Age simulation
March-April 2023
The House of Innovation and Practise
Master's Student
During the Design Thinking elective course, the case assigned to us was to come up with a design solution in terms of optimizing facilitation for The House of Practice and Innovation. It is next to KP, the University College of Copenhagen, an academy for health and care-related educational programmes in Nørrebro. The HPI facility provides a learning experience for the KP students who will become our future nurses, occupational therapists, etc., by providing an age simulation environment. We worked within the 5 stages of The Design Process framework since it has some stages in common, which consist of gathering data, generating an idea and testing it. But to specify, we used the one from d.school at Stanford University. The process in this version consists of five stages: empathizing, defining, ideating, prototyping, and testing. In that sense, when we followed some steps, it created a form of sensemaking since we collected different insights and data that gave us a better understanding of the improvements the institute is seeking.
Design Thinking phases
1. Empathize
Photo safari
Research methods
While visiting The House of Praxis and Innovation, we met some of the staff members and interviewed one of the consultants. We used two design research methods to gain data and insight into our users' points of view (POV).
The real, the true and the ideal
To have a strategic plan for how to interview and observe our user in this matter, we divided our group members of 5 with a different task. Beforehand, we did not do a pre-interview or record the actual interview since we wanted the participant to experience a down-to-earth setting. So, we kept the interview semi-structured, and the group members took notes with pen and paper. By picking different tasks, we eliminated confusion and too many aspects to observe. The tasks were chosen from the method Designs and Inquiry and Action, and I want to showcase the importance of being critical when conducting an interview.
We observed the consultant in terms of:
the true (factual and objective truths);
the real (his personal experiences, subjective opinions and feelings)
the ideal (his desires and suggestions).
Photo safari
The second method used for the interview with the consultant is photo safari.
Photo safaris have four tasks. The first task is to decide upon a topic clearly defined for the photo safari. Secondly, the group needs to guide the users in taking photos concerning the theme. The third task is to collect the photos and compare them. This part also includes the fact that, if possible, the users should be able to tell the stories behind the photos. Finally, the fourth task is to collect insights and identify any common threads of the photo.
2. Define
Affinity mapping
Affinity mapping
Hypotheses, ideas, themes, patterns and trends can be mapped, diagrammed, and consumed through synthesis. To generate ideas during this process, we attempted to organize and filter the data we gathered during the interview and photo safari with the help of affinity mapping. Firstly, each group member started writing findings and insights on post-it cards. Since there was only one finding on one card, it was simple to move them around next. In the following step, as a group, we tried to find themes and patterns between each of these data points so that we could physically move them around and organize them in a way that was logical for us. This process encouraged prioritising data points and the creation of hierarchies by asking, “What is the most important data point for our current problem?” In the end, our pieces of information were divided into three groups: the first was about the “booking system”, which could use some optimization regarding the booking process and user interface. The second group is named “miscommunication”, where we identified the main pattern as pains from the consultant’s viewpoint. The third and last category relates to our insights, where the main theme was the issues from the “student’s perspective”. When the categories were created, it was interesting to find new connections between elements in different groups.
Problem setting and framing
Once we synthesized our qualitative research findings with affinity mapping, we had a clearer view of all the pain points that consultants expressed.
POVs:
1. The consultants need to have a better overview of all the bookings in the booking system,
in order to manage them more efficiently.
2. The students need to be able to find things in the Innovation house, in order to avoid confusion.
3. The consultants need to make the students understand the rules in order to keep the place
tidy and organized.
4. The consultants need to have more free time to be able to handle individual tasks.
5. The students need to have a more efficient training process in order to better navigate in
the Innovation House.
HMWs:
1. HMW make the rules more clear?
2. HMW make the interface more intuitive for the booking system?
3. HMW make the machines/equipment more user-friendly?
4. HMW better facilitate?
5. HMW design in a way that fits the student’s perspective?
6. HMW structure the booking system? (eg.: how many can come at the same time?)
7. HMW divide the assignments for each of the consultants?
8. HMW reorganize/map the layout of the place to be more effective?
9. HMW design a training system that effectively informs the students and educators as well?
From the presented HMWs above, we decided to ideate on the first question:
“How might we make the rules more clear?”
3. Ideate
Crazy 8
Crazy 8 method
After defining the main problem area, which is facilitating the guidelines of The House of Practise and Innovation, we then had to visualize how to solve the problem through storytelling, more specifically, the Crazy 8 method. We each drew a scenario with 8 acts, starting the story with our problem and then ending it with a solution. The consultant told us he wishes to make the place’s navigation, guidelines and gears self-explanatory. One of my team members drew a scenario where the students used a self-help service screen inspired by the ones you typically find in shopping malls to be able to find a specific store. The other team member's story was about the students using an app to navigate the facility and look up FQA. She included that feature in the story since the consultant wishes to be less distracted by questions. He has also expressed that sometimes there are too many students simultaneously, and they distract each other by trying out simulation rooms and gear at the same time. In my scenario, one group of students had to follow lines on the floor and have to walk into a room or stop and wait their turn, depending on whether a traffic light flashed the colour “green” or “red”.
