It’s time to write about our last study project together with Innovation&Business students.  Writing is such a good way how to save an experience for a reference with a high level of details The course we are taking now is called Participatory innovation - one of major user-driven innovation approaches. And this project was a complementary part to lectures and discussions. We had to 1) find a real company, 2) get an innovation project and 3) fulfill it with methods that we were taught of. Project was meant to be 8 weeks long.

To sum up we worked together with company Dimaps on their route planning software. We made reasonable ideas and scenarios which were based on our user studies. However, there were some problems with inner motivation, communication (different mind-sets) and in our case – presentation of results. There is one of the scenarios above that we have extracted from user studies and co-ideation events.

In this project I have learned:

1. There is  need for one leader in a team, who helps to make teams’ decisions in a way that everyone is satisfied. That person needs to be charismatic, knowledgeable, a fast-thinker (to evaluate everyones’ ideas) and has to have a big picture in a head. Such person must not lose composure. By having many people who are willing to be only the one leader, makes decision making hard. Having bad or no leader in team, results in low motivation and incoherent group-work,
2. Team of 7 was too big in our case, just 4 people were working,
3. Presentation is how others perceive your work, good presentation means for most that group had a good work together (and it is mostly true),
4. It is important to be quick in capturing and interpretating data. Aim could be having 1-2 user-study videos per day, that would help to better and faster co-ideate in a group leading to richer ideas,
5. There is little value in having a shallow look at user-study materials (videos) and interpreting them 1:1. Question why they are doing that is important in order to create good user-centered products and services.
6. I have got a good insight in participatory innovation,
7. Consensus based group-work is slower, especially if members have different mind-sets, that requires to discuss each decision.

I am going into more details below.

Looking for a company

We started by dividing in teams (or groups would be more precise title) of 6-7 that took a lot of discussions. In the end our group consisted of 1 design student (me) and 6 business students.

Then we had a group meeting discussing what expectations/skills we have and what companies we will look for. It ended in a list of 10 companies what we contacted through email. I had to argue that only an email is not effective way of establishing connections that I experienced while working at WSI (only about 3% respond rate).  So we decided to call our contacted companies after couple of days will be passed since sending emails. Well, from 10 companies indeed 2 responded (rejected), that makes 2% respond rate But calling helped to established a contact, as managers seems to be so busy that they delete such emails or in best case – goes through very briefly and then forgets about them.

In the beginning we thought it shouldn’t be difficult to find companies because of many reasons including a cheap labor doing a project in favor of company for free Another reason that we imagined was possible connection with a university, that is a good source of constant innovation. However, in reality not many companies wanted to work with students as such a project in their opinion was for too short time or they didn’t though that such project would give them sufficient benefit. Looking for companies took more time than we expected so a project suddenly shrinked from 8 week project to 4 week long.

I guess our biggest mistake was waiting on one contact until they would give an answer, we should have had at least 1-2 meetings each day in order to find someone who would be more open and interested in such innovation project.

Starting the project

Dimaps GIS route planning (dimaps.com)

We were lucky, because one of the other groups did a better job in finding companies. They have got 5 options that have agreed on project, and they were happy to share with us. I must admit that they have sent e-mails to more than 60 companies. This company we were lucky with was Dimaps, quite small but very flexible software engineering company with concentration on route planning software and geographic information systems.

They were quite open, interested in new ideas how their route planning system could be improved – how users could interact with a map, how people could report if routes were incomplete (hey dude, I have found a better route!) etc.

Soon we have conducted a first group meeting. We decided on a next plan – in having user studies to understand the use of route planning software in practice. We have got some serious disagreements as well – do we have to spend a lot of time in order to understand an existing Dimaps software or concentrate on user studies and their needs. That was a point where I missed another design student who understands a need of studying users. However, both points about software and users were right. We needed to understand sofware that we are making suggestions for and we need to understand users in order to suggest user-centered ideas. However, communication often was not fruitful.

Thing that we missed from a beginning was one strong project leader, because at least three of us wanted to lead and had strong arguments. That made it difficult to achieving consensus and making strong decisions which should have leaded towards specified tasks for each team member and coherent team-work.  How do you pick up only project leader? Everyone has ideas, but who should be the one, who makes decisions while having everybody satisfied?

Conducting user studies

Parcel delivery experiment

In the beginning we decided to conduct a delivery experiment. One of our group mates, Eleonora, had to deliver a parcel to a flat in student dorms. The reason for choosing this building was because it is challenging (many entrances, most of them closed) and that our group mate hasn’t been there before. We followed Eleonora with video cameras capturing real-life experience (being confused, calling, asking, looking). That helped us to get our minds into the project and put ourselves in the shoes of users.

After capturing this video, we made another one. This time our group mate Margus was a main actor, having a route calculated by Dimaps software. This case was straightforward as software showed right entrance and route to the right room. We found out that Dimaps route planning software really helped. However, we have also found out that there are some potential problems – how someone who has a delivery room on a map knows in which floor this room is?

Next there was a delicious idea – to order a pizza and follow their delivery in order to see how local pizza delivery businesses work. The only one local pizza place used to advanced methods of planning a route. Basically they just 1) got an order,  2) made a pizza, 3) delivered by memory (or paper map).

