This document describes a prototyping project to improve coordination between activity centers for the elderly. It outlines Vlad's background and skills in software engineering and prototyping. It then describes the project team which conducted field work including interviews and workshops with various stakeholders like caregivers and residents. Different prototypes were created including paper prototypes, digital prototypes, and an application prototype. The prototypes aimed to give stakeholders daily overviews of schedules and notifications. The document discusses expanding the prototypes to additional centers and addressing issues like communication problems and low attendance. It provides examples of published work on the project and references literature on prototyping approaches, dimensions, and best practices.

1. Prototyping
Vlad Manea
University of Copenhagen
vlad.c.manea@gmail.com

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. ... and you are ...
Don't be shy!

4. Digital Services Innovation
INNOSUND
Improve resident quality of life
Andreas Johansen, Frederik Lauridsen, Vlad Manea, Konstantin Slavin
Borovskij, Troels Mønsted PhD

5. Andreas
BSc IT & health
Frederik
IT and communication
Vlad
Computer science
Konstantin
Computer science
Troels
PhD Computer science

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 1. Paper prototype: wrong turn
Low fi, abstract, failed initial attempt

12. 2. Digital prototype: on ramp
Med fi, ok, but were we on the right track?
Real life working prototype confirmed we were

13. 3. Application prototype: highway
Hi fi, extended, feedback ok
Working prototype for entire ward was used

14. Stakeholders have a daily overview...
End of course prototype

15. ...can easily create events...
End of course prototype

16. ...manage and prioritize their notes...
End of course prototype

17. ...and get notified when due
End of course prototype

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. 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. 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. 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. Distributed system

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. Prototypes for activity center - reuse
Digital prototype for the activity center, reusing prototype for caregivers

25. Prototypes for citizen portal
Paper portal for citizens Digital portal mockup for citizens

26. Activity center
Municipality
Citizens
Caregiver
Activity center
Citizens
Residents
Driver
Active area
Active area
Prototypes have agency

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. Prototype
“the first design of something from which
other forms are copied or developed”
- Oxford Learner’s dictionary
The iPhone
http://zurb.com/blog/system/images/1068/original/ios7phone.jpeg?1378921299 http://cdn.cultofmac.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/sonyiphone.jpg https://www.att.com/catalog/en/skus/images/apple-iphone%205c%20-%208gb-white-450x350.png

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. 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
http://airwaysnews.com/galleries/4635.jpg http://www.aviationpartners.com/images/timeline-winglet-01.png

31. Prototype - resolution & fidelity
Resolution
amount of detail
Fidelity
closeness to end design
Tesla prototypes: resolution != fidelity
http://www.seriouswheels.com/pics-2012/r-z-0-9/2012-Tesla-Model-X-Sketch-5-1920x1440.jpg https://i.ytimg.com/vi/APd5TD0BoFA/hqdefault.jpg http://preview.netcarshow.com/Tesla-Model_S-2013-1600-17.jpg

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. 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. 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…
http://www.robotshop.com/media/files/images/arduino-2wd-robot-us-large.jpg

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. 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. 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. 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. 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
http://images.thecarconnection.com/med/2003-volkswagen-new-beetle-coupe-2-door-coupe-gls-turbo-manual-side-exterior-view_100259412_m.jpg

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
https://monkeyinferno.com/static/img/home-image.png

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. 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.
http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2699009
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.
https://projects.hci.sbg.ac.at/ecscw2015/wp-content/uploads/sites/31/2015/08/Monsted-et-al-2015.pdf
More details about the project: http://innosund.bitbucket.org

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.
http://orbit.dtu.dk/files/56099100/Between_generative_prototyping.pdf
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.
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/254462007_Provotypes_for_participa
tory_innovation
Todd Zaki Warfel. 2009.
Prototyping: A Practitioner's Guide. Rosenfeld Media.
http://wireframe.vn/books/Prototyping%20[Rosenfeld,%202009].pdf
Tim Brown. 2009.
Change by design.
Harper-Collins.
http://www.harpercollins.com/9780061766084/change-by-design
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.
http://www.academia.edu/4187319/Prototypes_as_performative
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.
https://www.kth.se/social/upload/52ef5ee4f2765445a466a28a/mackay-lafon-pr
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.
http://uwdata.github.io/hcid520/readings/Houde-Prototypes.pdf
Christiane Floyd. 1984.
A Systematic Look at Prototyping
In Approaches to Prototyping. Springer-Verlag New York, Inc.,, NJ, USA, 1-18.
http://www.itu.dk/people/hesj/Articles/floyd-prototyping.pdf

44. Prototype start
problem, pain, stakeholders, team, approach, structure,
deliverable, prototype alternatives / hypothesis,
measure, relation with field work

45. Thank you
University of Copenhagen
vlad.c.manea@gmail.com
Vlad Manea