At the outset, the M3 project team identified a series of stages to the project process. Broadly speaking these were as follows:
-
Initial workshop with local users:
-
identify and engage local users concerns regarding meaningful metrics for transport decision making in Milton Keynes.
-
Assess the data requirements for the specified concerns/ issues
-
Assess the technology / app issues for the specified concerns
-
Preliminary analysis of user input, distillation of main themes, musical signature composition etc.
-
Second workshop with local users:
Key to the process was a means to engage the public in Milton Keynes and for this the Imagine method was selected. Imagine (Bell and Morse 2010) is a community engagement method broadly based upon the Soft Systems Method of Checkland, but deliberately ordinated around the Kolb learning cycle and previously applied widely in environmental contexts – specifically relating to the application of metrics to issues of local sustainability (Checkland and Poulter 2006; Kolb 1984; Bell et al. 2013). The Imagine method was developed as a means to engage local populations in co-design of sustainability measurement and in problem structuring (Pidd 2011; Bell and Morse 2013) by engaging this population in the consideration of what is important, what is the current state of important things, and how they can be measured. The objective of the method is to gain information on data and indicators from mixed lay/ technical communities. It was always intended that Imagine be a methodology in the fullest sense of the term, evolving with time and capable of being cut and edited to meet requirements of local context.
Notwithstanding this flexibility, the key element of the method is the Rich Picture or RP (for a fuller description see Bell et al. 2016):
“The RP has been around for many years and is a cartoon-like diagram which encourages people to apply what Rose Armson brilliantly described as ‘optimal indiscretion’ to explore complex issues and, in many cases, set out realities and truths which, for one reason or another, cannot easily be spoken about or written formally. RPs contain this ‘release’ function, providing indiscreet insight into troublesome areas. We argue that the RP drawing enriches problem-solving and, in the long term, saves time and resources from being expended on erroneous and/or superficial tasks. RPs embody the commonly expressed view that ‘pictures paint a thousand words’.” (Bell et al. 2016, page x)
The RP is a device for gaining spontaneous and unguarded thoughts (as well as considered and guarded ideas) from groups of around 5–10 stakeholders. A RP is shown in Fig. 3.
A RP is a free form diagram with few rules other than to use as few words as possible. It is produced by a group on a large poster sheet of paper with coloured marker pens. This sample RP is taken from a project relating to the sustainability of the coastal fringe that took place in Lebanon. It is one of four produced at the same time by different stakeholder groups. Such a picture (Fig. 3) can be assessed by a form of Content Analysis, as the description in Table 1, below, illustrates.
Table 1. A content analysis of Fig. 3
To explain the content analysis is a little more detail:
-
Column 1 contains the major themes drawn out by the research team assessing this and any other RPs produced at the same time in the same workshop. These themes are common to all RPs.
-
Column 2 contains the specific relationship between this RP and the themes in column 1.
-
Column 3 contains the themes mentioned by Stakeholders when they described their RP in a summarising session following the drawing process. The colour coding relates to similar themes which emerged across the other RPs which emerged in the workshop.
The penultimate row contains the plenary reflections summarising the RP as provided by the Stakeholders.
The final row is the research team’s overall assessment of all the previous information.
It contains the unique ‘signature’ of the RP which draws upon all the previous information. This is produced by the research team but can be developed in collaboration with the workshop participants.
This approach to Content Analysis is called Eductive Interpretation Content Analysis or EICA (for an overview of the approach see: Bell et al. 2015, 2016).
It is suggested that from the combination of interpretations of the original RP as contained in the EICA it is possible to educe the main themes of concern to the group who draw the RP. The EICA, when provided back to the participants in the workshop, can provide the basis for progress. In the case of M3 it was planned that a supplementary, second workshop should follow. At this workshop the original participants would be:
-
Apprised of their original work
-
Shown the EICA based signature for the first workshop as a whole
-
Provided with a musical equivalent of the EICA based signature – this was an innovation on the method and was intended to provide a further creative catalyst to the participants
-
Encouraged to design a technology which help to address the issues of concern noted in the first workshop.
Co-Designing Considering Socio-Technical Requirements
In line with the Socially-Aware Computing approach by Baranauskas (2014), this project understands technology design beyond defining technical requirements only.
Instead, design is considered a process originated in the society, embracing and surpassing informal aspects (e.g. peoples’ values, beliefs, habits, etc.), and some formal ones (regulation, metrics, for instance), towards the construction of a technical system. The technical system, on the other hand, impacts the formal and informal levels, towards influencing people in the society. Creating a new technology demands the articulation of meanings in the social group also in the formal and informal aspects. Figure 4, adapted from Baranauskas (2014), illustrates that.
