D1 2 interim study on co creation practices

Ref. Ares(2017)535002 - 31/01/2017

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

Project acronym:

Mobile-Age

Project full title:

Mobile-Age

Grant agreement no.:

693319

Responsible:

ifib

Contributors:

ULANC

Document Reference:

D1.2

Dissemination Level:

PU

Version:

Draft

Date:

31/01/17

This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 693319

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

History Version

Date

Modification reason

Modified by

0.1

21.11.16

Initial draft

JJ, UG (ifib)

0.2

06.12.16

Revision based on meeting/workshop

0.3

23.12.16

First draft

JJ, HK (ifib)

0.4

10.01.17

Input South Lakeland

BA, AB, NH (CSTO)

0.5

10.01.17

Input methodology section

LI (CSTO)

0.6

16.01.17

Final draft for internal review

JJ, HK, UG (ifib)

0.7

19.01.17

Feedback internal review

0.8

24.01.17

Revised input South Lakeland

NH (CSTO)

0.9

29.01.17

Final version

JJ, HK (ifib)

1.0

31.01.17

Final reviewed deliverable

BA, AB, NH, LI (CSTO)

PMB

JJ (ifib)

NH (CSTO), OC (UPM)

© Copyright 2017 <ifib>

2|Page

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

Table of contents History............................................................................................................................. 2 Table of contents ............................................................................................................. 3 List of figures ................................................................................................................... 6 List of tables .................................................................................................................... 8 List of abbreviations ......................................................................................................... 9 Executive summary ........................................................................................................ 10 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 11 1

2

3

A Framework for Co-Creation of Public Services ...................................................... 13 1.1

Stages......................................................................................................................... 14

1.2

Roles .......................................................................................................................... 15

1.3

Co-creation Methods................................................................................................. 15

Our own research methodology .............................................................................. 20 2.1

Action research adapted ........................................................................................... 21

2.2

Co-creation and reflective practices.......................................................................... 23

Co-creation in South Lakeland ................................................................................. 24 3.1

South Lakeland: The Field Site ................................................................................... 24

3.2

Interventions in South Lakeland ................................................................................ 26

3.2.1

Interventions in the Exploration and Recruitment Stage .................................. 26

3.2.2

Interventions in the Idea Forming Stage ........................................................... 29

3.2.3

Interventions in the Service and Data Definition and Co-Design Stages........... 35

3.2.4

Service and Diffusion Stage ............................................................................... 40

3.3

Learning and Reflection on Co-Creation Methods .................................................... 42

3.3.1

Exploration and Recruitment Lessons about the Co-Creation Methods........... 43

3.3.2

Idea Formation Lessons about the Co-Creation Methods ................................ 44

3.3.3 Service and Data Definition and Co-Design Lessons about the Co-Creation Methods 47 3.3.4 3.4

Service and Diffusion Lessons about the Co-Creation Methods ....................... 49

Learning and Reflections about the Co-Creation Process ......................................... 50

3.4.1

Exploration and Recruitment Lessons about the Co-Creation Process ............. 50

3.4.2

Idea Formation Lessons about the Co-Creation Process ................................... 51

3.4.3 Service and Data Definition and Co-Design Lessons about the Co-Creation Process 53 Š Copyright 2017 <ifib>

3|Page

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

3.4.4

4

3.5

Summary of Reflections of Co-Creation Activities in South Lakeland ....................... 56

3.6

Comparison of Planned & Conducted Activities ....................................................... 57

Co-creation in Bremen ............................................................................................ 62 4.1

Bremen Osterholz: The Field Site .............................................................................. 62

4.2

Interventions in Bremen............................................................................................ 64

4.3

Exploration & recruitment......................................................................................... 67

4.3.1

Engagement with local stakeholders & collaborators ....................................... 67

4.3.2

Communication: Local newspaper articles........................................................ 68

4.3.3

Recruitment events ........................................................................................... 69

4.3.4

Methods: Paper card game ............................................................................... 69

4.3.5

Core co-creation group...................................................................................... 71

4.4

Idea forming .............................................................................................................. 71

4.4.1

Cultural Probes .................................................................................................. 72

4.4.2

Interviews with intermediaries and other stakeholders ................................... 74

4.5

Service and data definition ........................................................................................ 75

4.5.1

Personas ............................................................................................................ 75

4.5.2

Workshops on informational content and on applications............................... 77

4.6

Co-Design and Data Creation .................................................................................... 79

4.6.1

Mobile-Age data tables with attributes ............................................................ 80

4.6.2

Scenarios & paper prototyping.......................................................................... 84

4.6.3

App use: Provision of tablet pcs ........................................................................ 88

4.6.4

Digital prototyping and editorial work .............................................................. 89

4.6.5

Reflection on co-design and data creation........................................................ 94

4.7

Service and Diffusion ................................................................................................. 97

4.8

Reflection/lessons learnt on process and roles......................................................... 98

4.8.1

Process ............................................................................................................... 98

4.8.2

Roles .................................................................................................................. 98

4.9 5

Service and Diffusion Lessons about the Co-Creation Process ......................... 55

Comparison planned & conducted activities............................................................. 99

Conclusion: Co-creation as situated and reflective practice .................................... 103 5.1

Recruitment and engagement................................................................................. 103

5.1.1

Recruitment and engagement with intermediaries ........................................ 103

5.1.2

Recruitment and engagement of older citizens .............................................. 103

5.1.3

Building trust and commitment ...................................................................... 104

5.1.4

Roles ................................................................................................................ 104

5.1.5

Degree of involvement .................................................................................... 105

Š Copyright 2017 <ifib>

4|Page

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

5.2

6

Methods .................................................................................................................. 106

5.2.1

Inclusive co-creation methods ........................................................................ 107

5.2.2

Cultural probes ................................................................................................ 111

5.2.3

Personas & scenarios....................................................................................... 111

5.3

Process..................................................................................................................... 111

5.4

Implementing co-creation as situated and reflective practice in Mobile-Age ........ 114

References ........................................................................................................... 117

Appendix I: Template for fieldwork data capture and reflection .................................... 120 Appendix IIa: Interventions in the Exploration and Recruitment Stage........................... 121 Appendix IIb: Interventions in the Idea Forming Stage .................................................. 124 Appendix IIc: Interventions in the Service and Data Definition/Co-Design Stage ............ 125 Appendix III: Calendar Exercise South Lakeland ............................................................ 126 Appendix IV: Events Exercise South Lakeland ................................................................ 128 Appendix V: Services exercise South Lakeland .............................................................. 132 Appendix VI: Potential prototype visual South Lakeland ............................................... 139 Appendix VIIa: Personas: Terry ..................................................................................... 140 Appendix VIIb: Personas: Dorothy ................................................................................ 141 Appendix VIIc: Personas: Linda ..................................................................................... 142 Appendix VIII: Media profiles of South Lakeland participants ........................................ 144 Appendix IX: Overview of interventions in Bremen ....................................................... 147 Appendix X: Media profiles of participants in Bremen ................................................... 152 Appendix XI: Cultural Probes as developed in Bremen .................................................. 157 Appendix XII: Personas in Bremen ................................................................................ 163 Appendix XIII: Co-creation activities in phase 2 ............................................................. 166 Co-creation plan Bremen .................................................................................................... 166 Co-creation plan South Lakeland......................................................................................... 167 Co-creation plan Zaragoza ................................................................................................... 168 Co-creation plan Thessaloniki ............................................................................................. 169 Appendix XIV: Co-creation observation templates ........................................................ 170

Š Copyright 2017 <ifib>

5|Page

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

List of figures Figure 1: Stages of co-creation ......................................................................................... 13 Figure 2: Potential methods per co-creation stage ............................................................ 16 Figure 3: Co-creation Life-Cycle ......................................................................................... 16 Figure 4: Stages of action research ................................................................................... 20 Figure 5: Adapted stages of action research for co-creation processes ............................... 22 Figure 6: Co-Creation in South Lakeland ............................................................................ 25 Figure 7: Recruitment at Exercise Club event Figure 8: Recruitment drive at Young @ Heart Fun ‘O’lympics in Kendal (Kendal) 28 Figure 9: Sample of the ideal week calendar ..................................................................... 31 Figure 10: Participants working on the Calendar Exercise .................................................. 32 Figure 11: Prioritisation Example from one of the Co-creators ........................................... 34 Figure 12: Basic prototype of an app................................................................................. 37 Figure 13: Events app prototype ....................................................................................... 38 Figure 14: A show of gadgets developed in earlier projects................................................ 45 Figure 15: Impressions from our field work in a multi-faceted district ................................ 63 Figure 16: Methods as applied in co-creation stages in Bremen ......................................... 64 Figure 17: Co-creation activities and methods in Bremen................................................... 65 Figure 18: News article 23/05/16 featuring researcher and local stakeholders ................... 69 Figure 19: News article 06/07/16 featuring researchers .................................................... 69 Figure 20: News article 22/08/16 featuring researchers and participants........................... 69 Figure 21: Card game as developed at information event 23/05/16 ................................... 71 Figure 22: Card game as further refined and played at neighbourhood festival and kick-off workshop.........................................................................................................................71 Figure 23: Examples of cultural probes artefacts as used in Bremen ................................... 73 Figure 24: Participants discussing their maps and post cards ............................................. 73 Figure 25: Collecting results from group work ................................................................... 77 Figure 26: Group work at workshop .................................................................................. 78 Figure 27: Group work situation at workshop ................................................................... 78 Figure 28: Workshop in Internet café ................................................................................ 78 Figure 29: Co-design and Data Creation methods in Bremen.............................................. 80 Figure 30: Picture of one of the focus groups displaying some of the relevant artefacts...... 81 Figure 31: First data table with "our" attributes ................................................................ 82 Figure 32: Slowly completing the data tables .................................................................... 83 Figure 33: Data table online in Mobile-Age app ................................................................ 83 Figure 34: Picture of scenario 1 ......................................................................................... 84 Figure 35: Pictures of scenario 2 ....................................................................................... 84 Figure 36: Paper prototyping in Bremen ........................................................................... 85 Figure 37: Paper prototyping in Bremen ........................................................................... 85 Figure 38: Start page ........................................................................................................ 85 Figure 39: Paper prototype presenting objects on map vs. list ........................................... 86 Figure 40: Paper prototype presenting filters .................................................................... 86 Figure 41: Paper prototype preview on map ..................................................................... 87 Figure 42: Paper prototype - detailed description .............................................................. 87 Figure 43: First idea on welcome page .............................................................................. 88

© Copyright 2017 <ifib>

6|Page

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

Figure 44: Participant using the Mobile-Age app on a tablet ............................................. 88 Figure 45: Different visualisations / maps of the same part of Osterholz ............................ 89 Figure 46: Final map design featuring bus stops as orientation points ............................... 91 Figure 47: Final map visualisation featuring toilets and benches ....................................... 91 Figure 48: Collection of ideas about start page of Mobile-Age app .................................... 91 Figure 49: Digital translation of start page discussion ....................................................... 91 Figure 50: Paper prototypes - visualising maps or lists....................................................... 92 Figure 51: Start page tiles................................................................................................. 92 Figure 52: Paper prototype list ......................................................................................... 93 Figure 53: List first digital demo........................................................................................ 93 Figure 54: Paper prototype preview on map ..................................................................... 93 Figure 55: Preview on map - first prototype ...................................................................... 93 Figure 56: Display of benches and toilets (clustered) ......................................................... 94 Figure 57: Co-creation Life Cycle ..................................................................................... 107 Figure 58: Adapted co-creation process model from fieldwork in phase 1 ........................ 113 Figure 59: Adapted stages of action research for co-creation processes ........................... 114

Š Copyright 2017 <ifib>

7|Page

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

List of tables Table 1 : Description of Co-creation Methods as employed in Bremen and South Lakeland . 19 Table 2: Interventions in South Lakeland in Phase 1 .......................................................... 26 Table 3: Co-creation research methods used in Phase 1 in South Lakeland ......................... 42 Table 4: Co-creation planning and reflection South Lakeland ............................................. 61 Table 5: Overview of Bremen Osterholz ............................................................................ 62 Table 6: Overview about methods/interventions in Bremen from May 2016 to mid-January 2017 ................................................................................................................................66 Table 7: Considering social inclusion and accessibility systematically through personas ..... 76 Table 8 : Co-creation planning and reflection Bremen ..................................................... 102 Table 9: Overview methods as used in field sites ............................................................. 110

Š Copyright 2017 <ifib>

8|Page

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

List of abbreviations <Abbreviation>

<Explanation>

Age UK SL

Age UK South Lakeland

FTB

Forschungsinstitut Technologie Evangelische Stiftung Volmarstein

ifib

Institut for Informationmanagement Bremen

IS

Information System

ISD

Information System Development

IT

Information Technology

OAP

Old Aged Person

PSD

Participatory System Design

SLDC

South Lakeland District Council

SLH

South Lakeland Housing

UML

Unified Modelling Language

und

Behinderung,

Š Copyright 2017 <ifib>

9|Page

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

Executive summary This document provides an interim study of the co-creation activities conducted in Bremen and South Lakeland between April 2016 and January 2017. In the Mobile-Age project, we conceive co-creation as being more comprehensive and effective than traditional participatory system design, including the stages of forming ideas, defining a service, collecting data and designing, implementing and evaluating a technological solution. In this interim study, we critically reflect on the co-creation activities that took place in Bremen and South Lakeland during the first project year.

While in South Lakeland greater emphasis was placed on the insights from intermediaries about the information needs of older adults (in particular with respect to issues around independent living such as loneliness), the interventions in Bremen placed more weight on the co-creation of a new map-based service and the necessary (open) data (identification, collection, creation, and validation). The different weighting of co-creation interventions was based on • • •

the different topic areas (independent living vs. social inclusion) the different anticipated mobile services (provision of an event calendar vs. mapbased neighbourhood guide) the different geographical locations (rural vs. urban)

Our co-creation activities are analysed across three levels: • •

•

Recruitment and engagement This section includes considerations about roles, degree of involvement and trust.

Methods We reflect on the methods employed and analyse their effectiveness for our cocreation interventions and for their suitability with respect to facilitating and enabling accessibility and access (this relates to D1.1 interim study on accessibility, digital mobility and open data).

Process We propose an adapted process model, based on the empirical insights from our own co-creation activities and the participatory open data study (D1.9).

Finally, we will conclude with some considerations for phase 2. All results will feed into the Co-Creation Good Practice Guidebook (D1.3).

© Copyright 2017 <ifib>

10 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

Introduction Interactions between public authorities and citizens are increasingly mediated by digital technologies as more and more public services are provided via digital channels. But in many cases these services are not used widely and in particular, older citizens are excluded above average as digital services do not meet the needs and expectations of older adults. Recently the idea of ‘open government’ (European Commission, 2014; House - Oversight and Government Reform, 2007; Office of the President, 2009; Presidential Directives EO 13392, 2005) has attracted attention, encouraging the development of so-called civic apps (digital applications that are based on open government data and developed by civil society actors such as Code4Germany). These civic apps are meant to provide for better and user-centred services and to foster public participation and engagement in the development and provision of public services through the use of open government data.

Senior citizens—if at all—are often only marginally involved in such kind of civic technology engagement. They very rarely constitute the focal user group of civic apps; commercial web applications mainly focus on their assumed deficits and limitations (e.g. physical and cognitive decline, loneliness, dependency) (Angeletou, 2016). Hence such mediated services are predominantly based on stereotypical images of ‘being old’ and/or inscribe ideals of active and healthy ageing in the technology, that correspond with contemporary neoliberal concepts of optimisation and self-responsibility (Suopajärvi, 2015, 2016).

Governments are placing an increasing emphasis on opening their data repositories so as to encourage new forms of service design and delivery (e.g. Shakespeare, 2013). 1 A growing number of European cities are making their data openly available. However, such open data is normally read-only (that is, citizens are usually not able to easily suggest changes, correct errors, etc.) and there is little return for local governments (Lee, Almirall, & Wareham, 2015; Hunnius & Krieger, 2014). Often developers anticipate the needs and wants of citizens based on their own experiences with lack or insufficient knowledge about prospective user groups.

In this respect it is important to engage citizens early on in order to gain an understanding of their everyday practices, resources and challenges. In order to create value that benefits administrations as well as citizens, it is crucial to engage citizens into the process of open data service app development, especially those who are often forgotten when it comes to technological innovations.

Thus there is a need to bring together city administrations as data owners, technology developers and older citizens as knowledgeable individuals and prospective users in order to co-create valuable public services based on open data in participatory design processes (Sieber & Johnson, 2015). Such co-creation initiatives aim to engage citizens (also with nontechnical backgrounds) in practices relating to technology design and different levels of open data re-use such as the requesting, digesting, contributing, modelling, and contesting of open data (Schrock, 2016).

In the Mobile-Age project, we conceive co-creation as being more comprehensive and effective than traditional participatory system design, including the stages of forming ideas, 1

Examples of such initiatives include the open government partnership (OGP) and open data portals.

© Copyright 2017 <ifib>

11 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

defining a service, collecting data and designing, implementing and evaluating a technological solution. In this interim study, we will critically reflect on the co-creation activities that took place in Bremen and South Lakeland during the first project year. Here, we are particularly interested in how older citizens (also with non-technical backgrounds) became engaged in public service co-creation activities. More specific questions are: • • • •

To what extent was the co-creation of public services with older citizens in Bremen and South Lakeland possible?

What methods may be most effective for engaging older citizens in the design and development of open public services?

What issues/topics may emerge? What are challenges of co-creating civic apps with and for older citizens?

What is the role of researchers and other stakeholders in such initiatives?

In the following we will first provide our Framework for Co-creation of Public Services (chapter 1). In this chapter we will outline out our co-creation methodology including considerations about different roles of co-creators, different levels of involvement, and different stages of the process. We will also provide a first overview about appropriate and/or innovative methods for each of the co-creation stages.

The primary aim of this deliverable is to provide a reflective account of our own co-creation activities. 2 Before providing empirical material on South Lakeland (chapter 3) and Bremen (chapter 4), we will first introduce the methodological framework for studying our own cocreation activities (chapter 2).

Subsequently we will synthesise the findings from Bremen and South Lakeland and draw some first conclusions (chapter 5). This includes an update of our process model. In chapter 6 we will outline the plans for phase two for all field sites.

2

We have reviewed other projects as part of our state-of-the-art research in D1.9 (Study on Participatory Open Data Initiatives).

© Copyright 2017 <ifib>

12 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

1

A Framework for Co-Creation of Public Services

The current discourse about co-creation has two main origins: One is an orientation shift within business administration towards the customer or user in order to recognise demands on the market and to use external knowledge to create products and services that fit the users’ needs and hence succeed on the market (Piller, Ihl, & Vossen, 2010). This service-logic or user-centricity is particularly relevant to public authorities in order to perform their task of providing suitable services for citizens, as well as to enhance the participation of citizens in the definition and provision of such services (Nambisan & Nambisan, 2013; Aichholzer & Strauß, 2015). The other origin is the involvement of users in the design of IT-solutions, which stems from the 3 different participatory design (PD) approaches: The UK-based approach and prominent ETHICS-Method (Mumford, 1981; Mumford & Henshall, 1979), the Scandinavian approach with the famous DEMOS and the UTOPIA projects (Ehn, 1988) and the US-American approach on “Cooperative Design” (Greenbaum & Kyng, 1991). In this tradition the focus on involvement of future-users and their ‘collective creativity’ (Sanders & Stappers, 2008, p. 6) is idealistically applied throughout the entire design process. Following the process course of traditional PD, we have developed a stage model that represents the different stages of the co-creation process.

The figure below shows the process model as amended in D1.9 (Participatory Open Data Study). During the first months of our field work and based on the review of existing participatory open data initiatives it became clear that our process model needed to emphasise interventions around data definition, data collection, validation, creation and integration. Hence the original model as developed in D6.3 (Co-creation Recruitment and Engagement Plan) was adapted and the “service definition” stage as well as the “co-design”

•exploration of vision •stakeholder analysis •definition of roles •recruitment & engagement plan Exploration & Recruitment

Co-Design & Data Creation

Idea Forming

•further exploration of visions and needs •generation of ideas and the solution to be co-created

•developing ideas into concepts •defining relevant (open) data

Service & Data Definition

•prototpyes are designed, build and tested • collecting, validating creating and integrating (open) data

•finalisation of product •dissemination of results to ensure adoption

Service & Diffusion

stage amended.

Figure 1: Stages of co-creation

© Copyright 2017 <ifib>

13 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

1.1

Stages

When involved in the early stages of the co-creation process, participants take part in the decision of what is going to be developed. They can ‘explore’ problems and ‘form ideas’ on solutions. At this stage, the degree of influence is much higher than in the design stage, where the focus is on practical questions of usability instead of more essential issues of relevance and significance. However, in particular aspects related to data collection and creation, and editorial work (as demonstrated in the empirical sections below) may limit the degree of influence.

The exploration and recruitment stage aims to define the thematic space and service domain of a co-creation project, as well as recruit co-creators. In this stage the importance of local champions cannot be underestimated. As will also be demonstrated in the empirical sections, they are crucial for • • • •

enrolling local older citizens’ groups, convincing intermediaries to participate, support communication as well as building trust relations with the participants.

Both field sites (Bremen and South Lakeland), were able to secure commitment of the local government and key stakeholders. In addition, it was important to establish the older citizens as experts of their life course and of experiencing the process of becoming older/ageing. Mutual respect was of utmost importance as all participants (including older citizens and civil servants) wanted to learn from each other. Co-creation methods at this stage included interviews, focus groups, desk research, information events.

During the stage of idea forming, the participants’ visions and needs are further explored.

Ideas are formed about what may be co-created. Co-creation methods at this stage included interviews, focus groups but also diaries, observation, walking workshops and cultural probes (Boehner, Gaver, & Boucher, 2012; Gaver, Dunne, & Pacenti, 1999).

Within the stage of service and data definition the goal is to develop ideas into concepts.

Methodologically this is accomplished through personas and scenario-based design evaluation (Rosson & Carroll, 2002; Carroll, 2000). The personas are co-created based on the insights of the previous stages and differ according to a number of important dimensions (such as socio-economics, health, mobility, media literacy). Personas provide a good basis to discover and discuss the information needs of older citizens. They are helpful in order to make the participants think not only of their own wishes and needs, but to relate to others who might be different from them. Further, intermediaries may support the identification of relevant objects and related data sources as well as existing services.

The most wide-spread stage in co-creation is the co-design stage in which the key functionalities are developed as well as data collected and integrated. Based on (1) the personas and (2) a review of relevant objects, and available data sources and existing information services, a set of meaningful scenarios is developed that support the software development. What is often underestimated is the time and effort to collect or create, validate, and integrate meaningful and relevant (open) data. As demonstrated in the empirical sections, a greater number of older citizens and intermediaries may be included in this co-creation stage. One example is a snowball data collection process in Bremen as a necessary supplement to smaller core-co-creation groups, for putting the content generation on a much broader and more representative set of sources, needs and views.

© Copyright 2017 <ifib>

14 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

The final stage concerns service and diffusion. It is important to consider how the co-creation services are integrated in existing organisational processes and how data will be maintained afterwards, not only in this stage but throughout the process.

1.2

Roles

While participation in some co-creation initiatives is limited to co-design of the interface of an application, others also involve citizens in generating topics and contents. In this regard, the stage model allows us to identify and capture the degree of involvement, and hence the quality of co-creation. According to the stages in which they are involved, participants can take different roles in the co-creation process.

According to the literature (Nambisan & Nambisan, 2013) these roles may be: • • • •

Explorer: Identify problems to be solved.

Idea former: Generate solutions to well defined problems.

Designer: Design and/or develop implementable solutions.

Diffuser: Facilitate the adoption and diffusion of the developed solution.

In our conclusion we will also argue for a fifth role: Data editor. This is based on our empirical evidence as well as the insights gained from the participatory open data study. By and large, when involved in the early stages of the co-creation process, participants take part in the decision of what is going to be developed. They can ‘explore’ problems and ‘form ideas’ on solutions. At this stage, the degree of influence is much higher than in the design stage, where the focus is on practical questions of usability instead of more essential issues of relevance and significance.

Furthermore, we can distinguish the activities in each of the stages regarding the openness and, respectively, the predefinition of the particular tasks that the participants perform: • • •

selection from a number of given alternatives selection from self-defined options selection and realisation of self-defined options

According to the stages in which participants get involved, the role they perform, and the degree of openness of the tasks they fulfil, we can classify and compare different co-creation approaches and applications. Thereby we have shown in the Deliverable D1.9 “State of the Art in Participatory Open Data Approaches” that the degree of openness is particularly important in the initial stages of the co-creation process that lead to the definition of the service to be developed. Furthermore, the study showed that most co-creation approaches offer quite limited space for substantial participation for older citizens in these significant early stages. In contrast, our own approach to co-creation allows for substantial involvement in all stages of the co-creation process, with an emphasis on the frontend activities. However, as our reflection of the activities of stage one will show, the definition of roles for participant’s performance and the openness of tasks in the different stages have to be reconsidered according to participants’ interests, motivations and resources.

1.3

Co-creation Methods

In the following, we present a range of established and innovative methods that were applied in our co-creation process to generate creative ideas, requirements and assessments. The figure below provides an overview of the methods used per stage, in the subsequent table we

© Copyright 2017 <ifib>

15 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

give a short introduction to each method and outline for which stages it may be relevant. We will review this overview at the end of our interim study and reflect on the experiences in Bremen and South Lakeland.

Co-Design

Idea Formation

• interviews • focus groups • literature review • state-ofthe art review

Exploration

•cultural probes •interviews •focus groups •surveys •observation •diaries

•personas & scenarios •focus groups

•participatory design •design workshops •focus groups

• qualitative and quantitative evaluation interviews • workshops • focus groups • survey Service & Diffusion

Service Definition

Figure 2: Potential methods per co-creation stage

Below we evaluate the methods with respect to their usefulness of co-creating ICT-enabled open government services with and for older citizens.

Also, we will refine and update this list in our further iterations of this deliverable.

The figure on the right presents the co-creation life cycle. In the table below only those stages/steps are coloured for which a method is deemed appropriate. We have included only those methods that were used during the first phase in Bremen and South Lakeland.

Service & Diffusion

Exploration

Idea Formation

Co-Design

Service Definition Figure 3: Co-creation Life-Cycle

© Copyright 2017 <ifib>

16 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

Stages

Role stakeholders

Method

Description

Purpose/objective

Semistructured Interviews

A partly structured conversation between a researcher and a respondent, where the researcher guides the conversation according to her or his research question but at the same time is open to unexpected topics that might be of interest.

To collect data about prospective services, users and stakeholder, cocreating knowledge, identify needs, visions, expectations, (design-) problems through a confidential conversation between researcher and respondent.

Senior citizens, intermediaries and/or members of public government as experts and explorer

Focus Groups

A focused discussion led by a moderator through a set of questions on a specific topic. Focus groups can be newly created groups or pre-existing groups consisting of 6-12 persons who share a common interest

Collect data about prospective services, users and stakeholder, cocreating knowledge, identify needs, visions, expectations, (design-) problems through stimulating statements through the interaction in the group.

Senior citizens, intermediaries and/or members of public government as experts and explorer

(Media-) diaries

Participants are provided with a diary to record their experiences, feelings, impressions during the use of a device or application and/or before or after the use. The diary can be a booklet, an application or a voice recorder.

To collect temporal and longitudinal information gathered in a natural context of the interaction and to get insights in the impression of a specific device, usage of features, technological acceptance, emotions associated with task performance, or learnability of an application.

Senior citizens as explorer or test users

of

Task of Time researchers/coexpenditur creation manager e

Limits

Indicative literature

Create a natural and comfortable Time environment, intensive prepare a guideline

No generalisation possible, knowledge that cannot easily be verbalized might not be captured

(Thorpe & Holt, 2008; Myers & Newman, 2007; Bogner, Littig, & Menz, 2009; Flick, 2014)

Create a natural and comfortable environment, moderate

Time intensive

No generalisation possible, cautious group members might not get heard

(Kamberelis & Dimitriadis, 2013; Rodriguez, Schwartz, Lahman, & Geist, 2011; Stahl, Chiarini Tremblay, & LeRouge, 2011)

Low expenditur e of time

Requires high motivation on the participants side, there is low control of the process, data is prone to distortions

(Lallemand, 2012; Palen & Salzman, 2002)

To provide media diaries, motivate and explain their use and ensure their return

Š Copyright 2017 <ifib>

17 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

Method

Participantobservation

Description

Purpose/objective

Observing and recording people and their activities and interactions.

Participant observation involves active engagement in activities in contrast to observation where researchers simply observe without interacting with people.

To collect information on people’s activities and interactions and thereby get insights in the behaviour of people and their interactions in a group or with a technology. Can also be used to learn about collaborative design activities to learn about resources and obstacles for participatory design.

