Instant Process Modelling Workshops for the Fuzzy Front End

Instant Process Modelling Workshops for the Fuzzy Front End (Abstract for the TEKES/Luotain project seminar at Suomenlinna on the 9th of June 2004) Salu Ylirisku University of Art and Design Helsinki

Introduction Process models for user centred product concept development are presented in an abstract and open format (e.g. ISO 13407, Kelley, Cagan & Vogel). The strength of the models is to be applicable in varying contexts. For example, according to Kelley IDEO's five step process can be applied to the development of any kind of product from childrens toys to e-commerce solutions (Kelley). The process model is flexible enough to be tailored to suit the nature of the task at hand. Although, abstraction and openness have some drawbacks. A general process model does not tell, where the team should focus on i.e. what user group to study, when, and what issues are important in the particular case. The abstract process models rely on iterative work and reflection to solve these problems. However, estimating the various knowledge needs, needs for cooperation, coordination of resources, and nature of deliverables may be difficult before the process has already progressed far. Adopting an abstract and open process model and using it successfully in a specific case may not be easy when the organization is new to user centred product concept development. Furhermore, in such a case people may also have varying expectations about the results that the methods provide. According to Cooper it is not enough to concentrate on the quality of execution in the processes, but also on selecting the right processes (Cooper). The potential for a new product should be known as well as possible before commiting to the development. Although, before the correct project can be selected in the true sense of the word, the possible projects must be identified. This phase of the whole development is currently very unstructured and arbitrary in many companies (Cooper). The initiative for a development process may come from almost any area e.g. such as marketing, technology research, current product development, manufacturing, potential customers, suppliers, inventors, and business partners (Ulrich & Eppinger). A multi-disciplinary approach is therefore needed, first, to be able to discover the possibilities and, second, to be able utilize them optimally. Based on the user centred product design literature (e.g. Cooper, Cagan & Vogel, Beyer&Holtzblatt, Keinonen et al.) as well as the experiences in the five case studies in Luotain project we have identified several aspects that characterize a good user centred design process. These are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

iterative design and continuous sharpening of focus multi-disciplinary involvement, commitment and shared interpretation clearly stated phases and deliverables time-efficiency strong linking to company interests to ensure utilization of the results

The instant process modelling workshop method presented in this paper aims at structuring the the creation and identification of the possible projects and also at creating a good user centred product concept development process having the above-mentioned characteristics.

The instant process workshop The idea of instant process modelling workshops is to go through the whole user centred product concept development process in a one single day. The project plan is then, depending on the case, created or refined in a separate session after the workshop (see Image 1).

Image 1: The overall structure of the workshop work. A workshop has three parts: introduction, process activities and reflection. During the introduction, people are assigned to roles, workshop aims are presented, and deliverables as well as the tools are explained. The process activities consist of defining the aim, planning, studies, analysis, design and scenario making (see Image 2). Reflection is done after the process activities. The reflection can be combined with a separate process planning session after the workshop. A workshop takes one whole day and the duration of the process activities may vary from 4 to 6 hours.

Image 2: The model of an instant process workshop. During the workhop the team aims at creating several deliverables. Each phase after the introduction may result in a deliverable or a set of deliverables. Certain deliverables, i.e. the project plan, summary of the studies and presentation about the product concept(s), are presented to the "financier" of the project to get the funding for the next phases. Financier is one of the 4 key roles in the workshop. The other roles are project leader, team member and user. One person may have several roles during the workshop and a person should be assigned to the role (or roles) which is most natural for him or her to be able to utilize his or her professonal skills and aptitudes as well as possible and to make the project more realistic. Video can be used in the workshop to document the activities during the day. Its purpose is to support reflection and the planning of the actual process after the workshop. It facilitates the planning in three ways. Firstly, it enables returning back to the starting point of the process and questioning the initial arguments that drive the project to a certain direction. Secondly, it helps people to better remember the process in the workshop especially if the planning is done after a delay. Thirdly, it facilitates getting an overall understanding of the whole process. When the video is edited in real-time, additional time for editing is not needed. Then the video can be used even in the evening of the workshop day. Although, good quality real-time editing requires previous experience on video filming.

Experiences from three workshops In Luotain project we organized three workshops in different settings. The first workshop was about an imaginary case, "Smart Shoes & 4D Walking". It was done with the researchers from the University of Art and Design participating. The second workshop was held in a professional context about clinical collaboration with two partnering companies. It focused on the communication between

anesthesiologists in a hospital. The third workshop focused on a leisure activity called kiteboarding. It was done with three companies each having their own agenda. The target domains varied in dimensions such as organization of the activity, knowledge intensity and easiness to access to the users world. The overall process in the workshops were the same in the first and second workshop. In the third workshop the concept design and scenario making phases were omitted. The main difference between the first workshop and the other two is the fact that the first workshop was about an imaginary case and it did not produce a project plan on the next day.

