5. Refinement

GOAL OF PHASE 5: Summarize the project process, the product vision, and provide an overview of the experience, using models, digital prototypes, and scenarios of use. The deliverables from phase 5 will be a product/project brief, an emotional piece that communicates the essence of experience with your product/service and/or demo and the delivery of your short presentation to faculty, the client and peers.

4/13: Post-Presentation Debrief

After our presentation on 4/13, we had a team meeting to synthesize the feedback we received and address our individual concerns regarding future work. Mainly concerns were regarding timeframe. We realized that we had been rushing the creation of our presentation because our workshops were set up on the weekends before the presentations, leaving only a day or two to synthesize findings and re-frame our argument. We also discussed our differences in work flows, which was a contributing factor to our feeling of being rushed. Kate set up a meeting with Pittsburgh EMS for 4/16 in the hopes that we could run our higher fidelity prototypes by them and receive more evaluative feedback. This meeting was later moved to Monday as schedule conflicts popped up among the team and only Kate was available to meet with them. Also, CMU’s Carnival weekend would have made it difficult for them to find parking. As a team we decided to move the meeting.

Week 4/17- 4/23

Sunday 4/17: Team Meeting

Catherine and Kate met on Sunday night to look at the spreadsheet of feedback from Wednesday’s presentation. They synthesizes the feedback into key concepts that needed to be addressed by the final presentation:

  • assumptions
  • detailing of problems that we are solving
  • system map
  • scope – why change the ambulance, not the policy or education
  • add emotional value to presentation – why EMS?

Re-framing was clearly needed, so they took the Phase IV presentation and began blocking out the final presentation. They revisited older presentations to see what should be brought back into the final presentation. Gaps and points of concern were indicated using yellow sticky notes. The rest of the team reviewed these points and added their feedback remotely.

The meeting with Pittsburgh EMS was moved again as we did not feel we had the material we needed to receive appropriate feedback. Luckily, our stakeholders were very understanding of our scheduling conflicts and continue to be flexible.

Monday 4/18: Team Meeting

We decided to rethinkng the use of the V2V scenario as there were many variables that would require significant additional testing (i.e. how would the driver of the car respond to being talked to by an ambulance). Also, we reached the consensus that the V2V scenario, while very interesting, did not prove to be a “clear win” for a CUI.

We started to work on re-framing our argument by “bucketing” our interactions into three categories…Shared Memory, Shared Logic, and Shared Responsibility.

Wednesday 4/20: Team Meeting

Further refinement of the “Shared Memory, Shared Logic, and Shared Responsibility” framing:

Key points:

  • The CUI should display varying degrees of logic, memory, and responsibility behaviors depending on the situation
  • We need to figure out the three scenarios that best illustrate this. While the scenarios for logic and memory seemed fairly easy for us to pin down, shared responsibility is harder to capture.

Kate sent an email to one of our Pittsburgh EMS contacts to see if he had any scenarios where a medic gut reaction was not just required, but the best response.

We decided to create three mini-videos, one for each of the interactions, showing the details of that interaction and how it would play out in a realistic scenario. We are also creating a video sketch, but are still figuring out how/where it will fit into our presentation.

Thursday 4/21: Team Meeting

Catherine and Kate were both going to be out of town for the weekend, so we met as a team to finalize the scenarios, the various storyboards so that they could work on pieces of our prototype videos remotely, such as the script and audio blocking. For each of the prototypes we were able to pin down scenarios. We also created a rough storyboard of the video sketch based on the user journey we had mapped out in a previous phase of the project.

Shared Logic: Navigation

  • points to include:
    • one way streets
    • road closures

Shared Memory: Case Patterns

  • points to include:
    • patient histories
    • V2I?

Shared Responsibility: The Hand-Off

  • points to include:
    • missing equipment, maintenance issues?
    • facilitating positive team to team interactions

From these developments, Kate wrote a script, made quick storyboard frames, and recorded audio for the video sketch. Shruti stitched together the files to create a simple video.

Friday 4/22: Meeting with Bruce

Shruti and Saumya met with Bruce to show our progress and get feedback.

Key insights:

  • video sketch as an “emotional piece”

Kate wrote the script for the prototype mini-videos and recorded the audio blocking, whic Shruti put it together into an After Effects file. Saumya began working on the visuals for the mini-videos and thinking through the animations.