Tools including descriptive and exploratory tasks that are (typically) based on self-reporting, are handed over to the participants. Participants Cultural Probes collect data on themselves, their lives or Design and culture. Briefing and follow-up Probes interviews are conducted to prepare and accompany the process and a debriefing session to supplement, validate and explore the data

Stages

Collect data about prospective users and stakeholder and their daily contexts, sensitizing the participants to observe, reflect upon and report their experiences, stimulate imagination of the researchers

Survey

Collect data through surveys

To collect data on a large amount of people and thereby identify general needs of a large group of people

Method

Description

Purpose/objective

Role of stakeholders

Task of researchers/cocreation manager

Senior citizens as designer and/or user

Limits

Indicative literature

In participant observation the task is to observe attentively while Time being involved in intensive the activities and interactions and to take notes while or after the activities

The researcher is part of the object of study and influences the situation, participants may feel uncomfortable and behave differently

(DeWalt & DeWalt, 2002; Adler & Adler, 1994; Tang & Leifer, 1991)

Provide proper tools, brief the participants, organize follow-up interviews

Time intensive

(Mattelmäki, 2006; Gaver, Dunne, & No Pacenti, 1999; generalisation Mattelmäki, 2005; possible, no Boehner, Vertesi, concrete insights Sengers, & in design Dourish, 2007; solutions Boehner, Gaver, & Boucher, 2012)

Senior citizens as explorer

To develop and diffuse a questionnaire

Relatively low expenditur e of time

Due to the standardisation a deeper (Flick, 2014) understanding of needs is not possible

Role of stakeholders

Task of researchers/co-

Time expenditur

Limits

Senior citizens as experts and explorer

Stages

Time expenditur e

Indicative literature

© Copyright 2017 <ifib>

18 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

creation manager

Personas

Scenarios

A persona is a representation of a fictitious user that includes a concise summary of characteristics of the user, their experience, goals and tasks, pain points, and environmental conditions.

Personas describe the target users of a tool, site, product or application, giving a clear picture of how they are likely to use the system, and what theyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ll expect from it. Personas are user models developed on the basis of qualitative research data and/or the expertise of involved stakeholders.

A persona allows the designers of an interface to consider the needs, wants, expectations etc. of wider user groups, without involving them directly in the design process. By drawing attention to potential users the creation of a common understanding of the users is supported and designers are engaged to implement this understanding in their design decisions

To provide information about the context in which a system has to A scenario is a description of a particular operate, in a user- and task-oriented situation of (potential) use of a design to way, to foresee and consider future predict or explore future use use cases including problems, conflicts etc.

To identify the significant and meaningful patterns in user Senior citizens and behaviour based intermediaries as on research data, experts for their to encourage generation and participants to representatives for imagine needs, not participating problems, senior groups interests, wishes, skills and expectations of other potential users

To identify relevant situations Seniors citizens based on research and intermediaries data and to as experts on encourage relevant context participants to for use imagine relevant situations

e

Time intensive (data has to be gathered)

As models personas are likely to generalisations and stereotypes

(Cooper, 1999; Cooper, Reimann, & Cronin, 2007)

Time intensive especially when involving multiple stakeholde rs

By forecasting and planning scenarios of use, the use of scenarios for design is prone to predict futures and thereby constrain possible use

(Rosson & Carroll, 2002; Carroll, 2000; Alexander & Maiden, 2004)

Table 1 : Description of Co-creation Methods as employed in Bremen and South Lakeland

Š Copyright 2017 <ifib>

19 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

2

Our own research methodology

We did not just apply or implement the co-creation process described section 1 above, we also aimed to learn from our process and practices of applying it. Differently stated, we engaged with the co-creation process as action researchers. The purpose of this action research is to develop insights that can be incorporated into the Good Practice Guidebook (D1.3). The insights generated are specific situated knowledge about how to implement a cocreation process with our target population (older citizens), appropriately and meaningfully.

The action research tradition emerged from the work of Kurt Lewin in the 1940s. The fundamental idea of action research is to combine the generation of theory (or knowledge) with the actions of changing the social processes (co-creation in our case) by the researchers acting on, or in the social process itself. Thus, the co-creation action is directed at both affecting change and generating critical knowledge from such change. The premise of the approach is that researchers and practitioners (older citizens) should collaborate to find appropriate ways of co-creation. The classical action research typically has five stages as

Figure 4: Stages of action research

represented below As is clear from the figure above, action research is typically problem oriented. That is, it is attempting to gain knowledge and solve specific social or organizational problems. Action research is an appropriate approach for our purposes because:

Š Copyright 2017 ifib

20 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices • • • •

2.1

It is future oriented – it is our purpose to develop insights that can guide phase two of our project but also to create a meaningful and appropriate Good Practice Guidebook (D1.3).

It is collaborative – we are working directly with older citizens to develop knowledge and insights relevant to them It implies development – the purpose is to develop an appropriate co-creation methodology and approach, not just to develop theoretical knowledge.

It is grounded in the situation to be understood – the action learning is grounded in the specific situation and involves specific knowledge and insights about the cocreation process.

Action research adapted

To use the action research approach, we had to adjust it to our specific situation. We also defined five stages as represented in the figure below.

© Copyright 2017 ifib

21 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

Figure 5: Adapted stages of action research for co-creation processes

Stage 1: Planning co-creation interventions Our starting point for every intervention was firstly the co-creation methodology and secondly the particular methods that we were going to use in our co-creation activities. We considered carefully the methods and tried to imagine how the older citizens might respond to them. For example, what they might find easy or difficult; what they may misunderstand or find difficult to understand; what might be inaccessible to them and for what reasons; and so forth. Thus, how we might want to adapt the standard method to be more appropriate for our target group.

Stage 2: Implement co-creation Interventions Having agreed our approach and how we were going to do it, we implemented the particular method, such as a cultural probe, in a particular workshop, in our empirical site (either Bremen or South Lakeland).

Stage 3: Observe interventions During the implementation of the method, we did not only do the relevant activities we also carefully noted what happened. Thus, we were always taking two perspectives, one as a participant and one as a researcher. Notes were made, often quite cryptically as part of the ongoing process.

Stage 4: Reflect on interventions and observations

Š Copyright 2017 ifib

22 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices Afterwards the research team shared their notes and observations and discussed the implications of the co-creation activity. In these discussions, alternative explanations and interpretations were explored. In some cases, these were also shared with the older citizens involved to capture their reaction and observations.

Stage 5: Record learnings and insights In the final stage, we recorded our learning and insights, and considered how these might feed into the next cycle of co-creation activities in stage one.

To document this five stage process, we developed a set of templates that was completed for all interventions (see section 7).

2.2

Co-creation and reflective practices

One of the key deliverables of the project is the Good Practice Guidebook (D1.3). The purpose of this guidebook is to provide practitioners with a valuable resource, full of insights, on how to do co-creation activities with older citizens. A keyword in this name is the word practice. By practice, we mean a set of purposeful activities that can become accomplished, more skilfully, through learning. Thus, practices become more skilful if we learn in and through doing them. To learn from practices, we need to engage with them reflectively. The pragmatist philosopher John Dewey suggested that “we do not learn from experience...we learn from reflecting on experience.” By this he means that we must not just do things (like following a recipe) we must rather attend (take note of) our doing, as we do it, in order to understand the consequences of our actions so that we can modify them appropriately, as and when needed. Somebody that reflects on their own practice—and thus, learns from it— is called a reflective practitioner. Thus, we do not see the Good Practice Guidebook (D1.3) as a ‘recipe book’ that can simply be followed. We rather see the Good Practice Guidebook (D1.3) as a starting point for reflective practitioners. Differently stated, all reflective practitioners, using the Guidebook must also be action researchers of their own practices.

This will allow them to adjust the co-creation methodology in ways that are meaningful and appropriate for their own situation. In implementing our co-creation methodology, we were action researchers and reflective practitioners, as will be clear from our accounts of our cocreation interventions in South Lakeland and Bremen provided below.

© Copyright 2017 ifib

23 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

3

Co-creation in South Lakeland

3.1

South Lakeland: The Field Site

South Lakeland is a district in Cumbria, England. The population in the 2011 Census was 103,658. The administrative town is Kendal. The district includes several other small towns such as Windermere, Ulverston and Barrow. However, the majority of the area is rural and comprises of many small villages, hamlets and isolated properties. Our focus is on independent living for older adults. South Lakeland District Council (SLDC) and Age UK South Lakeland have identified three issues that they consider central to independent living – loneliness and social isolation, and relatedly access to transport and to technology. Indeed, these issues are the focus of several Age UK national reports. Along with our co-creation activities, these reports have informed the framing of our project 3. Loneliness is claimed to be the cause of many physical health and mental health conditions. South Lakeland District Council (SLDC) and Age UK South Lakeland (Age UK SL), the major NGO for older adults in the area, have agreed to participate in our project.

Our co-creation research set out to explore how tablet computers may allow older adults to access public services that support their independent living. We have focused on exploring a range of related services provided to older adults: Social security (access to information on funding for housing and other benefits); Day-to-day social opportunities (e.g. lunch groups, accessing friends/visitors); Government services (meals on wheels, refuge collection; handyman scheme). The aim of the co-creation is to leverage new capabilities through technology to support independent living. In Phase one this has focussed on day-to-day social opportunities and how they can address loneliness and social inclusion.

To address loneliness and social isolation, we initially focused our work around an award winning assessment (The Compass Assessment) that Age UK SL undertakes with their clients.

The assessment seeks to identify older adults that may be at risk and considers five domains: • • • • •

Locality - such as access to doctors, chemists and shopping facilities. This is ranked according to seasonal weather conditions.

Home - such as mobility requirements, refuge collection and ongoing repairs.

Social connectedness - such as regular contact with family, friends and local groups.

Financial situation - services that may require payment if there is government / NGO financial support.

Health - physical and mental health.

The second (and related) theme identified was transport. Both the Age UK national report (ibid), and Age UK SL, identify technology and transport as being key gateway services. They highlight that transport is crucial in order for older adults to access group and individual social opportunities. However, due to the recent government austerity measures in the UK, there has been a reduction in funding to transport. This has exacerbated existing limitations pertaining to transport in this rural area. Technology may provide a gateway service by opening up opportunities for one to one and group social opportunities.

Accessing services is a third key theme that has emerged. We focused on how access relates to the disjointed ways in which services are made available and are provided within 3

http://www.campaigntoendloneliness.org/wp-content/uploads/Promising-approaches-to-reducingloneliness-and-isolation-in-later-life.pdf

© Copyright 2017 ifib

24 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices government and between government and NGOs. For example, services such as physical exercise, luncheon clubs and IT training are provided by Age UK SL, while benefits, handyman schemes and assisted refuge collection are provided by SLDC. Our fieldwork began in May 2016, when we gained access to a pool of older adults and began our recruitment drive. Our study of co-creation has sought to describe our three goals.

• • •

• • • • •

What interventions did we undertake in South Lakeland? (Section 3.2) What are our reflections and learning from the methods we used for our co-creation activities? (Section 3.3) What are our reflections and learning from the process of co-creation in South Lakeland that will feed into Phase two in all field sites? (Section 3.4)

Vision Expert interviews Literature review State of the art Recruitment

Formulating Ideas • • • •

Interviews Focus groups Workshops Cultural Probes

Exploration

Co-Design • Interviews • Workshops • Surveys • Probes

• Workshops • Observation • ‘Events‘ module feedback (Workshops 7 & 9)

Service Definition

• Feedback –develop loop • Documentation • Talks of hosting of product

Service & Diffusion

Transitioning

Recruitment phase

Engagement phase

Figure 6: Co-Creation in South Lakeland

To support the attainment of these three goals we created a template (see Appendix I).

Drawing on our previous deliverable D6.3 (Recruitment & Engagement Plan Bremen & South Lakeland), our planned co-creation activity stages are the following: (a) Exploration and Recruitment, (b) Idea Forming, (c) Service and Data Definition, (d) Co-design and (e) Service and Diffusion. Figure 6 highlights our co-creation stages and methods. The template provides a way to first record our plans for co-creation, second to capture the process of co-creation and the participants and third to capture our learning and reflections from each stage 4. This template has been fundamental in planning and undertaking the co-creation activities. It has also been central for us to capture the learning that arose and how we have modified the cocreation approach throughout the first phase of work. This section is structured in relation to the three goals mentioned above: first through review of our interventions, second through reflecting on our methods and finally by capturing the learning from the co-creation process.

4

The service and diffusion stage of work is very preliminary at the moment and so we have provided a note in Section 3.2.4, but not accounted for this in detail in this document.

© Copyright 2017 ifib

25 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices 3.2

Interventions in South Lakeland

This section will provide an account of the interventions we have undertaken in South Lakeland during Phase one. This accounts for the work undertaken between May 2016 and 1st January 2017. The entire list of interventions undertaken during Phase one is shown in Table 2. The right hand column of the table highlights the stakeholders we have worked with while the left hand column highlights the form of intervention.

Activities

Location

Number

Attendees

Meetings ULANCS internal meetings

Kendal Lancaster

5 38

SLDC, Age UK SL, SLH

Interviews

Kendal

24

SLDC, Age UK SL, older adults

Casual chats (exploration and recruitment)

Kendal, Ings, Staveley

18

Older adults, volunteers, Age UK SL staff

Focus groups

Kendal, Ings

3

Exercise group participants, Knit and Natter Club participants

Observation

Kendal

In ‘design’ workshops

Our workshop participants

Workshops (Exploration + Design + Prototype feedback/test)

Kendal

9

”

Contacting other organisations

Kendal, Grange

2

--

Table 2: Interventions in South Lakeland in Phase 1

3.2.1 Interventions in the Exploration and Recruitment Stage The intentions for the exploration and recruitment stage were fourfold. First, we sought to explore the issue of independent living with the key stakeholders, SLDC and Age UK SL and with older adults themselves. Second, to consider the issues of accessibility and open data. Third, we wanted to consider the secondary data relevant to this domain. Fourth, to recruit older adults to join us as co-creators.

Service & Diffusion

Exploration & Recruitment

Co-Design & Data creation

Idea Forming Service & Data Definition

During the exploration and recruitment stage, we held meetings with our stakeholders, SLDC and Age UK SL. Our meetings had a number of objectives. First to explore what they considered to be fundamental with regard to independent living. In our initial meetings we sought to explore and understand their concerns pertaining to independent living. During these meetings it became clear that we

© Copyright 2017 ifib

26 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices should focus on loneliness and social isolation. Subsequent meetings explored this theme in more detail.

The second objective was to understand accessibility to information technology and open data/services in South Lakeland. We sought to understand the extent and nature of engagement with technology that older adults had. From the outset we were made aware of the low uptake of information technology by older adults in the district (estimated to be 16%). We also reviewed secondary data, where available, relating to access and information technology for older adults. We also reviewed existing applications and web sites 5 . In relation to open data, there is no open data available via either stakeholder organisation. However, we are negotiating with SLDC about what might be possible in this area. While the provision of open data remains uncertain, SLDC are committed to opening up their services to older adults.

A third objective of these meetings was to agree the shape and nature of our access to staff in both organisations as well as to older adults. It was important that we establish what they would support, and also who we could and could not contact. For example, Age UK was divided into two departments, services and retail. We were granted full access to the services part of the organisation but specific permissions were required each time we contacted one of their retail stores. We interviewed six staff members of SLDC and two staff within Age UK SL. In addition to meeting with senior SLDC managers, we have interviewed a number of reception and customer service staff. Both of the people in Age UK SL we interviewed undertook the detailed assessments with individual older adults. We have also participated in a number of formal meetings with staff from both SLDC and Age UK SL. A fourth objective was to discuss and gain access to the older adults themselves. At this initial stage, we wanted to gain access to a wide variety of older adults. We did not want to only restrict ourselves to those who were already interested in information technology. We were conscious that it was important to gain an understanding of the issues relating to independent living for all older adults before we embarked on our co-creation activities. This meant we could attend better to the issues of accessibility from the outset of the study. This saw us attend a number of events that Age UK host such as knitting classes and exercise classes. We conducted three focus groups with participants at exercise or knit and natterclubs. While attending these events we also sought to recruit participants who would participate in our co-creation project workshops.

During our recruitment drive at the social events for older adults, researchers often participated in activities at the meets (e.g. exercise at exercise clubs) or volunteered in assisting in the organisation of activities (e.g. in a leisure centre fun ‘O’lympics’ meet). This helped us become a part of their group thereby enhancing the scope for casual conversations with the organisers. This proved invaluable in both gaining a better understanding of independent living and also, due to Age UK SL staff’s knowledge of those that attended their events, and to gain their assistance in identifying older adults who might participate in our co-

5

For example some of the popular services that are available through open data supported apps deal with refuse collection-- http://whatbinday.com/, road safety--https://data.gov.uk/dataset/roadaccidents-safety-data , bus timetables-- http://www.busguru.co.uk/ , housing and care options in later life--http://www.firststopcareadvice.org.uk. In Cumbria our desktop research and correspondences with various organisations highlight a few pointers to Network Infrastructure: Connecting Cumbria and b4rn (https://b4rn.org.uk/) alongside BT. (http://www.connectingcumbria.org/)

© Copyright 2017 ifib

27 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices creation workshops. However, most of the older adults we talked to were not interested in technology and could not see any benefit from using it. This was repeated time and again.

The outcome of this first co-creation stage was that while we were able to recruit a number of participants for our workshops, it amounted to about half the number that we had aimed to recruit. However, the older adults that we have recruited have become strong supporters of the project. We have approached other organisations to assist with the further recruitment of participants, for example, we met with South Lakes Housing (SLH) who provide accommodation (sheltered and otherwise), to gain access to new participants. We will carry out additional exploration and co-design activities in early 2017 in rural areas of South Lakeland. We were also aware of the challenges of accessibility to the internet and the limited uptake of technology by older citizens in the district. These were significant challenges to end this first stage of our research.

Figure 7: Recruitment at Exercise Club event Fun â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Oâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;lympics in Kendal

Figure 8: Recruitment drive at Young @ Heart (Kendal)

A detailed breakdown of our interventions in the exploration and recruitment stage is presented in Appendix IIa. Summary In summary, our interventions in this first stage of co-creation have broadened our understanding of the contexts and issues pertaining to independent living and specifically loneliness and social isolation. It has also allowed an understanding of the ways in which SLDC and Age UK SL seek to support older adults. Additionally, we have also been able to gain an understanding of the issues relating to loneliness and social isolation from the perspective of a wide range of older adults. Importantly, this included older adults who did not have experience or interest in technology. This allowed us to gain an understanding of the struggles, fears, limitations, possibilities and pleasures of older adults in this region. We also sought to recruit participants to become co-creators. The detailed views of both service providers and service users helped us to plan and initiate the co-creation workshops with a good understanding of the complexities of living life independently for older adults in the South Lakeland region. We were also aware of the services provided by both organisations.

Further, our research during the exploration and recruitment stage raised questions

Š Copyright 2017 ifib

28 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices pertaining to the extent to which a technological solution may be widely adopted by older adults across South Lakeland.

Key insights: Exploration & Recruitment stage • • • •

Narrowed down independent living to focus on loneliness and social isolation.

Considered understandings of independent living and technology with a broad range of older adults.

Understand the perspectives and priorities of key service providers.

Identified and recruited co-creators.

3.2.2 Interventions in the Idea Forming Stage We have had seven regular participants who have attended our workshops (five females and two male participants with an age range Exploration between 66 and 80). Their media profiles are Service & & Diffusion presented in Appendix VIII. We have conducted Recruitment four exploration workshops with our participants in this second co-creation stage in Idea order to understand and formulate ideas Co-Design Forming relating to loneliness and social isolation (including accessibility and open data). We Service & concluded this stage with a separate workshop Data with staff from SLDC and Age UK SL. The Definition purpose of this final meeting in stage two was to feedback the progress of our fieldwork to these organisations and to gain their agreement and support for the focus of our project.

Workshop 1 – Familiarisation The intention of the first two-hour workshop was first to familiarize participants with each other, second to outline the aims of our project and third to introduce the key ideas of cocreation to our participants.

The first workshop was semi structured, in the sense that we had a plan for what we aimed to do, but no specific activities we would undertake with participants. We introduced the project, the members of the team and asked everyone else to introduce themselves. Most of the participants knew one another (as we did) from attending the same social events. This was very helpful as introductions were short and people felt at ease with each other. We also had to factor in time for participants to read and sign the very detailed ethical consent forms.

We then introduced the overall aim of the project and explained how we would like them to become co-creators. This led to some of the participants saying that they did not know much about technology. We expected this and steered the conversation to each of them wanting to say something about technology, and specifically what they had used it for, and what they want to use it for. It became apparent that many in the group were interested but had very limited knowledge of using technology. However, they were all interested to learn more about technology. A large part of this workshop was then spent reassuring participants about their important role in the project and our expectations of them.

© Copyright 2017 ifib

29 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices The final part of the workshop focused on practicalities such as how best to schedule and organise future co-creation workshops. What transpired at this early stage was how busy many of our older adults were. It proved hard to find a regular time and day when they were all available. We also had to work around the availability of the room.

The outcome of the workshop was that all participants seemed positive to come to the next workshop, all had signed the ethics forms to allow for their participation, and that we had fixed a date that suited everyone.

Reflection • • •

Important to make time for ethical consent.

Important to explain the vital role they will play as co-creators.

Important to build in time to develop good relations.

Workshop 2 – Calendar Exercise The intention of the second workshop was to find out what the older adults do during a typical week. This was in part a response to our reflections from the first workshop and from the discussions during the recruitment stage pertaining to how busy many of the older adults were.

The second workshop attracted several new participants. We began the session with brief introductions, and due to the new participants, reiterated the aim of the project. We waited until after the session had finished to ask them more about themselves and about their use of / interest in technology after the event. While we were pleased to welcome new participants, it was disruptive to the start of the workshop. However, it is something that we recognised may happen again.

This workshop was designed around a structured calendar exercise. The calendar exercise (see Appendix III) sought to explore the “ideal” week and the “actual week”. Participants filled in a paper calendar listing the actual activities they had done, or had planned to do, that week. They were also asked to complete another calendar that listed the activities that would be included in their “ideal” week. What emerged was the importance of ensuring that they had social interaction throughout the week. All participants shopped daily, volunteered, attended social events, educational events and physical exercise activities. All participants highlighted the challenges of transportation. Further, planning their week ahead was also important to them. Indeed, we got the sense that knowing that they had something planned for most of the week was almost as important as attending the social events. Figure 9 provides an illustration of the activities that older adults liked to undertake in an ideal week.

© Copyright 2017 ifib

30 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

Figure 9: Sample of the ideal week calendar

A second intention was to develop a good relationship with all participants. While completing the calendar form a researcher worked closely with the participants. This not only allowed an opportunity to better understand the reasons for what they recorded on the calendar. It also provided a means to develop good inter- personal relationships with the participants.

Š Copyright 2017 ifib

31 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

Figure 10: Participants working on the Calendar Exercise

The two new participants, who had missed the introduction to the project and to the cocreation process required extra support and explanation. However, it transpired that they had thought it was an extension of an existing tablet/mobile phone training workshop. For example, one participant [Julie], came to the workshop because she wanted to learn specific things about using technology, for example how to sell items on eBay. Indeed, she raised a specific question– “I’ve got an old mobile, and I don’t know how to retrieve messages” and expected us to help her with this during the calendar exercise. These two participants dropped out of future workshops.

The outcome of the session was positive nonetheless. We had a good account of the activities they did and would like to undertake, and several participants took blank sheets with them to ask their friends to complete. The importance of social interaction and planning a busy week become a key lesson that has followed us through the co-creation process.

We also decided that if new people joined in future, we would have to go to a separate part of the room and explain the purpose and the process of our co-creation work.

Reflection • • •

Older adults like to plan their week so as to know that they will be busy. This is just as important as the social activities themselves.

Transportation in this rural district is limited.

We need to plan for new members joining our workshops.

Workshop 3 - Plan B The intention of the third workshop was to seek to prioritise the themes that emerged from our analysis of the calendar exercise. We had developed cards with some of the key things that participants had recorded such as shopping, exercise, education, walking, knitting, technology classes etc. for them to work through and prioritise.

Unfortunately, only two participants attended. Both had completed their calendar in more detail and one had asked a friend to complete a calendar. We discussed which aspects of the week were especially important to them. The discussion then moved into a free ranging discussion about transportation in rural areas, living alone, the need for social interactions, use of services (particularly refuse collection) and crucially, what the older adults considered

© Copyright 2017 ifib

32 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices to be important for them to remain independent. One outcome was that it became clear how fiercely independent both people were. They actively sought out opportunities for social events and were keen to learn how to optimise their use of information technology.

The second intention of this workshop was to know what other older adults thought about technology and/or used technology for. We asked them to discuss what other older adults they knew used technology for. Asking about the use or non-use that other older adults made of technology led to less candid responses. People are more critical of others than they were of themselves. They explained few of their friends and neighbours have an interest in technology, that they do not see why they need to use it and what they can gain from it.

While clearly challenging for us, this was a helpful confirmation of what the Age UK SL representatives had told us. It also reconfirmed the findings from the recruitment co-creation stage. One outcome was that while we needed to build something initially for the cocreators, we also needed to keep in this group of non-users in mind if our project would have any significant penetration.

Finally, it transpired that Age UK SL had organised a special social event at the same time as our workshop (which was unknown to us). It highlighted that we needed to ensure that we were informed about events Age UK SL were hosting when organising future workshops and interviews etc. It also highlighted the importance that older adults place on attending social events.

Reflection • • • •

Older adults are often very independent and actively seek out opportunities for social interaction.

Need to not rule out creating something for the ‘majority’ of older adults in South Lakeland.

Ask people to talk about others to elicit less candid responses.

Organising times for workshops needs to also factor in Age UK SL hosting one off events.

Workshop 4 – Prioritising Exercise The intention of this workshop was to start to prioritise what activities we should seek to design technological support for. Thus, for the final workshop with older adults in this second stage of co-creation, we ran the prioritisation exercise that had initially been planned for Workshop 3.

The activity was designed so as to ask the participants to rank issues that had emerged from the calendar exercise, informal discussions and interviews. We circulated cards with the themes that they had provided from previous workshops (and interviews) and asked each person to comment on each theme. We also asked participants to volunteer additional themes. This prompted considerable discussion. We then asked participants to place each theme in rank order of importance. The aim of this activity was to prioritise different themes to gain a clear understanding of what we would initially develop. Figure 11 below indicates the text provided by our most advanced co-creator under one of the themes (transport) that we asked them to prioritise.

© Copyright 2017 ifib

33 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

Figure 11: Prioritisation Example from one of the Co-creators

The outcome from this exercise was that social events and opportunities to meet other people was the most highly ranked theme that emerged. The other themes in rank order were transport, information provision, trusted trader, benefits and shopping.

However, when we started talking about technology, the issue of trust arose as a key concern for several in the room. They were concerned that their details may not be safe and they may be subject to phishing or other unsolicited contact. They were also distrusting of recording financial details. They did not want SLDC, and to a lesser extent Age SL to know about their financial circumstances.

Reflection • •

Social events were ranked as more important that government services.

Trust is a key concern – trust in technology and in government / NGO organisations.

Feedback/consolidation Workshop with SLDC and Age UK South Lakeland The intention of this workshop was first to feedback the themes to the key stakeholders that had been prioritised though our co-creation workshops. Gaining SLDCs and Age UK SL’s continued and future support is crucial to the success of our project.

The emergent themes of the fieldwork were grouped under the following broader categories: (a) The older adult experience of technology, (b) Social activities, (c) Interactions with government services and (d) Trust. Each theme was discussed in detail with the representatives from both organisations. Both Age UK SL and SLDC concurred with our findings and agreed that we should prioritise developing an events application, a services application and a trusted portal. The safe / trusted portal was something that both organisations were especially keen to pursue. SLDC have provisionally agreed to host the service once it had been developed.

A second intention was to consider the issue of designing for the majority population of South Lakeland. Here we refer to those that did not have access to technology – persona C (Appendix VIIc). We discussed a number of possibilities: First, whether we could design something related to Age UK SL’s ‘village agent’ services. Village agents provide local support

© Copyright 2017 ifib

34 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices for older adults in need of services in rural regions of South Lakeland. Village agents were often mentioned by participants as being highly beneficial. Second whether we could use SMS based invites for events and other activities. Both of these areas were supported by Age UK SL and SLDC as possible ways to develop the project in the second year.

The issue of automated form-filling also arose during the discussion. We discussed and reflected together on the fact that one of the reasons for older adults’ reluctance to use technology was because they were put off by the requirements to complete numerous different, and sometimes complex and confusing forms in order to access services. We agreed that these were potentially important issues that we would explore in Phase two. Low recruitment was also reported and discussed.

The outcome of this workshop was that it allowed us to agree with Age UK SL and SLDC what we would focus on in the next stage of co-creation – the design of the app. A detailed breakdown of our interventions in the Idea Forming stage is presented in Appendix IIb. Reflections • • •

Social events were agreed as the priority with key stakeholders.

A trusted portal was also welcomed.

Plans were discussed to develop something for non-users/limited technology users in South Lakeland.

Summary of the Idea Forming Stage In summary, we identified, explored and prioritised a range of important issues pertaining to independent living for older adults in the South Lakeland region. We agreed on the next steps with both the co-creators and the stakeholders. We agreed to proceed to the Service and Data Definition stage of co-creation with a specific emphasis on (a) social events of interest to our participants, (b) developing a trusted portal and (c) exploring possible services. We also identified issues that we would explore in Phase two of the work in South Lakeland. This would focus on intermediaries and the related provision of information to relevant services and how non-users of the technology (persona C) may benefit.

