirable than the others, which might be explained by the enforcement inherent to discipline, and the standstill that is caused by collapse.

Figure 5: From the left, expert mappings of Continue, Transform, Discipline, and Collapse generic futures. To the right, all expert mappings plotted on the same axes.

Last, we combined all expert mappings of the scenarios into one figure to assess the overall perceptions that the scenarios evoked (Figure 5, right). This shows an even set of mappings filling most of the matrix, with a slightly higher accumulation on the ‘realistic’ side. This mixture of plausibility and desirability indicates that the scenarios have been successful in illustrating a variety of futures that are neither dystopian nor utopian.

4.2.2 Reflections on the Future Supermarket.A number of larger themes emerged relating to the various scenarios, particularly trust, choice, and sustainability.

They were often put into a broader perspective, making connections between the scenarios and their consequences, and often weighing advantages and disadvantages against each other.

In terms of trust, and in particular trusting technology, discussions revolved around the informed category: “The informed category is excellent until it becomes a tool for governmental regulation.” (E3) The technologies could be an effective tool for saving time or for making better choices— “The point is to provide people with information, that way they can make better decisions.” (E4)—but it would require transparency as a prerequisite, as “information is not just information” (E2) but is colored by political, ethical and social perspectives.

13

A discussion around choice was instigated by the personal category, in particular the “freedom to choose vs. the freedom from choice.” (E1) The participants collectively reflected upon what personalization could do and what its consequences are for an individual’s autonomy, as captured by the quote: “It is a very fine line—we are going towards that everything is personalised, we want that. In a way I’m not sure if we want to go that far; it can be too much. But I just want to put on the TV, I don’t want to have to choose.” (E1) The influencing power of algorithms to nudge behavior and choices was perceived as inherently dystopian. This was also evident in the informed and efficient scenarios where disciplining entities were conceptualized as a “big brother [...] influencing your behavior, and again how your behavior is influencing your options.” (E3) How algorithms can be used to nudge behavior, constrain choices and penalize consumption was a central issue throughout the discussion.

In terms of sustainability, participants reflected upon the lack of directly addressed sustainability issues like food production, food waste and use of plastic packaging. This is a very relevant in contemporary societal discourse but came across as underemphasized in the scenarios: “In all scenarios I was wondering there is no waste concerns. What happens with waste management in the future?” (E2) and “I also missed that… like sustainability and vertical farming—what if we can grow stuff directly in the store?” (E1).

4.2.3 Reflections on Engaging with Futures.As each of the experts worked with futures in their professional life, this portion of the discussion included wider

reflections on engaging with futures. These mainly regarded issues of who engages and gives direction to futures, and the role of cultural and geographical perspectives in futuring.

The experts were prompted by the scenarios to discuss what entities have decision-making power and how methods like the exhibition can be used to imagine and speculate on the future. In the spirit of the exhibition, a shared consensus was that customers and laypeople “should decide what kind of futures [they] want to live in” (E3). The scenarios were perceived as useful tools to “put together some pieces of how we are going to live—because that will determine what we will expect in services like these, or in all services” (E4).

Supported by the variety of the cultural and professional backgrounds of the experts, a series of reflections considered the role of cultural and geographical background in engaging with futures. They acknowledged that social and cultural differences will be important in how different technologies are perceived and used: “my perspective of a smart fridge is very different from my grandmother’s perspective on a smart fridge. [...] It depends on where you are looking from” (E2). The participant from the USA added that the use of the different mentioned technologies would be very different in his homeland than in a Danish context: “If I were in the US, I would probably not have faith in the store’s recommendation. Here, I might think of it as a bit more benign” (E1). The participant from Romania added: “I also thought about in the scenarios with loneliness: it excludes the idea that supermarkets can be a connection point, even though in Denmark it is not so” (E2). Several participants stated that many of the regulations that were part of the scenarios provoked them – “It pushed my value-system, as a Dane at least if I go from a personal perspective” (E5) and “It felt very un-American” (E1). Cultural and geographical background was something to keep in mind when reflecting on scenarios concerning governmental control and regulation.

