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.

Prototyping for knowledge based entrepreneurship


Published on

Two lectures on prototyping for the Knowledge-based Entrepreneurship M.Sc. course at UCPH Innovation Hub, the University of Copenhagen in December 2015.

The contains a brief overview of our case study from an IT-research project aimed at improving coordination in elder care centers. As part of the project, we built a series of prototypes.

It then continues with a systematic description of prototypes and their properties, along with concrete examples. Several simple pieces of advice, as well as common pitfalls, are presented.

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Prototyping for knowledge based entrepreneurship

  1. 1. Prototyping Vlad Manea University of Copenhagen
  2. 2. I am Vlad, nice to meet you ● Software engineer in the industry, now startup → can write code ● Completed this course two years ago → can understand ● Prototyped and published an innovation project → can prototype
  3. 3. ... and you are ... Don't be shy!
  4. 4. Digital Services Innovation INNOSUND Improve resident quality of life Andreas Johansen, Frederik Lauridsen, Vlad Manea, Konstantin Slavin Borovskij, Troels Mønsted PhD
  5. 5. Andreas BSc IT & health Frederik IT and communication Vlad Computer science Konstantin Computer science Troels PhD Computer science
  6. 6. Initial problem identification Resident appointments managed ineffectively Appointments forgotten and missed Observed by independent stakeholders Decreased resident quality of life Lyngby Taarbaek Strategy 2013-2016 for elderly citizens 12% 41%
  7. 7. Alternative problems Lack of professionalism Bloated process Routines badly defined Too many tools Lack of second layer of needs worsens first layer Tools and processes mismatched with reality Adversity towards external stakeholders Careless employees Stressful employees We are doing fine here syndrome Suffocated in regulations There is room for improvement
  8. 8. Field work for validating problem Stakeholders Methods 10 caregivers observation, interview, discussion, morning meeting and routines 5 AC external employees discussion 2 AC employees discussion 2 residents discussion 1 senior counsel member semi-structured interview 1 dentist semi-structured interview 1 Avaleo sys admin interview, discussion
  9. 9. Paper prototype Installation Previously unused screen Meeting room Inserting real data Meeting room Coding after feedback With our test user and another unused TV Yo Windows error
  10. 10. Refined problems based on visits Too many systems make overview difficult Caregivers use word of mouth when planning Everything works until caregivers get busy
  11. 11. 1. Paper prototype: wrong turn Low fi, abstract, failed initial attempt
  12. 12. 2. Digital prototype: on ramp Med fi, ok, but were we on the right track? Real life working prototype confirmed we were
  13. 13. 3. Application prototype: highway Hi fi, extended, feedback ok Working prototype for entire ward was used
  14. 14. Stakeholders have a daily overview... End of course prototype
  15. 15. ...can easily create events... End of course prototype
  16. 16. ...manage and prioritize their notes... End of course prototype
  17. 17. ...and get notified when due End of course prototype
  18. 18. Prototype architecture View web interface Control implements application functionality Model specifies how data should look like SMS module requests SMS sender to send to phone # Database keeps the data in one safe place SMS sender web service for sending SMS to phones event activity user note ... User device
  19. 19. Expansion to 3 centers - new problems ● Hectic bus schedule → notifications to help ACs cope with schedule ● communication issues between ACs and CGs → notifications, workshops to help CGs ack ACs ● low attendance by residents and citizens to AC → portal with activities, where they can sign up