Key Insights: Ideas forming stage • Explored issues pertaining to independent living and specifically loneliness and social isolation.

• Considered a range of technological functionalities.

• Prioritised the services that would be beneficial with service users and providers.

• Enrolled key stakeholders for stage three.

3.2.3 Interventions in the Service and Data Definition and CoDesign Stages We ran five workshops during this stage.

The aim was to focus on the issues agreed at the end of the previous stage, namely events, a trusted portal and the provision of services. Our two September workshops were geared towards data

© Copyright 2017 ifib

Service & Diffusion

Exploration

Idea Formation

Co-Design

Service Definition 35 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices definition and designing around ‘events’ and the October workshops around ‘services’. Our November workshop continued our research investigations and discussion around government services. Additionally, this workshop was also used to gather feedback on the content and design of our ‘events’ app. While our original plan was to organise our activities around the distinct Service and Data Definition stage and the Co-Design stages (see Deliverable 6.3), however, our experiences while running the co-creation activities saw a strong overlap between the stages.

Workshop 5 – Social Events The intention of this workshop was to show our co-creators a picture of a potential prototype of the events application (a mobile phone with apps—see Appendix VI). We outlined its suggested functionalities. We received some feedback about this interface. What was clear was the participants liked to be involved in this design work, and appreciated that we had followed their suggestions to focus on events.

The second intention of this workshop was to ask the participants to help identify where they looked for events. We showed the older adults a list of events we had collated from information that was provided by SLDC and Age UK SL. These were events run by a wide range of different organisations (See Appendix IV). We also discussed their needs and difficulties in accessing information and attending events. The issue of searching for information and using search facilities became the main focus of discussion.

The outcome was that they were unaware of many of the events and indeed, of the organisations hosting them. Second that they would have difficulty getting to some of the locations due to limited transportation.

Reflection • • •

Participants liked to see their input in the design of the phone screen.

Participants were unaware of many organisations that hold events.

That transportation to the areas where events are held proses challenges.

Workshop 6 – Information Searching The intention of this workshop was to consider what information search functionality we could build into the events app. It was clear from the previous workshop that information searching was not something participants were necessarily familiar with (other than Google).

We observed how participants searched for information. We did this by asking them to test out a range of different search filters that were available on popular websites. These included a property website (Rightmove), a car sales web site with extensive filtering capability and a website providing ‘commute times’. Three researchers were present at this workshop. This allowed us to work with participants individually. We observed the participants as they navigated these websites on their mobile phones / tablets and, for one participant, on their laptop. We answered questions that the participants raised and steered them through the search navigation process when necessary. We wrote up the observations after the workshop.

We had planned to run the remainder of the session as a design experiment on paper prototypes. However, due to the length of time required for some participants to use the search functionality websites, this was not possible.

© Copyright 2017 ifib

36 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices The outcome was that we developed a clear understanding of how difficult search filters may be for some older adults. This suggests that the search functionality will need to be intuitive and possibly based on preferences.

Reflection • • •

Searching and filtering searches was challenging and time consuming.

Preferences thus would need to be built in.

This functionality would not be easily / readily used by older adults using the events app.

Workshop 7 – Events App Prototyping The first intention of this workshop was to show the first stage of the events app and to gain feedback on its design. The second intention was to highlight the search filter design.

Figure 12: Basic prototype of an app

© Copyright 2017 ifib

37 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices Figure 12 illustrates the basic prototype of the app’s home launcher screen and the events app itself. Figure 12 highlights the events component. This was co-created with participants who provided feedback and suggested new features (e.g. a weather icon) that might potentially be included in the ‘app’. Some of the other ideas and requirements suggested included, location, sunset time and transport information. Interestingly with location, it was not about how to get to the location, but merely confirmation of the location. Being a district of small villages and towns most people knew where everything was and could easily find places they did not know. There was discussion about providing names of people attending the event. However, views differed on this issue due to privacy concerns. The issue of trust emerged once more.

Figure 13: Events app prototype

The outcome of this workshop was first feedback about the size of the different components and second more detailed feedback on the design of search filters.

Reflection • •

Expanded functionality was suggested Participants were enthused that they could see the fruits of their co-creating labour!

© Copyright 2017 ifib

38 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

Workshop 8 – Accessing Government and NGO Services The intention of this workshop was to focus on considering the development of the services app. Specifically, we sought to identify the services that the older adults considered to be especially valuable.

We designed the workshop around a list of services. The list of services (See Appendix V) was drawn up by the researchers based on information provided by SLDC. This session was devoted to discussion around participants’ knowledge of accessing of existing local government services. Participants suggested and discussed issues of access to information on services and sources of information. The discussion revolved around participants’ experiences of access and whether there were services that they were unaware of (and why). This list was extensive and there was insufficient time to review all the services during the workshop. The outcome was to complete this exercise at a later workshop.

Reflection • •

We should have shortened the list prior to the workshop by talking to the NGO. The services considered valuable are very much dependent on the individual’s financial and physical circumstances.

Workshop 9 – Events App Prototyping The intention of this workshop was to complete the discussion around the list of services.

Second to demonstrate the prototype. However, our third and primary intention was to consider developing services for the non-users of technology in the district.

During this session the researchers reported on a more developed prototype—an ‘events’ app with certain functionalities. The app was discussed with participants and further suggestions for refinement were noted.

The discussion around the unfinished list of services from the previous workshop was completed with the workshop participants. The agreed list of services to consider was trusted handyperson services, and community news.

We explored once more with our co-creators the possibility of developing services for “nonusers”. We asked how their friends and relatives might benefit from this events app. They discussed and suggested other ways that that we could reach out to non-users (persona C): •

Public (interactive, and non-interactive) displays  Libraries, Post Office, Supermarket, charity shop, SLDC offices.  Non-interactive displays (simple carousel with, for example, nearby events – perhaps mix displaying random with 10 frequent “featured” events). These could be expanded beyond events to other Mobile-Age apps and info.

SMS based messaging to mobile phone and landlines was also considered. This offers opportunities to overcome some of the challenges relating to accessibility to the internet and the cost associated with purchasing devices and monthly internet subscriptions. This latter option is one that we will explore further in Phase two of co-creation.

The outcome of this workshop was a clear definition of the events app to be developed and second a clear prioritisation of services. Finally, we continued to develop our understanding of persona C – the non-technology user. © Copyright 2017 ifib

39 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices Refection  There are some interesting possibilities to explore to make the app accessible to the non-technology users.  Friends or relatives could use the app on their behalf.

Summary of the Service and Data Definition and Co-Design Stages In summary these workshops sought to narrow down and define the development of an events application. This stage focused on developing an ‘events’ app that would facilitate attendance at social events. It has led to the design and specification of the functionality. The workshops also assisted in understanding the nature of services used most frequently by participants and the challenges they faced in using them. This has led to the initial scoping of the services app to potentially include services such as handyman and community news.

Further, and perhaps most fundamentally, it was apparent during this stage first, that provision of services within one application/container was required and second, that this application must be a trusted/safe enclave. A detailed breakdown of the interventions in the Service and Data Definition Stage, as well as the Co-Design Stage that ran simultaneously, is provided in Appendix IIc. Key Insights: Data Definition Co-design stage • • • • • • •

Further defined issues relating to events.

Further defined and prioritised government and NGO services.

Considered issues such as search functionality.

Considered issues such as transport, weather and darkness.

Demonstrated and refined the interface of the app.

Reviewed and identified open and proprietary data sources.

Considered ideas to make the technology accessible to a wider number of older adults in South Lakeland.

3.2.4 Service and Diffusion Stage This stage comprised of three distinct activities: evaluation, documentation and sustainability. In this subsection we account for our progress in Phase one with regard to these activities.

Service & Diffusion

Exploration

Idea Co-Design Preliminary testing of prototypes for the Formation ‘events’ app has commenced. Thus far we have focused on developing a demonstrator events app. This has Service Definition allowed us to gain feedback on its design from our co-creators prior to further development. Simultaneously, work has been undertaken to develop the architecture and functions of the app itself. This will be piloted in a future workshop with our co-creators. This stage is thus ongoing, and we will continue to refine the design and robustness of the events app. It will be tested by our group of participants and a wider group © Copyright 2017 ifib

40 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices of older adults. On the issue of sustainability, researchers have initiated discussions with SLDC to explore whether they will host the app. They are supportive of this but we will work out the specificities and gain final agreement once the app is fully developed and tested. Further diffusion will take place once our app is hosted by SLDC. We also seek to engage other organisations such as Age UK (nationally) who may support the wider roll out and sustainability. We will do this once we believe we have a strong product to demonstrate and market to them.

In addition to this interim report on co-creation, we have highlighted our learning and reflections on accessibility in the accessibility interim report and in the communication and dissemination reports.

ULANC has also submitted papers to two conferences, viz. CHI (2017) 6 and DIS (2017) 7. If accepted, these papers will not only allow for wider dissemination but also provide opportunities for further feedback.

Key Insights: Service and Diffusion Stage • • •

Ensure sustainability by creating ownership - SLDC to host the app Test prototypes with a wide group of older adults Gain feedback from wider NGO, government and academic stakeholders

6

https://chi2017.acm.org/ “Mobile-Age: open data mobile apps to support independent living”

7

http://dis2017.org/ "Reflecting on the “co” in co-creation"

© Copyright 2017 ifib

41 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices 3.3

Learning and Reflection on Co-Creation Methods

This section will consider our reflections and learning from the methods we used in South Lakeland in the five co-creation stages of our project in Phase one (year 1). An overview of the methods used in South Lakeland is provided in Table 3.

Method

Stages Exploration and Recruitment

Idea Forming

Formal Meetings

X

X

Informal meetings

X

X

Secondary Data

X

Participating/volunteerin g in older adult activities at social meets

X

Interviews

X

Focus groups

X

Discussion

X

Probes

Service and Data Definition

Co-design

X

X

X

-Calendar Exercise

-- Experiences of existing apps/website s

-Demonstrat ors

Service and Diffusion (ongoing stage)

X

--IT possibilitie s

-- Searching existing websites Observation

Survey

-- List of activities and events of interest to participant

X

-- List of government services Persona Stake-holder buy-in

X

X

Feedback and Consolidation Workshop

Table 3: Co-creation research methods used in Phase 1 in South Lakeland

Š Copyright 2017 ifib

42 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices 3.3.1 Exploration and Recruitment Lessons about the Co-Creation Methods Meetings with stakeholders The initial meetings (March/April 2016) with SLDC and Age UK SL allowed us to gain a detailed understanding of both organisations and of the domain of ‘independent living’. The meetings allowed us to review services provided in South Lakeland to support independent living.

Crucially, the meetings allowed us to better understand the region and the differences between the urban and rural districts. It also allowed us an understanding of the technological infrastructure such as broadband, superfast broadband, mobile coverage and radio coverage, across the region. These insights were important in shaping our understandings about opportunities and limitations that the current infrastructure provided.

The meetings were also instrumental in gaining access to staff working at SLDC in different departments whom we were able to interview, senior managers at Age UK South Lakeland with whom we have been able to discuss Age UK’s work in South Lakeland in detail, and a pool of older adults from whom we recruited participants for our project workshops. Perhaps most fundamental was the fact that the meetings established strong working relationships with both organisations which has been crucial to our subsequent research.

Secondary data Following the initial meetings, several reports and publically available datasets pertaining to South Lakeland were reviewed. Particularly important was the data available on internet accessibility in the region. This is reported in detail in our ‘Interim Study on accessibility, digital mobility & open data deliverable (D1.1). Age UK SLs assessment methodology was also reviewed. This assessment seeks to garner details about an individual in order to provide a tailored package of support to assist in their independent living. Whilst much of this assessment relates to finance and health, the issue of loneliness and social isolation is the overarching criteria. This was a very important insight, as for Age UK SL, deteriorating health is viewed as being a consequence of loneliness and social isolation. This has become the focus of our research in South Lakeland. A further key source of data refers to SLDC’s report and survey of how older adults request services. We also undertook a review of publically available open data sets. This review of secondary data highlighted that there are significant internet accessibility challenges in the region and that the current services provided to older adults are highly fragmented. It also highlighted that there is limited published research on this district to inform our study. Finally, open data has not been a priority within the region and, as such, there is limited open data and expertise in this domain.

Informal meetings Through attendance at a large number of social events run by Age UK SL (such as exercise, knitting and tablets-mobiles-and-laptop training sessions) we were able to talk informally to older adults about the opportunities and challenges pertaining to living an independent life in the South Lakeland region. As well as garnering insights about their own experiences of independent living, participants offered insights about experiences of friends and relatives who did not attend the events. We were conscious that there is an invisible majority of people that we were unable to access directly and thus were keen to try to understand their experiences. Although it is acknowledged that this information is both partial and second hand, this is one of the challenges associated with researching social isolation, and one that we sought ways to respond to through all of our methods. In addition, researcher-

© Copyright 2017 ifib

43 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices participation in the events and volunteering to help set up rooms and to clear up afterwards was important in gaining the trust of both event organisers and participants. Informal discussions at the events also allowed us to explain our project in detail and seek to recruit older adults and volunteers to participate in our co-creation workshops.

Formal interviews Interviews were undertaken with both staff in SLDC and also staff and volunteers in Age UK SL. These interviews were very helpful in gaining a detailed understanding of the nature and delivery of services available to older adults. Researchers gained a better understanding of the availability of open access to data/services, related interest and expertise of older adults, and the relevance of information and communication technologies (ICTs) in the lives of older adults. In addition, these interviews assisted understanding the range of issues/challenges faced by older adults and helped explore their lived experiences of independent living and that of use and accessibility of technology in more detail.

Focus groups The focus groups facilitated the initiation of discussions around particular issues that we wanted to better understand (e.g. use of internet and mobile phones in everyday living). An in-depth understanding on important aspects of our project was gained through these focus groups, and broader open-ended interviews with older adults. This was built on previous knowledge obtained from interviews and meetings with SLDC and Age UK SL. In some cases, older adults’ frustrations with the existing state of local services were revealed, whereas others spoke highly of emergency help and support services (e.g. the Cumbria winter floods of 2015-2016).

Summary of Exploration and Recruitment Lessons about the Co-Creation Methods • • • •

Enrol the support of, and develop strong relationships with, key stakeholders.

Gain an overview of the demographics and key issues older adults face in the region through meetings, interviews and secondary data.

Undertake initial focus groups and interviews with potential co-creators to better understand the issues prior to first workshop.

Find opportunities to engage a wide range of older adults (not just the cocreators).

3.3.2 Idea Formation Lessons about the Co-Creation Methods Probe: calendar exercise A ‘calendar exercise’ was designed as an attempt to understand a typical week’s activities in a participant’s life. The purpose of this exercise was to gain an overview of activities that older adults fill their days with, and understand the actual (or possible) role that information technology may play in supporting daily life. The “ideal” week exercise was designed to gain insights into things that they prioritise or things they would like to do but did not / could not do.

© Copyright 2017 ifib

44 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices Probe: technological possibilities Following a request at an earlier workshop we had agreed to showcase different technologies that had been developed in previous co-creation projects ULANC had participated in. We were also keen to do this to avoid co-creator preconceptions about technological solutions at this early stage. We had deliberately not mentioned that a tablet / phone was the expected outcome. One researcher demonstrated some artefacts that had been developed from previous co-creation projects. For example, a stress test ball that was designed to assist individuals with autism. It records high levels of stress by pressing the ball to trigger an alarm.

The various technologies demonstrated helped participants to understand that there are many different technological possibilities that might arise from our project, and second that the solution need not be technologically complex. It also addressed our concern that the solution needed to be accessible to as wide a range of older adults as possible.

Figure 14: A show of gadgets developed in earlier projects

Introducing a wide range of technologies, not directly related to the particular focus of our project, allowed for discussion around how these technological solutions had emerged in a previous co-creation project. It meant that participants could develop a better understanding of the whole process of co-creation. It also meant that as we were not showing them technologies related to independent living they were not necessarily provided with any preconceptions about what our solution would become. It did nonetheless lead to a discussion of what the technological solutions could become in South Lakeland. Thus a balance between highlighting possible technological outcomes, and not influencing older adultsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; views on these technologies as the definite solution to be developed, is thus one key trade off to consider.

Personas We constructed three personas in the idea forming stage. They are detailed in Appendix VII (a, b, c). Our three categories were: a) Technologically savvy b) Reluctant / basic user of technology c) Does not directly use technology, but uses it through help from intermediaries (e.g. family, NGOs, carers, etc.)

Š Copyright 2017 ifib

45 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices We developed our personas with the aim of refining our understanding of the different older adult user categories in South Lakeland. We regularly updated the personas as new issues and understandings emerged throughout the co-creation stages. They have been especially beneficial in the idea forming and the service and data definition stages. The personas are based upon the characteristics of the older adults we met in the recruitment stage and during our co-creation workshops. We have structured them in relation to their location, social connections, transport facilities and technology use/attitude to use.

Our app development in Phase one has drawn its ideas largely on category (a) the ‘technologically savvy’ persona taking into account the needs of Terry around technology and its relevance to him in facilitating independent living (Appendix VIIa). We will design around category (c) (Linda in Appendix VIIc) in Phase two of the project. This is the persona based on users that have no or limited access to technology. As we have noted, this persona reflects the majority of older adults in South Lakeland. Persona (b) (Appendix VIIb) we hope will be able to be supported to use our app due to the standard and simple interface design.

However, we believe that this persona will need training and support. As the project develops we will continue to refine our understanding of these personas.

Stakeholder buy-in The consolidation workshop with SLDC and Age UK SL staff was instrumental in narrowing down our focus into themes that catered to both the participants’ interests and these organisations’ interests. In addition, the event presented an opportunity to disseminate the results of the recruitment drive and workshop activities to both organisations. This also allowed us to convey the difficulties we had experienced in recruiting participants. It also helped us gauge SLDC’s interests in hosting our product. Meetings and discussions with these organisations enabled mapping of needs and interests of the district council and Age UK SL within the scope of the project.

Summary of Idea Formation Lessons about the Co-Creation Methods • • • • • •

Probes help co-creators become researchers.

Paper based probes are quicker and easier to use by a varied group.

Probes help to provide structure to elicit key aspects relevant to co-creation.

Probes should not be designed to influence to possible technological outcomes.

Examples of other co-creation projects can help participants understand the aim and the process of co-creation.

Ensure that stakeholders are aware of the ideas that are being created and that they are supportive.

© Copyright 2017 ifib

46 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices 3.3.3 Service and Data Definition and Co-Design Lessons about the Co-Creation Methods Probes: experiences of current apps / websites One workshop was designed around the experiences with using current apps and websites.

This proved to be an excellent workshop experience. This was because we were talking about websites that the participants had used or used often. They felt very confident discussing what they liked or did not like about the way the website was designed, the accuracy of information or the difficulties that they had completing forms. The discussion gave the developers an idea of participants’ sense-making around technology. It became clear that activities for them were seen as a sequential ordering of actions, and as such, they expect good, usable technology to be rational and orderly, either with clearly defined steps of use, or steps that follow easy, logical thinking.

Surveys: events exercise In a separate workshop the researchers ran an ‘events’ exercise (See Appendix IV). The exercise was designed around an extensive list of existing events in South Lakeland. The survey was developed at this stage to document which events they were aware of, how they heard about events and any events that were missing. Moving to this structured and tangible survey of events was crucial at this stage of co-creation as it started to focus our efforts on the specification of the app. Further, providing participants with a list of events helped them also talk about wider issues such as screen design and finding information about events. The latter was seen to be a crucial element of the events exercise.

Probes: searching websites This workshop was designed following feedback at the previous session. It was designed around the theme of ‘searching for information on the internet’. Several well-known websites were chosen (‘Rightmove’ 8, propertywide 9 and ‘autotrader’ 10) and participants were asked to retrieve specific information. The purpose of the exercise was to observe how participants interact with their mobile devices.

The method of observation revealed direct challenges (physical or cognitive) faced by participants whilst using technological devices (or particular interfaces). One idea that arose was that autocomplete on search fields was seen as being positive. Participants thought "[S]uggestions are really helpful". Additionally, certain themes of issues pertaining to technology and independent living that repeatedly arose in previous workshops and meetings, continued to be re-iterated in this workshop. Issues revolved largely around: •

Privacy and trust (reluctance to sign up to things for fear of nuisance e-mails, fears of being spied on).

8

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/

9

http://www.propertywide.co.uk/

10

http://www.autotrader.co.uk/

© Copyright 2017 ifib

47 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices • •

Confusing design of technology (with reference to websites as well as different designs for different interfaces).

Design of interface not being user friendly (issues with mobility and dexterity).

Probes: demonstrators Workshops seven and nine began with a demonstration of the prototype ‘events’ module. In workshop seven, participants looked over the bare-bone module and shared their thoughts, commenting that it would be useful if some themes related to the events app could be integrated: • • • • • • • • • • •

Cost of travel (taxis, trains etc.) for the length of travel Uber integration Links to website (events app may just be a curated summary) Date of event (and update when the event has expired) Costs of event Directions to event Distance Travel time Info on local taxi services Perhaps use multiple weather services Location o Immediately sense where you are (no sharing) o When searching: preference for radius of search o Secondary would be to manually specify search location.

In workshop nine, suggestions were more around design in addition to content. The most salient suggestions were as follows: • • • • • •

Carousel UI feature (Generic description here: http://ui-patterns.com/patterns/Carousel) Application that would work for a not-so-old (4 years) mobile phone.

Ensuring that the app works correctly on the web.

The developer needs to support tablets Events app comment: Scrolling down the homepage needs to be made obvious.

Participants suggested that the app must be simple to use.

Many participants were still concerned about privacy issues but stated that as long as there is assurance that the information is not shared, they would use the services. Participants wanted to have the option to delete/clear history. They did not want any adverts on our Mobile-Age App. One of the ideas that came out of these workshops with respect to use of interface and design was that for certain issues e.g. planning permission, participants preferred looking at desktop/laptop screens rather than a mobile phone or tablet screen size, merely because of the (bigger) screen size, the need for attention to detail when working on websites, and having been ‘used to’ that way of working for the websites. Researchers noted the particular models of mobile phone/ tablet the participants possessed so that they could design with these specifications in mind across Android and Apple devices.

On reflection we feel that the demonstration of our ‘events’ module opened up real possibilities for participants to contribute to the design of the app. Their suggestions were

© Copyright 2017 ifib

48 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices relevant, and became an important element of the ultimate design of the app. Privacy and trust continue to be important concerns for some participants. Adverts, pop ups and spam surfaced in discussions. The responsive design layout (launcher and search results page that automatically reorganises depending on phone size and orientation) has been well received by our participants. However, participants emphasised that the app must be ‘simple’ with minimum touch/clicks to use it. Researchers also realized through feedback on the prototype that in general, participants prefer to use tablets rather than mobile phones when at home.

However, when out of the house, they tend to only take their phones with them. Thus, the events app should be designed for both mobile phone and tablet interfaces.

Surveys: list of services In workshops seven, eight and nine, discussions centred on the existing list of services (See Appendix V) in South Lakeland (provided to us by SLDC). We asked which services the participants had used, and then talked about scenarios when they might use a service which they had not previously used. For example, participants were unaware of a careers service.

However, on reflection, they agreed that they would not have heard of this service because they were not looking for jobs. We also captured services that they had heard of, but might not have used. Due to the length of discussions, researchers continued with the services identification exercise over workshops eight and nine.

Participants were especially interested in (a) the Streetlife social network 11, (b) Planning applications, (c) Parish council data and information and (d) access to less ‘well known’ organisations/activities. Researchers held further discussions about services in general with the participants in small groups. It was agreed that the workshop environment, good relationship with participants and the general trend of inquiry and discussion in workshop sessions enabled spontaneous information and idea exchange which led to understanding older adults’ use and access to services. Thus, instead of forcing our views, we (researchers) were able to elicit the needs of participants.

Summary of Service and Data Definition and Co-Design Lessons about the CoCreation Methods • • • •

When using technology as probes it is good to start with familiar websites so that co-creators feel confident.

Probes work best when there is a tangible list or structure. However, key is to use this to facilitate discussion rather than constrain.

More complex probes require support, one to one facilitation and time.

Demonstrators should only be shown when you are sure the idea are converging and that you can demonstrate their involvement.

3.3.4 Service and Diffusion Lessons about the Co-Creation Methods The Service and Diffusion stage is underway, and as such, the lessons emerging from this stage will be documented in the final co-creation report 11

https://www.streetlife.com/

© Copyright 2017 ifib

49 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices 3.4

Learning and Reflections about the Co-Creation Process

In this section we detail the learning and reflections about the co-creation process that have emerged in relation to each co-creation stage.

3.4.1 Exploration and Recruitment Lessons about the Co-Creation Process Ethical approval Acquiring ‘ethical approval’ (requirement D6.2) proved difficult. First, the three rounds of evaluation by the ethics committee meant that researchers were delayed starting fieldwork.

Second, the detailed consent forms that the committee required were off-putting to participants. They were lengthy and resembled legal documents and thus were not well received by participants/older adults.

Open data availability Neither Age UK SL nor SLDC make use or collate open data. Thus it will take some effort on behalf of researchers to work with them to create open data. The UK government is pushing to make data open and available 12, but it is dependent on the data owners and generators (councils, districts, government departments etc.) to share that data and make it available. In particular, where one data source (e.g. Bus stop locations) may be available in one area, the same type of data will not be available in other areas. This is a concern and threatens the extent to which open data may be universally available across the district.

Rural typography Travelling to workshops is expensive and time consuming in a rural area. Thus this has been off-putting to older adults that live a significant distance from Kendal, and particularly for those participants who rely wholly on public transport. This is a significant challenge when working in a rural area.

Recruitment Our experience of recruiting older adults through social events for a ‘technology’ oriented project did not yield as many participants as anticipated. This was for the following reasons: •

•

12

There was limited interest in a ‘technology use’ project among older adults. We were aware that this may be an issue after our first meetings with stakeholders when they informed us of the low percentage of internet access in South Lakeland. It was difficult to pitch the project to older adults in South Lakeland.

More hands on support from SLDC/Age UK SL in the recruitment efforts would have been helpful to researchers. We sought assistance from a facilitator with experience of recruiting older adults on research projects. He recruited two new participants for our project. It emerged that while there are some older adults with an interest in technology, many would prefer basic tablet and mobile phone-training courses.

Potential co-creators were thus not confident enough to participate.

https://data.gov.uk/

© Copyright 2017 ifib

50 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

Reaching the isolated and socially excluded Older adults who attended the co-creation workshops and other social events were already actively seeking ways to cope with issues of loneliness and social isolation. Thus, they are a self-selecting group. It is a significant and difficult challenge to reach out to those who are isolated and do not participate in social events. Asking people to talk about others who are isolated was one way to address this issue but was clearly limited.

Representativeness of co-creators South Lakeland co-creation participants in Phase one were already familiar with technology.

While only one participant was an experienced user, recruitment across a wider cross-section of participants that related to our three personas would have been useful. Researchers aim to reach out to at least a part of this demographic through South Lakes Housing beginning in 2017.

Unfamiliarity of co-creating The idea of co-creating is something alien to older adults in South Lakeland. It took quite some time and explanation to allow our co-creators to understand the process. Providing more information with examples of the stages and the possible outcomes at this early stage is crucial. The best way we found to do this was to provide examples of other co-creation projects.

3.4.2 Idea Formation Lessons about the Co-Creation Process In this section the focus is on the Idea Formation Stage and accounts of what we have learned from our co-creation work.

Not being solution-led It is important in co-creation to ensure that we do not have a fixed technological solution in mind prior to co-creation. It was challenging due to the limited exposure that our participants had had to technology and also due to the fact that none of the participants’ had experience of being involved in the development of technology before. This was particularly challenging in the early stage of the project as researchers did not have, nor was it the objective to have, a solution in mind to demonstrate to them. It was clear that not defining the technological solution that we would co-create was disconcerting to some participants at the early stages of the project. Something that worked well for increasing participant enthusiasm, and also dispelled their fears about the complexities of technology, was our use of examples of technologies developed in previous projects’. We demonstrated several simple and userfriendly gadgets to demonstrate what can ultimately be delivered from a co-creation project.

Thus finding a balance between shaping the project yet leaving the possible technological solutions open is a key lesson.

Demonstrating the value of co-creators

© Copyright 2017 ifib

51 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices While co-creation has been a difficult concept for participants to grasp, one lesson to allay any concerns has been to demonstrate how their input in previous workshops has been taken into account. This was achieved through the creation of design principles. For example, the themes of trust, screen design, cost, passwords etc. were captured and shared amongst participants as design principles that would feed into the design stage. This was a crucial step and enabled participants to easily understand how their input would feed into the development of technology.

Participants felt that the workshops gave them the opportunity to create and give back to society by developing for their community (older adults) as well as contributing something worthwhile in their retired life. It emphasized the value of their experiences and contributions. Sustaining their valued contributions throughout the project is crucial.

Co-creators have a wide range of experiences and technological ability Due to the range of technological skill levels amongst participants, as well as their varied needs for independent living, designing and running a homogenous exercise/task was challenging. It was important to remain flexible. Workshop activities were modified based on the response/engagement of participants. It was also important to split participants in to small groups and have a number of facilitators. For example, in our third exploration workshop, only two participants attended and researchers redirected activity by instigating discussions and exploring issues surrounding access to government services.