Overall, the open and closed exhibition provided an impression of what was deemed (un)desirable and (un)realistic by the visitors of the exhibition. We pointed out that the scenarios might not have been consistent in terms of timeline and extremity of the social consequences that they offered. Nonetheless, they invited for nuanced discussions in relation to issues such as trust, choice and sustainability. Further, the expert discussion emphasized, in line with Textor [36] and Candy [7], that different groups have different images of the future and thus different conceptions of what is, could, or should be.

5 Reflections on Ethnographic Experiential FuturesThis EXF-based case study allows us to reflect on how a set of multisensory scenarios for possible and preferable

futures could be used to inquire into a groups’ desirable images of the future as well as what they find realistic. To hopefully inspire and motivate design and futures work in HCI, we articulate our reflections from this case as a set of questions to propel similar research in the future.

14

5.1 Who to Work With? Our study utilized perspectives from the food retail industry as well as archival research into contemporary images of

supermarket futures as the basis for our scenarios. These perspectives were only partially informed by ethnographic means (the informal interview with a strategist of a national retailer), and instead mostly by researching technological trends as identified by relatively large organizations. The case study showed two things: first, that the set of categories was productive in generating alternative scenarios; and second, that these scenarios invited far-ranging discussions in both the open and closed exhibitions for students, entrepreneurs, creative practitioners and design researchers based in Copenhagen. In the exhibitions, we did not learn what was (un)desirable or (un)realistic, except in a broad sense (e.g. the informed and autonomous categories). One way to imagine stronger conclusions might be to work directly with stakeholders that are invested in supermarkets and their future. Checkout operators, shelf stockers, and logistics specialists could have much to offer a study like this one. Choosing the right community, group, or audience to work with for the project has implications as to the relevance and depth of interpretation of the futures that emerge.

5.2 How to Represent the Future?Because the future does not yet exist, it is necessary to make choices in how it is being represented as a part of this

process. For us, this project was motivated by a sense that responsible forecasting requires a breadth of diverse future scenarios. This idea of greater “coverage” means that making sure more possible futures are represented than might be created otherwise. In making sure that there was a wide variety of scenarios presented to attendees, there may have been some inconsistencies in what made these scenarios legible and approachable. Based on the results of the study, it could be that when all futures operate on a similar timeline and similar levels of extremity, the collection of futures might become more nuanced and varied overall. Being sure that scenarios are represented as plausibly as possible helps participants to read scenarios as real possibilities, rather than as speculation from a designer. Based on the literature of experimental scenarios, we chose to produce multi-sensory representations to create more depth of experience for attendees of the exhibitions. While we believe that had good results, we also hesitate to claim that there should be multisensory representations. Rather, we feel that for best effect future scenarios should be materialized in the manner that represents them best, meaning that designers should be free to choose how a future is encountered. From this perspective, we could imagine different results between the gallery-style exhibition on supermarket futures described above, and actually displaying scenarios in a working supermarket.

5.3 How to Report and Build on Results?How can one move beyond (un)desirability and (un)realism in the analysis, and illustrate the complexity of evolving

discussions about the future? If the goal of producing these scenarios is to create more subtle engagement with possible futures, work of this kind requires correspondingly more subtle reporting than simply whether or not an audience finds a future scenario plausible or desirable—it should avoid utopian or dystopian framings in the analysis as well. While this case study has begun to draw out some general perspectives on the relevance of particular generic futures for the future supermarket, the point of doing this work is partially to use these futures as a starting point, aiming to produce design ideas that are novel and unexpected as the basis for ongoing inquiry. This may be why the futures that the exhibition attendees thought were the most impactful seemed richer than the ones that seemed more straightforwardly desirable or undesirable: in their complexity, they offer opportunities to engage with issues that can lead to stronger and more nuanced design work or become the starting point for further research into a topic.

