Technical ReportPDF Available
University of Southern Denmark
HumanFIT: IoT Lab Methods Catalogue
Worm, Katrine Løck; Buur, Jacob; Mitchell, Robb
Publication date:
2019
Document version:
Final published version
Citation for pulished version (APA):
Worm, K. L., Buur, J., & Mitchell, R. (2019).
HumanFIT: IoT Lab Methods Catalogue
. Syddansk Universitet.
Go to publication entry in University of Southern Denmark's Research Portal
Terms of use
This work is brought to you by the University of Southern Denmark.
Unless otherwise specified it has been shared according to the terms for self-archiving.
If no other license is stated, these terms apply:
• You may download this work for personal use only.
• You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain
• You may freely distribute the URL identifying this open access version
If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details and we will investigate your claim.
Please direct all enquiries to puresupport@bib.sdu.dk
Download date: 08. Feb. 2022
IoT Lab Human FIT is a collaboration project between Public Intelligence,
Welfare Tech, SDU, MobilePeople, Life Partners, and AlertoCare.
AUGUST 2018 -8TH OF MAY 2019
HUMANFIT
IOT LAB METHODS
CATALOGUE
AUTHORS:
KATRINE LØCK WORM
JACOB BUUR
ROBB MITCHELL
DEPT OF DESIGN AND COMMUNICATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN DENMARK
METHODS & MATURITY
LEVELS
TOOLS & MATURITY
LEVELS
READINESS LEVELS
1
15
21
PAGE 2 : METHODS & TOOLS OVERVIEW
PAGE 16 : TOOLS & MATURITY LEVELS OVERVIEW
PAGE 22 : TECHNOLOGY & SOCIETAL READINESS
TABLE OF
CONTENT
METHODS FOR SRL 1-3
25PAGE 26 : USER
PAGE 28 : ORGANIZATION
PAGE 30 : MARKET
PAGE 31 : DATA
REFERENCES
41
METHODS FOR SRL 4-6
33PAGE 34 : USER
PAGE 35 : ORGANIZATION
METHODS FOR SRL 7-9
37 PAGE 38 : USER
1
METHODS
&
MATURITY
LEVELS
2
METHODS & TOOLS OVERVIEW
SIMULATIONS, MOCK-UPS AND PROTO-
TYPES - TOOLS OR METHODS?
A focus of the HumanFIT project has been the difference
between mock-ups, prototypes and simulations. But
neither can be found in the methods and tools tables on
the subsequent pages. Why? We argue that mock-ups,
prototypes and simulations switch between being tools
and methods depending on how you work with them.
Can prototypes, mock-ups and simulations be both a
method and a tool? We argue that the physical object
called the prototype, or the mock-up is a tool, because
you can use it in, for instance, simulations. You can
similarly argue that the process of creating mock-ups,
if for instance done in a co-creation session or through
iteratively working with them, the mock-ups and proto-
types become methods with which you work on a specific
challenge or product.
LOW, MEDIUM & HIGH
For each of the methods and tools listed in the table to
the right, the usefulness in relation to the four areas has
been evaluated. The four areas have been divided into
maturity levels, ranging from low, through medium, to
high. Connected to each area and maturity level is a set
of questions designed to aid the company in moving from
this level to the next. These questions are related to a list
of requirements the company must fulfil to move to the
next maturity level within this area. A low maturity level
means that the focus will be on value creation. A medium
maturity levels results in a focus on interaction. And a
high maturity levels means the focus will be on commer-
cialisation.
The goal of the HumanFit project is to develop an IoT Lab that supports companies in testing and developing new ide-
as for public health in Denmark. The IoT Lab is framed by four areas (user, organization, market, technology) and three
maturity levels (low, medium, high). To determine the maturity level in each of the areas and how to move towards the
next level for a company, methods and tools are necessary. This chapter outlines relevant methods and tools in rela-
tion to the four areas, maturity levels and in relation to technology and societal readiness levels.
It is our argument that mock-ups and prototypes can be
both methods and tools, depending on how you work
with them. If one is working iteratively with mock-ups
and prototypes, then they are methods or approaches to
handling a design challenge, while if we are talking usa-
bility testing, a prototype would serve as a tool necessary
to do the usability testing. In this manor, the process of
working with mock-ups and prototypes can be seen as
a method, while the outcome of these processes can be
seen as tools – especially for use with further methods.
The reason for the confusion is that both the tools and
the methods fall under the same terms – mock-ups and
prototypes.
Since the definitions and uses of the terms mock-ups and
prototypes are not only broad but also used in differ-
ent ways and overlapping, we would argue that it is not
possible to divide prototypes and mock-ups into maturity
levels and user/organization/market/technology, because
it is hugely dependent on which prototype/mock-up type,
what fidelity level, who’s making it and what purpose it is
supposed to serve.
Simulations differentiate themselves from mock-ups and
prototypes, because simulations are an approach to test-
ing and in a sense a narrower term than mock-ups and
especially prototypes. We argue this, since a simulation,
according to the majority of the definitions given previ-
ously, need a model, mock-up or prototype to function, is
not a tool but rather a method.
3
USER ORGANIZATION MARKET TECHNOLOGY
Methods Low Medium High Low Medium High Low Medium High Low Medium High
Pains & gains
Customer journey
Scenario acting with mock-up
Field visits
User interviews
Stakeholder map
Value network
Risk and values
Competitor analysis
Usability testing of prototype
Simulation of use in lab
Multi-stakeholder workshop
Prototype demo
Field trial
Video study of solution in use
Probes
Multi-stakeholder theatre
Object theatre
Tools
SilverSet
Toy Train Set
Figurines
Tangible Arrows
Pinball
LittleBits
Scale Modelling
OVERVIEW TABLE OF METHODS AND TOOLS IN RELATION TO AREAS AND MATURITY LEVELS
4
METHODS SHORT DESCRIPTION WHICH TYPE OF KNOWLEDGE CAN
IT GIVE?