Week 4/24-4/30

4/25: Team Meeting

We caught up on each others progress over the weekend and began putting our work into the presentation with the hope of having a decent product for the dry-run Wednesday. We met with Bruce and Peter to walk through the presentation in its current state and  showed the basic video sketch concept to receive feedback. From this meeting, we concluded that our three mini-videos would best convey our idea and that a video sketch would not be necessary. Instead, we must bring in emotion to the presentation, specifically in the lead up to mini-videos. The emotional connection to our stakeholders is extremely important so we are going to have to make sure we do this well if we plan to cut the video sketch.

Things to consider:

  • use of quotes to add emotion and tie in research insights
  • use of a persona from the start…a common thread throughout the presentation

Wednesday 4/27: Presentation Dry-Run

Today, we presented a dry-run of our latest presentation to Bruce, Peter, and two visiting designers. Our mini-videos were not available to receive feedback, so we described the scenarios verbally. They appreciated our use of quotes to tie in our research, but felt we could use more at the beginning of the presentation to set the mood.

Other key insights:

  • If you say in one sentence what KARA does…?
  • What is the focal point? More specificity around problem area and solution
    • Stress….all stress? or is it the stress of the unknown/uncertainties?

Thursday 4/28: Team Meeting

We met to discuss the dry-run insights and how to best reframe our argument. At the end of our meeting, we delegated tasks for individual work over the weekend. Catherine began writing the presentation script based on the argument we decided on. Saumya offered to continue working on the visuals and animations for the mini-videos. Shruti continued to refine the presentation and Kate worked on recording the final audio for the prototype mini-videos.

Home Stretch! (5/1-5/4)

Monday 5/2: Team Meeting/Work Session

We met with Bruce and Peter in the late morning to go over the presentation as we currently had it. We felt we needed more time to put together the various pieces we had worked on individually over the weekend and requested to meet with them both again on Tuesday (5/3) because we did not have much on which to receive feedback. Following the meeting we worked into the evening reorganizing our slide deck and finalizing the presentation script. We presented to  a PhD student and a 2nd year MDes student to see if our argument was making sense and get a sense of where the gaps were. We incorporated their feedback and finalized the presentation script.


Tuesday 5/3: Work Session/Meeting with Bruce & Peter

We met beginning at 10am to style the presentation based on the latest branding identity and updated this documentation. We rerecorded one of the audio for one of the characters in the mini-videos as the previous actor had an accent that made it difficult to understand. We met with Bruce and Peter at 1:30 and went through the presentation, and go through the audio for the deep-dives. It was more helpful to go through the presentation this time since they were able to give feedback  on fine tuning the visual design and making the content more nuanced. Since we are so close to the project. it was hard for us to recognize whether we were building the context effectively or presenting too many models and diagrams. Getting their feedback validated our narrative and helped us recognize what should go into the appendix and what should be in the main presentation.

Wednesday 5/4: Final presentation and Thursday 5/5: Presentation to EMS

We were getting feedback from second year Master’s students and refining the presentation up to  what seemed like the last hour. But we pulled it off! Our presentation elicited interesting responses – from how this could be retrofitted onto existing systems (the ‘smartness’ of the smart ambulance was something we hadn’t really discussed concretely), to the use and sharing of data across different platforms (our stakeholder interviews and map showed that this would increase efficiency), to what happens when the human and computer disagree (the computer knows when and how to mediate relationships between people but doesn’t have control over what they do).

There were lots of interesting parallels between what we, the Blue Barracudas presented and what the other teams presented, particularly Team TLC and Muted Rant. It was surprising that though our target audiences were very different, our research led to us to overlapping insights.

This was further reinforced when we presented to our 3 EMS stakeholders on Thursday. They appreciated the CUI with the GUI and  that we had created solutions for their particular pain points. Probing a little deeper, they told us that they have to deal with a lot of paperwork on antiquated systems that are not integrated. We also asked them about the ‘anticipatory’ stage before receiving a dispatch call. They  said that though it was an interesting time when a lot of data could potentially be helpful, as EMS personnel on the road, they wouldn’t be interested in data patterns. They also reiterated how being in the EMS is a job, discrete from their personal lives. All in all, it was great to talk with them about the blue-sky possibilities and understand that incremental changes that need to be made to get to Kara.