5.4 What Does Success Look Like? Asking visitors of an exhibition to reflect on experiential scenarios, whether through questionnaires, mapping

exercises, or discussions, inevitably leads to many different kinds of responses—some good and some bad. The question is whether anything goes, or if a scenario can also be unsuccessful. Taking into consideration the case study, and building from the discussion above, we feel that the combination of provocativeness, a sense of realism, and conceptual fecundity means that a set of scenarios have been successful. By provocation we refer to the visceral response to a scenario—that

15

there is a strong reaction, an element of surprise or challenging of assumptions that makes the scenario matter to an audience member. By realism we mean that a scenario can be taken seriously. This means that the future scenario is represented in a way that supports strong experiences for a viewer, likely via a perceptual bridge [1]. Finally, by fecundity we highlight that the scenario is not something that exists on its own for its own sake: rather, it leads to new ideas, for either the designers and forecasters presenting them, or for the visitors that experience them.

To that end, EXF offers a means of considering futures for a particular domain in a rich and structured way. The scenarios that emerged as a part of this process provided a chance for exhibition attendees to take a familiar context like the supermarket and experience it anew. One participant pointed out that these kinds of scenarios “really make clear what the tensions are, and it makes clear what issues are at stake.” Describing the usefulness of scenario based foresighting a participant said: “[...]it is like throwing a stone in a lake which creates some ripples—the ripples are the interesting stuff, not the scenario itself [...]” The combination of 20 scenarios was an advantage in this project, as they help broaden the perspective of “which trends are worth pursuing and which trends are not” and help the audience reflect upon “[...] ideas and problems, and thinking about what the danger is with these kinds of technologies as well.” Statements like these illustrate the potential for EXF methods utilizing the four generic futures to create a kind of “cumulative plausibility” across a breadth of scenarios that invite speculation towards the possible futures of a topic or domain.

6 ConclusionEngaging with the future supermarket has been a research through design project with a two-fold objective. On the

one hand, we have speculated upon future technologies of the supermarkets and their possible consequences when in use. Through the production of 20 alternative future scenarios, shown in one open and one closed exhibition, we have inquired and recorded reactions which have resulted in new knowledge about the future of supermarkets. We have proposed some reflections based on the five categories of possible future technologies, which can be understood as considerations for the food retail industry. Furthermore, some more general considerations for the food retail industry have been suggested, concerning how they can use foresight and speculation to inform their future strategy. The knowledge produced here might also inform decision makers and developers of future technologies more generally in order to avoid possible negative consequences of their technologies.

On the second hand, this paper illustrates using the EXF approach as part of a research through design process for HCI. As such, this paper presents an example of an EXF-based design process that created a breadth of different scenarios in a structured way. In reflecting on this process, we formulated as a set of questions that we hope to inspire future research in design, futures, and HCI. Who participates in an EXF process? how are scenarios manifested and represented? How are the results framed and reported? These are key considerations in adapting this style of work to future HCI and design research. We feel that a successful EXF study lies in scenarios that are provocative, in that they inspire viewers to engage in the future; realistic enough to suspend disbelief; and fecund enough to generate a range of complex, interesting design ideas. We believe that for designers in HCI, these qualities are relevant and needed for developing and choosing promising futures when starting or continuing speculative design, design fictions, or futures-oriented research more broadly.

References

<bib id="bib1"><number>1. </number>J. Auger. 2013. Speculative design: crafting the speculation. Digital Creativity 24, 1: 11–35.</bib><bib id="bib2"><number>2. </number>Darren Black, Nils Jakob Clemmensen, and Mikael B. Skov. 2009. Supporting the supermarket shopping experience through a context-aware shopping trolley. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual Conference of the Australian Computer-Human Interaction Special Interest Group: Design: Open 24/7 (OZCHI ’09), 33–40. https://doi.org/10.1145/1738826.1738833</bib><bib id="bib3"><number>3. </number>Julian Bleeker. 2009. Design Fiction: A Short Essay on Design, Science, Fact and Fiction. Near Future Laboratory. Retrieved December 9, 2019 from http://blog.nearfuturelaboratory.com/2009/03/17/design-fiction-a-short-essay-on-design-science-fact-and-fiction/</bib><bib id="bib4"><number>4. </number>Mark Blythe. 2014. Research through design fiction: narrative in real and imaginary abstracts. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’14), 703–712. https://doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557098</bib><bib id="bib5"><number>5. </number>Lena Börjeson, Mattias Höjer, Karl-Henrik Dreborg, Tomas Ekvall, and Göran Finnveden. 2006. Scenario types and techniques: Towards a user’s guide. Futures 38, 7: 723–739. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2005.12.002</bib>