Developing good relationships amongst co-creators One key lesson was to develop good personal relationships between the older adult cocreators and the researcher co-creators. Arriving early was important as many of the participants would want to engage in informal discussions with the researchers. This was important to not only identify any issues in advance of the workshop, but also to gain their trust and to answer any questions. Similarly, once the workshops finished, most participants stayed on to chat with the researchers on a more personal and informal basis.

Size of the group of co-creators Whilst recruitment of a larger number of participants to our project would have been ideal, our group of seven regular attendees has allowed the researchers to develop good relationships. It also has maximized output from the two hour sessions. However, it was noted that if recruitment to the project increases in future stages, sessions with small groups may be used if the pragmatics allow for this.

Preparing for poor / sporadic attendance One challenge for our co-creation research was that the number of attendees could vary from workshop to workshop. Some participants sometimes could not attend every workshop and thus there was the challenge of keeping participants up to date with progress. This meant the introductions to the aims of the workshops were often extended to ensure all participants understood the current session aims in addition to what had been achieved thus far. Part of the reason for sporadic attendance was that all participants had to travel considerable distances to attend the workshops which was both a time and a financial investment for participants. This highlighted the need for a plan B implemented in to workshop activities,

Š Copyright 2017 ifib

52 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices which could be as basic as ‘let the participants discuss issues of importance to them amongst themselves’. Due to time constraints, it was important for researchers to be mindful in steering discussions in a direction relevant to the project when participants digressed or became too involved or emotional about unrelated issues. It was however noted that such discussions could throw light on important peripheral issues.

Limited time duration of workshops Following advice from Age UK SL regarding concentration spans and availability of older adults, workshops were scheduled for two hours only. We also built in a tea-coffee and cake break after one hour. Being mindful of the rural location, researchers were sensitive to the fact that participants had to factor in time to travel in and out of town. However, there were sessions where there was insufficient time to cover the entire topic. This was due to the varied skill levels and our requirement for them to record their activities and also discuss them. Future workshops will minimise the detail that co-creators are asked to record during the workshops.

Engaging stakeholder organisations The importance of holding an extended a stakeholder workshop prior to commencing the design of activities for subsequent co-design workshops cannot be underestimated. In South Lakeland, the event presented an opportunity to disseminate the results of the recruitment drive and workshop activities to both organisations. Feedback and consolidation of ideas with SLDC and Age UK SL was a good way to engage with stakeholders in the co-creation process. The consolidation workshop with SLDC and Age UK SL staff was instrumental in narrowing down our focus into a cross-section of themes that matched participants’ interests and needs with their own interests.

It was also crucial to clearly understand what the authorities/intermediaries are able to host and support. This ensured that researchers started to build a product that would be supported after the end of the project. It was important to know that what we may co-create as a solution would be hosted and supported by the organisations. Thus, it became clear that while co-creation methods are very focused on a bottom-up approach, working from the requirements and aspirations of users, it was important not to lose sight of the fact that researchers needed buy in from Age UK SL or SLDC as a means to host the service after the end of the project. It was imperative to incorporate considerations of stakeholder resource prioritization in to methodologies.

Internal co-creator workshops A crucial lesson was to schedule multiple rounds of internal meetings between ULANCs researchers to reflect on data and workshop running experiences. These were important to check our understanding of the data and the ideas that were being formulated. They also led to changes in the planned workshop activities or refining the content already planned.

3.4.3 Service and Data Definition and Co-Design Lessons about the Co-Creation Process In this section the lessons arising from the Service and Data Definition and Co-Design stage of our co-creation work are described. © Copyright 2017 ifib

53 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices Training and support As with the previous stage, the varied technological skills of participants meant that running some activities in this stage was challenging. Some people needed guidance with basic laptop/mobile phone use skills. For example, in the design workshop on investigating the potential of an ‘events’ app, some participants were able to complete the exercise independently, whilst others required guidance through some/all of the exercise. Thus it was difficult to maintain the interest of all participants and to complete all the exercises planned without leaving some participants behind. For example, in one workshop there was insufficient time to populate a mock paper prototype as planned.

Working with tangible artefacts Moving away from abstract discussions to showing websites and apps, at this stage was a key lesson learned in maintaining participant engagement and interest and structure discussion. It also met their need for advice on how they use technology (e.g. search facilities).

Developing a functioning prototype Through the exploration workshops, the importance of developing a robust product emerged.

If the app developed fails to work or participants do not find it user-friendly, their trust in the technology will diminish. This will hamper our efforts to build a personalisable app. Thus the importance of presenting a working model to participants that was definitively tested and robust was apparent. Until this stage of development is reached researchers will take feedback on the existing prototype, re-develop by incorporating participant feedback and complete several rounds of feedback and implementation until the chosen level of the app we want to deliver is reached.

Building an App to be hosted by a specific organisation As a part of a co-creation project, reflection on building a product that fits with participants, SLDC, and Age UK South Lakeland demands (e.g. trust and security) is important so that the hosting and running of the product is ensured.

Co-creators or co-designers While ULANC researchers are committed to co-creating with our stakeholders, the complexity of co-creating at a ‘coding’ level for ‘apps’ was realized. Design codes are ultimately written and produced by the developer (the computer scientist). For some participants it was quite difficult even to participate at the level of paper prototype co-design. For example, where we wanted to provide a picture of a blank mobile phone screen, asking participants to fill up the screen with icons they wanted on the screen it seemed difficult to run the exercise. On reflection, it was agreed that coding together with participants would be impossible to focus on with the group of participants we have in South Lakeland. In Phase two researchers have agreed to try paper prototyping in smaller, but similar skill-level groups of participants.

Open data Government open data in South Lakeland is limited and it is not clear whether this will be expanded in the lifetime of our project. Researchers will undertake more independent

© Copyright 2017 ifib

54 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices research on open data/services existing in the South Lakeland region relating to the domain of independent living.

Emphasising the 'co' in co-creation In general, co-creation workshops with older adults work well when participants feel engaged and able to contribute to a product they perceive to be potentially useful either to themselves, or to the community. Researchers agreed that some participants who are more enthusiastic about the project could be used as ‘researchers’ in the next Phase. They could perhaps inform researchers about their friends who have different needs and use different services differently. They could also talk about our project developments and benefits to their friends to facilitate wider publicity and acceptance of the project.

Training and research One theme in particular that arose in this Phase was ‘request for support about how to use specific applications’ from participants. This was something they very much wanted. For example, when we asked how easy it was for some participants (e.g. Nina) who acquired information by accessing e.g. Facebook, Julie who shies away from technology wondered if there was a way to teach her how to use Facebook. Our researchers responded: “Well not necessarily teach you how to but have a way for you to access that information”. Teaching would not be an appropriate method for our research, firstly because it was a separate activity altogether not related to the project, and secondly because Age UK SL runs training workshops where Julie can easily access training on how to use Facebook. George was uncomfortable using Facebook because of privacy issues.

Co-creation and accessibility As already acknowledged, we are conscious that the events app is being designed for the digitally included. However, we have been aware from the outset that the majority of the population of older adults in South Lakeland does not have access to the internet due to limited connectivity, cost or interest, nor do they have access to a computer, tablet or phone.

Crucial in our work then is to co-create a version of our events app, and subsequent apps that will be beneficial to the ‘majority’ of older adults in South Lakeland. Reflecting on how to cocreate with this group will be crucial. A renewed focus on this group in required in the next Phase of research.

3.4.4 Service and Diffusion Lessons about the Co-Creation Process As already mentioned earlier in the report this stage is ongoing. For making our development more accessible to the wider population of older adults in South Lakeland, we are currently planning to consider how our developments may be accessible to older adults that do not have access to the internet. To do this we will reflect on personas (b) and (c). Persona (b) has the capability to have internet access in her town, but chooses to not purchase it as she does not know how to use it, nor does she have any internet capable devices. Persona (c) may use technology through intermediaries and/or has extremely poor internet connectivity.

To cater to these types of users, one approach we are considering is the integration of Short Message Service (SMS), also known as ‘Text Messaging’, into our apps and services. This would enable our demonstrator applications and services to communicate with users who do not have internet access or internet capable devices. Using the Events App as an example, © Copyright 2017 ifib

55 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices users could register their mobile or landline number to receive messages from the Events appâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s server. An SMS could be sent to users for: 1. Notification for upcoming event. This would be a replacement for a calendar notification on a smartphone, tablet, or PC. 2. Automatic message for upcoming events that satisfy a predefined set of filters (e.g. be alerted to all dance classes happening which are public transport accessible).

3. Periodic information. E.g. generic upcoming featured events in your local area.

All modern mobile phones can receive SMS messages, and will be received shortly after a phone is turned on. Landline numbers that are provided to our Events app can also receive SMS messages in the UK, as BT provides an automatic SMS to speech service13 that converts an SMS to audible speech on a landline phone. This way, short messages can be heard by users of our system without requiring an internet connected device, or access to the internet.

This would require a setup process that could be handled by an intermediary.

3.5

Summary of Reflections of Co-Creation Activities in South Lakeland

Our initial work on the project began with basic assumptions drawn from the literature and from our commitments outlined in the project proposal. Initial meetings with SLDC and Age UK South Lakeland were planned accordingly. Early on in the process researchers realised, planning and action are often separated by exigencies that arise unannounced. For example, the co-creation project stumbled upon initial interactions over ethical approval with the university administration which arguably compromised time dedicated to negotiating access accomplishing the recruitment mission. A further unforeseen obstacle relating to an enforced purdah on promoting and advertising our project via SLDC or anywhere else (as it had their name on it) came up due to the EU referendum at the time; therefore, advertising was only possible by word of mouth. In order to keep to the committed timeline of work as outlined in the project grant agreement, researchers went ahead with initial workshops in June, despite low recruitment. Researchers realised the challenges of recruiting older adults to a technology based action research project. However, workshops became increasingly engaging once the participants and researchers established good working relationships. In spite of this, planned activities occasionally were limited (e.g. for lack of participants). Flexible plans were essential for workshop activities. Additionally, it became clear through the three June 2016 workshops that spacing out of workshops was a good strategy to keep participants engaged.

Weekly workshops tended to become a burden and too much commitment for our participants whereas bimonthly events were more acceptable.

Outcomes of interviews and workshops have been at times quite far removed from our initial straightforward conviction that a technological solution to independent living through mobile access to services is both possible and useful. Instead, in South Lakeland, the overarching challenge of independent living comes from loneliness and isolation. While isolation is a comparatively tangible issue that might be tackled through community building and provisions of facilities through the community, loneliness is a larger malignant issue that is more difficult to deal with.

Within this context the project researchers have engaged with issues of accessibility to services and data and thus the aim is to co-create a solution that improves independent living through provision of better access to information and servicesâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;be it transport, weather or 13

https://bt.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/8510/~/all-about-bt-text

Š Copyright 2017 ifib

56 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices traffic, for example, at local events of interest. Through this we aim to encourage and facilitate social interaction at a group level in the minimum. In Phase two with the help of intermediaries, we hope to reach out to more individual older adults’ issues of loneliness.

Thus in summary, our co-creation activities with various stakeholders while undoubtedly rich and dense, have sometimes defied our plans and assumptions—be it in interviews or workshops or recruitment. Within an action research framework, we have taken a step back on reflecting within our own researchers’ team every co-creation activity and incrementally changed pathways to revisit future actions. This methodology of progress with research is time consuming, but respects a multitude of voices and offers lessons on key issues that we might want to repeat or avoid in future research with older adults.

3.6

Comparison of Planned & Conducted Activities

In D6.3 we had outlined our plan for co-creation recruitment and engagement. Below, in Table 6 we provide a summary of our reflections with respect to what we had planned.

© Copyright 2017 ifib

57 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

Stages of co-creation of open government services

Task

Planned methods

Reflection

Data collection on the most important needs of the older adults, the categorisation of their needs, the challenges of providing service, review of existing services, assessment of what would be a valued project

Age UK South Lakeland

• Our interviews and focus groups with the older adults at various social events we attended for recruitment were extremely enriching and complemented the data collected from interviews with the local government and Age UK SL authorities earlier. We thus were able to have the views on contexts, privileges and challenges of independent living in South Lakeland both from the authorities as well as the older adults’ points of view.

• Our (four) workshop discussions were dynamic and lively and people voiced their opinions, needs and wants from our project and from the authorities.

• Sometimes workshops did not run according to our plans. We realised a Plan B is essential to have.

• It was not possible to provide training on tablets and mobile phones because Age UK SL already runs such sessions free of cost and we are pressed for time with our project.

• Our cultural probes in this stage of workshops (calendar exercise) provided us not only with information about our participants’ typical week, but also their ideal week and provided an opportunity for us to reflect on hoe technology can bring the ideal nearer to reality.

• We have done a desktop survey about existing open data and apps. We are still negotiating discussions with SLDC to understand the real extent of open data that exists in South Lakeland.

• We had a stakeholder buy-in workshop where we fed back our idea-forming workshop analysis to SLDC and Age UK SL authorities. We consolidated our ideas on the way forward for our service definition and co-design stage workshops. In the context of loneliness and social isolation affecting independent living the decision was to steer the project forward into developing apps related to ‘social events’ and ‘services’.

• We developed three personas to define three typical categories of older adults in South Lakeland.

II Idea Formation

Interviews in workshops with, Luncheon club leads (2), IT Training volunteers (2), Physical Exercise volunteers (2), and information systems staff (2).

Older adults Interviews via Age UK (15-20). (Oneto-one and focus groups of 4-5 participants)

1. User and provider needs and value proposition (Lead CSTO)

Workshop participants Older adults (15-20).

Training on tablets in tablet sessions and observation (15-20) Cultural Probes, journal entries.

Secondary data such as documents about existing services, finding out about other organisations and the work they do for older adults.

© Copyright 2017 ifib

58 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

III Service Definition Definition of content and functions

2. Service definition and requirements (rough concept)

Age UK South Lakeland and recruited Older adults Volunteers and older adults participate in two workshops.

First workshop: provision of examples and mock ups of some of the service definitions we are exploring

(Lead CSTO)

Second Workshop: Final refinement of service definition

3. Availability of relevant open data (feasibility study) (Lead CSTO)

4.

Use description

case

(SCC)

Identification and examination of relevant open data repositories Identification of proprietary data that is required for the proposed services (availability, accessibility, maintenance)

Translate scenarios descriptions (UML)

into

use-case-

• We had five workshops in this stage. We investigated and focused on (a) events of interest and (b) services of relevance to the participants. Our main investigation centred around information and physical access on these two realms.

• Our surveys on lists of events and services worked well to inform us of older adults’ real difficulties and uses. These survey exercises created scope for extremely rich discussions during our workshops.

• It was not possible to run our planned paper prototype populating exercise because of the different skill and cognitive levels of our participants.

Web-search of open data repositories, analysis of open data catalogue, interviews with data owners within the relevant organisations

• We have completed a basic survey of existing open data, services and networks in South Lakeland. However, our discussion with the local government is still being negotiated.

• Much information on events or services is provided online. The problem in South Lakeland is the uptake of technology and poor internet coverage. Also where participants are keen to use mobile technology, websites are often not user-friendly or information not updated.

• We have not had much success yet on interviews with data owners.

Analysis of scenarios, applicable data; description of use-cases with UML

• We have started developing a very basic design based on one of our personas, viz. the technology using older adult.

IV Co-design Researchers 5. Interface design (mock-ups) (SCC)

Co-design activities and creation of mockups

Design mock-ups of the application based on the service defined.

• We have simultaneously used the last four of our five service definition workshops to co-design side by side.

• A lot of discussion on personal requirements of our participants has been carried out. Based on these the contents of our module have been design.

• We have fed this back to our participants and incorporated their comments and suggestions to further improve our development.

© Copyright 2017 ifib

59 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

Technical development implementation; small observation 6. Prototyping (iterative) & open data creation

and trials,

Researchers Build prototype Building the demonstrator

(SCC)

Workshop: Demonstrate interface to participants.

Observe participants feedback.

and

note

• We have observed our participants work with websites and filters on various interfaces. Our observation notes have informed our module development.

• We have shown our bare-bone events module on a mobile phone interface to our participants and collected feedback.

• Our developers have been doing a few rounds of feedback and updating their prototype based on participant suggestions.

• We still need to integrate the designing for tablets.

Incorporate in order to refine prototype.

V Service and Diffusion Field test, execution of predefined tasks either with data logging, observation, South Lakeland District Council, Age UK South Lakeland and Older adults 7. Evaluation (SCC)

Qualitative & quantitative

Workshop participants - one from each category of staff in South Lakeland District Council and Age UK South Lakeland. Older adults (1520).

• To be carried out in Phase 2.

Test and feedback on the app (interface and services).

Observe Final refinement (if required)

8. Documentation

Documenting the process

Deliverables, papers, dissemination

• Deliverables being processed:

© Copyright 2017 ifib

60 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

(Lead CSTO)

material

   

Interim report on Accessibility Interim report on Co-creation Dissemination Recruitment and Engagement plan for Zaragoza and Macedonia

• Paper for conference: (Lead: SCC)  DIS Conference 2017  CHI 2017 Late-Breaking Work 9. Sustainability (TT)

Sustainability and business plan, migration plan

Deliverables and future action plan

• Ongoing

Table 4: Co-creation planning and reflection South Lakeland

© Copyright 2017 ifib

61 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

4

Co-creation in Bremen

4.1

Bremen Osterholz: The Field Site

The Free and Hanseatic City of Bremen consists of two cities (Bremen and Bremerhaven) in the north of Germany, separated from each other and surrounded by the larger state of Lower Saxony. The two cities are the only administrative subdivisions the state has. The state of Bremen covers 419,38 square kilometres, of which 325,56 square kilometres are covered by the city of Bremen. In 2014, the city had a total population of 660,999 inhabitants, with nearly 180,000 older citizens.

Our fieldwork was conducted in one of Bremenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s districts: Osterholz. It is a district in the East of the Free Hanseatic City of Bremen with 37,554 inhabitants 14. In 2015, 22% of the population (8,590) were 65 years or older. This is similar to overall Bremen. By 2020, the number of retired adults is expected to increase from 8,389 to 9,048. While a decline is projected amongst the 65 to 80 year olds, the number of persons over 80 is expected to increase. Of the current 8,590 residents who are 65 years or older living in Osterholz, almost 3,000 live alone, the biggest share being women (2,124). Most older citizens (4,330) live in two-person households. Almost 50% of the people living in Osterholz (18,702) have a migration background while Bremen overall has only 15%. Amongst the older citizens in Osterholz (65 and above), the share of people with migration background is 23%. The unemployment rate is 14.9 %, which is slightly higher than the Bremen average. The district has its own local government (Ortsamt) and elected council (Ortsbeirat) and consists of six neighbourhoods (Ortsteile), some of which were separate villages in the middle ages.

The neighbourhoods

Size

Number of inhabitants

Ellener Feld

161,4 ha

3.280

Ellenerbrok/Schevemoor

219,5 ha

11.927

Tenever

254,8 ha

10.247

Osterholz

537,8 ha

5.246

Blockdiek

116,0 ha

6.888

The total district of Osterholz 1.289,4 ha 37.588 Table 5: Overview of Bremen Osterholz

Osterholz is characterised by these very diverse neighbourhoods that give the district its multifaceted character. Tenever is mainly known for its high percentage of inhabitants with migration background and was for a long time presented as socially troubled area with big apartment building complexes. While social problems are still concentrated in Tenever, social and constructional investments have changed its image to a showcase for social urban development and peaceful multicultural co-existence. However, neighbourhoods such as Ellener Feld or Osterholz feature a very different scenery with detached houses and different socioeconomic structures. Due to its comprehensive provision of care residences, Ellener Feld is the neighbourhood with the highest proportion of pensioners. The neighbourhoods are important points of reference for the identity and even moving of many people.

14

Source: http://www.statistik-bremen.de

Š Copyright 2017 ifib

62 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

Figure 15: Impressions from our field work in a multi-faceted district

In Bremen, the focus of the Mobile-Age Project is on social inclusion. The aim of the first cocreation phase was to develop an interactive map-based neighbourhood guide of the district of Osterholz that provides relevant information to older adults in the district. This was driven by our understanding of social inclusion as the effect of continuous processes of inclusive and exclusive practices (Benz, 2012, p. 117). In particular, we understood social inclusion as a practice that enables and facilitates the building of relationships to people, places, activities, and memories. As dimensions of inclusion the following aspects were considered (Naegele, Olbermann, & Kuhlmann, 2016, p. 45): • • • •

Economic (participation in work life, sufficient financial funds and right to make decisions) Political (participation, civic engagement, possibility for decision making) Cultural (access to cultural life and related education) Social (informal and personal integration in primary networks such as family, friends and social activities in society)

We focussed in particular on the socio-spatial dimension of inclusion: •

Relationship and bond with respective living environment (happiness, identity, bonding)

In the following, we provide an overview about the different co-creation interventions in each of the stages as employed in Bremen. Subsequently we will discuss and reflect on the use of these methods and implications for the overall co-creation process model. Similar to South Lakeland we addressed the following questions: 1. What interventions did we undertake in Bremen? (Section 4.2) 2. What are our reflections and learning from the methods we used for our co-creation activities? (Sections 4.3 Exploration and recruitment; 4.4 Idea forming; 4.5 Service and data definition; 4.6 Co-design and data creation; 4.7 Service and diffusion) 3. What are our reflections and learning from the process of co-creation in Bremen that will feed into phase two in all field sites? (Section 4.8)

© Copyright 2017 ifib

63 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices 4.2

Interventions in Bremen

The figure below provides an overview about the different intervention methods used during

•Engagement with local stakeholders & collaborators •Communication •Recruitment and information events •Card game

Idea Formation

•cultural probes •interviews •focus groups •workshops

•personas workshops

Co-Design & Data creation

•scenariobased design •data cocreation

Service & Data Definition

Exploration & recruitment

•evaluation via focus groups •usability tests •maintenance agreement •final event/ official launch Service & Diffusion

Figure 16: Methods as applied in co-creation stages in Bremen

the co-creation activities in Bremen.

The figure below is an illustration of the most important co-creation methods employed during the Bremen co-creation activities. The methods are colour-labelled according to stages. As we are still finalising the service stage, this is not indicated below.

© Copyright 2017 ifib

64 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

Figure 17: Co-creation activities and methods in Bremen

Before providing a detailed account of our co-creation methods (as illustrated in the figure above), this section gives a summary of all the interventions we have undertaken in Bremen during phase one. The entire list of interventions is shown in the table below. The right hand column in the table highlights the stakeholders we have engaged with while the left hand column highlights the type.

Number of interventions

Activities

Attendees Ifib, neighbourhood manager, head of local district government,

Expert interviews intermediaries

with

Meetings with local stakeholders Recruitment and information workshops Cultural probes and interviews Co-Design workshops (idea forming, service and data definition, co-design, tablet use & testing) Questionnaires Observations workshops

of

Focus groups

design

8

10

representatives from two different Christian congregations and one social service centre, representative from centre for migrants and intercultural studies (ZIS), representatives from social welfare organizations (MĂźtterzentrum, AWO) Ifib, neighbourhood manager, head of local district government, BORIS older citizen group, local older citizens groups

2

Ifib, older citizens, head of local district government, editor senior online web portal, editor printed neighbourhood map

11

Ifib, our workshop participants

14

Ifib, FTB, our workshop participants, head of local administration, journalist, intermediaries, stakeholder

9

Ifib, our workshop participants

14

Ifib, our workshop participants

12

Ifib, project group for printed neighbourhood map, existing older

Š Copyright 2017 ifib

65 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

citizens groups Table 6: Overview about methods/interventions in Bremen from May 2016 to mid-January 2017

A detailed overview of all our interventions is provided in Appendix IX.

Š Copyright 2017 ifib

66 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices In the following we will detail our interventions

4.3

Exploration & recruitment

In this section we will present our activities during the exploration and recruitment state. Overall this stage aims to define the thematic space and service domain of a project, as well as recruit co-creators. In the following, we will give a detailed account of the following interventions: • • • •

Engagement with local stakeholders collaborators Communication Recruitment and information events Methods: Card game

&

Service & Diffusion

Exploration & Recruitment

Co-Design & Data creation

Idea Forming Service & Data Definition

A key output of this stage was a Co-creation recruitment and engagement plan (D6.3) as well as the establishment of a core group of older citizens and a project team of local stakeholders.

4.3.1 Engagement with local stakeholders & collaborators Following our strategy to use existing infrastructures and to collaborate with relevant local stakeholders, we selected Osterholz as our field site because it is the only district with a voluntary but officially acknowledged online portal run by volunteers (BORIS) 15. BORIS’ editorial team was one of the starting points for our recruitment. Two other starting points were the official Bremen Website www.bremen.de, run by a unit in the economic development department of the city government, and a media agency which had developed printed city district guides and maps for older people in nine districts of Bremen since 2011 and was planning to develop one for Osterholz at the time we started our recruitment (Edition Axent, run by Ines Hillman). 16 Starting with the members and recommendations of the BORIS team we established a core group of 11 older citizens (June 2016 – ongoing) for our co-creation activities. In addition, we identified a number of relevant intermediaries and had meetings and interviews with them.

With some we collaborated on specific tasks (April 2016 – ongoing). Most beneficial was the cooperation with the neighbourhood manager of the neighbourhood Schweizer Viertel (which is part of Tenever), who had just prepared a printed neighbourhood guide with data and descriptions of more than 100 NGOs in this neighbourhood. He was ready to provide this content and appreciated that the project would publish the content online.

Since a district guide for older citizens is not a regular public service offered by government authorities, local government is just one partner among many in a bottom-up collaborative process. However, in the recruitment stage it turned out to be an important success factor to hold the meetings in the official district rooms and to get an official welcome to potential participants by the head of the local district government. Indeed, it was not difficult to win his cooperation as he recognised that an online guide would complement the information about the district he offers on his own website well. Further he appreciated the attention paid to his 15

http://www.bremen.de/stadtteilredaktion-boris-osterholz-1896518

16

http://www.editionaxent.de/Stadtteilplaene/planefuraltere.html

© Copyright 2017 ifib

67 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices district - after an article about the information event had been published in the local newspaper, he became even more motivated to host the kick-off meeting and further workshops.

Also beyond the local government the importance of local champions, especially in a bottomup approach cannot be underestimated. They are crucial for (a) enrolling local older citizensâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; groups, (b) convincing intermediaries (e.g. social welfare organisations, church congregations,) to participate, (c) support communication (e.g. through newspaper articles that feature local stakeholders) (d) identifying relevant objects and related data sources as well as check and validate data collected by the co-creating older citizens, and (e) building trust relations with the participants.

The collaboration with Ines Hillmann, editor of printed district guides for elderly, led to an innovation in our co-creation approach. She established a project team, with a small number of intermediaries in the district and sent them out to different groups of older citizens to conduct focus groups on points of interest based on a structured interview guide, naming different kinds of places and activities relevant for older citizens. Applying this method to Osterholz, we became part of the project team, together with the neighbourhood manager of the Schweizer Viertel, two employees of the local church congregations and a social welfare centre. This team collected proposals on interesting places and institutions by 13 focus groups with 5 to 20 members between 60 and 90 years old, two thirds female, German nationality only.

Overall, the strong involvement of the local government has been fruitful for recruitment in the district of Osterholz because it is a small and intimate district, where people know and trust the local administration and certain local champions. One aspect to be considered though is who had not been attracted by this strategy, since the participants that were recruited were all socio-economically well situated, which might influence their positive attitude towards the (local) government authorities.

The first table in Appendix IX gives an overview of our interactions and collaboration with local stakeholders and intermediaries.

4.3.2 Communication: Local newspaper articles Upon the recommendation of local stakeholders about which newspapers would be most relevant to us, we were in contact with journalists from two local newspapers. They both covered our project and activities. The main objective of these activities was to recruit local older citizens for the co-creation activities.

Š Copyright 2017 ifib

68 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

Figure 18: News article 23/05/16 featuring researcher and local stakeholders

Figure 19: News article 06/07/16 featuring researchers

Figure 20: News article 22/08/16 featuring researchers and participants

The articles supported our recruitment drive. Participants from the information event referred to the article from 23rd May and we had three newcomers after the publication of the article on 22nd August. Importantly, we were only contacted based on those articles where local stakeholders appeared in the pictures.

4.3.3 Recruitment events Recruiting people for a co-creation process, lasting about half a year, with only vague objectives and tasks unfamiliar to most older people is a great challenge. We had to provide a notion of the project objective and what people would commit themselves to for about half a year, what kind of input, in particular what local knowledge, we would like them to contribute. As these issues are difficult to communicate clearly, for the information event and the kick-off meeting we were looking for a venue which is easy to reach for people in the district and a host that is trustworthy. We asked the head of the local district government of Osterholz and he agreed to open the assembly room of the district council and welcomed participants at both meetings.

All participants received a participant information sheet (as approved by Lancaster University’s ethics committee) and signed a consent form. Please see D6.3 for details.

