WP4 - Visualization of and user interaction with 3D city models Task 4.4 - Embedding user innovation in technology design

Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB)

Studies on Media, Information & Telecommunication (SMIT)

URBAN Plenary Meeting Diepenbeek, February 10, 2009

WP4 - Visualization of and user interaction with 3D city models

Task 4.4 - Embedding user innovation in technology design

Marinka Vangenck

Contents

 Project task

 Why users in innovation?

 The praxis of user-driven innovation (UDI)

 Main findings

1. UDI in URBAN

2. UDI project approach

3. (Methodological reflections)

 Next steps

Project task

Task 4.4 ‘Embedding user innovation in technology design’

 Integrate user research in technological development process.

 First iteration of Task 4.4 (October ‘08 - January ‘09):

 Trace the ‘hooks’ where user input could guide the development process.

Project task: it happens also elsewhere…

 INTEL People & Practices Research Lab

 Director: Maria Bezaitis, Ph.D.

 Research

 Explore fundamental paradigms and phenomena of everyday life

 How people, practices, and institutions matter to technological innovation?

 Current projects

 Cultural Computing >

 Globalization looms large all around us. One key aspect of this has been the flows, mobilities and connections of people, objects and information across the globe.

These flows affect cultural understandings of time, space, technology and identity.

 Mobility >

 PaPR's study dubbed "Anywhere at Work" was initiated in 1997 focused on workers who spend their time away from the standard PC desktop or in some cases workers with no access to a desktop PC.

 Technology and Communities >

 We tend to think of the adoption of personal computing as a collection of singular purchase designs by individual users. For many people in affluent communities (the US, for instance) a PC purchase might be an individual or household decision.

 BUT also: Alcatel-Lucent Bell Labs, Microsoft, Philips, NOKIA, Motorola,…

Why users in innovation?

 “Most innovations fail. And companies that don’t innovate die” (Von Hippel, 2005).

 ‘Open Innovation’: one cannot afford to innovate in a vacuum. Combine external and internal ideas for technological advancement (Chesbrough, 2003).

 The user has shifted from a role in the final phase of the (new) product development (NPD) process to becoming an integral part of the value chain.

 The involvement of users in an early stage of development increases the chance that new products and services will actually link in with the needs, expectations and

practices of future (end)users.

The praxis of user-driven innovation

The praxis of user-driven innovation

Overview:

1) Task 4.3A: “Which services could offer a genuine added value for users in a 3D city environment?” Empirical field research = conceptual phase (idea generation & design and development of concept)

2) Task 4.4A: Trace the ‘hooks’ where user input could guide the development

 Interview round with all the involved parties

 Participative workshop with all the project partners

3) Task 4.3B: In-depth empirical field research = test & experimentation phase. Confront users with a proxy of the URBAN technologies

4) Task 4.4B: Evaluate proxy & try to integrate final version of scenarios in design and development process = evaluation phase

The praxis of user-driven innovation

Interviewing the project partners: Objective

 Identify the technological elements and activities of URBAN that are susceptible to change based on former user findings.

 Assess to what extent the Task 4.3 user findings are technologically feasible.

 Reach consensus concerning the two user scenarios.

=> Adjusted and refined user scenarios (‘living’

documents)

The praxis of user-driven innovation

Participative workshop at IBBT Ghent:

 2 user scenarios visualized by means of storyboards

The praxis of user-driven innovation

Participative workshop: Objective

 Assess to what extent we can find a match in the user scenarios between a user perspective and technological feasibility.

 Identify opportunities and bottlenecks with regard to the different components in the 2 scenarios for user-driven innovation, from the perspective of each URBAN partner.

 Define the priorities for the next phase of field research.

Main findings

The findings can be subdivided in 3 main parts:

1. UDI in URBAN: outcome of the interview round and participative workshop.

2. UDI project approach: the implications of UDI for the project approach, 3 central issues:

1. ‘Project direction’

2. ‘Cooperation’

3. ‘Involving the user’ (research)

3. (Methodological reflections): see Deliverable 4.4.1

Main findings: UDI in URBAN (1)

 A chasm between the functional requirements of the technological partners on the one hand and the user practices on the other hand.

 Examples of divergence

 Location-based and public transport services fall out of the scope of URBAN. Only if the services already exist and can easily be integrated into the demonstrator, they can be part of the demonstrator.

 Highlighting important buildings by enlargement conflicts with the technological possibilities in the current 3D model.

 Search functionalities (e.g. Listings, Marollen) have little priority within the project.

=> Solution: discuss (in 4.4B) if and how the functional problem created by a specific user requirement could be solved technologically in this project or in future projects.

Main findings: UDI in URBAN (2)

 However also subjects where user practices and the functional requirements of the project partners coincide:

 Examples of convergence

 User input on visualisation issues would match with the needs of the technological and industrial partners.

 E.g.

 Define the (possible) added value of 3D city visualisation.

 Indicate the required level of details and thus realism.

 To what extent can the user recognize a particular city in the 3D city model?

 To what extent is the outside appearance of a restaurant for instance an important first criterion in the selection of possibly interesting places to eat, when going on a city trip?

Main findings: UDI project approach (1)

Project direction

 An overall technologically oriented vision on the outcome of the URBAN project: URBAN is an opportunity to experiment with and fine-tune the 3D city technology.

 Not yet a shared vision on possible future application domains/contexts for the URBAN technologies.

 3D city service innovation is not (yet) perceived as a priority: the focus is (still) on the technology as such and not on possible services that can be enabled.

 User input on visualisation issues, e.g. the added value of 3D versus 2D and the required level of details and realism, would match the need of the technological partners.

Main findings: UDI project approach (2)

Cooperation

 There is mainly bilateral collaboration (with partners of the same WP and/or data provider) and less overall cooperation among the project partners.

 Cooperation is desirable in a win-win situation, so when both partners can profit of working together.

 A close cooperation between all the involved parties is less self- evident in a research phase in which each partner is still fine-tuning and experimenting.

 A ‘fraction’ within the project: the partners that are working on technical issues versus those that are more working towards the end application and demonstrators.

Main findings: UDI project approach (3)

Involving the user (research)

 User research is mainly perceived as an activity typically taking place in the final phase of NPD.

 After fine-tuning the basic technology, user input can become relevant to decide on the concrete user-oriented direction of the technology.

 User input can be relevant to guide the development of the demonstrators.

Next steps

By means of the 3D city model prototype (= first version of demonstrator 2), we will investigate:

1. The research question formulated in the first iteration of Task 4.3: ‘Which services could offer a genuine added value for users in a 3D city

environment?’.

2. The visualisation issues that have been identified as hooks where user input could guide the development process according to the technological partners, e.g. the possible added value of 3D over 2D.

3. The users’ perception of the 3D city environment and its functionalities.

4. The extent that the proposed semi-realism (e.g. linking pictures to a 3D location) responds to the users’ expectations and needs. This entails that the user will compare photo-realistic high detail city images of GeoAutomation with the generalised 3D city model using the 3D of Tele Atlas combined with some annotated data.

5. Contextual issues, like search issues, to have a clear insight in how users would ‘domesticate’ the 3D city model in the everyday life setting.

Q & A

Marinka Vangenck

marinka

marinka..vangenck@vubvangenck@vub.ac.be.ac.be

prof. dr. Jo Pierson

jojo..pierson@vub.ac.bepierson@vub.ac.be

Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB)

Interdisciplinary institute for BroadBand Technology (IBBT) Pleinlaan 2, B-1050 Brussels - Belgium

http:

http://smit.//smit.vubvub.ac.be.ac.be