The UI/UX field is complex and continuous education is needed for a holistic perspective. I consider that it is very important to learn new areas related to UX research or desing.
The Robotic Process Automation is used in may business industries in the present. The RPA was the fastest growing segment of the global enterprise software market.

User Experience Research and Usability Testing are applied in all companies that develop different digital or non digital products. From all those digital industries I tend to consider gaming industry the most complex regarding the methodologies for UX data collection.

Surprisingly, I observed that Game UX Researchers are selected from specialists with studies in cognitive psychology, human factors, ergonomics, interaction design and human computer interaction. The basis is related to cognitive psychology in all fields of human factors, ergonomics and HCI.

I smile when I see that many small digital companies do not make distinction between UX Designers expertise and UX researchers expertise. Some companies hire UX designers to apply UX research in their work and this is not a benefit for the company, because they can collect only superficial pragmatic data and after that they design with confidence for the needs of users, but the truth is quite different.

In my opinion the UX researchers should have BA/MA/PhD studies and deep knowledge of cognitive psychology and neuroscience and technical knowledge mixed between software and hardware, but not to be mixed with UX designers. Try to imagine 2 roles/jobs in one and this is completely wrong.

The entertainment game development is one of the most complex processes starting with market segmentation, design and build, release and post-release. This workflow combines multidisciplinary teams and UX research is applied in each stage or phase.

I have a deep passion for games, gamification, serious games and everything related to game technology. GUR researchers apply mixed-methods to collect and understand the deep insights of players of different ages and categories.

I try to understand and extend my horizon in UX Research in the game industry by investing time in my training, for example I attended a course in Video game and development at Abertay University in Norway for better understanding the game loop, the user input, update and rendering. From a pragmatic perspective the game looks realistic and it is played in smooth way if there are minimum 60 frames per second in game loop frames. I even used the soft Nvidia G Force experience to record the frames and Nvidia Physx to record the collisions and all interactions, by trying to be in the role of GUR expert.

Additionally there is telemetry software developed by the game industry, by companies like Sony or Ubisoft. Telemetry is used in neuroscience and cognitive sciences, but for the game it must be customized for the specific of the typology of games.

I do have deep knowledge about human factors/ergonomics (as I made research on fighter pilots on supersonic planes, the most exiting field for UX and ergonomic tools), cognitive sciences and neuroscience and HCI (as I made research in different labs in Oslo for different topics) by using physiological computing tools can include eye-tracking, visual recognition of facial expressions, peripheral physiology (facial Electromyography (EMG), Electrodermal Activity (EDA), Electrocardiography (ECG), respiration, and brain imaging (Electroencephalography, fMRI), that allows me to create an authentic and professional worldview or perspective of the UX research applied in gaming.
 
From my bibliometric analysis and research in GUR field I discovered that game research laboratories and studios use similar UX tools like other digital areas, namely objective qualitative tools (observation, cognitive walkthrough, think aloud) and objective quantitative tools like game metrics and physiological data; for the subjective qualitative the tools that can be used are laddering interviews, focus groups, and for objective quantitative GUR can use heuristic evaluation, surveys, questionnaires and so on.

The moderating techniques are some of the most valuable. The GUR researchers adapt this technique by choosing to use in a play test session one of the following: concurrent think aloud (CTA) for understating the thoughts of players while they play the game and encouraging the players to keep a running stream of consciousness as they play; a second version is retrospective think aloud (RTA) in which players retrace their steps when the play test is finished; additionally moderating techniques are concurrent probing (when the player says something interesting while he plays, the facilitator asks follow-up questions) and retrospective probing (the facilitator asks questions at the end of the play test).

I am focused on my continuous learning in UX field and Service Design approach area was not so clear in my mind, so I have decided to attend a course organized by Virpi Roto (Aalto University- Finland), in partnership with Jung-Joo Lee from Industrial Design (National University of Singapore); Jodi Forlizzi  (HCI Institute, Carnegie Mellon University); Stuart Cockbill (UX Design MA at Loughborough University).

As this course I have learned how to:

• Work together with service designers through a better understanding of SD history, scope, process, and basic terminology.
• Organize UX work to fit within a SD project by understanding the relation of UXD and SD and the possible roles of UX designers in SD projects.
• Conceptualize the relation between UXD and SD through a better understanding of SD history, scope, process, and basic terminology.

The work of user experience (UX) designers expands beyond single digital products towards designing customer journeys through several service touchpoints and channels. Greater understanding of the service design (SD) approach and the interplay between service design and UX design is needed by UX researchers and practitioners in order to address this challenge.
In the past three decades, we have been observed a global shift from a focus on general product development to a focus on service delivery. Many companies are experiencing servitization, where digital services are added to existing products; others are experiencing productization, where physical products are added to service deliveries. In the present the UX designers and researchers face a range of inter-related challenges including:

• Understanding and conceptualizing non-digital services in a digital form, such as the augmentation of taxi cab services with on demand ride share platforms.
• Delivering end to end experiences across parallel physical and digital touchpoints including, for example for the retail sector: advertising, branding, browsing of goods, payments, deliveries and returns, and backstage digitalization.
• Co-designing with diverse stakeholders as business and design converge, and evaluation of success broadens beyond usability.
• Navigating and defining roles where terminology is fluid and ambiguous at the interaction of Service Design and UX.

Service Design (SD) is a holistic approach used to stage-manage the whole service journey considering clients, service providers and additional stakeholders. For user experience (UX) designers, who have often focused on the user interface design of a digital application, this service design perspective introduces new questions:

• What does service design mean in practice?
• What is the role and scope of UX design in a multi-stakeholder service design project?
• Who is responsible for the user experience of the whole service journey?
• How can UX and service designers best work together?

There is little research at the intersection of SD and UX design, and the research communities of these two areas are surprisingly separate. 

References:

• Jodi Forlizzi. 2018. The product ecology: Understanding social product use and supporting design culture. International Journal of design 2, 1.
• Luna Leoni. 2015. Servitization and Productization: two faces of the same coin? In Conference RESER.
• Ezio Manzini. 2014. Making things happen: Social innovation and design. Design Issues, 30, 1:57-66.
• Daniela Sangiorgi & Alison Prendiville (eds.). Designing for Service: key issues and new directions. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2017.
  
• Jodi Forlizzi & John Zimmerman. 2013. Promoting Service Design as a Core Practice in Interaction Design. Proceedings of IASDR’13.
  
• Alison Prendiville, Ian Gwilt, and Val Mitchell. 2017. Making sense of data through service design – opportunities and reflections. Designing for Service: Key Issues and New Directions. 225-236.
  
• Virpi Roto, Jung-Joo Lee, Tuuli Mattelmäki and John Zimmerman. 2018, April. Experience Design meets Service Design: Method Clash or Marriage? In Extended Abstracts of CHI’18 (p. W26).
  
• Stuart A. Cockbill, Andrew May, and Val Mitchell. 2019. The assessment of meaningful outcomes from co-design: a case study from the energy sector. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation. 5, 3:188-208.
  
• Jung-Joo Lee. 2020. Service design and blind mice, ACM Interactions, 27 (2), 20-21.
  

......