Recruitment activities must consider the context in which they address older citizens as potential co-creators. “Cold recruiting”, e.g. on fairs, markets etc. did not work well, as one intervention showed. Recruitment may be effective when starting from already existing groups and aligning with their interests (e.g. older citizens’ computer group). Nevertheless, there is a dilemma of recruiting for well-targeted and well-framed activities, and simultaneously keeping the co-creation process open.

4.3.4 Methods: Paper card game To start the co-creation process we wanted to provide a notion of the project objective and what kind of input, in particular local knowledge we would like participants to contribute. As these expectations are difficult to communicate verbally, we decided to begin the process with something tangible: an activity that would be fun and attract interest in the project, so that people would be encouraged to come again. We choose to develop a card game in order to (i) learn about the district, (ii) facilitate the communication between participants and (iii) provide low-tech engagement.

© Copyright 2017 ifib

69 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices At the Information Event 17 participants were asked to fill out the gaps on the cards. In doing so, they not only shared their knowledge about the district (e.g. what is beautiful in Osterholz) but also considered questions that could be relevant to them or others in the district. For the Kick-off Workshop we had prepared a proper card game (with pictures) based on the participants’ input. Their task at this workshop was to evaluate each other’s input via blue and green points (for relevance) and leave remarks.

17

This number refers to the intervention ID in the overview table above.

© Copyright 2017 ifib

70 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

Figure 21: Card game as developed at information event 23/05/16

Figure 22: Card game as further refined and played at neighbourhood festival and kick-off workshop

For our process it was important to establish the co-creators as experts (of the process of ageing) and to appreciate their local knowledge. This established an engagement of mutual respect between the project team and participants, as both parties wanted to learn from the other.

The participants appreciated the refined version of the card game, as they could see that their work had been valuable and were actively engaged with the card game. To see pictures of their district and discuss them seemed to motivate them. The card game as method worked well to motivate the participants as the focus was laid on the district, not on technology.

4.3.5 Core co-creation group The participants of our core group ranged from fifty-five to eighty years. There are seven females and five male older citizens participating in Bremen. They can be viewed as quite privileged, since they are comparably well educated, are physically and psychologically comparably healthy and are all living independently. Four have a university degree, two have a high school degree (without a university degree), five completed the secondary school without a high school degree, and one did an apprenticeship. Most of the Bremen participants (five) live in partnerships. Two are living with a family (including teenage children). Four participants live alone. None live in an institutional setting. Two participants were members of the local editorial team of BORIS, one of these was also a member of the district parliament (Ortsbeirat), another participant engaged in OpenStreetMap, two female members were working for a social welfare organisation.

One of the five male participants left the project early on (July) whereas one of the female participants joined later (in September). In between we had another male and female participant that attended a few workshops. Overall we had a stable group number of about 11 participants throughout the process. Media profiles of all participants are described in Appendix X of this document. Overall, we had a very good distribution of local knowledge across the district.

4.4

Idea forming

During the stage of idea forming, the participantsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; visions and needs are further explored. Ideas are formed about what may be co-created. In the following, we will give a detailed account of the following interventions: â&#x20AC;˘

Cultural Probes

Š Copyright 2017 ifib

Service & Diffusion

Exploration & Recruitment

Idea Forming

Co-Design Service & Data Definition

71 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

â&#x20AC;˘

o Rationale for Cultural Probes o Interviews o Workshop Interviews with intermediaries

A key outcome of this stage was a list of information needs and requirements. The insights gained from the cultural probes were used to develop personas which were used to define a service in the next stage.

4.4.1 Cultural Probes While the card game offered a great first interaction with our participants, there was a need to explore and learn about their everyday lives in a more structured way. For this reason, we developed a set of cultural probes. These include descriptive and exploratory tasks that are (typically) based on self-reporting. In our case the participants kept the cultural probes for 10 days. They collected data on themselves, their lives and their socio-spatial and media use practices. Follow-up interviews were conducted individually to prepare and accompany the process and a de-briefing session (workshop) to supplement, validate and explore the data. In total 11 cultural probes bags were returned. For a detailed description of the Cultural Probes please see below. The figure below provides a first glimpse of the probes developed for Bremen (including maps, a diary, postcards and a disposable camera).

Š Copyright 2017 ifib

72 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

Figure 23: Examples of cultural probes artefacts as used in Bremen

In a subsequent workshop the participants jointly reflected on the activity and their experience. The aim was to define some key characteristics that would serve to develop personas. In the Appendix XI we provide an overview table of the Cultural Probes that were developed for the field site in Bremen.

In a workshop we discussed two sets of cultural probes in order to (1) jointly reflect on cultural probes activity and experience and to (2) define some key characteristics for the personas.

When participants compared the individual maps they discussed what they believed to be differences that would eventually allow for the development of different personas. Some of the key differences where: biographical (on whether somebody just recently moved to Osterholz), related to retirement/employment, living circumstances (alone vs. partnership vs. caring for partner) related to mobility & health, related to the financial situation and how active people were in terms of charity work and hobbies. All these considerations were noted and informed the subsequent development of personas.

Figure 24: Participants discussing their maps and post cards

The cultural probes (also through the interviews and the workshop) provided an opportunity to establish the senior participants as experts of their life course and of experiencing the

Š Copyright 2017 ifib

73 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices process of becoming older/ageing. The probes facilitate the understanding of everyday life and practices related to ageing, technology use, and the appropriation of the district when becoming older.

Since the probes affirmed the researchers’ sincere interest in the participants’ lives, we could demonstrate our appreciation towards the participants with well-designed probes and build trust relationship. Key to the trust-building were also the individual interviews.

However, although most participants appreciated the probes, some did not complete them fully. This was partly due to time constrains, but one male participant also explained that for him this kind of self-documentation was too intimate and he did not like to provide information about his personal life. Furthermore, some of the participants wondered what we wanted to use the personal information for and were therefore unwilling to share them.

A key challenge with the cultural probes is to design them as comprehensive as possible and at the same time not to be too demanding for participants as well as for researchers: • • • •

Probes are time consuming for participants (our probes included tasks for every day of the week).

It is not natural for everybody to write about their everyday life.

The probes might be considered too personal.

Probes are time consuming for researchers.18

We hence need to consider to what extent this method may be applied by public authorities as cultural probes are not useful without interview and are challenging to analyse. 19 NEXT PHASE: Considering the demanding resources for cultural probes (time, abilities, interest, willingness), we may want to use a smaller, more targeted set of probes. In order to improve participation, we may have to explain the use of cultural probes more clearly. In particular, with view on non-social scientists leading the co-creation activities in other field sites, we need to emphasize how the cultural probes can be used to produce insights for the services to be developed (as time-constraints may foster a “costs-benefits” kind of thinking).

4.4.2 Interviews with intermediaries and other stakeholders In addition to the co-creation activities with our core group, stakeholder interviews were conducted with members of the council for older citizens in Osterholz, in particular with representatives of two church congregations, of a general social service centre and one providing services for migrant people as well as with the neighbourhood manager Schweizer Viertel. They served the following purposes: • • • •

To get an overview of the intermediaries work with older adults To explore information needs of older adults in their respective organisations To gain interest and to get ideas for information to be provided by the neighbourhood map also with respect to the offers & activities of the intermediaries Direction on further relevant contacts in the neighbourhood

In addition, we were interested in confirming the usage of data from sources such as the neighbourhood reader.

18

The preparation of the material took 10 person days, preparing, conducting and analysing the individual interviews took 20 person days.

19

These considerations will be addressed in more detail in deliverable 1.3 (Co-creation Good Practice Guide Book).

© Copyright 2017 ifib

74 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices These stakeholder interviews were very effective and provided many helpful hints. There was a church-related bias in this selection, which indicates that the church communities are the most active actors in their work with and for elderly in Osterholz.

The support of the neighbourhood manager was one of the most important success factors of the networking and co-creation process. He is employed by the local office of the department of social affairs (Amt für Soziale Dienste) within a federal local development programme (Wohnen in Nachbarschaft – Living in Neighbourhoods), but is not considered to be part of the government. He has a budget to support local initiatives and therefore is well known and respected in the community. He paved the way for some funds to support the printing of the printed district guide.

Several stakeholders contributed also in complementing, checking and correcting information proposed by the participants in the core-group.

4.5

Service and data definition

Within the stage of service and data definition the goal is to develop ideas into concepts. In the idea forming stage ideas had evolved on developing a map-based district guide that should contain relevant points of interest as well as we had identified a desire for more interactive exchange services like for example a neighbourhood exchange platform (for goods, help, etc.). In order to get from the needs to the desired service definition three workshops were conducted with the core group: • •

Service & Diffusion

Exploration & Recruitment

Idea Forming

Co-Design Service & Data Definition

Personas Workshops on informational content and application

4.5.1 Personas Personas are a common method for software development projects. They are a representation of a fictitious user that includes a concise summary of characteristics of the user, their experience, goals and tasks, pain points, and environmental conditions. Personas describe the target users of a tool, site, product or application, giving a clear picture of how they are likely to use the system, and what they expect from it. Personas are user models developed on the basis of qualitative research data and/or the expertise of involved stakeholders. A persona allows the designers of an interface to consider the needs, wants, expectations etc. of wider user groups, without involving them directly in the design process.

By drawing attention to potential users the creation of a common understanding of the users is supported and designers are engaged to implement this understanding in their design decisions.

© Copyright 2017 ifib

75 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices In Mobile-Age we developed three personas based on the cultural probes and individual interviews with our participants as well as statistical data on elderly. In this stage we used personas to examine communication- and information needs as well as resources of older citizens in Osterholz. The personas played an important role throughout the co-creation activities. Based on the personas we developed two use case scenarios.

The personas differed according to a number of important dimensions as outlined in D1.1 (Study on Accessibility, mobility and open data), namely: Factors influencing access and social inclusion

How factors were considered in our personas

Demographic/personal

Age, gender, living arrangements, relationship, health & well-being

Socio-economic

Income, employment/retirement, urban

Social and political

Social networks, social capital, charity work and political participation

Use

Needs for access/motivations, relevance, existing practices

Device and content

Media repertoire (type of devices owned)

Infrastructure

-

Attitudes/feelings

Trust in technology, confidence, self-attitude

Skills and support

Family members, time used, knowledge of options

household

type,

mobility,

Table 7: Considering social inclusion and accessibility systematically through personas

For a detailed description of our personas see Appendix XII. The participants worked in three groups, each on one persona in order to identify their information needs and interests.

• • •

What needs and resources do they have?

What functions and objects should the map/application contain regarding this needs and resources?

And how should these objects be structured/filtered?

The results were noted on cards (colour-coded according the points above) and pinned on a wall.

© Copyright 2017 ifib

76 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

Figure 25: Collecting results from group work

Personas provided a good basis to discover and discuss the information needs of the older citizens. They were helpful in order to encourage participants to think not only of their own wishes and needs, but also to relate to others who might be different from them. However, if personas are based only on the probes of the co-creators, they may only marginally be representative beyond this sample. Thus, it is important to include further information such as quantitative survey data on the life situations of older adults.

Overall, the result was a manifold of relevant object categories and attributes to be visualised on the map, which later turned out to be too numerous for the scope of the project. Further, the personas helped to generate ideas for the service definition. The main point here was that the participants felt that it is important to focus on the resources an older person has.

The idea was to support the exchange of time, goods, abilities etc. by a service.

4.5.2 Workshops on informational content and on applications As part of the service and data definition stage we held two further workshops: one on the informational content and one on interactive elements of the Mobile-Age app.

Workshop on informational content Based on the outcome of the personas workshop, the aim of this workshop was to select the categories of objects to be shown on the map, to determine attributes for each category of objects and further to define the relevant information about these objects. During the workshop we divided the participants in groups of 2 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 3 to work on different categories of objects. We had prepared lists of objects per category. As we were interested in considering what kind of information would be interesting about the objects, we had also provided supplementary information in form of leaflets and Websites print-outs to the groups. The workshop concluded with presentation and discussion of the individual results.

Š Copyright 2017 ifib

77 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

Figure 26: Group work at workshop

Figure 27: Group work situation at workshop

Workshop on applications In a further workshop we discussed potential, interactive elements of the Mobile-Age app.

Questions concerned (1) the type of platform to be developed (e.g. personalised interactive platform or an edited map-based information system); (2) the kind of interactive services preferred (e.g. neighbourhood help). Finally, we also wanted to reach agreement about the roles and tasks of the co-creators during the process.

The workshop took place in the computer lab of the local Internet café. We demonstrated via an overhead projector, two examples of different applications for neighbourhood exchange platforms: An interactive and personalized neighbourhood platform (wirnachbarn.com) and a simple website, where people can write an email or call an editorial manager who then posts the cases as a list on the page. We showed a promotional video of the platform and a screenshot of the webpage. After presenting the examples, we discussed the basic differences, especially emphasizing the aspect of the necessity of obligatory authentication and personalization in a platform as well as the necessity to recruit an editorial manager in order to realize an edited webpage.

Figure 28: Workshop in Internet café

In order to discuss the practicalities of a neighbourhood help exchange, we had invited the manager of the local social service office, run by AWO, a German wide social welfare organisation. We conducted an intermediary interview with her. 20 The workshop discussion 20

Her office is maintaining a list of different professional home services like barbers, physiotherapy, pedicure etc. AWO also have a group of paid neighbourhood helpers. Older people can apply for these

© Copyright 2017 ifib

78 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

with her was important, as we needed to clarify with our participants how a neighbourhood help exchange could be sustainably implemented.

Finally, the participants were asked to navigate on these Websites themselves. Afterwards we discussed their experiences. The mix of navigating themselves and then talking about the examples by presenting them with the data projector and discussing them in plenum worked well. The participants decided that they would not want a personalised interactive service in our application. For most of the participants, the whole registration process appeared too lengthy and cumbersome. One participant (f) said if “hundred and thousands of things already exist” it was not necessary to develop something new in addition.

In this workshop we decided with the participants to developthe map based service. We agreed that only a limited number of categories of objects could be included in the neighbourhood guide as only very limited data was available and hence an intensive data creation process was ahead of us. The decision was eased by the argument to focus on those categories of objects that are not currently systematically captured anywhere (e.g. nice places, informal meeting places). This would constitute an innovation, particularly with regard to the content (as making available informal local knowledge).

With this agreement we began the co-design and data collection stage.

4.6

Co-Design and Data Creation

The most wide-spread stage in co-creation is the co-design stage in which the key functionalities are developed as well as data collected and integrated.

Service & Diffusion

Exploration & Recruitment

Co-Design In order to start the co-creation of data on the Idea & Data Forming selected categories of objects and respective Creation attributes we created a matrix kind of table, Service & selected the respective institutions included in Data the district reader and filled the table. Only Definition data on a few attributes could be matched with available open government data, e.g. public benches close to nice places. Data for most of the attributes had to be specified and collected. For this purpose, we arranged different focus groups to amend and complete the list of institutions and data on their attributes. In this section we provide a reflection of the interventions coloured in blue:

• • • •

Mobile-Age data tables with attributes o Complementary data focus groups with guided structure o Collaboration with local stakeholders on data creation Scenarios & paper prototyping App use: Provision of tablets Digital prototyping & editorial work

services if they can proof the need, e.g. through medical certificates. Often people call and ask for this support but do not meet the preconditions. For these cases she showed interest in an additional exchange platform for voluntary neighbourhood help. Therefore, we had invited her to this workshop to initiate a direct dialogue with our group as potential users of such a service.

© Copyright 2017 ifib

79 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

Figure 29: Co-design and Data Creation methods in Bremen

As can be seen in the figure above, the data tables with attributes were central to our cocreation activities, with most activities providing input for their structure, completion, validation and subsequently visualisation. In the following section we will provide more detail on this work.

4.6.1 Mobile-Age data tables with attributes According to the selection of categories of objects and relevant attributes, we decided to differentiate between two main kinds of objects, with differing attributes: • •

Nice places and walks, with descriptions about what was considered to be particularly nice, and information about the availability of benches and toilets nearby as well as supplementary information on possibilities for exercising and BBQ. Informal meeting facilities, institutions and services in the field of culture, consultancy and advice as well as sports with data on the individual services and facilities, events, contact person etc.

For each object we created a matrix with a line for each object and several columns for the different attributes. These two data tables became the central working tool for the data collection and co-creation process with two objectives: • •

Completeness, e.g. identify all the relevant objects in Osterholz for each category.

Richness of relevant details, e.g. to collect data on as many aspects as possible for each object.

All the interventions mentioned above served these two purposes and gradually completed the tables. In addition, a main task for the researchers was to standardise the data, i.e. to find the right format to describe different kinds of objects. This format also had to comply with © Copyright 2017 ifib

80 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

the data structure of the city information provider (Bremen.Online) as they are envisaged to sustainably maintain the final product (see also D5.3).

Below are three figures (31-33) that illustrate the progress of completing the data tables throughout the co-creation process. There is a line for each object (place or facility) and the columns contain relevant attributes, e.g. name, address, description, offerings, transport, contact, and website etc. The lines have been produced from the suggestions of our participants and the focus groups of the printed neighbourhood guide project team of Mrs. Hillmann. Altogether, 19 nice places and walks and more than 70 institutions and services were identified, but there was little precision on attributes. As highlighted above, the project team conducted 12 focus groups (e.g. menâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s breakfast, pottery groups) with more than 80 older citizens, where the participants named places they considered to be nice and places where they meet other people as well as institutions offering different kinds of services relevant to them. The interviewers used a structured guide with different categories (to the ones selected within our Mobile-Age core group, for example, including commercial cafes and restaurants). Members of the group named places and interviewers asked what was nice about a particular place, others then added different aspects.

Figure 30: Picture of one of the focus groups displaying some of the relevant artefacts

Most of the focus groups were conducted with people that had lived in Osterholz for a long time. People were deeply rooted in the district and had a vast knowledge about the history of the district, interesting places and events. Some participants were very active themselves in organising meetings, gatherings and other informal social events. The discussions were usually very fruitful as groups were very engaged and had many stories to tell about the district as well as lots of practical information on places and events. Important artefacts to facilitate the focus groups were older citizen neighbourhood guides of other districts, a map of the neighbourhood to be discussed as well as a template table in which information about the neighbourhood is noted.

Information on attributes largely came from the printed neighbourhood guide. But this guide did not cover all the objects proposed and not all desired attributes. Therefore, the first tables contained several blank fields due to participants contributing limited information, in some instances.

Š Copyright 2017 ifib

81 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

Figure 31: First data table with "our" attributes

Because of these gaps, it was also important to recruit knowledgeable people (beyond our core group) for data collection and for supporting the drafting and editing of the data collected on nice places and walks. In our “collaboration meetings” with local stakeholders we presented our “data tables” and discussed either possible collaborations or received input on specific categories/objects. We met with three members of the “men’s breakfast group” (a group of mostly elderly men meeting for breakfast and discussing issues in the district on a monthly basis); a member of the BORIS editorial team, a member of the historical workshop, one representative of a church congregation and the neighbourhood manager of Schweizer Viertel. They provided useful information on differing aspects on nice places and walks which were noted by researchers.

This complementary task was important as it was relatively easy to get people to name nice places and give a few keywords to describe it. It was however, harder to get information on a pre-defined set of attributes, and even more difficult to get this completed for all the points.

A major challenge was to find people who could take over editorial tasks and write clear and relevant texts based on the initial sets of key-words collected through the focus group (as described above). Yet this was important for future users of our Mobile-Age neighbourhood guide.

Figure 32 shows the progress as we proceeded with the data validation. Throughout it was important to provide informants and co-creators with printed tables as they were not always prepared to work in a digital file.

© Copyright 2017 ifib

82 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

Figure 32: Slowly completing the data tables

While information on attributes such as address, contact, website was evident and easy to collect, the description was the most difficult one. The purpose of the description is to communicate why a place is nice or a facility of interest to older people. For the description our core group participants mainly had contributed keywords. The ifib team wrote complete sentences and a coherent structure of the description. For a few nice places, a member of the BORIS team, who had not participated in the core group delivered texts based on the keywords from our participants. Another member of the BORIS team, also engaged in a history workshop for the district, checked and amended the texts edited by the ifib team.

Finally, the largely completed tables were transformed into digital data tables by FTB and used as input for the data base, which was made accessible to our participants who added further information, e.g. keywords, and uploaded photos. In order to acquire this information, participants assumed responsibility for particular objects (e.g. places), validated the information (e.g. through going there) and creating data (e.g. photographs).

Figure 33: Data table online in Mobile-Age app

Š Copyright 2017 ifib

83 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

4.6.2 Scenarios & paper prototyping Another line of co-creation actvities â&#x20AC;&#x201C; in addition to work around data collection, validation and creation â&#x20AC;&#x201C; was that of the visual design and functionality of the Mobile-Age app.

Based on the personas we had developed for the service and data definition stage, we developed two scenarios in which the use of the Mobile-Age service was described. Scenariobased design is a common method for prototyping to provide information about the context in which a system has to operate, in a user- and task-oriented way, to foresee and consider future use cases including problems, conflicts etc. The aim of the first prototyping workshop was to develop screens for the district map.

FTB had prepared paper building blocks which had to be cut out and could be combined to structure the web pages. Considerations for screen design and functionality had to be based on the two scenarios.

Figure 34: Picture of scenario 1

The first scenario is about a couple who are visited by their grandchild. They are looking for a destination in the district where (i) the child can play while learning something and (ii) where there are toilets and benches for the grandfather.

Figure 35: Pictures of scenario 2

Bavaria. They want to show beautiful and nice places to their friends in the district.

They find a nice place via the app and decide to go there for a walk. Before they leave, they check if there are benches around and how to get there via public transport.

The second scenario is about a couple in Osterholz who are visited by friends from It was very important to moderate and lead the discussion quite strictly. In one group the researchers tried to be more reserved in order not to influence the decisions, which turned out not to work well. Especially when competencies and experience of the participants in one group vary or are low, it seemed important to give suggestions on possible designs.

Š Copyright 2017 ifib

84 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

Figure 36: Paper prototyping in Bremen

Figure 37: Paper prototyping in Bremen

Overall, the experience from this intervention is that participants with experiences in using map based applications were very actively engaged in the paper prototyping. However, they mostly argued with habituation for certain design decisions. Those participants who were not particularly familiar with map applications were reluctant to discuss and decide design decisions and verbally expressed their disinterest and/or unease in doing so.

NEXT PHASE: As in other stages of the process it becomes clear that different people have different abilities and interests. It is therefore important to consider defining roles in the beginning of the process and to recruit certain participants for certain roles (e.g. those interested in design discussion and decisions for the role of the designer).

During a subsequent prototyping workshop, we discussed the paper screenshots developed and agreed on a preferred design. In order to facilitate the discussion, we presented the screenshots with an overhead projector. Main discussion points concerned â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;search & locationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; and names/titles for main menu. Many participants anticipated future uses and users when considering the different options. The discussion also moved forward to consider the start page of the neighbourhood guide (figures below).

Figure 38: Start page

Following the start page, we discussed how the results for the different categories should be displayed: (1) in a map or (2) in a list (see figure below). The two groups from the previous workshop had developed different alternatives.

Š Copyright 2017 ifib

85 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

Participants agreed that they preferred a list over a map as it was “faster” for getting an “overview”. They also agreed that there should be a distinction between “architecture” and “nature” in the category “places to go”. The list should provide a small picture of the objects to be displayed (but not a small frame for the map). On the bottom of the page there should be an option to change the view to the map. One idea was to list the objects (places and ways) according to their distance to the location of the user (and also display this distance).

There should also be an option for a more detailed search/filter (“erweiterte Suche”)

Figure 39: Paper prototype presenting objects on map vs. list

The discussion then moved to consider ‘filters’ (figure below).

Figure 40: Paper prototype presenting filters

Participants agreed with the screenshot on the left below: Objects should be displayed on the map and give a preview of the information when selecting one item. The preview should comprise of a picture, the name of the object and 1 -2 short sentences. Finally, each object should have a page that offers all the available information and data. FTB had suggested that symbols for attributes such as toilets, benches could be displayed in black if existing or grey if

© Copyright 2017 ifib

86 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

not existing. The participants agreed that if toilets where not in close proximity, the symbol should be either crossed out or not presented at all. The participants agreed that despite the symbols it was still necessary to provide some written text. Also the description text should provide information on where exactly benches, toilettes, cafés may be found. These descriptions would be provided by our participants as soon as the service was running.

The participants further discussed whether or not objects should be marked with standard location pins, marks or with specific symbols for the kind of objects. They rejected specific symbols because of their ambiguity. One participant suggested using different pin marks, in colours according to the category (e.g. yellow for cultural objects, green for outside places and ways). The participants agreed on this suggestion.

Figure 41: Paper prototype preview on map

Figure 42: Paper prototype - detailed description

After the screens for the map based application, we discussed the welcome page for the application and what it should contain. We agreed that besides the map application it should contain an overview text as well as • • • • •

Information on the project (e.g. Video, text, photos) “Voices about Osterholz” (a collection of various information sources about the district, e.g. Wikipedia, www.bremen.de) Important telephone numbers Contact (responsible for website) Imprint and privacy declaration (demanded by German law)

© Copyright 2017 ifib

87 | P a g e

D1.1 Interim study on accessibility, digital mobility and open data

Figure 43: First idea on welcome page

Overall, it was interesting to see how the participants envisage other users of the system and what kind of categories they construct as being relevant distinctions (e.g. non-native speakers, new residents). This role-taking / role-shifting by the participants was an important contribution to the co-creation process.

4.6.3 App use: Provision of tablet pcs In order to enable members of our core group to test the application prototype and to validate and complete the information, we provided the participants with tablets. In a workshop we gave 9 up-to-date Samsung Galaxy tablet pc to the members of our core group.

The participants kept the tablets for the remaining co-creation activities. They received a short introduction on how to use the devices and how to test the first prototype of the list and map of â&#x20AC;&#x153;nice placesâ&#x20AC;? and walks.

Figure 44: Participant using the Mobile-Age app on a tablet

Š Copyright <year> <Main Author>, <Secondary Author>

88 | P a g e

D1.1 Interim study on accessibility, digital mobility and open data Participants appreciated the opportunity to test a tablet not only for the purpose of our project but beyond. In particular, those who only had a desk top computer and no mobile device. They were strongly motivated to use the tablet for data validation and creation. The introduction of tablets and the opportunity to test the co-created website was an important step in the process. The participants could experience how their efforts and input had been integrated and valued.

4.6.4 Digital prototyping and editorial work Map design workshop A parallel line of activity concerned the design and visualisation of the map. In order to discuss the design of the digital map to be used for the Mobile-Age neighbourhood guide, we conducted a workshop dedicated to map design. This included a presentation of different kinds of maps as well as an individual task for participants to navigate three different map applications (google, Bing, OSM) and search for a point of interest. Finally, FTB showed a demonstrator of their map.

Figure 45: Different visualisations / maps of the same part of Osterholz

The comparison and discussion of different map applications was much differentiated. While the ifib researchers have noticed a preference of the participants for Google Maps, the FTB researchers have noticed no such preference.

The readability and contrast of the font used in google maps was considered good. In addition, some participants preferred a larger number of objects and information on the map for orientation purposes. Other participants stated that too much information on a map could be confusing. The latter reflects what is known from the literature 21 and from the experience of FTB researchers.

21

Kovanen, J.; Oksanen, J.; Sarjakoski, L. T.; Sarjakoski, T. (2012). Simple Maps â&#x20AC;&#x201C; A Concept of Plain Cartography within a Mobile Context for Elderly Users. Proceedings of the GIS Research UK 20th Annual Conference

Š Copyright <year> <Main Author>, <Secondary Author>

89 | P a g e

D1.1 Interim study on accessibility, digital mobility and open data The participants found the following aspects positive: •

• •

outlines of all buildings like on OpenStreetMap (google maps does not show all buildings and uses a very low contrast (1.1:1); bing maps does not show any buildings). house numbers of the buildings like on OpenStreetMap (google maps and bing maps don’t show house numbers.) landmarks such as bus stops, pharmacies or other well-known locations that supports orientation

One of the ifib researchers suggested the option of filters: In order to provide more information, thatt could be shown or hidden depending on specific filters. The participants considered this aspect very helpful.FTB researchers showed a demonstration of the map they had developed and which was based on the experiences of their former work with older citizens and physically impaired people. The map was characterised by using high contrasts for textual information such as street names, names of districts as well as street- and building outlines. The bold font used in the presented version of the map was felt to be blurred by one participant, which was confirmed by the FTB researchers and was pledged to be changed in the next version. In the following, FTB researchers demonstrated how objects could be visualised in the map usingbenches and toilets as examples. Below we show the final result.

Magnusson, Ch.; Rassmus-Gröhn, K.; Deaner, E. (2012). HaptiMap – User requirements and design guidelines for map applications

© Copyright <year> <Main Author>, <Secondary Author>

90 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

Figure 46: Final map design featuring bus stops as orientation points

Figure 47: Final map visualisation featuring toilets and benches

Subsequently, we conducted four digital design workshops along with activities related to editorial data work. In the workshops we aimed to (1) demonstrate and discuss the welcome page, (2) discuss the experiences with tables and prototype, and (3) validate information. This was accomplished through a mix of presentations, group work and group discussions.

Welcome Page As for example, for the Welcome Page, participants favoured tiles. FTB developers demonstrated a number of visualisation options and all came to an agreement.

