Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Cloudppt Interact 2011

491 views

Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Cloudppt Interact 2011

  1. 1. Three User-Driven Innovation Methods for Co-Creating Cloud Services Ting-Ray Chang & Eija Kaasinen VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland Interact, Sept. 7, 2011, Lisbon Cloud Software program
  2. 2. 08/09/2011 2 Agenda of the presentation Introduction: Cloud Services & Open Telco Motivations & some initial decisions Method one: Focus group ideation Method two: Online Crowdsourcing in Open Web Lab (Owela) Method three: Direct Interaction at the Open Innovation Showroom (Ihme) Examples of user ideations and acceptance comments toward privacy Q&A
  3. 3. 08/09/2011 3 Introduction: cloud services & Open Telco Cloud Software: installable applications  web-based computing, somewhat a new idea for everyday end-users Open Telco: Open API framework for mobile networks, aim to develop services utilizing users’ data via tele-operators Creating value proposals within the project partners  Expertise from the project group: technical, business, designers, researchers, etc.  9 value proposals  Outcome  illustrated initial scenarios  Technical possibilities  services users actually want
  4. 4. 08/09/2011 4 User Driven Innovation & Co-Creation User-Driven Innovation [Holmquist, L.(2004)] : Users considered as a source of inspiration that can foster innovation. Co-creation: With USERS, designers/researchers gain insights in idea generations to create services Co-design: User role is an equal design partner which enables the designers and users make design decisions together Participatory design: multi-stakeholders work together in different stages of design practices
  5. 5. 08/09/2011 5 Motivations & some initial decisions Cloud computing, what could it be for our end-users? To involve users in early design processes To gather different levels of insights from the end-users, from the values of the services to specific interactions and user experiences Different types of user-involvement: real-world versus lab setting, face-to-face versus online interaction, synchronized versus unsynchronized ideation Resource dependent Quantitative versus qualitative analysis in goal-oriented research
  6. 6. 08/09/2011 6 Focus group ideation Established user study method Goal: feedback on acceptance and ideation of proposed value proposals 8 participants, 4F+4M, invited and scheduled, user lab setting, one hour. Introduce value proposals with illustrated scenarios, comments and group discussions. Followed by group ideations of future TV Lists of ideas and comments were produced, many consensus were reached
  7. 7. 08/09/2011 7 Online Crowdsourcing in Open Web Lab (Owela) 84 Users from around the world invited to participate the online ideation Users ideated free from time and space restrictions Researcher participation for motivating and monitoring ideation and discussions Large amount of data (221 threaded comments), crazy ideas, deep feelings, and vivid stories More tech-oriented user groups
  8. 8. 08/09/2011 8An example of user ideations of future TV
  9. 9. 08/09/2011 9Direct Interaction at the Open Innovation Showroom (Ihme) Ihme: bring user research to the users’ world, in a living lab (in Finnish Ihme also means miracle) Other new technology to try and experience (e.g. eye-ware-free 3D-TV) Semi-structured discussions between researchers, designers and users 20 – 45 mins per session, 26 participants in first two weeks Users of all types could participate in & out freely, attracted “everyday” user groups Pro: Designers/researchers in users’ shoes, co-create tangible UX Challenge: recruit & motivate participation, flexible schedule
  10. 10. 08/09/2011 10examples of user ideations of future TV and M2M
  11. 11. 08/09/2011 11 Some acceptance comments toward privacy in all studies@Focus group:‘yes I think it can be a problem.’‘yeah I also worry.’@Ihme:‘It [peer recommendation services] feels like being tracked when you are on the road and everyone will make the same choices.’‘If it [universal profile] follows me everywhere, it is like a chip in my dog...’@Owela:‘there are going to be serious privacy issues though, so this would definitely need to be an opt-in service so people don’t get upset.’‘I think I would be a bit worried about who gets access to my information and possible misuse issues.’‘It seems obvious to me that this information cannot possibly be kept private. It already bugs me that my car can be tracked as I cross bridges or toll points.’
  12. 12. 08/09/2011 12 Comparisons of three studies Focus group Owela Ihme Length of the study 1 hour 1 month 3 weeks No. of users involved 8 participants 84 online users, 49 M + 35 F 26 users Procedure BriefingIdeation Briefing Briefing Ideation+Discussion Discussion Ideation+Discussion Study duration 1 hour 4 weeks 20~40 min per user, 3wks Value proposals 4 (4, 5 and 6, 7) 5 (1, 2, 3 and 6, 7) 5 (1, 2, 3 and 6, 7) Environment Laboratory Real world Real world Illustration material PowerPoint, video clips of Screen shots of scenarios PowerPoint, video clips of scenarios scenarios Media Face to face Online Face to face Data gathering Notes and post-its Online forum Interview notes & post-its No. of comments 63 221 252 Data from Scen. 1-3 Acceptance comments + 5 Acceptance comments + 20 Questionnaire data (19 questions) new* ideas new* ideas Different categories of 4 12 13 ideas – future TV Different categories of 5 12 5 ideas – M2M Group/individual Group Group Individual discussions User participation, Scheduled Free Freescheduled versus free
  13. 13. 08/09/2011 13 Take-away For our project:  value proposals evaluated and further developed into cloud services, ex. Group text chat, “why? I already have it on my phone..”  Deep understanding of the end-users  Ideation and evaluation with lead users and everyday users For researchers and designers:Focus group was the most efficient method for producing quick ideasand feedback;Owela online co-creation gave most creative ideas; andIhme direct interaction in a living lab creates the most close-to-real-life-experience (tangible) ideas. Other things to consider: resource, recruiting and motivating users
  14. 14. 08/09/2011 14 For further interests To find out more about User-driven innovation and TAMM (Technology Acceptance Model for Mobile Services), see: http://www.vtt.fi/people/eija_kaasinen.jsp?lang=en Cloud Software Program: http://www.cloudsoftwareprogram.org Further questions or to get the PPT from this presentation:Find ”Ting-Ray Chang” on LinkedIn, or (DesignResearcher)http://www.linkedin.com/in/designresearcher
  15. 15. 08/09/2011 15VTT creates businessfrom technology

×