16

<bib id="bib6"><number>6. </number>Helle Bundgaard, Hanne Overgaard Mogensen, and Cecilie Rubow. 2018. Antropologiske projekter. Samfundlitteratur.</bib><bib id="bib7"><number>7. </number>Stuart Candy. 2010. The Futures of Everyday Life: Politics and the Design of Experiential Scenarios.</bib><bib id="bib8"><number>8. </number>Stuart Candy and Kelly Kornet. 2017. A Field Guide to Ethnographic Experiential Futures. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.30623.97448</bib><bib id="bib9"><number>9. </number>Stuart Candy and Kelly Kornet. 2019. Turning Foresight Inside Out: An Introduction to Ethnographic Experiential Futures. Journal of Futures Studies 23: 3–22. https://doi.org/10.6531/JFS.201903_23(3).0002</bib><bib id="bib10"><number>10. </number>John M. Carroll. 2000. Making Use. MIT Press.</bib><bib id="bib11"><number>11. </number>Paul Coulton, Joseph Lindley, Miriam Sturdee, and Mike Stead. 2017. Design Fiction as World Building. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.4746964</bib><bib id="bib12"><number>12. </number>James A. Dator. 2002. Advancing Futures: Futures Studies in Higher Education by James A. Dator. Praeger.</bib><bib id="bib13"><number>13. </number>Jim Dator. 1979. The Futures of Culture/Cultures of the Futures. In Perspectives in Cross-Cultural Psychology, Anthony Marsella, Roland Tharp and Thomas Ciborowski (eds.). Academic Press, New York, 369–88.</bib><bib id="bib14"><number>14. </number>DiSalvo, C., and Jenkins, T. 2015. Drones for Foraging. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Biennial Research Through Design Conference, 25-27 March 2015, Cambridge, UK, Article 20. DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.1327990.</bib><bib id="bib15"><number>15. </number>Carl DiSalvo and Tom Jenkins. 2017. Fruit Are Heavy: A Prototype Public IoT System to Support Urban Foraging. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (DIS ’17), 541–553. https://doi.org/10.1145/3064663.3064748</bib><bib id="bib16"><number>16. </number>Marketa Dolejšová. 2018. Parlour of food futures: future food forecasting as tarot prophecies. In Proceedings of the 30th Australian Conference on Computer-Human Interaction (OzCHI ’18), 593–597. https://doi.org/10.1145/3292147.3292226</bib><bib id="bib17"><number>17. </number>Marketa Dolejšová and Tereza Lišková. 2017. StreetSauce: Nurturing Speculation in Service Design. Interactions 24, 5: 34–39. https://doi.org/10.1145/3121346</bib><bib id="bib18"><number>18. </number>Elizabeth G. Dunn. 2019. In 2069, Your Food Will Shop for You. Medium. Retrieved December 9, 2019 from https://onezero.medium.com/in-2069-your-food-will-shop-for-you-8c5c2df5df9c</bib><bib id="bib19"><number>19. </number>A. Dunne and F. Raby. 2013. Speculative everything: design, fiction, and social dreaming. MIT press.</bib><bib id="bib20"><number>20. </number>Anthony Dunne. 2006. Hertzian Tales: Electronic Products, Aesthetic Experience, and Critical Design. The MIT Press.</bib><bib id="bib21"><number>21. </number>Anthony Dunne and Fiona Raby. 2001. Design Noir: The Secret Life of Electronic Objects. Birkhäuser, Berlin.</bib><bib id="bib22"><number>22. </number>Chris Elsden, David Chatting, Abigail C. Durrant, Andrew Garbett, Bettina Nissen, John Vines, and David S. Kirk. 2017. On Speculative Enactments. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’17), 5386–5399. https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025503</bib><bib id="bib23"><number>23. </number>Thomas Erickson, Rogerio Feris, Clifford Pickover, and Maja Vukovic. 2018. Drone Delievery of Coffee Based on a Cognitive State of an Individual.</bib><bib id="bib24"><number>24. </number>Hawaii's Governor’s Conference on the Year 2000 (1970 : Honolulu, George Chaplin, and Glenn D Paige. 