WHAT CAN IT HELP TO ANSWER IN AN IOT CONTEXT?
THE METHOD IS RELEVANT IN RELATION TO WHICH KEY QUESTIONS?
TOOLS
REQUIRED
PAINS & GAINS Understanding of what
makes the users happy and
unhappy.
Ideas on how to handle both.
What makes the users happy?
What makes them sad/annoyed?
And how do we handle both?
User low
Which values do you imagine that the product / service should bring?
User medium
What categorizes the different types of user in the target group in rela-
tion to the product / service?
Are there any barriers?
SilverSet
CUSTOMER
JOURNEY
Conducted individually for
each user based on intervie-
ws. Multiple user journeys
are made, for comparison.
Timeline with phase-inde-
xation and contact points.
Different from the system’s
journey.
Creates overview of the user’s
experience with a service/pro-
duct.
Can identify contact points and
improvable sequences.
User low
What is the users’ current practice?
Where does the product give increased value to the user?
How indirect is the interaction with the users?
What type of challenges are there?
Toy Train Set
SCENARIO
ACTING WITH
MOCK-UP
Play with doll-house concept
or by using the apartment.
Provides a physical dimen-
sion.
Explorative semi-testing of
prototypes.
User low
What do the potential user groups think about the product / service?
Which values do you imagine that the product / service should bring?
User medium
How does the user experience the product / service?
Technology low
Which issues will be solved by the technology?
What shall it be able to do?
What kind of data should be collected and how?
Technology medium
When and in which situations does the technology fail?
Evaluation of interaction with the technology?
Does the user have confidence in the technology?
How well does the technology solve the chosen problems?
Mock-up
5
FIELD VISITS Go into the field and the
context which the product/
service is designed for. Expe-
rience what is happening.
Provides an understanding of
who, what and where we are
designing for.
Provides context.
User low
Is there any existing research on how users experience live with this
problem?
User medium
What is the users’ current practice?
What type of challenges are there?
Organization low
How is the problem handled today within the organization?
What are the present practices?
USER
INTERVIEWS
Go out to the users, talk to
them about what maers to
them. Use an interview guide
- get more perspectives from
different users.
Who are our users, what are
their values and what maer to
them?
Do they agree with each other?
What do they think about the
product/service?
User low
Is there any existing research on how users experience live with this
problem?
Are there any strong user groups / influencers in the field?
User medium
What is the users’ current practice?
Where does the product give increased value to the user?
How indirect is the interaction with the users?
What type of challenges are there?
Organization low
How is the problem handled today within the organization?
What are the present practices?
6
STAKEHOLDER
MAP
Identify stakeholders, map
relations to the product and
to each other.
Who are our stakeholders?
What are their relations to each
other and the product?
Who are essential and who are
disposable?
Organization low
Which stakeholders are present (practices)?
What roles do they play and how relevant are they?
Which stakeholders are there in relation to the product?
Organization medium
How is the relation between stakeholders and the product / service?
Who is the decision maker?
How does the relation between the stakeholders affect the product /
service?
Organization high
What is the relationship between buyer and user?
Who is responsible for buying?
Who has the decision-making authority?
Figurines,
LileBits
VALUE
NETWORK
Identify the resources avai-
lable in the project as well
as which stakeholders have
which resources.
Which resources are available in
relation to our project/in relati-
on to this product/service?
Organization low
How is the relation between stakeholders and the product / service?
Who is the decision maker?
How does the relation between the stakeholders affect the product /
service?
Tangible
Arrows
RISK AND
VALUES
Through, e.g. interviews, an
overview of the stakeholders’
different values and risks are
identified.
What motivates the different
stakeholders? What can make
them withdraw?
Organization low
Which stakeholders are present (practices)?
What roles do they play and how relevant are they?
Which stakeholders are there in relation to the product?
COMPETITOR
ANALYSIS
Through, e.g. dialogue or
desk research, identify who
are direct and indirect com-
petitors on the market.
Are there other products/ser-
vices which solves the same
challenges? Where do we
differentiate ourselves from the
others?
Market low
Have you identified the competitors?
Pinball
7
USABILITY
TESTING OF
PROTOTYPE
Testing the solution with
the users - with a focus on
usability.
Reality check.
Is the solution doing what we
want it to do? Are the users
using the solution as we assu-
med?
Improvement suggestions.
User medium
How does the user experience the product / service?
Are they able to use it / how complex is the prototype?
How much introduction training is it needed?
User high
How does the user interact with the product?
Is the product able to do what it should be doing?
Technology medium
When and in which situations does the technology fail?
Evaluation of interaction with the technology?
Does the user have confidence in the technology?
How well does the technology solve the chosen problems?
Prototype
SIMULATION OF
USE IN LAB
Testing the solution in a ’con-
trolled’ environment.
Test specific scenarios/situa-
tions. Test before product is
completely finished. How is our
product working in this specific
context?
User medium
How does the user experience the product / service?
Are they able to use it / how complex is the prototype?
How much introduction training is it needed?
User high
How does the user interact with the product?
Is the product able to do what it should be doing?
Technology medium
When and in which situations does the technology fail?
Evaluation of interaction with the technology?
Does the user have confidence in the technology?
How well does the technology solve the chosen problems?
Test
apartment
8
MULTI-
STAKEHOLDER
WORKSHOP
Gathering the different stake-
holders. The workshop could
include - a presentation of
the solution so far, a proto-
type demo and a stakeholder
feedback session.
Gives all stakeholders a voice.
Illuminate different aspects of
the product.
May show discrepancies.