We also conducted interviews with ambulance and truck driver about their route planning systems. Both of them use GPS devices (in ambulance case updated every 2-3 days).

Discussion / tangible stuff

User workshop

We conducted a workshop having a manager of Dimaps (who is also an expert in software engineering), manager of customer department in large media company and three of our group-mates on board. Using tangible, abstract elements and mock-up of building where delivery experiment was done, we provoked discussions about real-life delivery problems, possible solutions and a future of route planning systems. We have got many ideas there.

Challenge in such workshops is to give a specific, reasonable task for participants to solve. Tangible parts is a good way in helping participants to build  solutions. However, as I experienced facilating workshop, there should be a clear introduction of task and parts that should be used. Besides, such seemingly tiny thing as easiness to reach tangible parts, also affects very much participant willingness to

Scenarios

Using knowledge that we had from user studies and a workshop, we generated different ideas of how and where Dimaps route planning software could be used which includes 1) mobile phones, 2) smartphones, 3) special our-made device Obox. We saw these three as cost-effective and mobile environments of having route planning software in. Besides such devices could support feedback from users in order to improve routes. We also saw an opportunity for Dimaps for selling their information for GPS software developers.

Report & presentation

Mock up of Obox & Kweedo

In the end we made a report and presentation. All groups including us got some critics from teachers about a report. Main points are that it should be a joy to be read which includes having graphics not only text. And graphics should be in one common style.

Also presentation of findings is very important. That includes basic things 1) are materials (posters, slides) readable by everyone? 2) is presentation coherent? 3) Does somebody get something out of presentation (information, fun) 4) Does presentation fits in the time allowed?. Some of the teams did a great job in having enjoyable presentation by making it in a form of little theater/storytelling. That makes it easier to be perceived.

All the teams had interesting prototypes, just have a look in my Flickr account or at our courses’ common one.

Proposal of design for a social lamp

The last teamwork project this semester was a critical design. Our task was to create a design proposal for a critical artifact which enquires people about their experience of indoor climate environments. We were working in teams of three people.

As indoor climate has various aspects, we had a discussion about it using a-frame cards for inspiration. On one side there was picture and sentence describing a situation (from field studies). Inside there was broader explanation of situation including an involved person. On back there were our notes, that we would like to discuss.

Project was divided in three phases (three weeks total).

1. Getting inspiration – field studies

In the beginning and later in project we felt like we don’t know what we are going to built. It was like fumbling in the dark, experimenting and going forward step by step. I learned that is important to plan an meeting, so you both could feel more comfortable. Besides what we missed is explaining to people we meet, what we are going to do and that we are more interested of observing them when doing something, not only having an interview. However, in this moment we didn’t know quite clearly what we are going to do, though. Critical design was something new for us

Kitchen of university’s canteen

We grabbed a video camera and went downstairs to a kitchen of canteen. We didn’t warn them that we will arrive, however we were lucky enough to have an opportunity to observe how they are working in their most busy time of day. To be honest, we were allowed to do that only with a second time, so field studies in this case were a balance between politeness and perseverance. But they were really friendly and told a little bit what kind of food they are making.

Even though we didn’t have much talking with people in kitchen we gained good impression of the indoor climate there. It was a narrow space, hot with high humidity. It seemed like they didn’t have a time for making all the environment cosy, because there were improvised bookshelf, which didn’t support find a book coveniently. They used quite many workarounds in environment (spoon to keep doors opened).

Following a student in canteen

Getting inspiration from environment

Then we followed a student from the moment of picking up food to choosing a table to sit. After that we had short interview of how he feels like in canteen and what would it like to change.

He said that uncontrolled noise of the people sometimes is disturbing and music, green plants there and beautiful view outside seen through windows is something that keeps the atmosphere relaxed.

As it appeared later, we were mostly inspired by this case as we built a lamp that reflects an atmosphere around table.

Visiting local art school

We made an appointment before about visiting it and observing environment. They were nice people and made a trip through all the building telling about their environment.

We found out that interiour of the rooms really affects popularity of it. Too many colors (paintings) on the walls could make someone anxious, but much of white color can make a nice balance between relaxing and exciting environment. There were many interestingly styled rooms used for exhibitions. But after each exhibition they paint it back to white having a fresh start for the next one.

Literature and examples of critical design

For better understanding of critical design we had an assignment for reading a one scientific paper each about particular experiment. Then we made posters and presented to each other. For me personally that have a lot of understanding by examples.

Social Bubbles - critical design artifact

2. Provoking discussions – critical artefact

In the beginning of a week we had a guest lecturer for a workshop on critical artifact methodology. He showed examples of his own experience and directed us on making our artifacts in groups. The most important in this case was to find assumptions (related to findings from field studies) and thinking of the ways how can we challange these.

From discussions an idea about social climate in socially rich environment (canteen) appeared. We wanted to question value of private space and indicating a state of private space to other people. Two of our three teams as appeared later had works related to social climate, which shows that concept of indoor climate could be broad as well.