1973. Hawaii 2000: continuing experiment in anticipation democracy. Retrieved May 1, 2020 from https://trove.nla.gov.au/version/231457288</bib><bib id="bib25"><number>25. </number>Ke Huang. 2019. Inventory Optimization of Fresh Foods Based on Shang Mao Cheng Supermarket. In Proceedings of the 2019 5th International Conference on Industrial and Business Engineering (ICIBE 2019), 23–27. https://doi.org/10.1145/3364335.3364384</bib><bib id="bib26"><number>26. </number>Hans Chr. Johansen. 2019. detailhandel | Gyldendal - Den Store Danske. Retrieved December 9, 2019 from http://denstoredanske.dk/Geografi_og_historie/Økonomisk_historie/detailhandel</bib><bib id="bib27"><number>27. </number>Vaiva Kalnikaitė, Jon Bird, and Yvonne Rogers. 2013. Decision-making in the aisles: informing, overwhelming or nudging supermarket shoppers? Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 17, 6: 1247–1259. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-012-0589-z</bib><bib id="bib28"><number>28. </number>Stacey Kuznetsov, Christina J. Santana, and Elenore Long. 2016. Everyday Food Science as a Design Space for Community Literacy and Habitual Sustainable Practice. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’16), 1786–1797. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858363</bib><bib id="bib29"><number>29. </number>Joseph Lindley and Paul Coulton. 2016. Pushing the Limits of Design Fiction: The Case For Fictional Research Papers. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’16), 4032–4043. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858446</bib><bib id="bib30"><number>30. </number>Peter Lyle, Jaz Hee-jeong Choi, and Marcus Foth. 2015. Growing food in the city: design ideations for urban residential gardeners. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Communities and Technologies (C&amp;T ’15), 89–97. https://doi.org/10.1145/2768545.2768549</bib><bib id="bib31"><number>31. </number>Bella Martin, Bruce Hanington, and Bruce M. Hanington. 2012. Universal Methods of Design: 100 Ways to Research Complex Problems, Develop Innovative Ideas, and Design Effective Solutions. Rockport Publishers.</bib><bib id="bib32"><number>32. </number>Jørn Kiel Nielsen. 2019. detailhandel (Dansk detailhandels udvikling - Efter 1960) | Gyldendal - Den Store Danske. Retrieved December 9, 2019 from http://denstoredanske.dk/Geografi_og_historie/Økonomisk_historie/detailhandel/detailhandel_(Dansk_detailhandels_udvikling_-_Efter_1960)</bib><bib id="bib33"><number>33. </number>Fred Polak and Elise Boulding. 1973. The image of the future. Elsevier Scientific Pub. Co, Amsterdam, New York.</bib><bib id="bib34"><number>34. </number>Martin Raymond. 2003. The Tomorrow People: Future Consumers and how to Read Them. Pearson Education.</bib><bib id="bib35"><number>35. </number>Robert B. Textor. 1980. A Handbook on Ethnographic Futures Research. Cultural and Futures Research Project, School of Education and Department of Anthropology, Stanford University.</bib><bib id="bib36"><number>36. </number>Robert B Textor. 1995. The ethnographic futures research method: An application to Thailand. Futures 27, 4: 461–471. https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-3287(95)00011-K</bib><bib id="bib37"><number>37. </number>Bruce M. Tharp and Stephanie M. Tharp. 2019. Discursive Design: Critical, Speculative, and Alternative Things. The MIT Press.</bib><bib id="bib38"><number>38. </number>Cameron Tonkinwise. 2014. How We Intend to Future: Review of Anthony Dunne and Fiona Raby, Speculative Everything: Design, Fiction, and Social Dreaming. Design Philosophy Papers 12, 2: 169–187. https://doi.org/10.2752/144871314X14159818597676</bib>