User low
Which user roles are important in relation to the product?
What do the potential user groups think about the product / service?
Organization low
Which stakeholders are present (practices)?
What roles do they play and how relevant are they?
Which stakeholders are there in relation to the product?
Organization medium
How is the relation between stakeholders and the product / service?
Who is the decision maker?
How does the relation between the stakeholders affect the product /
service?
Organization high
What is the relationship between buyer and user?
Who is responsible for buying?
Who has the decision-making authority?
9
PROTOTYPE
DEMO
Showing the prototype in
action.
Stakeholder feedback.
Company sharing.
Showing investors what their
investment is used for.
User medium
How does the user experience the product / service?
Are they able to use it / how complex is the prototype?
How much introduction training is it needed?
User high
How does the user interact with the product?
Is the product able to do what it should be doing?
Organization high
What does the organisation experience?
How satisfied are they with the solution?
Technology medium
When and in which situations does the technology fail?
Evaluation of interaction with the technology?
Does the user have confidence in the technology?
How well does the technology solve the chosen problems?
10
FIELD TRIAL Testing the prototype in the
environment for which it is
intended, with the intended
users.
Is the solution working as
intended in the environment we
intended? Are the users using
the solution as we assumed?
User medium
Where does the product give increased value to the user?
What type of challenges are there?
How does the user experience the product / service?
Are they able to use it / how complex is the prototype?
How much introduction training is it needed?
User high
How does the user interact with the product?
Is the product able to do what it should be doing?
Does the user experience continuance in service?
Do they trust the product?
How much of the functionality is used?
Is the product able to do what it should be doing?
Organization high
What does the organisation experience?
How satisfied are they with the solution?
What value is experienced in terms of willingness to pay?
Technology medium
When and in which situations does the technology fail?
Evaluation of interaction with the technology?
Does the user have confidence in the technology?
How well does the technology solve the chosen problems?
11
VIDEO STUDY
OF SOLUTION
IN USE
Conducting, for instance,
field trials, simulations or
prototype demos, and video
recording the sessions with
the purpose of analyzing the
videos aerwards.
By examining the testing sessi-
ons in greater detail, it is possi-
ble to see nuances and details
of the product use that did not
become apparent at the test
itself.
User medium
How does the user experience the product / service?
Are they able to use it / how complex is the prototype?
How much introduction training is it needed?
User high
How does the user interact with the product?
Is the product able to do what it should be doing?
Technology medium
When and in which situations does the technology fail?
Evaluation of interaction with the technology?
Does the user have confidence in the technology?
How well does the technology solve the chosen problems?
PROBES More open version of ’op-
tællinger’. Via for instance
photos and other equipment,
the user documents his/her
everyday life in relation to
the chosen focus.
Can provide knowledge about
actual use.
User low
Is there any existing research on how users experience live with this
problem?
What categorizes the type of users? - and how do they feel about tech-
nology / “surveillance”, ethically?
MULTI-
STAKEHOLDER
THEATRE
Participants play an impro-
vised role as the different
stakeholders and users.
Uncovering stakeholder relati-
ons.
Uncovering the relation bet-
ween product and users.
Organization medium
How is the relation between stakeholders and the product / service?
Who is the decision maker?
How does the relation between the stakeholders affect the product /
service?
Organization high
What is the relationship between buyer and user?
Who is responsible for buying? Who has the decision-making authori-
ty?
12
OBJECT
THEATRE
Umbrella term for among
other things:
Object Dating
‘Children
In one version, participants
must find and date another
object and in the other, chil-
dren of the product amongst
the other objects - and ex-
plain why.
Can uncover potential relations
between objects before a functi-
onal product exists.
User low
Which values do you imagine that the product / service should bring?
Technology low
Which issues will be solved by the technology?
What shall it be able to do?
13
14
15
TOOLS
&
MATURITY
LEVELS
16
TOOLS SHORT DESCRIPTION WHICH TYPE OF KNOWLEDGE CAN
IT GIVE?
WHAT CAN IT HELP TO ANSWER IN AN IOT CONTEXT?
THE METHOD IS RELEVANT IN RELATION TO WHICH KEY QUESTIONS?
FACILITATION
SILVERSET A collection of shiny objects. Concrete thinking/dialogue tool
About pains & gains
About stakeholder mapping
User low
Is there any existing research on how users experience live with
this problem?
Which values do you imagine that the product / service should
bring?
User medium
Where does the product give increased value to the user?
Organization low
Which stakeholders are present (practices)?
What roles do they play and how relevant are they?
Which stakeholders are there in relation to the product?
Organization medium
How is the relation between stakeholders and the product / ser-
vice?
Who is the decision maker?
Organization high
What is the relationship between buyer and user?
Who is responsible for buying?
Who has the decision-making authority?
What are the requirements for the organisation?
Which barriers should be taken into account?
Introductory idea phase.
Explorative phases together with the company.
Pains & Gains
Stakeholder
Mapping
Ask participants
to pick objects
that represent
customer pains &
gains.
The process must
be semi-struc-
tured with
aention towards
facilitator’s own
influence.
Needs process
management.
17
TOY TRAIN
SET
Train set in wood. Dialogue tool.
User journey.
User low
What is the users’ current practice?
Where does the product give increased value to the user?
How indirect is the interaction with the users?
What type of challenges are there?
Market medium
Have you identified the unique?
Customer
Journey
Ask participants
to build the user
journey with the
toy train set.
FIGURINES Small silhouee figures
which represents different
stakeholders.
One-on-one interview and
group work.
Stakeholder analysis.
Organization low
Which stakeholders are present (practices)?
What roles do they play and how relevant are they?
Which stakeholders are there in relation to the product?
Organization medium
How is the relation between stakeholders and the product / ser-
vice?