Creating these initial solutions is meant for us to learn, develop, refine and then ultimately create better solutions. It’s a process consisting of tools to help generate ideas, but also a mindset that has to be open and willing to want to see possibilities from the storyboard drawings.
These ideas were then combined into a new HMW question:
“How might we design a platform which optimizes the work life of the consultants and the visit of the HPI for the educators and the students?“.
This led us to our idea: a self-booking app.
4. Prototype
Storyboard
Last defining storyboard
Now that we had an idea we created a new storyboard to help us imagine which features this app should contain and the solutions they would bring.
This storyboard is only with 6 scenes where a group of 3 KP students entered The House of Practice and Innovation and found themselves lost. One of the consultants introduced them to their app. The students found a simulation gear but did not know how to operate it. The app had a usable guide, and they figured out how to use it. Then, one of the KP teachers booked an available room for them, and he afterwards saw them walking towards the room. At the end of the visit, they filled out a short survey so the facility could see what needed to be further approved for the future.
To evaluate if this idea is valuable, we used IDEO’s DFV framework to determine it. My case group and I argued that since it is a common habit for students, typically in their 20s and their teachers, to use apps to receive information, then, therefore, our product could be viable. Apps are so popular that more and more companies are expected to offer their own. An app can be desirable due to comfortability and a quick FQA page to answer questions rather than bother the consultants. Lastly, even if the app's content could be innovative and new, the app itself is nothing new that requires expensive and cutting-edge technology, so it is feasible. Apart from the three instruments of the DFV framework, it is also important to mention that this app is meant to serve both the students and teachers from KP and the consultants. In that sense, this product creates an ecosystem that benefits more than one user. If the students and teachers have their login, they can self-book or cancel, and the consultant can have more time for other work tasks.
But we were also aware of a pain point, which is the Department that has to create the app with the help of developers. Implementing change can be stressful at first. However, we believe it will benefit the institute in the long run.
We then created a low-fidelity prototype by sketching as seen below.
Low-fidelity prototype
5. Test
High-fidelity prototype
In our university lecture room, each Design Thinking group utilized their peers for valuable feedback. Despite our test users not being KP students, they shared similar demographics and habits as young, daily app users. We had three test users and decided to conduct individual tests to maximize the feedback received. This choice aimed to reduce distractions and noise by having only one participant in the room at a time. Additionally, we assigned individual tasks to ensure that every page and feature of the app was thoroughly explored. Prior to the test, we outlined the task but allowed participants to do the majority of the talking. We avoided directly asking them what they wanted from the product. Since users often struggle to express their desires clearly, we relied on their reactions and unbiased feedback to infer their opinions. The outcome was mostly negative feedback, but from a Design Thinking standpoint, it was positive. We hadn't considered the disadvantages for colorblind users due to the absence of text explanations and the reliance on colored dots. We aimed for universality by using icons in the navigation menu to describe features, but our three participants found this confusing. Specifically, an icon intended to indicate "Room availability" was interpreted by all three participants as "Calendar".
Evaluate
Our professors at Aalborg University noted that our prototype seemed almost too polished. If we had kept it as a paper prototype rather than designing it in Figma, we might have avoided certain constraints. Figma's drag-and-drop interface often leads to standard app elements that might not meet the client's unique needs. Making a prototype with colored paper, pens, and glue takes more time but pushes designers to think critically before user testing. Additionally, the speedy creation of our prototype left little room for careful thought and reflection. While our solution addressed some issues identified during the empathy phase, it ended up being a rushed and limiting approach. As a semi-finished prototype, it likely hindered the generation of new ideas. When designers and test users evaluate a well-detailed, functional software prototype, it becomes difficult to give feedback and explore other directions. We hastily created this prototype during both the Prototype and Ideation phases. There were more creative and playful ideas we could have explored that would have better suited the clients and their facility, aimed at helping KP students develop empathy for elderly patients through role-playing activities. Our solution should have reflected this by creating a more appropriate product. During the Ideation phase, we brainstormed ways to enhance playfulness, such as using traffic lights and signals to indicate when it was a KP student's turn in each simulation room. However, we ultimately chose a generic, commonly used app because it seemed safer. Our prototype could have better represented the purpose of The House of Practice and Innovation and the materials used. Developing a more tangible, low-fidelity prototype might have inspired new ideas among test users through tactile interaction and play, aligning with the "learning by doing" philosophy and making the materials more symbolic, potentially overcoming our limitations.
The last note
Despite the criticised evaluation of our design solution, which I mentioned in the Evaluate section, I want to shed some light on my appreciation of the booking app. The app can bring value to the consultants in terms of communication and time management. I criticised the process leading up to the final prototype, which was too detailed, with too little thought and reflection behind it. But applying this Design Thinking approach in a practical sense with an actual case and real clients is a step in forming my team members and I into potentially great designers.
I will end this conclusion with a quote by Gladwell 2008:
“The process of developing connoisseurship requires attention, time, and devotion”.
White paper designed for the consultants