17

<bib id="bib39"><number>39. </number>Pierre Wack. 1985. Scenarios: Uncharted Waters Ahead. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved May 1, 2020 from https://hbr.org/1985/09/scenarios-uncharted-waters-ahead</bib><bib id="bib40"><number>40. </number>Oliver Wyman. The Future Supermarket. Retrieved December 9, 2019 from https://www.oliverwyman.com/our-expertise/insights/2018/feb/retail-consumer-journal-vol-6/the-future-supermarket.html</bib><bib id="bib41"><number>41. </number>Spaces on Wheels: Exploring a Driverless Future. SPACE10. Retrieved December 9, 2019 from https://space10.com/project/spaces-on-wheels-exploring-a-driverless-future/</bib><bib id="bib42"><number>42. </number>Huge Ocado warehouse fire was started by robot charger that malfunctioned. Metro. Retrieved December 9, 2019 from https://metro.co.uk/2019/04/29/huge-ocado-warehouse-fire-started-robot-charger-malfunctioned-9347077/</bib><bib id="bib43"><number>43. </number>IFTF: Recipes for Food Innovation. Institute for the Future. Retrieved December 9, 2019 from http://www.iftf.org/foodinnovation/</bib><bib id="bib44"><number>44. </number>The warehouse run by robots. BBC News. Retrieved December 9, 2019 from https://www.bbc.com/news/av/business-38897417/the-ocado-warehouse-run-by-robots</bib><bib id="bib45"><number>45. </number>Konsum: Der Supermarkt der Zukunft. ZEIT ONLINE. Retrieved December 9, 2019 from https://www.zeit.de/video/2017-04/5413249984001/konsum-der-supermarkt-der-zukunft</bib><bib id="bib46"><number>46. </number>Amazon.com : Amazon Dash Wand With Alexa : Grocery & Gourmet Food. Retrieved December 9, 2019 from https://www.amazon.com/Amazon-Dash-Wand-With-Alexa/dp/B01MQMJFDK</bib><bib id="bib47"><number>47. </number>Amazon.com: Amazon Go. Retrieved December 9, 2019 from https://www.amazon.com/b?ie=UTF8&node=16008589011</bib><bib id="bib48"><number>48. </number>Virtual Dash Buttons learn more @ Amazon.com. Retrieved December 9, 2019 from https://www.amazon.com/b?ie=UTF8&node=17729534011</bib><bib id="bib49"><number>49. </number>Family Hub 4-Door Flex RF22K9581S Series | Owner Information &amp; Support | Samsung US. Retrieved December 9, 2019 from https://www.samsung.com/us/support/owners/product/family-hub-4-door-flex-rf22k9581s-series/</bib><bib id="bib50"><number>50. </number>Target App - Your Shopping and Saving Sidekick. Retrieved December 9, 2019 from https://www.target.com/c/target-app/-/N-4th2r</bib><bib id="bib51"><number>51. </number>Is this the supermarket of the future? Coop’s digital transformation. Microsoft News Centre Europe. Retrieved December 9, 2019 from https://news.microsoft.com/europe/features/supermarket-of-the-future/</bib><bib id="bib52"><number>52. </number>Historie. Retrieved December 9, 2019 from https://om.coop.dk/koncern/historie.aspx</bib><bib id="bib53"><number>53. </number>Innovative Retail Laboratory - Forschung. Retrieved December 9, 2019 from https://www.innovative-retail.de/index.php?id=3&L=2</bib><bib id="bib54"><number>54. </number>Amazon Echo - Alexa-enabled Bluetooth speaker. Retrieved December 9, 2019 from https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B06Y5ZW72J</bib><bib id="bib55"><number>55. </number>Is this the supermarket of the future? Coop’s digital transformation. Microsoft News Centre Europe. Retrieved December 9, 2019 from https://news.microsoft.com/europe/features/supermarket-of-the-future/</bib><bib id="bib56"><number>56. </number>Share and engage with the Design Sprint Community. Retrieved December 9, 2019 from https://designsprintkit.withgoogle.com/methodology/phase3-sketch</bib>

18