  20. 20. Field work span Phase Stakeholders Methods (Tools) - # participants 1 Bredebo management Discussion Non-disclosure agreement preparation 2 Bredebo management Interview - 1 x 2 people 3 Activity Center General Manager Interview - 1 person 3 Activity Center General Manager Workshop (affinity map) - 1 person 3 Bredebo Caregiver Interview - 1 person 3 Bredebo Activity Center employees Observation Interview - 3 x 1 person In situ interview with think-aloud - 1 person Documents 3 Bredebo Activity Center employees Workshop (communication model) - 1 person Workshop (timeline) - 1 person 3 Bredebo Activity Center employees Mapping - 1 person 3 Bredebo Activity Center Document analysis Phase Stakeholders Methods (Tools) - # participants 3 Baunehøj Activity Center employees Interview - 1 x 2 people In situ interview with think-aloud - 1 person 3 Baunehøj Activity Center employees Workshop (communication model) - 1 x 2 people Workshop (timeline) - 1 x 2 people 3 Baunehøj Activity Center employees Mapping - 1 x 2 people 3 Baunehøj Document analysis 3 Solgården Activity Center employee Interview - 1 person 3 Solgården Activity Center employee Workshop (communication model) - 1 person Workshop (timeline) - 1 person 3 Solgården Activity Center Document analysis 3 Bredebo Caregiver Interview - 1 person 3 Bus driver Unstructured interview - 1 person 3 Bus driver Document analysis 4 Activity Center General Manager Experimenting with prototype - 1 person 4 Bredebo Activity Center employee Experimenting with prototype - 1 person 4 Bredebo Activity Center employee Developing scenario - 1 person Part of experimenting with the prototype 4 Citizen Interview - 2 x 1 person 4 Citizen Experimenting with prototype - 1 x 3 people
  21. 21. Communication @ Solgården Affinity @ AC Management Timeline @ Solgården Interview @ bus driver Mapping @ Bredebo Interview @ Baunehøj IT system in use @ Bredebo In situ @ Bredebo Documents @ everywhere Think aloud @ Baunehøj
  22. 22. Distributed system
  23. 23. Further approaches to prototype ● Hectic bus schedule → work with notification prototype for ACs and bus ● Communication issues between ACs and CGs → iterate our existing prototype in the other centers ● Low attendance by residents and citizens to AC → create easy to use proto portal with activities nearby
  24. 24. Prototypes for activity center - reuse Digital prototype for the activity center, reusing prototype for caregivers
  25. 25. Prototypes for citizen portal Paper portal for citizens Digital portal mockup for citizens
  26. 26. Activity center Municipality Citizens Caregiver Activity center Citizens Residents Driver Active area Active area Prototypes have agency
  27. 27. 1. What is the problem we are trying to solve? 2. Who are the people affected by the problem? 3. How are they affected by the problem? 4. Why are they affected by the problem? 5. When can we say we fixed the problem? A few questions for your problem
  28. 28. Prototype “the first design of something from which other forms are copied or developed” - Oxford Learner’s dictionary The iPhone
  29. 29. Prototype - dimensions “Looking for processes which involve an early practical demonstration of relevant parts of the desired software on a computer, and which are to be combined with other processes in system development with a view to improving the quality of the target system” – Christianne Floyd, A systematic look at prototyping, 1984
  30. 30. Prototype - breadth vs. depth Horizontal prototype only built to a level of detail useful for demonstration Vertical prototype select functions implemented in their intended final form Boeing 7*7 prototypes: interior horizontal prototype, winglet vertical prototype
  31. 31. Prototype - resolution & fidelity Resolution amount of detail Fidelity closeness to end design Tesla prototypes: resolution != fidelity
  32. 32. Prototype - approaches Exploratory prototyping focus on clarifying requirements; alternatives discussed Experimental prototyping focus on determining adequacy of a proposed design Evolutionary prototyping system gradually adapted to changing requirements
  33. 33. A few questions about your approach 1. Which parts of the problem can we focus on? 2. How accurate should the prototype be? 3. What should our prototyping approach be? 4. What should the prototype check? 5. Why use a prototype and not something else?
  34. 34. Prototype - media Paper, carton, markers, sketches and drawings, software mocks and clickables, software demonstrations, 2D visualisations, 3D visualisations, 3D printing, virtual reality, raspberry PI, arduino, balsamiq, omnigraffe, visio, fireworks, appsketcher, axure, marvel, hotgloo, pixate, viewflux, invision And many, many others…