Who is the decision maker?
How does the relation between the stakeholders affect the product
/ service?
Organization high
What is the relationship between buyer and user?
Who is responsible for buying?
Who has the decision-making authority?
Stakeholder
Mapping
Ask partici-
pants to choose
figurines corre-
sponding to the
stakeholders in
the project.
TANGIBLE
ARROWS
By using tangible arrows,
stakeholders can reorganize,
discuss and manipulate the
flow of resources between
them.
Overview of available resources.
How are the resources distribu-
ted?
Organization medium
How is the relation between stakeholders and the product / ser-
vice?
Who is the decision maker?
How does the relation between the stakeholders affect the product
/ service?
Value Network
Ask participants
to write down
resources on squ-
are blocks and
use the arrows to
indicate flow.
18
PINBALL Parts to build a pinball track. Structured approach to parame-
ter discussion.
Association/dialogue tool for
uncovering the importance and
meaning of different elements in
relation to a product, company
or network.
For instance, competitor analy-
sis.
Market medium - identify competitors
Market high - the 4 P’s
Competitor
Analysis
Ask participants
to build a pinball
track by identify
ing competitive
parameters.
LITTLEBITS Electronic building block to
illustrate connections.
Interview tool to think about
electronic connections and IoT
potential in early stages.
User low
Which stakeholders are present (practices)?
What roles do they play and how relevant are they?
Which stakeholders are there in relation to the product?
Organization low
How is the relation between stakeholders and the product / ser-
vice?
Who is the decision maker?
How does the relation between the stakeholders affect the product
/ service?
Organization medium
What is the relationship between buyer and user?
Who is responsible for buying?
Who has the decision-making authority?
Organization high
What is the relationship between buyer and user?
Who is responsible for buying?
Who has the decision-making authority?
Technology low
Which issues will be solved by the technology?
What shall it be able to do?
What kind of data should be collected and how?
Stakeholder
Mapping
Ask participants
to build a map of
the stakeholders,
choosing the in-
puts and outputs
of each stake-
holder and using
wires and gates
to show how they
connect.
19
SCALE
MODELLING
Down-scaled models of the
seing in which the prodcut
must be apart and of the
product itself.
Gives a sense of the product’s
function in real life and the op-
portunity to couple with other
products.
Can be used before the functio-
nal prototype.
Technology low
Which issues will be solved by the technology?
What shall it be able to do?
What kind of data should be collected and how?
Ask participants
to build and
implement scaled
versions of their
product(s).
20
21
READI-
NESS
LEVELS
22
TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETAL READINESS
When a company steps in the door of the IoT Lab, the first challenge is to determine where are they? How far along is
the company with its technology, do they have a clear overview of who their stakeholders are, what about user needs,
market opportunity and what are they doing with the data they are collecting? To determine the readiness of the
company in relation to IoT and thereby how to best support it through the IoT Lab, the company will be rated on four
quadrants (user, market, organization and data) with respect to both their societal readiness levels and technology
readiness levels.
LEVELS OF READINESS
NASA in the 60s defined nine levels of technology read-
iness (TRL), which are now used broadly to assess the
maturity level of a new technology [1]. The levels reflect
different steps in a development process, from observing
basic principles (level 1) to proving a system in an opera-
tional environment (level 9).
To also take into account the human side of new innova-
tions, Innovation Fund Denmark recently defined nine
levels of societal readiness (SRL), which are used to assess
the level of societal adaption for social and technical
solutions [2]. The societal readiness levels reflect the
different steps of a development process, from identify-
ing problem and readiness level (level 1) to proving the
solution in the relevant environment (level 9).
The SRL and TRL levels combined with the four quad-
rants allow projects, products or innovations to be rated
quite precisely. Based on that, a plan can be made, to
aid the particular projects, products or innovations to
evolve – to improve and refine the solution. TRL and SRL
levels are useful for establishing a starting point for a
future plan as well as seing a goal for where the compa-
ny wants to be once they have gone through the IoT Lab.
The main place where the IoT Lab can aid companies is
improving on the SRL ladder, while progressing in TRL
levels falls within the realm of what the company can do.
DETERMINING YOUR STARTING POINT
To assess where a company is in relation to TRL and SRL,
a 3D mapping of the levels in relation to the four quad-
rants can be conducted. On the x-axis, the four quadrants
are located, with each quadrant divided into three steps.
Each of the three represents a range of levels, with the
first being levels 1-3, the second levels 4-6 and the third
levels 7-9. On the y-axis, the TRL levels are presented,
also in three steps corresponding to three clusters of
levels (1-3, 4-6, 7-9).
When mapping, the company should assess how far
along they are within the four quadrants, by placing
colored rubber bands in the corresponding hooks repre-
senting the level ranges. This allows for conversation and
discussion between the participants. Once the levels have
been assessed, a starting point has been established and
the table on the right can be used to determine how and
where to start the IoT Lab process.
TRL
SRL
The promised
land
9
9
1
1 4
4
Here the IoT Lab can help
Here the company has to move
WHERE CAN THE IOT LAB HELP? THE TANGIBLE TRL/SRL MAPPING TOOL
23
SUGGESTION FOR APPROPRIATE RESEARCH METHODS DEPENDING ON SOCIETAL READINESS AND USER/ORGANIZATION/MARKET/DATA.
METHODS AND ACTIVITIES CORRESPONDING TO SOCIETAL READINESS LEVELS
In the following, we present 17 methods that can aid companies in exploring and advancing their products, solutions
and services in the IoT Lab. Our primary focus is on users and the lower societal readiness levels. Other partners will
need to suggest how to work with market and data.
SRL 1-3
The company has yet to fulfill
stages 1-3. Stages 1-3 reflect
the early work in a research
project, including suggesting
and testing on a preliminary
basis a technical and/or social
solution to a technical or a
societal problem.
