Background
This fall, I spent my semester aboard at the IT University of Copenhagen in Denmark, studying Digital Media Design. One course, Co - Design And Qualitative Methods taught me quite a bit about Design Thinking and Prototyping. Throughout the semester I had the opportunity to work with people across various fields to explore and make technologies and environments more responsive to human needs.
Our focus was "Citizenship" and our goal was to build solutions to facilitate a sense of belonging to a larger community and understand more about the difficulties and clashes of culture. I joined a team of five other designers and we began our quest to find a interesting group of citizens to work with.
What is Co - Design?
The Co-Design, or Participatory Design, approach enables a wide range of people to make a creative contribution in the formulation and solution of a problem.
This approach goes beyond consultation by building and deepening equal collaboration between citizens affected by, or attempting to, resolve a particular challenge. A key tenet of co-design is that users, as 'experts' of their own experience, become central to the design process.
My team and I were the facilitators. Facilitators provide ways for people to engage with each other as well as providing ways to communicate, be creative, share insights and test out new ideas.
With this process, we followed the Tell, Make, Enact cycle of Participatory Design. Each component is essential in resolving a presented challenge. The users as experts in their everyday lives can share with us their thoughts, make with us their ideas, and enact with us their prototypes only to start the process over until the best decision can be made.
Our Users
After ample research, my team decided to explore a kollegium or dorm known as Signalhuset. This complex is particularly interesting and different from most because it houses both long term and short term residents. Apartments are made up of four students, some of which are exchange students who stay for a maximum of two semesters and others of which are locals --Danes -- who spend their entire higher education career at Signalhuset. We thought that this would be a perfect example of Citizenship and hoped to explore how Danes and exchange students co - exist.
Timeline
First Encounter
We met with two exchanges students, one from Iceland and another from Czech Republic, and three Danes who all reside at Signalhuset in an apartment setting to make them more comfortable. Our first interview was semi - structured and lasted two hours. We asked questions relating to why they chose this particular kollegium, how exchange was going, the interactions the Danes had with the exchange students and vice versa. We hoped to initiate conversation between the residents and observe any interesting situations that might arise. Below is the full script we prepared along with documentation from the encounter.
Analysis Method
The entire encounter was both video and audio recorded. During our analyses, we completed a "Quick & Dirty" method of organizing and understanding the qualitative research.
Quick & Dirty Method:
1. Before viewing any video, we took 20 minutes to think of interesting parts from our own memory, which we knew were caught on video
2. Then, we wrote each interesting part on a post-it note (in 3-5 words) to represent a category in our analysis
3. Next, we browsed through the video, and searched for clips that illustrated the categories (post-it notes)
4. We continued until we found at least one clip for each category
5. We placed everything on the wall and tried to group categories. We attempted to merge and split some in order to determine the main pressure points.
Findings
The main pressure points included:
User Quotes from Video:
"I have been in Copenhagen for a few weeks now, but I just don't feel like I know anyone. It seems like there is no good way to meet friends here." (Moe, Exchange Student).
"There are actually a lot of parties, the only thing is, usually if you go to one of them, then you hear about them all, otherwise you won't" (Frey, Exchange Student).
"Because we live with exchange students, every half year, everybody leaves. You see all the mailboxes go blank” (Amanda, Dane).
"We have a Facebook group, but it is too broad and only a few people are active in it." (Ramsan, Dane).
Social activities and the lack of them seemed to be the pressure point brought up the most when we conducted our analysis. According to our users, most events were mentioned via word of mouth making it difficult to build relationships. Other pressures which only added to this tension included the short term friendships built and that coming to a new place can be hard when one doesn't know anyone.
With this information, my team and I regrouped and developed activities in order to facilitate more of the "tell" part of the cycle. We wanted the users to tell us more about how they'd like a community to be built within Signalhuset.
Workshop One
For this workshop all the designers sat down with the users and completed the three following activities:
Click here for the full script
1. Dart Board with Relatable Statements - We asked the users to rate how closely they related to quotes we chose from the initial interview on a scale from 1 - 10 to reaffirm the main pressure points we found in our analysis.
2. What If Method - We paired users into groups of two and presented them with what if scenarios we developed. We then asked them to draw storyboards explaining their thought process and actions. The questions included various means of hosting events and how the users would go about it.