The Socially Aware Approach considers the involvement of social group with a diversity of experiences and worldviews in participatory design practices, including community leaders and other members, researchers, people with different familiarity with technology, etc., resulting in a more systematic view in the way technology is conceived and will shape our relationship with the world. The translation of the second workshop participants’ ideas into technical, formal and informal requirements was inspired by this approach, as described in the next sections.
The Application of Imagine to the Project Plan for M3
Imagine makes use of Rich Pictures and EICA as a primary means for data gathering. It was applied in brief (three hour) collaborative workshops run by the team in May and July of 2016.
Research Process – Workshop 1, 19th May
The First Workshop took place on the 19th May in Bletchley, Milton Keynes. 20 participants came to the event and developed their ideas in response to the question:
“What do I Wish I’d Known before I set Out or during My Journey”
Participants were asked to work in three groups of around 6 members and produce Rich Pictures in response to the question (Fig. 5).
The three groups produced a RP each and these were assessed.
Analysis of Results of Workshop 1
The RP produced by each of the three groups was assessed by means of the Content Analysis approach already described. The images were divided up into nine segments and each segment was assessed for content – strong images, visual metaphors, unique ideas, innovative concepts, repeated issues, tasks that needed to be addressed, etc. This assessment of the image was included with a review of the verbal report of each group which was provided at the event.
Figures 6, 7 and 8 are the segmented RPs assessed and Tables 2, 3 and 4 provide the resulting content analysis.
Table 2 Content Analysis of Group 1 Rich Picture
Table 3 Content Analysis of Group 2 Rich Picture
Table 4 Content Analysis of Group 3 Rich Picture
For each group we invited a composer to develop a musical interpretation of the RP. Our intention was to use this as a means to stimulate further creativity in the group at the second workshop.
The composer engaged to provide a musical interpretation of the RP from group 1 suggested the following assessment which can be seen as a companion piece to the Unique Signatory of the RP provided in the Content Analysis:
Group 1 RP is mainly about clear information, honest and integrated. The composer notes:
“I tried to incorporate many contrasting variables that all clearly work together in an organised fashion to reflect an 'integrated transport system'. There is a hint of sentimentality in the harmony which could imply an 'honest' system. The piece has a strong sense of direction musically which could reflect 'clear roads and a clear journey'”.
(A segment of the musical notation for Group 1 is in Appendix 1).
It was observed that the groups listened with interest to the interpretation of each RP as a musical form while gazing the pictures. Group members noted a number of observations about the music. One suggested that it was ‘interesting’ and another noted that it was ‘accurate’. Certainly the music provided a useful ice breaker to the main work of the Workshop process.
The musical assessment of the group 2 RP was as follows:
Group 2 focuses on choices.
“The piece has a slower tempo to imply uncertainty. I have used rising melodies which are allowed to hang in mid-air as a 'questioning' device, and multiple resolutions to the same musical questions in different instruments. All instruments eventually arrive on the same chord at the end so the musical journey is completed safely but with a lot more uncertainty and decision making involved.”
Group 3 the composer suggested were chiefly concerned with Time and Travel:
“This piece has the greatest sense of momentum to convey the sense that time and travel are of the essence. The woodwind part is deliberately busy to convey the 'congested world.' The piece regularly modulates to reflect the 'fractured world.' 'Not all choices are valid' so this piece demonstrates how the right choices will allow the traveller to successfully complete the journey”.
Emerging Themes from Workshop 1
The EICA process provided three strong recurrent themes in the RPs.
-
Information:
-
All groups discussed the provision of information in some way, and tended to have strong feelings on it. Information came up as something which was unavailable (Group 1: G1), was too poor (G2), provided in excess (G2), or unclear (G3). Groups wanted the right information rather than just more of it. This feeds into choice…
-
Choice:
-
Did not come up in G1 but did in G2 and G3. Choice was discussed as being limited by various factors, and also having choice was not always regarded in favourable terms (‘decisions, decisions, decisions’) (G2). Choice could be limited by external conditions like congestion, and the weather (discussed by all groups) (G3).
-
Groups oscillated between a preference for choice or information. Choice was not necessarily regarded as a useful good because it implies lack of information. When useful information is available, one does not have a choice as such, though this is a positive thing because the information tells you which option is the right option for you (i.e., it is quickest, most affordable, driest etc.).