SRL 4-6
The company has yet to fulfill
stages 4-6. Stages 4-6 rep-
resent the actual solution,
research hypothesis, and test-
ing in the relevant context in
co-operation with stakehold-
ers, while keeping a focus on
impact and society’s readiness.
SRL 7-9
The company has yet to fulfill
stages 7-9. Stages 7-9 include
the end stages of the research
project, including refining the
solution(s), implementation
and dissemination of results
and/or solution(s).
USER USER PROBLEM IDENTIFIED
Customer journey (Toy Train)
Pains & gains (SilverSet+)
Scenario Acting with mock-up
Field visits + user interviews
USER PROBLEM IS REAL AND SOLVA-
BLE
Usability testing of prototype
Simulation of use in lab
SOLUTION PRACTICABLE IN USE
Field trial
Video study of solution in use
ORGANIZATION STAKEHOLDERS IDENTIFIED
Stakeholder map (Figurines)
Value network (Tangible
Arrows)
Risks & Values
STAKEHOLDER INTERESTS CONFIRMED
Multi-stakeholder workshop
Prototype demo
STAKEHOLDER RELATIONS
ESTABLISHED
MARKET BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY IDENTIFIED
Competitor analysis (Pinball)
Business model canvas
BUSINESS POTENTIAL CALCULATED BUSINESS VALIDATED
DATA DATA CHALLENGES IDENTIFIED
Data overview map
Data value chart
DATA INFLUENCES CONFIRMED DATA PROTECTION IN PLACE
24
25
METHODS
FOR SRL
1-3
26
USER
Let us remind ourselves what stages 1-3 entails. Stages 1-3 reflect the early work in a research project, including sug-
gesting and testing on a preliminary basis a technical and/or social solution to a technical or a societal problem.
PAINS & GAINS (SILVERSET)
The SilverSet is a collection of shiny objects that can be
used for mapping stakeholder relations, in a slightly more
abstract way than Figurines [3]. The SilverSet provides
inspiration to think of many different people, functions,
organizations that may relate to a new innovation. We
have also used it to challenge business people to map
out value networks. The advantage of the SilverSet is
that it triggers many associations, when participants are
encouraged to see connections. Works in one-on-one
interviews but beer in groups. In the context of IoT, it
is important to understand the different stakeholders’
businesses and their influences. The SilverSet is a tool for
creating a discussion about the desired outcomes of the
various stakeholders and their expectations.
CUSTOMER JOURNEY (TOY TRAIN SET)
The Toy Train Set is a wooden railway set for children
with pieces such as stations, a bridge, a tunnel, loco-
motives, carriages and passengers [4]. The purpose of
the Toy Train Set is to challenge participants, such as
managers and customers, to build a model of a customer
journey. The Toy Train Set is used in facilitated work-
shops, where groups of participants are asked to build
the customer journey together. This sparks discussions
about the journey and may prompt new opportunities.
In an IoT context, the Toy Train Set can be used to build
the journey from device(s) to user. This may show how
information is sent to different devices, brought back to
the user and how this connects.
COMPANY MANAGERS USE THE SILVERSET TO DISCUSS PAINS & GAINS [3]
BUSINESS EMPLOYEES BUILD A CUSTOMER JOURNEY WITH TOY TRAIN SET
[4]
27
USER
SCENARIO ACTING WITH MOCK-UPS
Scenario acting is a method for trying out different
scenarios and ideas in a very immediate fashion. Creat-
ing quick mock-ups with the purpose of conveying early
stage concepts and ideas can be very beneficial, and by
physically engaging with these mock-ups we have the op-
portunity to see, try and test what works and what does
not. Generating specific scenarios in which the mock-ups
should function lets us go beyond scratching the surface
and allows a closer examination of whether this idea or
concept would actually work in real life. Scenario act-
ing with mock-ups can be used to try out different early
stage solutions in realistic situations without needing a
finished prototype, which in an IoT context may require
a system for data handling and other developmentally
heavy parts.
FIELD VISITS + USER INTERVIEWS
A good way to get a sense of who, what and where is to go
out into the world and visit the people and the place(s),
which we are designing for. This gives us a reality check,
illuminates ideas for designs and concepts, as well as
bring our process closer to those we are designing for.
Field visits and user interviews connect the developers,
designers and company with the field. When conducting
field visits, it is important to talk to the people who are
actually doing the work and to observe the different work
procedures, to gain an understanding of where our prod-
uct/service creates value. Especially in an IoT context,
it is important for designers and developers to visit the
people on the other end of the product/service and talk
to them about their daily life, needs and wishes. Field vis-
its and user interviews allow us to test our assumptions
about what, where and who we are designing for.
ENGAGING WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS IN SCENARIO ACTING WITH MOCK-
UPS. STUDENTS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN DENMARK
INVESTIGATING AN INTENDED ENVIRONMENT. HERE, A PROJECT CASE ON
INDOOR CLIMATE AT SCHOOLS
28
ORGANIZATION
STAKEHOLDER MAP (FIGURINES)
Figurines is a tool that has proven fruitful for health-re-
lated projects. Figurines are silhouees representing dif-
ferent stakeholders [5]. In a fun way they challenge par-
ticipants to think about ‘who are the users?’ and map out
who relates to whom. The Figurines are human shaped
and thus ensure focus on people – of many different ages,
professions and functions. Through repositioning the
Figurines on a map, relations are challenged, new oppor-
tunities identified, and new discussion emerge. Figurines
work in one-on-one interviews, but also encourage
groups of people to rearrange and manipulate the con-
stellations. As IoT solutions per definition are (product/
service) systems, identifying and mapping the different
players connected with the users and how they relate
both to the users and the IoT devices can aid, firstly, in
gaining a deeper understanding of the user and secondly,
visualize the complex relations between different stake-
holders and how those relations might affect each other.