After that we built a mock-up of canteen and the bubbles around each table. We imagined that these bubbles could isolate people from outside, and people could decorate their private bubbles as they wish (music, light, color, transparency) in that way either inviting people to join in their private space or not.

This mock-up later supported us to explain our idea, and to help other people feel themselves in this situation in that way provoking them to think what would they do in this situation.

Social Lamp - critical design proposal

3. Design proposal

After presenting our mock-up and idea, we got a lot of feedback to transform it to a design proposal. People liked an idea about indicating their mood and overall social atmosphere around their private space. They also wanted something more realistic, because bubbles seems like too much into a future.

In the beginning we made a little human-like toy which reflects social climate around a table with its facial expressions. But then with a help of tutors we gave up the idea of human like creatures and started thinking of something more abstract. Because human-like creatures make people expect human-like behaviour. Besides emotions are very complex and facial expressions would limit indication.

Idea of social lamp

Then we came up with an idea of a lamp which reflects social climate with a light (intensity, color, brightness) reacting on voice and touch. This would give more richeness for expressing the mood and the abstract form could make it more interesting giving the people enough interest to play with it.

It is meant to provoke discussions about social climate indoors. Let people talk, imagine, argue … share their ideas and opinions.

Reacting on touch

The brightness of a light would change depended on voice, that would grab attention of people, making them touch it. When touched, a water ripples could appear right from fingertips.

When ovals being moved, a color of lamp would change in that way allowing people to choose a color that best describes social climate into their private space.

Reflections of project

After a project I had some reflections that could be better. I learned a lot, to be patient in team-work, to be more critical sometimes. I learned to work with a wood while making this provotype. I learned that I should practice more when presenting, and to get idea through, I should have a stronger opinion.

List of important points I would improve next time:

• It is easy in falling in trap of adjusting the idea to the design rather than extracting design from the idea.
• In teamwork sometimes it is hard to get concensus, takes a lot of the time for getting common view.
• Critical design requires a change of mindset – instead of thinking about usable, ready, intuitive product we should think about product that is open to interpretation, provokes discussions and is not very useful always.
• When there lack of ideas in the team (no ideas, no discussions) it is useful to invite somebody from outside to listen to us, make an opinion and suggestions.
• Tangible mock-ups help to discuss and generate new ideas. It helps to present idea as well, so that everybody understands it.
• Next time there is need to find consensus faster so time for user testing is more.
• Presentation should be practiced before, ideally if one person presents the idea and other persons make additions and helps to answer questions.

If you want to see more pictures of a project, check out my personal Flickr account or our common account.

Until so far I knew only the “paper” version of specifications document and didn’t think that video could be successfully used in that step as well.

We were divided in 4 teams by two members. Got a plenty of poor video materials from Congo. Then we had lectures on requirements, specifications, innovations. And also had a great lectures on how to make a successful video and use it in a design process (usability testing, scenario design, ethnographic field studies).

Some of the points that are important in the filming process:

• Don’t hurry – film a frame for a while, fix it, don’t change too fast to the next point of attention.
• Think not only about object’s present position, but also it’s possible position. This is useful when filming a person, so it (or part) doesn’t go outside the visible frame.
• Think about eyes of the movie viewer when editing. Make sure that, when next frame starts, attention stays in the same position as in previous frame, or is lead smoothly.

Different viewpoints

We made 4 categories that could inspire the building of power generator. These categories included people, activity, transport and environment. One team picked up one category and then we sorted video scenes into these categories. There were hundreds of GB, so a lot of work!

Tips for cutting

• Keep in mind who is a receiver of your video?
• Think about the place of the central action in current and next video scene. When the next scene starts, central action should start in the same place where it ended in previous scene. Lead the eye of the person watching video smoothly.

Video card game

After that we played a video card game for making the stories. For making video cards, we trimmed our video scenes to 2min max, extracted a screenshot and made a description. This made much easier to refer to video scene. Then we mixed all video cards we have made and tried to make a story of the cards we have. If we found that some of the cards don’t belong to our story, we tried to exchange those. We discussed much why our story is important, how it goes into our 4 categories, why the video cards we want to exchange are relevant for the other person?

After that, we had 8 interesting and relevant stories with a titles and a logical sequence of video scenes (cards).

Making a documentary video – ethnography field studies

After we had stories from video card game, there was a need for bringing these stories for a life. We trimmed our videos, add effects, showed to other, got feedback, made improvements. And in the end we each had a meaningful 2 minutes long video. All the videos were burned into the DVDs. Posters were made as well and we had a common design to make everything look professionally.

Using video for inspiration and requirement specifications

In the end of our project engineers making power generator were invited to a workshop. Their task was to discuss and build a power supply based on the information they have. We prepared the tinkering stuff, paper and toys for them to build a tiny power generator. They watched the first video and started to discuss and build. Then after some 10 minutes we showed other video, which brought even more inspiration and in the same time – constraints. We continued until all 8 videos were shown and in the end they came up with different concepts of that power generator to present.

That’s how video could be used for starting up project and opening the mind for new solutions. Video is a powerful tool for provoking ideas.