  35. 35. Prototype - paper and pencil Pros Inexpensive Fast and easy Collaborative Accessible Zero hardware Wizard of Oz Cons Needs colocation Needs imagination Hard to convey Hard to evaluate Hard to demonstrate
  36. 36. Prototype - static mocks Pros Portable and free Can be accurate Accessible Can collaborate Reusable code Cons Hard to learn Takes time to do Hard to annotate Limited functionality
  37. 37. Prototype - dynamic pages Pros Can mimic product Available online Many tutorials Can collaborate Reusable screens Cons Takes more time May require coding May be more vertical
  38. 38. Prototype - at scale Observe usage patterns of your prototypes Analysis range from qualitative to quantitative Page views: Google Analytics Element clicks: Heap Analytics Heat maps and video captures: Hotjar Page funnels: Google Analytics, Heap Analytics
  39. 39. Prototype - pitfalls ● No problematic situation, aka the toy project syndrome ● No clear question to address with the prototype ● No concrete way to validate your hypothesis ● No knowledge or involvement of stakeholders ● Inadequate channel, extent, completion, approach ● Forcing success #dieselgate
  40. 40. Prototype - mother of all pitfalls “We should start with programming the buttons onto the UI, implement a complete set of pages, ask our users what they would like more, and then think everything, including the hypothesis, in terms of that” - Anonymous me
  41. 41. A few questions about your prototype 1. What part of the problem are we focusing on? 2. How does the prototype fit in our quest? 3. Who are the affected people who can get help? 4. How can we make our prototype for them? 5. How do we know it succeeded or failed?
  42. 42. Innosund publications Troels Mønsted, Andreas Johansen, Frederik Lauridsen, Vlad Manea, Konstantin Slavin-Borovskij. 2016. Balancing priorities: A field study of coordination in distributed elder care. In Proceedings of the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS '16). Kauai. In press. Andreas Johansen, Frederik Lauridsen, Vlad Manea, Konstantin Slavin-Borovskij. 2015. Improving coordination of care centres for the elderly through IT support. In Proceedings of the conference companion on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW '16). ACM, Vancouver. Troels Mønsted, Andreas Johansen, Frederik Lauridsen, Vlad Manea, Konstantin Slavin-Borovskij. 2015. IT coordination of elder care. In Experiences of Technology Appropriation: Unanticipated Users, Usage, Circumstances, and Design workshop affiliated to the European Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (ECSCW '15). Oslo. More details about the project:
  43. 43. Prototypes publications Claus Lundgaard Cramer-Petersen. 2013. Between generative prototyping and work of synthesis in design: Interplay and adding value in the early concept development. In Proceedings of the CO-CREATE Conference. Helsinki, Finland. Laurens Boer and Jared Donovan. 2012. Provotypes for participatory innovation. In Proceedings of the Designing Interactive Systems Conference. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 388-397. tory_innovation Todd Zaki Warfel. 2009. Prototyping: A Practitioner's Guide. Rosenfeld Media.[Rosenfeld,%202009].pdf Tim Brown. 2009. Change by design. Harper-Collins. Peter Danholt. 2005. Prototypes as performative. In Proceedings of the 4th decennial conference on Critical computing: between sense and sensibility (CC '05). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1-8. Michel Beaudouin-Lafon and Wendy Mackay. 2002. Prototyping tools and techniques. In The human-computer interaction handbook. L. Erlbaum Associates Inc., Hillsdale, NJ, USA 1006-1031. ototypes-52-HCI.pdf Stephanie Houde and Charles Hill. 1997. What do prototypes prototype? In Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction (2nd Ed.). Elsevier Science B. V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Christiane Floyd. 1984. A Systematic Look at Prototyping In Approaches to Prototyping. Springer-Verlag New York, Inc.,, NJ, USA, 1-18.
  44. 44. Prototype start problem, pain, stakeholders, team, approach, structure, deliverable, prototype alternatives / hypothesis, measure, relation with field work
  45. 45. Thank you University of Copenhagen Vlad Manea