VALUE NETWORK (TANGIBLE ARROWS)
Tangible arrows are used to show how the different re-
sources flow between stakeholders in and into the project
[6]. Stakeholders are asked to write their resources and
inputs into the project on square blocks. The tangible
nature of the arrows allows stakeholders to reorganize,
discuss and manipulate the flow. Tangible arrows can
both visualize the business model, facilitate the discovery
of opportunities and highlight problems and relation-
ships. Tangible Arrows are used during a facilitated work-
shop. In an IoT context, Tangible Arrows allow different
stakeholders to visualize their say in the project as well as
provide a seing for discussing the important resources
and how they flow between stakeholders.
FIGURINES DESIGNED FOR HEALTHCARE PROFESSIONALS TO MAP USERS
AND STAKEHOLDERS [5]
PARTICIPANTS USE FIGURINES TO EXPLAIN RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN
PATIENT AND DOCTOR [5]
Participatory Innovation Conference 2013, Lahti, Finland www.pin-c2013.org/ 1
HOW TANGIBLE ARROWS CREATE
INNOVATIVE RELATIONS
ROBIN VAN OORSCHOT
MADS CLAUSEN INSTITUTE, SPIRE
ROVON11@STUDENT.SDU.DK
ABSTRACT
In this publication I introduce the tangible arrow
model, a tangible business model. After the model
is explained, I describe a case study that illustrates
how the model is used. I compare the tangible
arrow model with other tangible business models
and conclude how this model helps to vizualize
stakeholder relations, helps to see relations in the
business and invites to come up with new
opportunities.
INTRODUCTION
Business Models are important in every organization.
Magretta describes why business models matter
(Magretta 2002): business models help to define a
business and these definitions bring clarity. However,
Margretta noticed that, especially during the busting of
the dotcom bubble, a lot of business models were ill
defined.
Mitchell and Buur (2010) elaborated on Magretta’s
findings and suggested to make values of business
models tangible to better understand the creation of
these values; which was the first notion of tangible
business models. Mitchell and Buur see as main value
of business model models to ‘Facilitate thinking in
systems, create simplicity, express the vivacity of the
business, make it easier to think big, provoke new
connections and associations, support story telling,
work across language barriers, and provide easy to
recollect experiences. In addition the interactive and
collaborative nature of tangible business models show
potential as catalysts to co-construct new possibilities
for innovation.(Mitchell and Buur 2010, p4)
One year later Lübbe (2011) recommended for making
business models to map out the information since
people only have limited processing capacity. This is
based on Miller’s (1956) research which agues that
people can only remember 7 ‘items’ (plus or minus 2) at
a time. In making business models tangible, it becomes
easier to see and also to remember what a business
model is about.
Heinemann et al. (2011) investigated in the process of
making sense of things’ in participatory settings. Their
research ends with some research questions: (a) How do
the specific physical properties (such as texture, color,
size, and manipulability) of “things” shape how
participants attend to and make sense of them? (b) How
do the experience and expertise of participants in
collaborative activities influence the way in which they
attend to and make sense of “things”? (Heinemann et al,
2011 p4)
The research conducted in the field of tangible business
models raises more questions than it provides answers.
What are the main values of tangible business models
for creating innovation and how do multiple
characteristics of these models play a role in creating
these values? The upcoming case study will explore
this.
TANGIBLE ARROW MODEL
This research is a result of the creation of a tangible
model for a participatory innovation (Buur and
Matthews 2010) course in October 2011. This course
was part of the IT Product Design program at the
University of Southern Denmark.
Figure 1: The tangible arrow model that contains multiple playing
boards on which participants store their recourse blocks. In between
the playing boards, relations are mapped out using arrows and blocks.
ARROWS USED TO OUTLINE AND NEGOTIATE VALUE NETWORK [6]
29
ORGANIZATION
RISK & VALUES
In every project, the motivation of the stakeholders
varies. Gaining an overview of what drives the different
stakeholders and what might discourage them from
engaging in a project is very useful in understanding and
handling stakeholders. Mapping risks and values is done
by going through each stakeholder and evaluating their
role in the project, what they get out of it and what might
make them withdraw. Values and risks might also be a
side-product of some of the other stakeholder methods,
such as Tangible Arrows and Figurines. Conducting a
values and risks analysis of all stakeholders provides an
overview, as wells as awareness points to where a project
might fail.
STAKEHOLDERS RISKS
VALUES
CITIZENS
MUNICIPALITY
CARE HOME
HOME CARE
HOSPITAL
PSYCHIATRIC DEPT.
ALERTOCARE
LIFE-PARTNERS
IOT PLATFORM PROVIDER
WELFARETECH
INT. PARTNERS
IOT LAB
PUBLIC INTELLIGENCE
SDU
TABLE USED TO DETERMINE VALUES AND RISKS FOR STAKEHOLDERS
INVOLVED IN THE HUMANFIT PROJECT
30
MARKET
COMPETITOR ANALYSIS (PINBALL)
The Pinball model’s purpose is to get participants e.g.
company managers, to discuss which different factors
may affect their businesses and how [7,9]. The Pinball
model allows participants to place levers and obstacles
on an inclined surface, mimicking a pinball machine.
Marbles are then rolled down and depending on where
the obstacles have been placed, the marbles end up in
different places at the boom of the slope. Obstacles and
end areas can represent various things such as competi-
tors or scarce resources. The Pinball model is presented
and used during a facilitated workshop. In an IoT context,
the Pinball model can be used to discuss the different
hindrances that may influence the IoT device(s), the com-
panies and the network.