Figure 49: Digital translation of start page discussion Figure 48: Collection of ideas about start page of Mobile-Age app

The agreement was reached on basis of the following criteria: • • •

The design was based on the official Bremen.Online page for the district Single tiles for each category of attributes in the map (nice places, meeting places, cultural offers, sport offers, counselling) Further tiles for project description, telephone numbers and links to other district related websites (“voices from Osterholz”)

© Copyright 2017 ifib

91 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

•

Because of accessibility and usability no additional text for the different tiles, only headline

In the discussion on how much information each tile should contain the seniors agreed, that they did not want too much text. One group worked very engaged on a welcome text/note.

One important point of discussion was the question which term they wanted to use to describe the target audience (older citizens) of the web page. Some participants did not want to name the target group at all, but then agreed with the researchers that it should be clear who is addressed. One participant proposed the German term “Menschen im fortgeschrittenen Alter” (people in advanced age), but another participant preferred the term “seniors” and another one said, that he doesn’t care at all, what term we choose. It was a very lively discussion.

List or/and map?

We had a long conversation over several workshops as to whether the results should be visualised on a map or in a list as a first output. Below are the two examples from the paper prototype session. Finally, we agreed to list all 5 object categories on the start page of our project and provide the users with the possibility to select either a list or map representation (picture on the right hand side).

Figure 50: Paper prototypes - visualising maps or lists

Figure 51: Start page tiles

List The list view was implemented according to the ideas of the senior participants.

© Copyright 2017 ifib

92 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

Figure 52: Paper prototype list

Figure 53: List first digital demo

Map In contrast to the paper prototype, participants decided on the necessity to visualise the boundaries of â&#x20AC;&#x153;places to goâ&#x20AC;? or walks. This has been implemented in the digital prototype as shown below.

Figure 54: Paper prototype preview on map

Figure 55: Preview on map - first prototype

Š Copyright 2017 ifib

93 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

Toilets and benches Toilets and benches were not only considered as attributes of places but also as standalone categories. All of them should be visible on the map in relation to the location of the user, in order for the user to find the nearest one.

Figure 56: Display of benches and toilets (clustered)

4.6.5 Reflection on co-design and data creation A city district guide for seniors has to meet several requirements with regard to content and technical functions. With respect to content the relevant objects have to be covered as comprehensibly as possible, e.g. all existing places and meeting points with all the relevant attributes. With regard to functionality it has to be easy to find these objects. To meet these two requirements, different competences in the project team were required. Even in professional web development there are different members in a team responsible for content, functionality and last but not least design/layout. We underestimated the issue of content and the effort to collect and create data, instead of just using existing open data.

Therefore, in future co-creation processes we will aim to recruit different subgroups for different tasks according to participantsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; abilities and interests under the coordination of a small project team with data/service providers and users.

Core Group / Project team The idea of a project team comes from the editor of printed district guides for older people, Mrs. Hillmann. She recruits intermediaries, in the case of Osterholz the neighbourhood manager of the Schweizer Viertel, two female representatives of two church congregations working with older people and an employee of a social service centre run by a social welfare organisation and a member of the ifib team. The composition may change according to the theme and the presence of relevant organisations. The main difference to our process in the

Š Copyright 2017 ifib

94 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

first phase is, that we looked for volunteers to participate in a core group over a long time with different tasks, while the project team consists of professionals who have a broader knowledge, in particular, about other relevant stakeholders and serve as intermediaries and coordinators. To actively engage these people in a project group only works if the subject of the co-creation is relevant to their work and will improve the services they already provide for their district. In other words, to recruit members for such a group, the focus should not only be on future users, but also on (complementary) existing services these intermediaries provide. They can facilitate contact with different experts for e.g. identifying needs, services, or relevant content.

Focus groups for data-collection In our case the project team beyond coordination tasks also was operative in conducting structured focus groups with different groups of seniors in order to identify places and institutions of interest to them and the most interesting aspects in each case. As mentioned already, overall 12 focus groups were conducted which led to almost 20 nice places and about 100 institutions of interest. The snowball data collection process of data about nice places and walks, informal meeting points and points of interests was a necessary supplement to the small core-co-creation group, putting the content generation on a much broader and more representative set of sources, needs and views. However, among the first eight groups four were in a church environment, leading to a bias, which needed to be compensated by finding other groups e.g. the men´s breakfast club.

NEXT PHASE: We will follow the two level organisation model in the next phase, but with different interview guides and questionnaires in compliance with the topic of phase 2.

Further, we will put even more effort into covering the whole range of living situations and contexts of the senior adults we address.

Data collection Overall we had to realise that very little data is available on the content identified as most relevant by our participants (social, cultural, leisure activities). Some participants engaged heavily in collecting data, while others were ready to name objects of interest but not to collect or validate detailed data on attributes.

During the process we decided to focus on fewer categories and less content than foreseen, and instead to focus on those objects that currently are not found online and that are rather difficult to describe. It is hence not advisable to keep the process open for too long but rather to focus on fewer aspects and work on them more intensively.

Design Very open questions regarding the design and providing empty screens with just one theme or title (What should the start page look like?) are not appreciated and do not lead to any tangible results. Participants answers were often quite intuitive and spontaneous. For design issues it was more effective and in line with the expectations of participants to provide two or three alternative options; to name a few pros and cons and then open the discussion as we did in the case of the choice between three different kinds of maps.

While for some issues it was appropriate to present different existing websites, for other aspects paper prototyping was more adequate. It turned out that the exercise with an open screen and several paper elements for possible menus, left room for discussion of many associated issues. This exercise only came to a result once the researchers intervened and

Š Copyright 2017 ifib

95 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

moderated the discussion. While some participants enjoyed the paper prototyping others were hesitant to „glue“ their proposition on paper. For those who were not too acquainted with digital media the design task appeared to be too tedious. Participants stated for example: • •

„Why do we have to decide all these things“? „Can ‘t you make some suggestion and then we decide“?

For those that regularly used digital media the ideas about design were mainly derived from their own experience with existing websites and applications.

The design of an application is more than the design of the user interface and also includes the design of the data base and other back-office functions, e.g. user administration. For example, the data tables that were used for data collection were also the blue print for the database model of our service. The decision to develop two different tables for nice places and facilities to meet other people was taken by the ifib team and discussed with the technology partners FTB. It was based on considerations of different data models (objects and attributes). The result was communicated to the participants but not discussed. They did not feel competent nor interested in how we would translate their needs into technical requirements.

NEXT PHASE: For involving end users into co-design activities open questions regarding the design (e.g. do you want coloured markings?) are misleading, because the participants often answer intuitive and spontaneous. It is more effective to propose a selection of different existing examples and discuss the advantages and disadvantages. Personas helped participants to reflect on other users and anticipate their requirements (e.g. non-native speakers, new residents).

Decision making Our decision making practice was consensus oriented in the sense, that if somebody said something it was taken as the common opinion as long as nobody else objected. Hence, the one who answered a question or who spoke up first, often decided for the group. This resulted in the danger that people who were more cautious may have been silenced. In particular, we noticed these dynamics when a statements was compatible with the researchers’ expectations. If a statement was more surprising, we tended to inquire and ask statements of those who were silent before.

NEXT PHASE: We will try to put together an explicit list of decisions to be made and to reach agreement on the appropriate decision-making method, i.e. open idea generation and discussion, choice between a few alternative options or discussion of and consent on a preferred solution by the research team. Important is also how such decision are document in a transparent way.

© Copyright 2017 ifib

96 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

4.7

Service and Diffusion

The evaluation is currently ongoing with usability tests scheduled for the end of February and an official launch of the app for the end of March in the town hall. All involved stakeholders will be invited to the official launch, along with local press.

Service & Diffusion

Co-Design

Exploration

Idea Formation

We have documented the process well and disseminated our activities and results via local newspapers, a German Service magazine for CIOs in local public Definition authorities 22, an article in an online sociology journal 23, via Twitter and our blog 24. We have also presented preliminary results at a research workshop 25 and an academic conference 26. These presentations have led to a submission of a first paper which is currently under review. 27 Further, we had been invited to talk about the project. 28 Furthermore, the results of this first phase have been contributing to D1.1 and D5.3. 29

22

Jarke, J., Kubicek, H. & Gerhard, U. (2016): Services für Senioren. Kommune 21, September 2016, p.12-13.

23

Jarke, J.; Gerhard, U.; Kubicek, H. (2016): Offene Daten, Datenaktivismus und Bürgerbeteilung für den demografischen Wandel in: Soziopolis. → www.soziopolis.de 24

http://www.ifib.de/blog/index.php/category/mobileage

25

Gerhard, U.; Jarke, J. (2016): Becoming old in the age of civic technology: Co-creating online public services with and for people in later life. Conference: Becoming old in the age of mediatization, 31st October – 1st November 2016, Copenhagen.

26

Jarke, J., Gerhard, U. & Kubicek, H. (2016): Re-imagining the city through participatory open data.

4S/EASST conference – science & technology by other means, 31 August – 3 September 2016.

Barcelona.

27

Jarke, J., Kubicek, H. & Gerhard, U. (submitted): Open Data and the co-creation of public services with and for senior citizens. ECIS 2017 Completed Research Papers.

28

Participation of Dr. Jarke in panel “Social and technological innovations to help older people realize their potential” at the 4th Annual Conference AGE Platform, Brussels, 18th November 2016 29

Interim report on accessibility, digital mobility and open data (D1.2); Interim study on co-creation practices (D1.2), Initial exploitation plan (D5.3)

© Copyright 2017 ifib

97 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

4.8

Reflection/lessons learnt on process and roles

4.8.1 Process The basic stage model as presented in Figure 1 has provided a good orientation for planning the process. Only two points have been adapted during the process: •

•

With regard to the Co-Design stage we had to learn that “Identifying and selecting available open data” did not work well. For those issues rated most relevant by our senior participants, almost no open data were available. Data either had to be digitised from print media, e.g. the district reader, or had to be collected, compiled and integrated into complete and consistent data tables. While the broader coverage of relevant open data could be achieved by additional focus groups, validation of these data became an even greater challenge. This was only possible by consulting different intermediaries as experts.

For the Service and Diffusion stage the “finalisation of product” and “dissemination of results to ensure adoption” seems not appropriate for dynamic information systems.

They are not products that are designed once and then adopted. Checking and updating the collected content information is a permanent process, that has to be taken over by motivated organisations. In our case the editors of the city information provider www.bremen.de, the neighbourhood editorial team BORIS, the neighbourhood managers and others. Therefore, we suggest to refer to “Service maintenance” which emphasises the establishment of a permanent service, including data maintenance and technical hosting and updates etc.

It also turned out that there is no strict order of the stages but that there are loops, e.g. that problems encountered in the design stage lead to a revision of the service definition.

Revisions will also occur if requirements cannot be met in the maintenance stage. For example, we did not follow the proposal of a district event calendar because there was nobody who would continue the collection of data on events after the termination of the research project.

4.8.2 Roles Citizens need to „find“ their new role from a customer/user of a service to service designer.

The co-creation facilitators hence need to think about ways to facilitate role shifts and consider the following questions: • • • •

What is the role/contribution from administrations, software developers, facilitators?

What does this role entail and what are necessary skills and knowledge?

How are older citizens enabled to assume such a role?

What may be barriers for role-shifting?

Overall, there are several areas in which co-creators may engage: • • • • • •

Identify information needs Identify gaps between information needs and existing services/data Editorial work Data creator, validator Technical specification / systems requirements Usability testing – evaluation

Regarding older citizens’ possible roles in a co-creation process our experiences from the first phase particularly show, that the role model proposed in the D1.9 (State of the Art in

© Copyright 2017 ifib

98 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

Participatory Open Data Approaches) focuses too much on technology design and disregards the co-creation of the content of a service. The roles proposed in this model were: • • • •

Explorer: Identify problems to be solved.

Idea former: Generate solutions to well defined problems.

Designer: Design and/or develop implementable solutions.

Diffuser: Facilitate the adoption and diffusion of the developed solution.

In projects driven by the administration or in data-driven projects, where the content is clear and the aim of the co-creation process focuses on the development of a technical system to distribute certain available data, these roles might be adequate. But in a citizen driven cocreation process where the citizens define the services to be developed, the task of data cocreation needs to be added. We therefore extend this model with the role of a data editor which comprises the tasks of data definition, collection, creation, integration, validation and maintenance. We will proceed to adapt our definitions of roles in the subsequent chapter.

4.9

Comparison planned & conducted activities

In D6.3 we had outlined our plan for co-creation recruitment and engagement.

© Copyright 2017 ifib

99 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

Stages creation

of

co-

Task

Planned methods

Planned involved stakeholders

Lead

Reflection

ifib, project team Osterholz, older citizens, intermediaries

ifib

The cultural probes worked well for our field work (see reflection). In terms of numbers our focus groups were slightly smaller but complemented with additional interviews.

ifib

The development of personas helped to define a rough concept of the service and the information needs and requirements of older adults in Osterholz. The scenarios supported the discussions around functionality.

II Idea formation Cultural probes + interviews with 15 - 20 older citizens, 6. User and provider needs and value proposition

Develop cultural probes and interview guidelines

Interviews with topic experts & project team (5), focus groups (15 – 20 older citizens & intermediaries in up to 4 focus groups)

III Service Definition 7. Service definition and requirements (rough concept)

8. Availability of relevant open data (feasibility study)

9. Use case description

Definition of content and functions

Identification and examination of relevant open data repositories Identification of proprietary data that is required for the proposed services Translate scenarios into use-case-descriptions (UML)

Scenarios & personas workshops (15 – 20 older citizens & intermediaries)

ifib, FTB, older citizens, intermediaries

Web-search of open data repositories, analysis of open data catalogue, interviews with data owners within the relevant organisations

ifib, Bremen.Online

ifib

This was the task that we most heavily underestimated. We started with a review of existing open data early on, but as the project went on had to realise that most of the data interesting and relevant to our participants did not yet exist or was not yet open. While we had planned for opening up data, the effort for creating data and integrating existing data sets was much higher than anticipated.

Analysis of scenarios, applicable data; description of use-cases with UML

FTB, ifib

FTB

We did not work with use case descriptions, but rather developed two scenarios through which we jointly developed the functionality with the participants.

© Copyright 2017 ifib

100 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

Stages of cocreation

Task

Planned methods

Planned involved stakeholders

Lead

Reflection

IV Co-Design

10. Interface design (mock-ups)

11. Prototyping (iterative) & open data creation

Co-design activities and creation of mock-ups

Building the demonstrator

Design workshops, card based design, observation (15 – 20 older citizens & intermediaries)

We presented third party examples to pick usefull items, which worked well. Sometimes, no examples of a specific concept existed in real life applications, so it could not be presented in this way.

FTB, older citizens, ifib

FTB

Technical development and implementation; , small trials, observation (15 – 20 older citizens & intermediaries)

FTB, possibly supported

by Bremen.Online; older citizens, ifib

FTB

Field test, execution of predefined tasks either with data logging or observation and questionnaire, and semi-structured interviews (15 – 20 older citizens & intermediaries)

FTB, older citizens, intermediaries, ifib

FTB

We tried to co-design screens using paper mockups, but it showed up that the needed capacity for abstraction as well as missing knowledge regarding basic user interface concepts seemed to be an obstacle. Activities like this need more training beforehand.

Presenting rapid prototypes worked well for the discussion, but ended in a high development effort. Not every change/wish could have been programmed without redesigning large parts of the prototype.

Furthermore, using prototypes posed the danger of participants assessing functionalities positive or negative from a sheer aesthetic point of view, despite explanation of the fact that optical features were negligible.

V Service and Diffusion

12. Evaluation

Qualitative & quantitative

Ongoing (usability tests planned for late February 2017)

© Copyright 2017 ifib

101 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

Stages of creation

co-

Task

Planned methods

Planned involved stakeholders

Lead

Reflection

V Service and Diffusion Deliverables documenting Bremen activities.

30

Peer-reviewed publication submitted based on D1.9 13. Documentation

Documenting the process

Deliverables, papers, dissemination material

ifib, FTB

ifib

Publication of Bremen activities

Sustainability business migration plan

and plan,

Deliverables and future action plan

Bremen.Online, ifib, FTB

TT

32

Presentation of Bremen activities at academic conferences & 33 workshops Invited talks

14. Sustainability

31

34

Ongoing (see deliverable D5.3)

Table 8 : Co-creation planning and reflection Bremen

30

Interim report on accessibility, digital mobility and open data (D1.2); Interim study on co-creation practices (D1.2)

31

Jarke, J., Kubicek, H. & Gerhard, U. (submitted): Open Data and the co-creation of public services with and for senior citizens. ECIS 2017 Completed Research Papers.

32

Jarke, J.; Gerhard, U.; Kubicek, H. (2016): Offene Daten, Datenaktivismus und Bürgerbeteilung für den demografischen Wandel in: Soziopolis. → www.soziopolis.de

Jarke, J., Kubicek, H. & Gerhard, U. (2016): Services für Senioren. Kommune 21, September 2016, p.12-13.

33

Gerhard, U.; Jarke, J. (2016): Becoming old in the age of civic technology: Co-creating online public services with and for people in later life. Conference: Becoming old in the age of mediatization, 31st October – 1st November 2016, Copenhagen.

Jarke, J., Gerhard, U. & Kubicek, H. (2016): Re-imagining the city through participatory open data. 4S/EASST conference – science & technology by other means, 31 August – 3 September 2016. Barcelona.

34

Participation of Dr. Jarke in panel “Social and technological innovations to help older people realize their potential” at the 4th Annual Conference AGE Platform, Brussels, 18th November 2016

© Copyright 2017 ifib

102 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

5

Conclusion: Co-creation as situated and reflective practice

The last two chapters have provided a reflective account of the co-creation activities as they took place in Bremen and South Lakeland during the first year of the project. In the following, we will synthesise our findings and reflections so far. In addition, we will propose considerations for a new process model for phase 2. We will also provide a short overview about the planned activities in all four field sites in phase 2 in the subsequent chapter.

While in South Lakeland greater emphasis was placed on the insights from intermediaries about the information needs of older adults (in particular with respect to issues around independent living such as loneliness), the interventions in Bremen placed more weight on the co-creation of a service and the necessary (open) data (identification, collection, creation, and validation). The different weighting of co-creation interventions was based on • • •

the different topic areas (loneliness and social isolation vs. social inclusion) the different anticipated mobile services (provision of an event calendar vs. mapbased neighbourhood guide) the different geographic location (rural vs. urban) In the following we will review our co-creation activities on three levels: o Recruitment and engagement (incl. roles, degree of involvement, trust) o Methods o Process

Finally, we will conclude with some considerations for phase 2.

5.1

Recruitment and engagement

5.1.1 Recruitment and engagement with intermediaries The engagement with intermediaries turned out to be a continuous process: starting with the understanding of the context of our site-specific research, field exploration, recruitment of participants, idea forming up to the service development and sustainability considerations.

Depending on the topic area their role in the co-creation process differs (from information providers and/or supervisors, topic experts to future users). An important aspect of recruiting intermediaries was not only for gathering information about older adults but also for setting up processes of data and service maintenance. In phase two in South Lakeland, intermediaries (South Lakeland Housing ‘Independent Living Officers’ and hopefully representatives of SLDC and Age UK) will be recruited for our workshops. Intermediaries have an understanding of the priorities of older citizens in rural areas, especially those citizens that have thus far not participated in the co-creation workshops (due to terrain, interest and accessibility issues) in South Lakeland. Intermediaries will provide the opportunity to understand the needs of this hard to reach older citizen.

5.1.2

Recruitment and engagement of older citizens

In both field sites recruitment was not confined to the beginning of the co-creation activities but was rather an ongoing activity. Part of the reason was the challenge to engage and commit older citizens to the co-creation activities over a period of several months. In particular, in a rural area such as South Lakeland regular attendance to co-creation meetings was more challenging due to the expense of traveling and the participants’ longer commute (related to bus time tables, weather conditions, terrain, competing events). Moreover, older citizens’ interests in a technology related project was rather low.

© Copyright 2017 ifib

103 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

At both field sites we experienced a challenge in engaging people in an open process. As noted in South Lakeland participants found it difficult to “understand the aim of the project”.

Similarly, in Bremen there was some doubt among participants about what it “actually was we were going to build”. Overall we noted a number of other dimensions which seem particular to co-creation as undertaken in South Lakeland and Bremen: • • •

Engaging with already active and included people Focus on social, cultural and physical activity Image of active ageing is (re-)produced o What about older adults who can’t or don’t want to be active? o How is “age” negotiated and what images are constructed in our work?

5.1.3 Building trust and commitment For both field sites it was of utmost importance to build a trusting relationship with the participants and in so doing also reinforce commitment to the project. In South Lakeland such relationship building was sought through an initial workshop in which the co-creators, i.e. researchers and participants got to know each other without pre-planned or structured activities (see workshop 1). Relationship building was also enhanced through supporting older adults in their use of technology through for example guiding them through basic smartphone/tablet operation. In Bremen, artefacts (a card game) with a particular local relevance were used in an information event and a kick-off workshop to establish the participants as experts about their district. Emphasis was laid on disseminating our activities through local newspapers. The use of local champions for enrolling older adults was important for both field sites

5.1.4 Roles This section aims to reflect upon the different roles that may be assumed by co-creators. Our experience shows, in particular through the intensive work on data in the Bremen field site, that an additional role to the ones initially proposed is required: the data editor. In addition, it turned out to be difficult to recruit one group of co-creators in which all participants participate equally in all tasks & activities. In South Lakeland, due to the challenges of reaching older adults, the role of intermediary has been and will be especially so in phase two of the project especially important.

1) Explorer: Identify problems to be solved According to our experiences it is difficult to recruit people for a process where the problem to be solved is not yet identified, it might be better to identify the problems with a group of people that are recruited for this particular task and not for the whole process. Alternatively, it is important to consider the problems with different stakeholders. For example, in South Lakeland, interviewing the different staff in both SLDC and Age UK SL, that have experience of working with older people. Further, attending to a wider group of older citizens other than just those that have agreed to co-create allows for a broader understanding of the problem domain. Exploring the problem situation with a wide group of stakeholders helps to better situate the problem within the specific social/political/historical contexts of the problem domain (e.g. in South Lakeland social isolation and loneliness).

2) Idea former: Generate solutions to well defined problems It is important to identify and discuss already existing services and technologies in order to give participants an idea about what the solution/service might look like. However, this is a delicate balance between showing the possibilities while one the other hand not influencing

© Copyright 2017 ifib

104 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

the ideas unduly. In South Lakeland, this was undertaken by highlighting some technologies that had arisen as a consequence of a previous co-creation project.

3) Data provider & editor: Identify, collect, create, validate, integrate and edit relevant open data.

A whole bundle of new tasks, which is not considered in the co-creation literature, is to provide and present the data on which the service is based, that shall achieve a certain purpose and bring about benefits for older people, in our cases support loneliness and social isolation (South Lakeland) and social inclusion in the neighbourhood (Bremen).

During the field work extensive work had to be devoted to identifying existing open data as well as data validation, integration and ultimately also data creation (in particular in Bremen).

Only few required data were available and even these had to be validated for being up to date and complete. On most desired aspects data had to be collected or created by our participants and other experts. The information that was generated this way was partly inconsistent and subsequently had to be checked and validated as well as harmonised for each category. These processes showed all the advantages and disadvantages of crowd sourcing. In particular, we underestimated the task of editing texts, e.g. formulate short and clear descriptions based on the keywords, provided by our participants and intermediaries, as well as proof reading. In Phase 2 we have to plan for these tasks and recruit different people for identifying the elements of content on one side and for editing, including quality control on the other. This is also important with respect to the accessibility of content (plain language) as outlined in D1.1.

4) Designer: Design and/or develop implementable solutions.

Here we recognised that interface design and the development of a data base are two tasks usually carried out by different experts and that the communication of requirements on both issues could be more effective when formalised in an agile software development approach.

One of the most challenging roles for our participants was that of a designer. Many participants experienced the prototyping (in particular paper prototyping as tedious and annoying). Further, in South Lakeland, asking participant to try various functionalities of existing websites and apps was important. While some of the participants struggled with the basic website navigating exercises, it was nonetheless helpful to understand the design requirements of the app. It may be required to provide more guidance to inexperienced participants or recruit other participants for these tasks. In addition, an ICT helpdesk for participants throughout the process may be an effective way for receiving informed feedback.

Diffuser: Facilitate the adoption and diffusion of the developed solution.

In both field sites sustainable migration and maintenance agreements with local stakeholders are currently drafted and/or finalised. A first overview is presented in deliverable 5.3 (initial exploitation plan). Key to sustainability considerations are local stakeholders that will maintain the service and keep the data up-to-date after the co-creation project terminates.

5.1.5 Degree of involvement As outlined above co-creation processes can be differentiated by the degree to which the participating parties are involved. The degree of involvement depends on the

1) Structure and frequency of interaction: Co-creation processes differ with regard to the

duration and intensity of interaction (as described in D1.9). With regard to the creation

Š Copyright 2017 ifib

105 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

and design of public online services for example, there may be a series of workshops with different objectives and participants or a regular project with a defined goal and termination, running over several months with the same team.

We learned that on the one hand the social aspect of the engagement (getting to know each other, work as a group) was very important to the participants. Hence, in this sense it is good to engage with the same group of people for the whole process. On the other hand, the process in Bremen has shown that not everyone is interested in and able to fulfil every task.

In South Lakeland, intermediaries advised that due to the physical and cognitive needs of older citizens, workshops should not run for more than two hours.

2) Abilities and interest of the people involved (levels of creativity): People can get creative at varying levels in different stages of the process and with respect to the amount of expertise and interest for certain tasks.

As outlined above, the roles of co-creators during the process need to be defined well during the planning process. Our participants engaged in and enjoyed expressing needs, and proposing or contributing elements of content but were reluctant in finalising this content and take definite decisions on interface design. Only were few were interested in issues of the data structure, provenance, user administration and other back office functions.

3) Equality of the parties (access to information and transparency).

In our process the researchers structured and planned the process and decided what decisions and information to make available to the participants. Further, the process and the objectives were not completely transparent in the beginning. Hence, some tasks came as a surprise to the participants and they were reluctant to take responsibility. In order to give more responsibility to the participants the process should be more transparent (also with respect to documentation). Clearly conveying the plans for subsequent workshops is one way to address this. This is especially the case early in the co-creation process. Later, once the design principles have been agreed and the prototype is under development, older adults in both South Lakeland and Bremen could see that they had been listed to and that their input was valued.

4) Openness of the task and predictability of the solution: Depending on the openness of a task the solution is more or less predictable.

One of the main challenges in our co-creation activities was the openness of the process. In our next phase we hence propose to define co-creator roles better and hence provide some framing on the tasks and what to expect for co-creators. However, due to the variety of abilities and confidence, care is needed to ensure that all co-creators see they have a valuable role to play.

5.2

Methods

In the following we will review how the methods introduced in D6.3 were used throughout the two co-creation processes in South Lakeland and Bremen. As guidance we will use the figure introduced in D6.3 as the co-creation life cycle.

Service & Diffusion

Exploration

Idea Formation

Co-Design

Service Definition

Š Copyright 2017 ifib

106 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

5.2.1 Inclusive co-creation methods

Figure 57: Co-creation Life Cycle

Both field sites realised that our current approach to co-creation is rather exclusive. We are currently discussing about the opening of the process for a wider public. This could be accomplished through public (interactive and/or non-interactive) displays or SMS based systems. We are also considering a model in which older citizens act as community researchers and support the co-creation process through conducting surveys and gather information needs. Such methods are not currently considered as part of our co-creation process but may be taken up in our next phase.

Š Copyright 2017 ifib

107 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

Methods

Description

Purpose/objective

Bremen

South Lakeland

Semistructured Interviews

A partly structured conversation between a researcher and a respondent, where the researcher guides the conversation according to her or his research question but at the same time is open to unexpected topics that might be of interest.

To collect data about prospective services, users and stakeholder, co-creating knowledge, identify needs, visions, expectations, (design-) problems through a confidential conversation between researcher and respondent.

For interviewing intermediaries and local stakeholders throughout process and as part of cultural probes intervention.

For interviewing local government authority, intermediaries, older citizens in the Exploration and Recruitment stage and the Idea Forming stage.

Focus Groups

A focused discussion led by a moderator through a set of questions on a specific topic. Focus groups can be newly created groups or pre-existing groups consisting of 6-12 persons who share a common interest

Collect data about prospective services, users and stakeholder, co-creating knowledge, identify needs, visions, expectations, (design-) problems through stimulating statements through the interaction in the group.

(Media-) diaries

Participants are provided with a diary to record their experiences, feelings, impressions during the use of a device or application and/or before or after the use. The diary can be a booklet, an application or a voice recorder.

To collect temporal and longitudinal information gathered in a natural context of the interaction and to get insights in the impression of a specific device, usage of features, technological acceptance, emotions associated with task performance, or learnability of an application.

Participantobservation

Observing and recording people and their activities and interactions.

Participant observation involves active engagement in activities in contrast to observation where researchers simply observe without interacting with people.

To collect information on peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s activities and interactions and thereby get insights in the behaviour of people and their interactions in a group or with a technology. Can also be used to learn about collaborative design activities to learn about resources and obstacles for participatory design.