3. Ideation Game - We hoped to broaden users' minds to different ideas and aspects of design thinking, lead them to think outside the box and hopefully give inspiration for the final design prototype. We presented various statements and asked the users to jump into the middle and explain the first idea that came to mind without hesitation.
Findings
Click here to see full analysis
After analyzing the activities and video recordings from Workshop Two, we noticed a common thread of students wanting offline means of communicating with others in the complex. They were looking for something that wasn't just another social media dump. They valued interpersonal conversations and intimate settings, finding social media to be too large and intimidating to behave socially.
"I could post something on Facebook inviting people, but it would probably get lost in everything else that happens on that platform..." (Amanda, Dane)
We also found that, due to the nature of how social event information is spread (by word of mouth) in the complex, many of our users were intimidated to throw events in the fear that people would not show. They were looking for some sense of certainty.
"We would ask our roommates if they would join the party, mostly because before we go to the other steps, we would like to secure that people will show up and we won’t sit there having our party alone."
(Lea, Dane)
Finally, we noticed that in general themes of social events, many users gravitated towards food sharing or food making. They saw learning more about others' cultures through food preparation and sitting at the table together as valuable social activities.
"We used to do common dinners in my apartment, but now my roommates have changed. I think they are a great way of meeting others and bonding because everyone loves food." (Ondrej, Exchange Student)
We regrouped to build activities that would complete the "make" and "enact" part of the Participatory Life Cycle. We hoped the users would make inspiring prototypes and enact them out within situations at Signalhuset to see if the "social activities" problem could be combated.
Workshop Two
For this workshop, the designers and users worked together to make prototypes and then enact them. The groups were split into two groups with two designers and three users. The following activities were completed:
Click here for the full script
1. Designing Prototypes: We asked the users to think about the most social rooms in Signalhuset and make products within those rooms more communicative using materials we provided. We then asked them to create entirely new products for both rooms that could solve the social problems at the complex. The users chose the laundry room and living room to work with and developed various prototypes. Below are examples of some prototypes: The first, a talking laundry machine, the second a apartment communication duct, and the third a review/ book club scanning book case.
2. Enacting Prototypes: We asked the users to then take the entirely new products they developed during the first activity and enact them in both rooms through differing social situations. Enactment is an important aspect of Co - Design as it allows possibilities and setbacks to become apparent.
Findings
Click here to see full analysis
After analyzing the activities and video recordings from Workshop Two, we saw a reestablishment of the same grievances the users displayed during Workshop One. They hoped for offline solutions, intimate settings, food prep events, and certainty of some sense.
Some of the prototypes they developed (seen above) displayed those needs. For example, the apartment communication duct, was a pipeline that would extend along one floor of apartments, staying intimate, and allowing students to send invitations. The invitations would be signed by those who could attend, giving the hosts a sense of certainty. The communication was personal.
After enacting the prototypes, both the designers and users were able to see first hand the pros and cons of each design. The talking laundry machine, for example, was a simple idea: while doing your laundry, you could record messages about events for the next person. The complications arose concerning how social it could be. It would take many laundry loads before enough people heard about a certain social event.
By the end of this analysis, we found one particular prototype: a food sharing & preparation device as being the most promising for further consideration as it aligned entirely with the needs of the user.
Final Designs
Needs of the User Based off Findings:
More Social Activities
Offline Communication
Intimate & Interpersonal Connection
Food Preparation Social Motivations
Sense of Certainty
Keeping the needs of our user in mind, we knew that our design had to first, combat the social problems in Signalhuset, second, create a level of comfort and assurance, and third, be completely devoted to one cause and intimate (limiting overcrowding). After enhancing a prototype developed during Workshop Two, our final design was put into fruition.
Known as SharePear, this device allows a user to request others to join a food preparation event. Completely offline, it depends on recording and storing various ingredients necessary for the meal. It allows for others to assure what items they can provide with red and green light indications so that the host is aware ahead of time. Finally, due to the limited number of spaces available to store ingredients, this device allows for a smaller more intimate setting of social event. Below are various iterations of our design alongside a storyboard for how it can be used.
Design Iterations
Storyboard