BUSINESS MODEL CANVAS
The purpose of the Business Model Canvas is to system-
atically go through nine business model building blocks
and write down the offerings and plans of the company in
relation to four overall topics: value proposition, infra-
structure, customers and finances [8]. This allows the
company to align its activities and get an overview of the
different aspects of their business. The Business Model
Canvas is a visual way to map the business. It is a good
starting point for further business exploration as well
as an opportunity to discuss the value of the different
business aspects. In an IoT context, the Business Model
Canvas can help outline the benefits of an IoT solution
compared to non-IoT solutions, while also providing a
list of the necessary channels to go through to provide an
IoT solution.
PARTICIPANTS USE THE PINBALL MODEL TO DISCUSS CUSTOMER PREFER-
ENCES [9]
THE BUSINESS MODEL CANVAS [8]
31
DATA
DATA OVERVIEW MAP
An important question to ask is what data do we actually
create and get through our solution? IoT systems, wheth-
er more or less complex, involves data in different shapes
and for different purposes. The Data Overview Map is
created through outlining the data a company need, have
and can provide. This is beneficial, firstly, because it pro-
vides an overview of all the available and needed data in
the project. Secondly, the overview shows what data the
company already has access to and what kind of data they
need to acquire for their product to function optimally.
Thirdly, it is the ground work for evaluating how the data
is/can be connected and utilized, which is the purpose of
the Data Value Chart described below. In an IoT context,
data is a huge part of the equation and by creating an
overview of the data involved in a project, companies
stand stronger in creating and adapting their solutions to
the data available.
DATA VALUE CHART
Building on the Data Overview Map described above, the
Data Value Chart is a tool to discover and discuss how the
different data is connected, how can we best utilize the
data and what is the value of the data. Through mapping
how the data is connected, interdependencies between
data as well as possible development opportunities might
evolve. Furthermore, new ideas may emerge through the
possibility of combining products and services based on
their data usage, needs or outputs. In an IoT context, the
Data Value Chart can aid in determining the importance
of the different data inputs and outputs along with possi-
ble new solutions.
DATA OVERVIEW MAP CREATED DURING A DESIGN SPRINT WITH STUDENTS
AT THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN DENMARK
DIFFERENT DATA INPUTS AND HOW THEY ARE CONNECTED
32
33
METHODS
FOR
SRL 4-6
34
USER
Below, the methods which benefit projects at SRL stages 4-6 are described. Stages 4-6 represent the actual solution,
research hypothesis, and testing in the relevant context in co-operation with stakeholders, while keeping a focus on
impact and society’s readiness.
USABILITY TESTING OF PROTOTYPE
Once a prototype of the solution has been created, it
needs to be tested. A useful way of testing and geing
feedback on a prototype is usability testing. Usability
testing entails involving the users in the testing of the
prototype. Does the product work as intended? This can
be seen as one or multiple iterations of the product, with
each testing session providing feedback, advantages, dis-
advantages and improvement suggestions from the peo-
ple who will use the product in the end. Usability testing
is a reality check and matching of expectations between
designers and users. In an IoT context, usability testing
is beneficial for testing both the product/service created
along with the underlying data processing, depending on
how sophisticated the prototype is.
SIMULATION OF USE IN LAB
Depending on the sophistication level of the prototype,
a way of bringing users into the testing process of the
solution is through the simulation of use in lab. Inviting
users to aend simulation sessions in the lab provides an
opportunity to test a product in a ‘controlled’ environ-
ment. The advantages of simulation in a lab are that you
can test specific scenarios or cases and you can, to some
extent, control the environment in which the test is being
conducted. Because the simulation is being conducted in
the lab, it is possible to ‘fake’ certain parts of the product,
for instance, a data transfer between the product and a
service, should that part of the solution not be fully func-
tioning. In an IoT context, simulation in the lab allows us
to test the product with users in specific situations even
though the product is not coupled with the real world or
other IoT devices (yet).
TWO PARTICIPANTS TESTING A PROTOTYPE. PROJECT AT THE UNIVERSITY
OF SOUTHERN DENMARK
PARTICIPANTS SIMULATING USE. STUDENTS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF
SOUTHERN DENMARK
35
ORGANIZATION
MULTI STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP
Different stakeholders have different viewpoints, values
and expectations of the outcome of the project. Giving
all the voices an outlet, both for the benefit of the prod-
uct developers, but also the other stakeholders provide
an interesting opportunity to get different perspectives
on the solution. Furthermore, the various viewpoints
illuminate different aspects of the solution and may show
discrepancies or counterproductive facets of the solution.
A multi stakeholder workshop could include presentation
of the solution so far, a prototype demo or a stakeholder
feedback session. In an IoT context, the stakeholders’
understanding and knowledge of, for instance, data, work
procedures and technology may differ vastly because
many different people and professions are involved in IoT
projects. Therefore, a gathering of perspectives is benefi-
cial for seeing the big picture.
PROTOTYPE DEMO
When a prototype has gone through some iterations and
perhaps have been usability tested, it is a good idea to
demonstrate what the prototype can do, how it works
and how it benefits the users. This can be done as, for in-
stance, part of a multi stakeholder workshop. A prototype
demonstration can also be done to show the rest of the
company what the project team are working on, show the
stakeholders how the project is going or show the inves-
tors where their money is going.
STAKEHOLDERS ENGAGING WITH EACH OTHER DURING A STAKEHOLDER
WORKSHOP. STUDENTS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN DENMARK
SHOWING A PROTOTYPE IN ACTION. PROJECT AT THE UNIVERSITY OF
SOUTHERN DENMARK
36
37
METHODS
FOR
SRL 7-9
38
USER
In the following, two methods beneficial for projects at SRL stages 7-9 are outlined. Stages 7-9 include the end stages
of the research project, including refining the solution(s), implementation and dissemination of results and/or solu-
tion(s).