For data collection and complementing information; For discussing different aspects of the app

Use in stages across field sites

For focusing in-depth to understand particular issues on use of mobile technology in everyday living.

As part of idea forming and understanding participantsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; media use patterns and attitude.

-

As part of our workshops.

As part of our Service and Data Definition and Co-design stages.

Used for observing how our participants use gadgets to access various websites and navigate.

Knowledge to be used for designing our app.

Š Copyright 2017 ifib

108 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

Methods

Description

Purpose/objective

Bremen

South Lakeland

Cultural Probes or Design Probes

Tools including descriptive and exploratory tasks that are (typically) based on self-reporting, are handed over to the participants. Participants collect data on themselves, their lives and culture. Briefing and follow-up interviews are conducted to prepare and accompany the process and a de-briefing session to supplement, validate and explore the data

Collect data about prospective users and stakeholder and their daily contexts, sensitizing the participants to observe, reflect upon and report their experiences, stimulate imagination of the researchers

As part of our idea forming stage and codesign stage.

As part of our Idea Forming, Service and Data Definition and Co-Design stages.

Survey

Collect data through surveys

To collect data on a large amount of people and thereby identify general needs of a large group of people

As part of evaluation.

As part of our Service and Data Definition and Codesign stages.

A persona allows the designers of an interface to consider the needs, wants, expectations etc. of wider user groups, without involving them directly in the design process. By drawing attention to potential users the creation of a common understanding of the users is supported and designers are engaged to implement this understanding in their design decisions

As part of service definition; based on cultural probes and interviews.

As part of our Idea Forming and Service and Data Definition stage. We will contiue to refine the personas we have developed and use them for our app development.

Personas

A persona is a representation of a fictitious user that includes a concise summary of characteristics of the user, their experience, goals and tasks, pain points, and environmental conditions. Personas describe the target users of a tool, site, product or application, giving a clear picture of how they are likely to use the system, and what theyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ll expect from it. Personas are user models developed on the basis of qualitative research data and/or the expertise of involved stakeholders.

Use in stages across field sites

Š Copyright 2017 ifib

109 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

Description

Purpose/objective

Bremen

South Lakeland

Scenarios / user stories

A scenario is a description of a particular situation of (potential) use of a design to predict or explore future use

To provide information about the context in which a system has to operate, in a user- and task-oriented way, to foresee and consider future use cases including problems, conflicts etc.

Based on personas, as part of service definition, co-design as well as evaluation.

-

Data Models

A data model defines the objects and the attributes as well as the relationship between them

To translate the information needs and requirements for a service into the tables of the underlying data base, i.e. the bridge between users and technology developers

As strarting point for data collection and integration

-

Data Tables

The data model defines categories objects and defines what information has to be provided for each real life entity for each category. A data table is a matrix with lines for the real life objects and columns for the respective attributes. Each cell contains the respective individual data

To provide the informational content and allow for checking and improving completeness and harmonization, similar data for alle attributes of every object of one category

One data table for nice places, another - partly different - one for faclities and meeting points

-

Methods

Use in stages across field sites

Table 9: Overview methods as used in field sites

Š Copyright 2017 ifib

110 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

Concluding the section on methods we will particularly discuss cultural probes, personas and scenarios.

5.2.2 Cultural probes In Bremen the cultural probes and related individual interviews were one of the interventions that resonated with participants most. They further helped to establish a trusting relationship with the participants. They also manifested the expert status of the participants with respect to knowledge about the district and their experience of becoming older. What was particularly helpful with probes throughout the process (idea forming as well as evaluation) was their ability to prompt participants to reflect about their everyday life. In subsequent interviews and focus groups, participants were much better prepared to give an account about for example their mobility and socio-spatial inclusion within the district. Cultural probes sensitised participants about certain aspects of their everyday practices and were hence tremendously helpful in identifying needs and resources.

Cultural probes in South Lakeland provided better understanding of everyday living of older citizens and their challenges in attaining what they see as ideal, e.g. activities in a week or events they wish to attend or services they want to access. This gap between the actual and the ideal has revealed potential avenues for researchers for designing technologies that can make access to e.g. events easier. Probes have also demonstrated technological possibilities that have dispelled fears about the complicated nature of technology amongst our participants.

5.2.3 Personas & scenarios In Bremen personas were an important co-creation method. On the one hand they helped to anticipate future users, on the other they helped to tease out the defining characteristics (socio-economic, social relations, general health & mobility, attitude towards technology) of older adults. Personas were developed based on the participants and complemented with statistical information on the key characteristics. They enabled participants to discuss matters of concern not only from their perspectives but also by taking other peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s perspective. In particular, with respect to sensitive aspects such as financial constraints or limited mobility, personas helped participants to articulate needs without feeling intimidated to speak about themselves. The personas were subsequently used to develop use case scenarios and facilitated communication in the concept developing, co-design and evaluation stages.

Personas and scenarios also served as a red thread throughout the co-creation process, connecting different activities (such as identifying information needs to, map design).

In South Lakeland, we have created our personas mainly on three representative categories based on their use of technology, viz. tech-savvy, non-user of technology and intermediaryassisted user. Our personas have helped us make important decisions in the design of our app. Particularly in instances where we cannot reach out to the relevant group of older citizens (e.g. in a rural setting cut off by difficult transport access) personas help us by understanding their needs revealed to us by their friends and acquaintances through interviews or probes (e.g. calendar exercise).

5.3

Process

Considering our reflective account above, we have further developed our process model. In particular, we became aware of the need to depict the stages not as distinct and subsequent parts of a process, but rather as overlapping activities. For example, recruitment was an activity that did not only take place in the beginning of the project, but was rather a Š Copyright 2017 ifib

111 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

continuous activity throughout. Also, the recruitment of a core group and additional cocreators was tightly coupled with the development and refinement of the service concept: As the concept became more and more refined, new areas of expertise became relevant and hence had to be included in the co-creation activities. What we underestimated most was the work required with respect to data collection, validation, creation and integration as well as editorial work. In both field sites the availability of relevant open data posed a challenge. We are now proposing to consider a separate stream of activities with respect to data & editorial work. This line of activities is again tightly coupled with the concept development: As open data is identified and validated, this opens possibilities for potential services or closes certain avenues (e.g. if no data is available). As the data collection progresses, the service concept can become more detailed. Depending on data availability and quality, certain prioritisations with respect to potential services will be made. Lastly, the software development is a continuous process as well which has close interrelations with the concept development and data work.

Below is a first overview of the adapted process model. This will be described in more detail in the upcoming deliverable 1.3 (Co-Creation Good Practice Guidebook).

Š Copyright 2017 ifib

112 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

Figure 58: Adapted co-creation process model from fieldwork in phase 1

Š Copyright 2017 ifib

113 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

5.4

Implementing co-creation as situated and reflective practice in Mobile-Age

As we have argued in chapter 2, it is not sufficient to conduct co-creation activities. In order to effectively co-create and learn from our undertakings, we have to reflect on our practices.

This holds not only true to research projects, but for any type of co-creation activity. What we will further develop in D1.3 is a guide book for “reflective practitioners”. As stated above, our co-creation research methodology is based on an action research framework depicted in the

Figure 59: Adapted stages of action research for co-creation processes

figure below.

In the following we will briefly go through the 5 stages of our action research methodology as adapted for co-creation process: [1] Plan co-creation interventions What is clear from the two accounts given by Bremen and South Lakeland above, is that cocreation always has to be considered in the context in which it takes place. Thus far we have identified a number of aspects that can play a role: • • •

the different topic areas (independent living vs. social inclusion) the different anticipated mobile services (provision of existing services vs. mapbased neighbourhood guide) the different geographic location (rural vs. urban)

These aspects afford a particular co-creation engagement—in particular with respect to the role that the older citizens can take on in the co-creation process. Our learning thus far is only indicative. In our second project year, we will conduct co-creation activities in four field sites.

In the end the project will result in 6 reflective accounts of co-creation activities which we will use to reflect on and learn. This insight and learning will shape our final analysis and recommendations.

© Copyright 2017 ifib

114 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

In Appendix XIII, we provide an overview of the planned co-creation activities in all four field sites of phase 2. A more detailed account of the Co-Creation Recruitment and Engagement Plan in Zaragoza and Thessaloniki will follow in the upcoming deliverable D3.1.

[2] Implement co-creation interventions The co-creation activities as outlined in Appendix XIII will be implemented in each of the field sites in the next phase of the project. A detailed report on the co-creation activities in each field site will be compiled at the end of the field work in Bremen (D3.2) and South Lakeland (D3.3) and Zaragoza (D3.4) and Thessaloniki (D3.5).

[3] Observe interventions Important for effective co-creation activities is the reflection on the interventions undertaken. In phase 1, we have developed and tested documentation templates for the cocreation activities in Bremen and South Lakeland. For the upcoming phase 2, all field sites will use these templates for documenting their interventions. There are two templates: a diary template for co-creation activities and a decision log for technical development. The templates are provided in Appendix XIV of this document.

[4] Reflect on interventions and observations While all field sites will reflect on their interventions and observations on a continuous basis, we have planned for collaborative joint reflection workshops throughout the next project year.

A co-creation reflection plan has been agreed between all field sites through which we will jointly engage in reflecting about our co-creation practices. This collaboration includes •

•

•

• •

Regular video-conferences (every 2 weeks) between all field sites led by ifib The meetings started in December and focused initially on the development of D3.1 (Recruitment and Engagement Plan ZGZ and RCM). Once the co-creation activities have begun, they will be used on intervention updates, observations and reflections.

A 1st field site visit (February/March 2017) is envisaged after the exploration phase. In order to facilitate the process, we have paired Zaragoza with Bremen and Thessaloniki with South Lakeland. During this visit the interventions in Zaragoza and Thessaloniki will be specified.

1st reflection workshop (July 2017) Before the project management meeting, all partners involved in co-creation activities at the Mobile-Age field sites will hold a workshop in order to reflect on the interventions undertaken so far. Upon reflection, we will discuss possible adjustments as well as synthesise findings for the final study on co-creation practices. The meeting will also provide final input for the Study on Accessibility, Digital Mobility and Open Data (D1.4).

A 2nd field site visit (September/October 2017) is planned between Zaragoza and Bremen, as wel as Thessaloniki and South Lakeland.

2nd reflection workshop (December2017/January 2018) This joint meeting between all field sites is meant to integrate our observations and reflections and provide input for the Final Study on Co-creation (D1.5) which is due end of March 2018).

[5] Record learnings and insights While we will document our observations at all the field sites, reflect individually, and record our learnings and insights, our meetings are meant to provide a space for joint reflection. The results from these collaborative action-research reflections will provide the basis for our Final © Copyright 2017 ifib

115 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

Study on Co-Creation (D1.5). In other words, this study will record our learning and insights with respect to (1) recruitment and engagement (e.g. roles, degree of involvement, trust); (2) co-creation methods; (3) co-creation process. Ultimately, this will feed into the Good Practice Guidebook, which is a significant cumulative outcome and deliverable. One that is based on our fundamental philosophy and methodologyâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;learning through doing, or, reflective practice.

Š Copyright 2017 ifib

116 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

6

References

Adler, P. A., & Adler, P. (1994). Observation techniques. In Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 377–392). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Aichholzer, G., & Strauß, S. (2015). Collaborative Forms of Citizen (e-)Participation. In G. Aichholzer, H. Kubicek, & L. Torres (Eds.), Evaluating e-Participation Frameworks, Practice, Evidence. (pp. 109–122). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Alexander, I. F., & Maiden, N. (2004). Scenarios, Stories, Use Cases: Through the Systems Development Life-Cycle. New York, NY: Wiley.

Angeletou, A. (2016, September 14). Designing tech for Old People; Who’s Old? Retrieved from https://medium.com/@angel_alice/designing-tech-for-old-people-whos-old1743d7cd538b#.dajjtf7i9 Boehner, K., Gaver, B., & Boucher, A. (2012). Probes. In C. Lury & N. Wakeford (Eds.), Inventive methods: the happening of the social (pp. 185–201). London: Routledge.

Boehner, K., Vertesi, J., Sengers, P., & Dourish, P. (2007). How HCI Interprets the Probes. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp.

1077–1086). New York, NY, USA: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/1240624.1240789 Bogner, A., Littig, B., & Menz, W. (Eds.). (2009). Interviewing Experts. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Carroll, J. M. (2000). Making Use: Scenario-Based Design of Human-Computer Interactions.

MIT Press.

Cooper, A. (1999). The Inmates Are Running the Asylum. Indianapolis, IN, USA: Macmillan Publishing Co. Cooper, A., Reimann, R., & Cronin, D. (2007). About Face 3: The Essentials of Interaction Design. Indianapolis: Wiley Publishing.

DeWalt, K. M., & DeWalt, B. R. (2002). Participant observation: a guide for fieldworkers.

Walnut Creek, CA: Rowman Altamira Press.

Ehn, P. (1988). Work-Oriented Design of Computer Artifacts. Stockholm: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.

European Commission. (2014). ICT-enabled public sector innovation in H2020. Retrieved 23 January 2014, from http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/ict-enabled-publicsector-innovation-h2020-flyer Flick, U. (2014). An introduction to qualitative research. London: Sage.

Gaver, B., Dunne, T., & Pacenti, E. (1999). Design: Cultural Probes. Interactions, 6(1), 21–29. https://doi.org/10.1145/291224.291235 Greenbaum, J., & Kyng, M. (1991). Design at Work: Cooperative Design of Computer Systems.

New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Ass., Hillsdale.

Hogge, B. (2010). Open data study. Retrieved from http://www.transparencyinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/open_data_study_final1.pdf House - Oversight and Government Reform. (2007, December 17). S.2488 - OPEN Government Act of 2007. Retrieved 27 September 2016, from https://www.congress.gov/110/plaws/publ175/PLAW-110publ175.pdf

© Copyright 2017 ifib

117 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

Hunnius, S., & Krieger, B. (2014). The Social Shaping of Open Data Through Administrative Processes. In Proceedings of The International Symposium on Open Collaboration (p.

16:1–16:5). New York, NY, USA: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2641580.2641601 Kamberelis, G., & Dimitriadis, G. (2013). Focus Groups - From structured interviews to collective conversations. London: Routledge.

Lallemand, C. (2012). Dear Diary: Using Diaries to Study User Experience. User Experience Magazine, 11(3).

Lee, M., Almirall, E., & Wareham, J. (2015). Open Data and Civic Apps: First-generation Failures, Second-generation Improvements. Commun. ACM, 59(1), 82–89. https://doi.org/10.1145/2756542 Mattelmäki, T. (2005). Applying probes–from inspirational notes to collaborative insights.

CoDesign, 1(2), 83–102.

Mattelmäki, T. (2006). Design probes. Aalto University. Retrieved from https://aaltodoc.aalto.fi:443/handle/123456789/11829 Mumford, E. (1981). Values, Technology and Work. Martinus Nijhoff.

Mumford, E., & Henshall, D. (1979). A participative approach to computer systems design.

London: Associated Business Press.

Myers, M. D., & Newman, M. (2007). The qualitative interview in IS research: Examining the craft.

Information and Organization, 17(1), 2–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2006.11.001 Nambisan, S., & Nambisan, P. (2013). Engaging Citizens in Co-Creation in Public Services Lessons Learned and Best Practices. Washington, DC: IBM Center for The Business of Government.

Office of the President. (2009, March 9). Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies 3-9-09. Retrieved 27 September 2016, from https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/memorandum-heads-executivedepartments-and-agencies-3-9-09 Palen, L., & Salzman, M. (2002). Voice-mail diary studies for naturalistic data capture under mobile conditions. In CSCW ’02 Proceedings of the 2002 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work (pp. 87–95). New York: ACM. Piller, F., Ihl, C., & Vossen, A. (2010). A Typology of Customer Co-Creation in the Innovation Process.

Social Science Research Network, 26. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1732127 Presidential Directives EO 13392. (2005, December 14). Improving Agency Disclosure of Information. Retrieved 27 September 2016, from http://fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo13392.htm Rodriguez, K. L., Schwartz, J. L., Lahman, M. K. E., & Geist, M. R. (2011). Culturally Responsive Focus Groups: Reframing the Research Experience to Focus on Participants.

International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 10(4), 400–417.

Rosson, M. B., & Carroll, J. M. (2002). Usability Engineering : Scenario-based Development of Human-computer Interaction (Vol. 1st ed). San Fancisco: Morgan Kaufmann.

Ruppert, E. (2015). Doing the Transparent State: open government data as performance indicators. In R. Rottenburg (Ed.), The world of indicators: the making of

© Copyright 2017 ifib

118 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

governmental knowledge through quantification (pp. 127–150). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

Sanders, E. B.-N., & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design.

CoDesign, 4(1), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880701875068 Schrock, A. R. (2016). Civic hacking as data activism and advocacy: A history from publicity to open government data.

New Media & Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816629469 Shakespeare, S. (2013). Shakespeare Review: An independent review of public sector information. London: Department for Businesses, Innovation & Skills. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/19 8752/13-744-shakespeare-review-of-public-sector-information.pdf Sieber, R. E., & Johnson, P. A. (2015). Civic open data at a crossroads: Dominant models and current challenges.

Government Information Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.05.003 Stahl, B., Chiarini Tremblay, M., & LeRouge, C. M. (2011). Focus groups and critical social IS research: how the choice of method can promote emancipation of respondents and researchers. European Journal of Information Systems, 18(2), 378 – 394.

Suopajärvi, T. (2015). Past experiences, current practices and future design. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 93, 112–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2014.04.006 Suopajärvi, T. (2016). Knowledge-making on ’ageing in a smart city as socio-material power dynamics of participatory action research.

Action Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750316655385 Tang, J. C., & Leifer, L. J. (1991). An Observational Methodology for Studying Group Design Activity. Research in Engineering Design, 2(4), 209–219.

Thorpe, R., & Holt, R. (Eds.). (2008). The Sage dictionary of qualitative management research.

London: SAGE.

© Copyright 2017 ifib

119 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

Appendix I: Template for fieldwork data capture and reflection Development of Mobile and Personalised Open Access to Public Services for Senior Citizens Co-creation Themes

What have we planned to cocreate?

What have we achieved to cocreate?

With whom have we planned to cocreate?

With whom and at what stages have we been able to cocreate?

Cocreation process

Learning and reflection about cocreation

What will be done differently in future

Exploration and Recruitment Idea Forming Service and Data Definition Co-Design Service and Diffusion

Š Copyright 2017 ifib

120 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

Appendix IIa: Interventions in the Exploration and Recruitment Stage Stage: Exploration and Recruitment Intervention

Date/Session

Attendees

Aims/Outcome

2 Meetings with SLDC

3 March 2016 7 October 2016

PI + CoI + Researchers + SLDC senior management

Scoping of project; Understanding the nature of work of SLDC and their needs; Network building with Age UK SL; Negotiating access to participants.

1 Meeting with Age UK SL + SLDC

21 April 2016

PI + CoI + Researchers + SLDC +Age UK senior management+ Project manager

Understanding of contexts of independent living in South Lakeland; Negotiating access to participants.

1 Meeting with Age UK SL

10 May 2016

Researchers + Age UK SL managers

Gaining access to participants; Understanding the nature of services provided by Age UK SL

6 Interviews SLDC staff

11 May 2016

Researchers + participants

Nature of services provided; Nature of service requests from older adults; Issues of service provision in South Lakeland.

Interview with Age Platform

20 May 2016

PI + Age Platform staff

Issues around older adults’ independent living; Nature of research projects in this area of interest.

8 Social meets/talks attended

19 May 2016 – Laptop and Tablet Training session 23 May 2016— Knit and Natter Club 25 May 2016 – Research Seminar 26 May 2016 (2)—Exercise Club + Men’s Luncheon Club 7 June 2016-Exercise Club (Ings) 14 June 2016 -Exercise Club (Staveley)

Researchers + older adults/ professionals +project manager

Understanding older adults’ views about independent living, their uses of technology, their views about using technology, their knowledge about existing services, their life-styles; Advertising for recruiting participants to our workshops

© Copyright 2017 ifib

121 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

22 June 2016— Young at Heart fun ‘Olympics’ 2 September 2016—Research Seminar 18 Casual chats

19 May 2016 23 May 2016 26 May 2016 7 June 2016 14 June 2016 22 June 2016 2 September 2016

Researchers + older adults+ project manager

16 Interviews

10 May 2016-Age UK SL 11May 2016 (6) -SLDC 19 May 2016 (2)-Laptop and Tablet Training session 23 May 2016-Knit and Natter Club 26 May 2016 (2) – Exercise Club 26 May 2016 (4)Lunch Club

Researchers+ SLDC/Age staff+ older adults+ project manager

3 Focus groups

23 May 2016 -Knit and Natter Club 26 May 2016-Exercise Club 7 June 2016-Exercise Club (Ings)

Researcher + participants

Approaching a facilitator for help with recruitment

July-October 2016

PI+ researcher+ facilitator

Recruitment of more participants

1 Meeting with SLH

19 October 2016

Researchers + SLH management + SLDC management

Understanding the nature of services provided by SLH; Explaining how our project could fit with their interests; Recruitment of more participants for Phase 1+ Recruitment of intermediaries for Phase 2

Understanding broader issues of uptake of technological interventions, mobile applications and independent living.

© Copyright 2017 ifib

122 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

Contacting various organisations for recruitment purposes: 3 occasions

SeptemberOctober 2016

South Lakes Housing U3A Grange Local churches in Windermere (colleague)

Recruitment of participants

Š Copyright 2017 ifib

123 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

Appendix IIb: Interventions in the Idea Forming Stage Stage: Idea Forming Intervention

Date/Session

Attendees

Aims/Outcome

Workshop 1

21 June 2016

Researchers (5 ULANCS researchers)+ participants (Mary, Christine, Jane, Julie, Trish) + Age Platform member of staff+ project manager

Discuss and learn about issues of accessibility to open data/services; Understanding needs of participants; Any issues pertaining to use of technology to access information

Workshop 2

24 June 2016

PI + Researchers (4 ULANCS researchers) + Participants (Mary, Annie, Susan, Helen, George, Steve, James, John)

Calendar exercise (real versus ideal week); Understand the activities of participants; Understand what they want to do but cannot and why

Workshop 3

30 June 2016

PI+ Researchers (4 ULANCS researchers) + Participants (Mary, George)

Feedback exercise based on the calendar exercise of previous workshop [Not attained]; Long discussion on challenges faced in understanding what is available

Workshop 4

12 July 2016

Researchers (4 ULANCS researchers) + participants (Mary, Julie, George, Steve)

Feedback exercise on Workshop 2 activities; Group discussion around dominant themes from initial workshop and previous interviews; Debate and prioritising the themes.

Feedback/consolidation workshop

25 August 2016

PI+ CoI+ SLDC staff+ Age UK SL staff+ 3 researchers+ project manager

Feedback on progress of project; Feedback on emerging themes from fieldwork; Discussion and consolidation about prioritised emergent themes; Plans for design workshops; Negotiation on further recruitment issues.

Š Copyright 2017 ifib

124 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

Appendix IIc: Interventions in the Service and Data Definition/Co-Design Stage Stage: Service and Data definition/ Co-design Intervention

Date/Session

Attendees

Aims/Outcome

Workshop 5

13 September 2016

Researchers (3 ULANC researchers)+ participants (Julie, Pat, Nina, George, Steve)

Discussion on ‘events’ that participants are interested in going; Discussion on challenges of attending events; ‘Events’ exercise; Discussion around how information about events is attained; Discussion around what an ‘app’ could bring about for the participants

Workshop 6

27 September 2016

Researchers (3 ULANC researchers) + Participants (Mary, Julie, Pat, Nina, George, Steve)

Feedback/catch-up from previous workshop; Introduction of a number of existing solutions to search filtering; Observation on participants’ accessing property and auto trading websites; Co-designing with paper prototypes of mobile phone ‘apps’ [not accomplished]

Workshop 7

7 October 2016

PI+ Researchers (4 ULANC researchers) + Participants (Mary, Annie, Pat, Nina, George, Steve)

Catch-up, summary and feedback from the previous ‘events’ workshop (researchers’ and participants’ viewpoints); Discovering ‘services’ relevant to participants; Discussing researchers’ choices of services; Participants’ suggestions; Brainstorming in small groups; Discussion: How can we provide access to this service via mobile technology and improve it in some way?

Workshop 8

21 October 2016

Researchers (4 ULANC researchers) + participants (Mary, Annie, Pat, Nina, George, Steve)

Demonstration of a very basic prototype; Feedback from participants on the design; Extensive discussion on existing local government services and participants’ knowledge/access of these services.

Workshop 9

18 November 2016

Researchers (4 ULANC researchers) + participants (Mary, Annie, Pat, Nina, George, Steve)

Demonstration of the prototype being developed with an ‘events’ app; Feedback from participants; Discussion on relevance of services and modes of presentation of information about services; Catch up: list of services.

© Copyright 2017 ifib

125 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

Appendix III: Calendar Exercise South Lakeland Month: _______, 2016 Ideal week with activities

Monday

Tuesday

Wednesday

Thursday

Friday

Saturday

Sunday

© Copyright 2017 ifib

126 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

How I organize my activities/Challenges I face Monday

Tuesday

Wednesday

Thursday

Friday

Saturday

Sunday

Š Copyright 2017 ifib

127 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

Appendix IV: Events Exercise South Lakeland

Activities and Events Mark the ones that apply to you: Activities Gentle exercises

Which do you Which normally attend? you attend?

would How/Where do you get to know about events you could Are there events that ideally attend? (e.g. Friends/websites/Facebook group/any other?) you know of not on this list?

Swimming Golf Tennis Table Tennis Badminton Fitness Gym Squash

Š Copyright 2017 ifib

128 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

Cricket Indoor sports Outdoor sports windsurfing, boating Cycling

e.g.

Walking/Rambling Parkrun Volunteering Knitting Art/Craft Message therapy Boules Easy breathing IT training Events

Which do you Which normally attend? you attend?

would How/Where do you get to know about events you could Are there events that ideally attend?(e.g. friends/websites/Facebook group/any other?) you know of not on this list?

Š Copyright 2017 ifib

129 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

Lunch Clubs Coffee morning Cream Tea Group meet Concerts Theatre Cinema Exhibition Festivals/fairs Chess Club Healing/meditation club Excursion

© Copyright 2017 ifib

130 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

Please Add Your Own Activities/ Events

Are there events that you wish How/Where would you ideally want to know about these events? (e.g. friends/websites/Facebook existed? group/any other?)

Š Copyright 2017 ifib

131 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

Appendix V: Services exercise South Lakeland List of Services by Provider Service

Provider

Have you heard of Have you used this service? this service?

Secondary Care (Out Patient Acute Hospital Services) Trust Acute services (Hospitals)

Acute Hospital Trust

Referral to Welfare Benefits

Age Concern

Brokerage Assessment Scheme

Age Concern

General Advocacy Service

Age Concern

Advice on accessing Age Concern appropriate employment Fit as a Fiddle

Age Concern

Customer Services

Age Concern

Fuel Poverty Advice

Age Concern

Keeping warm in winter - Age Concern advice and support Advice and support on keeping Age Concern warm Footcare

Age Concern

Bridge Building

Age Concern

Daycare

Age Concern

Luncheon Clubs

Age Concern

Access to Computer / Basic Age Concern Computer Training Information & advice accessing services

on Age Concern

Nursing & residential care Age Concern advocacy service

Š Copyright 2017 ifib

132 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

Service

Provider

Medical Loan Service

British Red Cross

Benefits advice

CAB

Employment advice

CAB

Housing Advice

CAB

Mental Health advocacy

CAB

Cancer Counselling

CAB

Advice and Bereaved

Support

Have you heard of Have you used this this service? service?

for CAB

Advice on recovering CAB debts/money owed Careers Advice Service

Careers Advice directgov). LSC.

(via

Service

Provider

Specific support for carers

Carers Association

Generic support for carers Community Mini Bus Brokerage

Carers Association Cumbria County Council Cumbria County Council Cumbria County Council Cumbria County Council

Blue Badge Programme Rural Wheels Library membership Library reservations

Have you heard of Have you used this this service? service?