The preliminary results According to our experiences, going through the whole user centred development process and producing all the deliverables including a product concept in a single day is possible. In the workshops it was also possible to intensively focus on a design challenge in a real domain in a multi-disciplinary team and get a hands-on experience of applying the user centred methods in practice. The experiences of a workshop proved to be useful in planning the next steps in the real process as the participants had a common ground about a topic and they had become more familiar with each other. The real-time edited workshop video was used in two cases on the evening of the workshop. It was used for a quick reflection on the activities. Video was considered useful in creating a common understanding of the whole process especially when the teams worked in parallel on separate tasks. Video also served well as a started of the discussion in the project planning sessions after the workshops. The video scenarios, which were created in two workshops, were considered fun. We identified several problems in using the workshop method. Doing things in a "hyperspeed" definitely biased the process. For example, the focus was driven on a wrong track in the hurry in the second case. The workshop focused on issues, which could not be studied in real hospitals, which was understood during the project planning session on the next day. The hospital domain is very knowledge intensive and difficult to access. The real users could attend to both of the latter workshops. In the last workshop the users' time tables did not suit the workshop time table optimally and the structure of the workshop activities was adjusted accordingly. It worked out in this case. In addition to getting the users to the place, getting all the right participants at the right time to a workshop may be challenging. In both of the latter workshops there were potential participants, who could not participate. Moreover, some participants had to leave in the middle of activities. Some did return after a while and some not. Some could only participate in the middle of the activities. These facts did disturb the activities to some extent, although not critically. In the ideal situation participants are able to observe real users in their real environment doing their real activities. In the workshops we did not have access to the users' real world and their real activities. The environment as well as activities were simulated both in the "Smart Shoes" as well as in the "Clinical Collaboration" workshop. In the kiteboarding workshop the users environment and activities were represented by video clips, which were showed on a participant's laptop. The participants' level of experience in the user centred design field affected how the user data was gathered, interpreted and delivered to next phases. The participants' experiences as well as the workshop briefing affected which methods participants used. In a hurry they selected the methods they were familiar with. For example, video was not used in the workshops for user studies as the participants were not familiar with the appropriate video methods and equipment. All the workshops did not result in product concepts, which was due to project specific confidentiality issues in one case. The quality of the concepts was not evaluated. In sum, the method seems to tackle some important aspects about user centred design, but the biased nature of the workshops should be acknowledged when utilizing the method. This is important when setting the aims of a workshop. According to our experiences, the instant process modelling workshop method can be used to create an early collaboratively designed rough mock-up of the whole process. It can also be used as the first iteration loop of a longer user centred product development process especially in knowledge intensive domains.

Some preliminary guidelines for instant process workshops • •

Playing the central roles of financier and project manager well is crucial on the quality of the workshop work. Have a strict time table and stick to it. Exceptions should be tolerated but carefully argumented.

• • • • •

Have clear requirements for the deliverables. Make the participants present the user centred tools and methods to each other. Provide participants with enough food, snacks and refreshments all the time. Have an open and playful attitude and emphasize its importance. Go to an inspiring environment which is related to the user domain

References Beyer, H., Holzblatt, K., "Contextual Design: Defining Customer-Centered Systems", Morgan KAufmann Publishers, Inc., San Francisco, California, 1998. Cagan, J., Vogel, G., "Creating Breakthrough Products; Innovation from Product Planning to Program Approval", Prentice-Hall, Inc., USA, 2002. Cooper, G., "Winning at New Products: Accelerating the Process from Idea to Launch", Third Edition, Perseus Publishing, Campbridge, Massachusetts, 2001. ISO 13407, "Human-centred design processes for interactive systems", European Standard, ISO 13407:1999, June, 1999. Keinonen, T., Kokkonen V., Piira, S., Takala, R., "Konseptisuunnittelun työtapoja", in "Tuotekonseptointi", eds. Keinonen, T., Jääskö, V., Teknologiateollisuus ry, 2004. Kelley, T., "The Art of Innovation: Lessons in Creativity from IDEO, America's Leading Design Firm", Doubleday, USA, 2001 Ulrich, K., Eppinger, S., "Product Design and Development", Third / International Edition, McGraw-Hill, 2004.