FIELD TRIAL
Once the prototype has become sophisticated and func-
tional enough, it can be taken out into the field and tested
in the intended environment with the future users. In
the field trial, the prototype is tested at the location it is
intended for, as part of the final testing sessions and re-
fining iterations before product launch. Taking the solu-
tion out into the field is an opportunity to experience the
solution where it is envisioned and analyze whether any
final refining can be done. In an IoT context, field trials
involve testing the entire IoT solution (product/service,
data handling, etc.) in the environment and situations for
which is designed.
VIDEO STUDY OF SOLUTION IN USE
When conducting, for instance, the field trial, it is bene-
ficial to video record the sessions. This allows us to study
the trial session in greater detail than what is possible
while in the middle of the situation. Furthermore, it
might disturb the trial if designer, developers or others
are present when the solution is tested and here video
provides a less intrusive alternative. Video allow us to go
over the same footage again and again, perhaps we notice
things we may not have seen in field trial. This can aid in
refining the solution before launch. In an IoT context, a
video study can, for instance, be used to investigate users
interacting with the solution.
A VISITOR AT A MUSEUM TESTING A PROTOTYPE OF AN EXHIBIT. PROJECT
AT THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN DENMARK
A RESEARCHER CONDUCTING A VIDEO STUDY. EMPLOYEE AT THE UNIVER-
SITY OF SOUTHERN DENMARK
39
40
41
REFER-
ENCES
42
REFERENCES
1. NASA. Technology Readiness Level. 2012 [cited 2019
21/01]; Available from: hps://www.nasa.gov/directo-
rates/heo/scan/engineering/technology/txt_accordi-
on1.html.
2. Denmark, I.F. Societal Readiness Levels (SRL) defined
according to Innovation Fund Denmark. 2018 [cited
2019 15/01]; Available from: hps://innovationsfonden.
dk/sites/default/files/2018-08/societal_readiness_lev-
els_-_srl.pdf.
3. Buur, J., B. Ankenbrand, and R. Mitchell, Participatory
Business Modelling. CoDesign, 2013. 9(1): p. 55-71.
4. Mitchell, R., A. Caglio, and J. Buur. Oops! Moments:
Kinetic Material in Participatory Workshops. in Nordic
Design Research Conference 2013. 2013. Copenha-
gen-Malmö, Denmark/Sweden.
5. Buur, J., et al. Emergent Meaning & Innovative Insights
with Figurines. in Participatory Innovation Conference
2018. 2018. Eskilstuna, Sweden.
6. Oorschot, R.v. How Tangible Arrows Create Innovative
Relations. in Participatory Innovation Conference 2013.
2013. Lahti, Finland.
7. Mitchell, R. and J. Buur. Tangible Business Model
Sketches to Support Participatory Innovation. in DE-
SIRE’10. 2010. Aarhus, Denmark.
8. Osterwalder, A. and Y. Pigneur, Business model gener-
ation: a handbook for visionaries, game changers, and
challengers. 2010: John Wiley & Sons.
9. Buur, J. & Gudiksen, S. Interactive Pinball Business. in
NordiCHI’12. 2012. Copenhagen, Denmark.
43
IoT Lab Human FIT is a collaboration project between Public Intelligence,
Welfare Tech, SDU, Microsoft, Life Partners, and Alerto.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
We wish to alert facilitators to the merits of deploying kinetic resources within workshops. Design materials and activities involving unpredictable kinetic aspects such as balancing, bouncing, rolling and falling can lead to surprises that provoke a lively challenging of assumptions. Based on video data from many innovation workshops we show how materials with such dynamic qualities seem particularly suited to scaffold groups in exploring 'if – then' causalities. Discussions concerning humour, aesthetics and agency help articulate the qualities of engagement offered by kinetic resources. Although our starting point is experiments in participatory business modelling, a kinetic oriented understanding of material offers insights for developing participatory and co-design activities more generally.
Conference Paper
Interaction design expands into new fields. Interaction design and business model innovation is a promising meeting of disciplines: Many businesses see the need to rethink their ways of doing business, and, as business models pose highly dynamic and interactive problems, interaction design has much to offer. This paper compares 'tangible business models' in the form of pinball-like contraptions, designed by interaction design students with those developed by groups of professionals around concrete business issues. We will show how the interactive models encourage business people to play with hypotheses and experiment with scenarios as a way of innovating their business models, and why this is so.
Conference Paper
This paper introduces the notion of "tangible business model sketches" -- interactive sculpture-like mechanisms -- to stimulate discussions concerning how businesses create and capture value. We outline the need for opening up discussions around innovation that these models address and their proposed utility for designers. We present three examples that model aspects of lighting design, audiology and internet businesses. Responses from industrial partners suggest that unforeseen interactions and unpredictable feedback are important qualities for tangible business models to achieve the aim of expanding business discussions among non-specialists like designers.
Societal Readiness Levels (SRL) defined according to Innovation Fund Denmark
  • I F Denmark
Denmark, I.F. Societal Readiness Levels (SRL) defined according to Innovation Fund Denmark. 2018 [cited 2019 15/01]; Available from: https://innovationsfonden. dk/sites/default/files/2018-08/societal_readiness_lev-els_-_srl.pdf.
Emergent Meaning & Innovative Insights with Figurines
  • J Buur
Buur, J., et al. Emergent Meaning & Innovative Insights with Figurines. in Participatory Innovation Conference 2018. 2018. Eskilstuna, Sweden.
How Tangible Arrows Create Innovative Relations
  • R V Oorschot
Oorschot, R.v. How Tangible Arrows Create Innovative Relations. in Participatory Innovation Conference 2013. 2013. Lahti, Finland.