-
Predictability:
-
Came up in all groups, and seemed to be the key theme. Groups discussed frustration and anxiety about things going wrong, and the ability of the MK transport network to recover from disruption (G1); the mystery in one’s journey, and the extent to which there are any guarantees the MK transport services will actually provide what they say they are offering (G2 and G3).
This was the key theme. People sought data which would allow them to make a transport decision whose outcome could be predicted.
From these three statements, and working in a similar manner to a Soft Systems development of a Root Definition (see for example the description in Checkland and Poulter 2006), the following “Theme statement” was produced:
People Want Information which Provides Reliable Choice for Predictable Journeys
This synthesis of the users’ wishes, along with the interpretations of the RPs (including the musical interpretation), were to be the main inputs to the second workshop held in July.
Research Process Workshop 2 – 7th July
On the 7th July ten members of the public attended the second workshop. Most of them, 9 out of 10, also participated in the first workshop (Fig. 9).
As Workshop 2 was related to technology design, it was important to build a panorama of the group’s previous experience with technology and their age. Participants completed a form with this information and also stated their consent for having the data collected in the workshop published as a research study.
The age breakdown is shown in the pie chart in Fig. 10, and the relative technology usage made by the participants is shown in the histogram in Fig. 11.
Figures 10 and 11 provide us with an interesting observation. Generally speaking those who develop applications for the public are usually young, with a deep and often professional understanding of mobile technologies. In our sample the demographic is elderly and there is a diversity of understanding and experiences with technologies, including smartphones features usage, stated as a not frequent usage for 4 out of 10 participants, and different degrees of familiarity with other transport-related applications, such as SatNavs or Google Maps.
After experiencing the musical signature of the groups, some examples of data available and related technology were briefly presented as a way to inspire participants for the next activities. This presentation included screenshots of different types of GPSs, digital panels, bus-tracker and local weather forecast apps, accessibility resources for visually impaired in bus stops, etc.
Then, two tasks were proposed to the three groups of participants:
-
(I)
“Describe yourselves using the new technology in your daily life”
A short scenario with a narrative illustrated the expected outcome for this task: “Before leaving home in the morning, Amy checks the BBC travel website. If the motorway (M1) is congested, she takes another secondary route”.
The groups were invited then to share their scenario of technology usage with others.
The results suggested the context in which the technology would be applied by them. Planning a journey in advance, for instance in the beginning of the day, and associating that with other personal daily decisions and commitments were more important than supporting navigation in transit.
The three groups imagined a mobile app, two of them had a complementary website in the scenario.
-
(II)
“What does your technology look like?”
The second task invited the groups to draft the user interface of their “desirable” technology meeting the challenge of the Theme statement that emerged from Workshop 1. They should evidence what sort of data they expected to see there.
Our literature review informed us that the ways data are employed by users depends on a number of factors, the trade off between their wider ambitions for urban space versus their immediate, personal transport needs; their broader familiarity with public transport networks; and the time at which they seek to access the data available which might be prior to departure or might be en route. In keeping with the openness embedded in the Imagine methodology, our intention was to avoid guiding participants in any way rather than encouraging them towards a specific type of application or data presentation tool. They produced a range of ideas about the potential applications. Some of the resulting ideas are illustrated in Fig. 12.
Overall, the three groups suggested a number of concerns, ideas, and wishes in their drafts that were later classified as informal, formal and technical aspects.
The informal aspects raised mainly their perception on current transport-related technology evidencing how they would like to see technology supporting their daily lives, complementing and reinforcing the findings of the first workshop (Table 5)
Table 5 Informal aspects collected in the workshop 2 .
The formal concerns discussed reflected the UK’s transport system organisation, in which private systems work independently, on their own schedules and providing their own online services. Participants recognised this as a challenge when integrating information in a new technology. It is not only about presenting information from different sources together, but also reflecting the impact of one system to the others. For instance, connecting schedules of buses and trains. They also would like to see the system connected to external services that would add extra value, such as buying tickets with a discount or earning loyalty card points.
In technical terms, some participants would like to see the planning system integrated with their personal online calendar. Also, as previously mentioned, they made clear the interest for having a new mobile app, although not all participants have smartphones or use mobile data, considered expensive. A web version to be used at home has been also cogitated, as well as an app using the minimal possible data.
Working from the suggestions contained in groups work, the conceptual designs set out in Figs. 13, 14 and 15 emerged.