Cumbria Council Assessment of safety of Cumbria individual in home (Home Safety Council Check)

County

Extra Care Housing

County

Home Care Intermediate Care

Cumbria Council Cumbria Council Cumbria Council

County

County County

Š Copyright 2017 ifib

133 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

Nursing Home Care

Cumbria Council Emergency Contingency Plan for Cumbria Carers Council

County

Family Carer and Support Service

Cumbria Council Cumbria Council Cumbria Council

County

Cumbria Council Home Delivery Service Cumbria Council Local Links Service Cumbria Council Community advice / safety Cumbria guidance and investigations Council Social Services - inclusion - Cumbria leisure and social activities Council

County

Access to internet Mobile libraries

Cumbria Council

County

Local studies via libraries

Cumbria Council Cumbria Council Cumbria Council Cumbria Council

County

Older People's Forum

Cumbria Council

County

Advocacy Service

Cumbria Council

County

Residential Care

Cumbria Council

County

ICES Meals on Wheels

Disabled Facilities Grant

Occupation Therapy Hydrotherapy Pool Physiotherapy

County

County County

County County County County

County County County

Š Copyright 2017 ifib

134 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

Advice and Support for Bereaved Cumbria including registration of death Council

County

Telecare Services

Cumbria Council

County

Courses

Cumbria Partnership

Advice on Welfare Benefits

DWP

Advisor Discretionary Fund

DWP

Training

Job Advertisements/Database DWP search New Deal

DWP

Programme Centres

DWP

Incapacity Benefit

DWP

Job Seekers Allowance

DWP

Attendance Allowance

DWP

Bereavement Benefits

DWP

Cold Weather Payment

DWP

Council Tax Benefit

DWP

Disability Living Allowance

DWP

Funeral Payments

DWP

Housing Benefit

DWP

Pension Credit

DWP

Winter Fuel Payments

DWP

Travel to Interview Scheme

DWP

Work Trials/Employment on Trial

DWP

Carer's Allowance

DWP

Š Copyright 2017 ifib

135 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

Home Safety / Security Visit

Fire and Rescue

Warm Front Grants for Government initiative insulation, heating repairs and delivered by EAGA boiler replacements Fitness Classes

Keep Fit Association

Non Vocational Courses

Kendal College

Adult Learning Courses

Kendal College

IT Courses

Kendal College

Student Support Fund

Kendal College

Internet Courses and Computer Kendal College Training Adult Learning Grant

Service

Kendal College / LSC

Provider

Have you heard Have you used of this service? this service?

Career Development Loans Learning and Skills Council Community Mental Health Mental Health Trust Services Motabiltiy Scheme

Motabiltiy Operations

Patient Transport Service Community First Response

NW Ambulance Trust

Emergency Ambulance

NW Ambulance Trust

NW Ambulance Trust

Free prescriptions and sight PCT test for the over 60s Walking for Health Scheme

PCT

GP Services

PCT

Other Primary Care (Dentist, PCT Optician, Pharmacist)

Š Copyright 2017 ifib

136 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

NHS Low Income Scheme

PCT

District Nurse

PCT

Safety - Home Safety Police Personal advice on pensions and investments Private Sector War Disablement Pension Service Personnel Veteran Agency Service Personnel War Widows' or Widowers' Veteran Agency Pension Welfare Rights Community Safety Gating

and and

SLDC -

Lane

SLDC

Arts service SLDC Concessionary Travel for the Over 60s SLDC Council Tax Discount

SLDC

Housing Benefit

SLDC

Housing - improvements - SLDC renovation / home repair grants District Forum

SLDC

Handyperson Service

SLDC

Home Alarm Service

SLDC

Housing - improvements temporary accommodation

- SLDC

Housing - low cost home SLDC ownership schemes Curb side collections

SLDC

GP Leisure on Prescription SLDC / Lakes Leisure Scheme

Š Copyright 2017 ifib

137 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

Fitness and sports sessions SLDC / Lakes Leisure specifically aimed at older people Free Swim Programme

SLDC / Lakes Leisure

Housing - allocations - general South Lakes Housing information Sheltered Housing Scheme - South Lakes Housing Housing association tenants Sheltered Housing Scheme - South Lakes Housing Non-council tenants Telecare Services

South Lakes Housing

Extra Care Housing South Lakes Housing Social Activities (e.g. Book Club, Bridge) South Lakes U3A

Learning Activities

South Lakes U3A

Volunteer Centre

Third sector

Carer Assessment Service

Third Sector

Sensory Assessments

Impairment Third Sector

Š Copyright 2017 ifib

138 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

Appendix Lakeland

VI:

Potential

prototype

visual

South

Š Copyright 2017 ifib

139 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

Appendix VIIa: Personas: Terry Category (a) Age: 72 Status: Widower Children: 47-year-old son who lives in Edinburgh, and grandchildren aged 17 and 15. Regularly in contact.

45 year old daughter who lives locally.

Housing: Rural location well connected by road Transport: Regular bus to Kendal Has own car and drives self Technology: Uses Apple products, finds UX good and consistent. Uses SIRI voice interface. Terry is a competent user of technology, and will resort to searching for answers to questions by using the Google search engine.

Internet connectivity: Has broadband to the house (it is usable, but slow due to rural location). Has acceptable mobile internet coverage at home and surrounding area.

Health: In reasonably good health â&#x20AC;&#x201C; has some infrequent medical complaints, and will often use the internet to lookup information on symptoms.

Social Network: Well established in village and connects using the phone and face to face.

Events: Active and has a filled calendar of volunteering, keep fit and social activities

Š Copyright 2017 ifib

140 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

Appendix VIIb: Personas: Dorothy Category (b) Age: 82 Status: Single (Widow) Housing: Bungalow in a small town.

Transport: Ready access to public transport links; Closest bus stop 2 streets away.

Uses a mobility scooter Technology: Motorola flip phone (used for making phone calls; switches phone off between phone calls; bought for her by one of her sons). Landline phone (primary means of communication). Reads books. Listens to the radio.

Internet connectivity: No internet connection (as it is expensive and she does not see the benefits outweighing the costs). Has good mobile internet coverage at home and in her town, but does not use it (nor does she have any devices that can take advantage of it).

Health/Mobility: Cognitively healthy, but has arthritis and struggles to get about without assistance (she personally struggles with this, as she used to lead a very independent life). She can walk short distances, e.g. around the house, but needs the assistance of a mobility scooter if going longer distances (e.g. into town). There are nearby bus routes which she has access to.

Carers/assistance: A gardener comes around every two weeks. If she needs anything doing around the house (minor DIY) she calls one of her sons who live within driving distance. Her sons also do some “corner shop” shopping when they visit, to top up milk/bread etc if needed.

Finance: Her finances are tight, though she is doing fine.

Events/hobbies: Spends a lot of time at home. She used to enjoy frequent visits to the library, but in recent years has found even local travel more challenging

© Copyright 2017 ifib

141 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

Appendix VIIc: Personas: Linda Category (c) A person who is supported in day-to-day living Age: 75 Status: Married.

Lives with husband.

Suffers from Alzheimer’s disease. Not into using technology very much. Husband, George has physical disabilities. George leads an active life. Linda tries to go out, but her activities have reduced over time with the onset of Alzheimer’s.

Children: A daughter deceased; the other lives abroad in Australia.

Housing: Own house Location: Burneside (rural, not well connected transport-wise) Internet services: Extremely poor Support network: • •

Age UK SL Some govt. schemes she is eligible for

George (Husband): • • • • • •

•

George tries to attend as many AGE UK SL social meets.

Finds appropriate ones for Linda too.

They usually go to separate meets.

Takes care of himself as well as Linda Extremely tech savvy and aware Handles everything e.g. pensions, tax, etc. online where possible. o He arranges/receives professional help on this, but always does the final submission in paper-form in person. o Does the same on behalf of Linda as well.

Takes a vacation with Linda for a month every year to visit daughter’s family in summer for a month.

Priorities: Linda’s priorities lie in getting proper care and training for managing her condition at the right points of time. At present she is dependent on her husband largely. Given that her disease is gradually progress with age, she is concerned about government funding cuts for social care.

Additionally, with her husband’s physical disabilities worsening unpredictably, she fears she might be ending up in hospital or care home if her condition is left unattended well and/or she does not have enough GP and social care support. She does not want this to happen.

Health:

© Copyright 2017 ifib

142 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

Linda’s condition is deteriorating. She was on medications which have had dire effects on her food habits and capacity and ability to eat and drink. With insistence from George the doctors have changed medication, but Linda needs a lot of support from NHS to get back her level of independence. This is not happening because of lack of health care workers.

Linda is also prone to allergies from anti-biotics and needs attention. Previously village agents helped connect Linda to the appropriate services. Now with no village agents, and the out-ofhours NHS service not being great, they struggle in such situations.

Typical week: Monday: Knit and Natter at Kendal (Can attend on days her friend Liz attends. Liz takes care of transport for her) Tuesday: Exercise club at Staveley/Ings (Friends pick her up from home and bring her back in their car) Wednesday: Physiotherapy at home Thursday: Exercise club at Kendal (Goes with Chris and Liz—friends) Friday: -- Cleaning person comes Saturday: Coffee Morning at Staveley (Walks down with George) Sunday: Skypes with daughter’s family Problems/challenges: Dependent on George for: • • • •

remembering medication cooking washing having the house secured (e.g. doors locked)

Dependent on friends and George for going out of home, especially because her condition includes chances of Linda wandering off.

Situation: In the event that George becomes unable to help (quite likely), Linda will be left quite jeopardised. In such a situation should she come down with a severe allergy attack, e.g. she would struggle to contact the right person who could help. In a typical week, she will be unable to choose social outings for herself, and will need help with her tax etc. forms. Village Agents/intermediaries or community people (the first points of contacts in crisis) are the people Linda will need easy access to. In addition, she needs regular connection with trusted points of contact who will remain alerted once she is outside home or has wandered off from home.

This is a pre-crisis situation sitting at the border and some sort of intervention that Linda can be trained to use will be of importance.

© Copyright 2017 ifib

143 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

Appendix VIII: Media profiles of South Lakeland participants Mary Female, 67 years old, grew up within a farming household, widowed, has recently moved to the South Lakeland area, lives alone, former secretary at school.

Communication with the outside world/interests: Mary is extremely active, health permitting. She volunteers at the Age UK SL warehouse, works as a carer (she advertises her services in an Age UK SL flyer) and is an Age UK Befriender.

Mobile device use: Mary is extremely tech-savvy. She owns a laptop, but also an I-pad mini on which she depends heavily for her daily activities. She was an IT trainer in the1980s. She also uses an I-phone. She uses her I-pad to research online, read books online, shop online and also as a reference tool every day.

Views and use of technology: Since she has moved to the South Lakes recently, she has tried to get involved with Age UK SL so that she can get to know of social meets and events, volunteering opportunities and other events in the locality. She extensively communicates with the local government (SLDC and Cumbria County Council) through e-mail and keeps herself updated with online news from these council websites. She draws on information from these websites when she needs to use their services (e.g. in events of emergencies). Her I-pad is something she at times even communicates with (Siri).

Julie Female, around 75 years old, retired, lives alone.

Communication with the outside world/interests: Julie is considerably active. She attends social meets regularly, goes for excursions and sports events arranged by Age UK SL, helps out a friend who has Meniereâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s disease.

Mobile device use: Julie has a laptop handed down to her from her son. She does not own either a smartphone or a tablet. She is conversant with the use of e-mails but uses the facility sparingly.

Views and use of technology: Since Julie is active in the social meets circle (usually organised

by Age UK SL) she is well informed about events of interest taking place locally. She is also attentive to adverts that come up in public places, e.g. banks, bus stops, library, the postoffice, etc. Sometimes her friends also inform her of events where there is mutual interest.

She is not keen on online information accessing practices, and does not resort to them. She prefers newsletters (piece of paper) to gather information.

Annie Female, around 67 years old. Married to Steve, lives in Endmoor, a village near Kendal.

Communication with the outside world/interests: She volunteers for hospice shops.

Media repertoire: Annie has a mobile phone but does not possess a tablet.

Views and use of technology: Annie is quite conversant with using the internet. She is aware of the existence of various government services, but has not necessarily used them online.

Š Copyright 2017 ifib

144 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

Pat Female, around 72 years old, lives with husband, who is recovering from a stroke.

Communication with the outside world/interests: She is active and attends several social meets and participates in another project funded by the EU. Mobile device use: Pat owns a desktop computer at home, a laptop, an I-pad and a smartphone. She is technologically quite advanced. She uses the internet frequently and communicates via e-mail a lot. She corresponds on behalf of her husband over e-mails as well. Her husband has never been keen to take up technological facilities for communication and has never used e-mails. She uses online access to certain local government services.

While she uses her tablet and mobile phone a lot, for certain services like looking into issues of Planning Permission she prefers using her laptop/desktop for the ease of using a larger screen.

Views and use of technology: Pat is a member of the Horticultural Society. She is active within this network and an advanced user of their website. She believes that paper copy of newsletters that the Society still produces are equally important to have alongside their online information services. She thinks the paper copies are more user-friendly and appealing to the older population. Pat is an advanced thinker and is capable of thinking critically about technical flaws of existing apps she uses. She uses her tablet for checking information and updates regularly.

Nina Female, around 68 years old.

Communication with the outside world/interests: Nina goes swimming regularly and is quite close to grandchildren. She participated in an Age UK SL organised sport meet to avail of free gym membership. She attends different social meets and participates in another project funded by the EU. Mobile device use: Nina comes to our workshop with her I-pad and a smartphone. She is quite comfortable using mobile technology. She keeps up with her learning of gadget use with help from her grandchildren.

Views and use of technology: Nina is an avid user of social media sites, particularly Facebook.

She uses it (and other sites) to find out about various events in the South Lakeland area. She also uses online sites for buying and selling things. She does not seem to access services online and did not know basic information like location of public toilets in Kendal. She is more confident using her tablet than her mobile phone for browsing.

George Male, around 70 years old. Retired, lives alone.

Communication with the outside world/interests: George is a first-responder, volunteers as a life-guard and runs swimming club in Sedbergh.

Mobile device use: George owns a tablet and a mobile phone. He is quite knowledgeable about use of mobile technology.

Views and use of technology: Although he has suffered from serious illness and recovered a number of times, George leads a very active life. He attends social events in and around Kendal and shops everyday to provide himself the opportunity to go out and meet people. He Š Copyright 2017 ifib

145 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

is extremely wary of using the internet because of privacy and security concerns about his personal information. He is comfortable using his laptop at home, but not too much of tablets or mobile phones. George is interested in learning various things, from Latin to book-binding.

He enrols in a lot of courses offered by the county/district council. He keeps track of events at the local arts centre through its website, but does not find it user-friendly. He would rather have paper leaflets so he could highlight things of interest to him. He reviews websites for Cumbria Mental Health and other organisations.

Steve Male, around 67 years of age, retired, former Lancaster school teacher, lives with wife Annie in Endmoor, a village near Kendal.

Communication with the outside world/interests: Enjoys fell walking and learning languages by participating in courses run by the Lancaster county council.

Mobile device use: Steve owns an android mobile phone which is about 4 years old. He does not own a tablet, but has a laptop. He is quite confident using his gadgets and devices.

Views and use of technology: Steve uses the internet extensively to search for information of relevance to him (e.g. travel, events, etc.). He corresponds by e-mail and is quite conversant with various websites of local government providing services. He relies on online bus timetables and expects them to be accurate.

Š Copyright 2017 ifib

146 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

Appendix IX: Overview of interventions in Bremen Overview of interactions with intermediaries in Bremen Osterholz Intervention ID

Local stakeholders

Rationale for interaction

Type of interaction

1

BoRIS (Senior Citizen Online Editorial Staff)

Experience with editorial work (data verification, text writing)

Regular meetings

Recruitment support Identification of local stakeholders 2

3

4

Editorial staff of www.bremen.de (city information provider)

Neighbourhood manager (Schweizer Viertel)

Editor of printed district maps for older citizens (Ines Hillmann)

Provision of existing data regarding Osterholz Take-over of the developed online-guide at the end of the project.

5

Regular meetings Recommendations for intermediaries Completing collected data Providing interface for data integration

Recruitment support

2 interviews

Knowledge about district and people

Collaboration on neighbourhood reader in print

Provide already collected data

Support of funding for printed district map

Approved method for collecting information on points of interest in particular for elderly people

Collaboration on data collection in 13 focus groups

Recruitment support Head of local district government

Participation in workshops

Knowledge about district and people Provision of venue

Interview Participation in workshops Review of collected data One meeting, contact with relevant intermediaries, also recruitment of the project team for the printed district map

6

Council on Elderly People (Arbeitskreis ältere Menschen):

Cooperation with members , all relevant intermediaries

Recruitment support

7

Representatives from two different Christian congregations (Melanchton, Trinitatis) and one social service centre,

Recruitment support

8

Representative from centre for migrants and intercultural studies (ZIS)

Recruitment support

9

2 representatives from social welfare organizations (Mütterzentrum, AWO)

Knowledge about district and people

Participation in workshops

10

Department for Elderly Care in the State Ministry of Social

Provision of data on public services and data relevant

Provision of data on Service Centre, and different forms of

Knowledge about district and people

Knowledge about district and people

3 interviews Conducted focus groups and collected data for printed neighbourhood map Interview

Interviews

© Copyright 2017 ifib

147 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

Affairs

to elderly people in Osterholz

Neighbourhood manager (Tenever)

Knowledge about district and people

living / homes for elderly people Meetings

11

Participation in workshops Review of collected data

Dissemination activities in Bremen for recruitment Intervention ID

Date

Local newspaper

Title

12

23/05/2016

Weser Kurier

Online and mobile in old age

13

06/07/2016

Weser Report

What happens in Osterholz?

14

22/08/2016

Weser Kurier

For a large radius for elderly

Interventions Bremen for recruitment Intervention ID

15

Date

Type of event

Participants

Short description

03/03/2016

Meeting with intermediaries and/or potential participants

5 members of the older citizen online editorial staff 3 ifib researcher

Meeting in order to collaborate as well as to recruit and engage older citizens.

Senior citizens from the district were invited to join the project and to develop a mobile application for their district together with the ifib project team.

16

23/05/2016

Information event

13 older citizens 1 head of local district government 1 editor senior online web portal 1 editor printed neighbourhood map 2 ifib researcher

17

23/05/2016

Neighbourhood market festival

older citizens passing by 2 ifib researcher

Presenting the project to residents and recruiting

Kick-off workshop

11 older citizens 1 head of local district government 1 editor printed neighbourhood map 3 ifib researcher + photographer

Presenting the project, getting to know each other and give out cultural probes

18

08/06/2016

Š Copyright 2017 ifib

148 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

Interventions Bremen - idea forming Intervention ID

Date

Type of intervention

Participants

Short description

19

08/06 – 20/06/2016

Cultural Probes

11 older citizens

Cultural probes were kept for 1 week

20

27/06 – 01/07/2016

Interviews with older citizens

10 interviews

These semi-structured interviews were based on the cultural probes.

Each lasted about 90 minutes

7

28/06 & 05/07/2016

Interviews with intermediaries

3 interviews

To find out needs and wants of the senior people in their domain, identify information and services they might provide themselves

12/07/2016

Cultural probes workshop

9 older citizens 2 ifib researchers head of local administrations

Joint reflection on activity and experience with cultural probes.

Defining some key characteristics for the personas

14/07/2016

Interview with neighbourhood manager Schweizer Viertel

2 meetings

To confirm usage of data from neighbourhood reader and to get in touch with groups of seniors different from the church-related groups

Personas workshop

8 older citizens 3 ifib researchers head of local administration 1 journalist

Joint examination of communication and information needs as well as resources of the older citizens in Osterholz through working with personas.

21

3

22

16/08/2016

Interventions Bremen - service and data definition Intervention ID

Date

Type of intervention

Participants

Short description

23

07/09/2016

Workshop on informational content

12 older citizens 3 ifib researcher 2 FTB researcher

Data definition: Working out the relevant attributes for the objects of the application.

24

29/09/2016

Workshop on applications

7 older citizens 1 intermediary 3 ifib researchers

Work on the interactive elements of the application

© Copyright 2017 ifib

149 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

Interventions Bremen - co-design and data creation Intervention ID

24

25

26

27

28

1

29

Date

Type of intervention

Participants

Short description

09/2016 ongoing

Development and gradual completing of Mobile-Age data tables

ifib

Based on the selection and categories of our workshops we created a matrix table for nice places and one for institutions.

We included institutions relevant for older adults from the printed district reader

20/06/2016

Focus group for identifying interesting places and institutions in Osterholz, relevant to older citizens by our core group

5 older citizens 3 ifib researcher 1 editor

Interview of our core group according to the guide developed for the printed district maps by Ines Hillmann

10/09/2016

Focus group with members of men’s breakfast club

6 older citizens 1 ifib researcher

Supplement the data collection with a distinct group of male seniors and to recruit some of them for further cocreation.

Workshops on data co-creation

3 older citizens 1 ifib researcher

Data co-creation on nice places and walks and on meeting points, advice and cultural offerings at “Men’s breakfast”.

Second workshop on relevant institutions

Workshop on map design with core group

10 older citizens 3 ifib researchers 2 FTB developers

Specification and agreement on a map display

27/10/2016

Design- and data workshop with core group

9 older citizens 2 stakeholders 1 intermediary 3 ifib researchers

Collection, discussion and completion of older citizens’ data collection & decisions on filter and landmarks

27/10/2016

Meeting with local editorial staff BORIS

3 older citizens 2 ifib researchers

Meeting with local group: Engagement in data co creation on nice places and walks

1 participant 1 researcher

Due to recommendation by BORIS staff members we interviewed a very knowledgeable former member of the district council and member of the “historical workshop” (Geschichtswerkstatt) for completing information on nice places and walks. We also received digital photos

01/10 & 26/10/2016

13/10/2016

03/11/2016

Meeting with a older citizen for data cocreation

© Copyright 2017 ifib

150 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

30

32

33

34

Workshop on interface design with core group

17/11/2016

Workshop on 1 page & paper prototypes with core group

8 older citizens 3 ifib developers

Discussion of content and design of the start page for the mobile website.

Tablet workshop with core group

9 older citizens 2 ifib researchers 2 FTB developers

Tablet introduction and passing out the tablets, demonstration of the prototype.

Workshop on 1st page with core group

8 older citizens 3 ifib researchers 1 FTB developer

Talking about experiences with tablets and prototype. Demonstration and discussion of first version of the start page design and work on the content for the start page.

15/12/2016

Data co-creation workshop with core group

6 older citizens 3 ifib researchers 1 FTB developer

Integrating the experiences of the participants with validating Mobile-Age Data and creating new data. Finalising st design and structure of 1 page.

13/01/2017

2 data co-creation workshop with core group

7 older citizens 3 ifib researchers

Integrating the experiences of the participants with validating Mobile-Age Data and creating new data for meeting places, culture, sports

29/11/2016

08/12/2016

nd

35

Paper mock-ups on interfaces

08/11/2016

st

31

6 older citizens 2 ifib researchers 2 FTB developers

Š Copyright 2017 ifib

151 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

Appendix X: Media profiles of participants in Bremen Frau Sänger 80 years old, female, retired, high school degree, lives alone Communication with the outside world/interests: Frau Sänger is very active (private meeting friends and politically in the district as well as sport, active member of SPD).

Media repertoire: Frau Sänger uses PCs for 15 years, owns a smartphone, has never used a tablet, uses the internet for 10 years on a daily basis. Uses online: email, public transport timetables, watch videos (e.g. YouTube), read newspaper and magazines, online banking, social networks (e.g. Facebook), retrieve information from public authorities, health topics, travel and accommodation information, navigation. In the last month Frau Sänger used mostly the mediathek/media library of German public broadcasting (Radio Bremen, ZDF, ARD), sending and receiving emails, timetables of DB, cinema program, timetables of public transport.

Views and use of technology: Because Frau Sänger knows lots of people, she is well informed about events etc. in the district primarily via email. The self-perception of internet skills/literacy is “advanced”. Frau Sänger believes that the internet saves plenty of time and that it is important to join discussions, that she can present herself with a private or professional profile, learning, to stay in contact with people, that it has become a daily companion.

Herr Taube 67 years old, male, retired, university degree, lives with his family (two teenage children) Communication with the outside world/interests: Herr Taube’s daily communication is primarily with his family. He was also actively involved in charity work with refugees. Herr Taube is member of a band. A lot of his active private life takes place outside of Osterholz in the central part of Bremen [see also his mobility patterns in the cultural probes].

Media repertoire: PC (for 30 years), uses a tablet (most used tablet apps: Facebook, email, own music and Spotify, weather) and a smartphone. Uses the internet since 20 years on a daily basis. Uses email, messaging, timetables, digital TV, radio and music, watch videos, playing games, read newspapers/magazines, internet banking, shopping, social network, information from public authorities, heat information, information on travel and accommodation, navigation. In the last month x used mostly email, video and navigation.

Views and use of technology: The self-perception of internet skills/literacy is “advanced”.

Thinks that the internet saves plenty running around, that it helps living independently in older age, to get inspiration and suggestions, that it offers good opportunity for entertainment, learning and getting knowledge, to stay in contact with people, that it has become a daily companion, that mobile internet makes it easier to find your way in unknown surroundings.

© Copyright 2017 ifib

152 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

Frau Buch35 74 years old, female, retired, completion of secondary education without high school graduation Media repertoire: Frau Buch uses a PC for 20 years, has never used a tablet, uses the internet for 20 years several times a month, uses email, timetables of public transport, and google and Wikipedia to for knowledge. The applications used mostly are Google and DB. Views and use of technology: The self-perception of internet skills/literacy is “beginner”.

Frau Buch thinks that you have to use the internet to be able to join discussions, that it helps living independently in older age and learning.

Frau Adam 74 years old female, retired, completion of secondary education without high school graduation, lives alone Communication with the outside world/interests: Frau Adam is communicating regularly with her children and grandchildren (via telephone as well as WhatsApp). With her friends and sports groups she communicates mainly via WhatsApp. She has regular email correspondence with friends that live in the US and in South America. Important are her neighbours with whom she shares a newspaper subscription.

Media repertoire: Frau Adam uses a PC for 14 years, uses a smartphone and a tablet, mostly for email, telephone and weather, uses the internet for 14 years on a daily basis, uses email, timetables, internet banking, shopping, information from public authorities, health, travel & accommodation and navigation. The most used applications are email, banking and shopping.

Views and use of technology: The self-perception of internet skills/literacy is “advanced”.

Frau Adam believes that the internet saves plenty of running around, that it helps living independently in older age and learning, that it has become a daily companion, that mobile internet makes it easier to find your way in unknown surroundings.

Frau Korn 61 years old, female, completion of secondary education without high school graduation Communication with the outside world/interests: Frau Korn works at the “Mütterzentrum”, a non-profit association and social employment institution in Osterholz. She lives in Tenever where almost her whole social life takes place. Most of her communication is work related, with her partner and family.

Media repertoire: Frau Korn uses a PC since 30 years, uses a smartphone and tablet (mostly the browser, WhatsApp, weather, uses the internet since 20 years on a daily basis. Uses email, messaging, timetables, digital ZV, videos, playing games, reading newspaper/magazines, online banking, shopping, participating in forums, social networks, information from public authorities, travel and accommodation, health and navigation.

Mostly uses shopping, browser, Facebook.

Views and use of technology: The self-perception of internet skills/literacy is “advanced”.

Thinks that the internet saves plenty of running around, that one needs to use it to participate in discussion, that it helps living independently in older age, to get inspiration and 35

Sine Frau Buch joined the project later in the process, we don’t have detailed information on her everyday life, since she didn’t participate in the cultural probes.

© Copyright 2017 ifib

153 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

suggestions, that it offers good opportunity for entertainment, learning and getting knowledge, that it has become a daily companion, that mobile internet makes it easier to find your way in unknown surroundings.

Frau Meise 55 years old, female, completion of secondary education without high school Communication with the outside world/interests: Frau Meise works at the “Mütterzentrum”, a non-profit association and social employment institution in Osterholz.

She is also a member of the BORIS Internet Group. She is in frequent contact with her brother and her children, that live close to her and often takes care of her grandchildren. Most of her communication is with her family.

Media repertoire: Frau Meise uses a PC since 20 years, uses a smartphone and a tablet mostly for email, Facebook and WhatsApp. Uses the internet since 20 years on a daily basis.

Views and use of technology: The self-perception of internet skills/literacy is “an internet expert”. Thinks that the internet saves plenty of running around, that one needs to use it to participate in discussion, that it helps living independently in older age, to get inspiration and suggestions, that it offers good opportunity for entertainment, learning and getting knowledge, to stay in contact, that it has become a daily companion, that mobile internet makes it easier to find your way in unknown surroundings.

Herr Klein 78 years old, male, degree after 9 years of school & apprenticeship Communication with the outside world/interests: Herr Klein has always lived in Osterholz, where most of his social interactions and communication takes place. His main contact is his wife and the allotment garden association in which he is an active member.

Media repertoire: Herr Klein uses a PC for 6 years. He doesn’t use a smartphone or tablet.

Uses the internet several times a month. Uses internet for email, reading newspapers/magazines. Mostly used the Boris website in the last month’s.

Views and use of technology: The self-perception of internet skills/literacy is “basic skills”.

Herr Klein believes that the internet saves plenty of time. Also the internet is a viable source of information and is important for keeping up-to-date when discussing issues with others.

Her Klein uses digital media for his history group, mainly for digitalising old photographs.

Herr Rolfes 66 years old, male, university degree Communication with the outside world/interests: Herr Rolfes is part of several “hobby groups”, e.g. an OpenStreetMap group and a theatre group. He communicates mostly with other members of these groups as well as his family.

Media repertoire: Herr Rolfes uses the PC for 30 years. He uses a smartphone, doesn’t use a tablet. Uses internet for 20 years on a daily basis. Uses the internet for emails, (video)telephone, messaging, timetables, videos, online banking, shopping, participating in online forums, social networks, information from public authorities, health, travel and accommodation, navigation. Mostly uses email, weather, navigation.

Views and use of technology: The self-perception of internet skills/literacy is “advanced”.

Herr Rolfes thinks that the internet saves plenty running around, that one needs to use it to participate in discussions, to get inspiration and suggestions, learning and getting knowledge,

© Copyright 2017 ifib

154 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

to stay in contact, supports to keep working longer, that it has become a daily companion, that mobile internet makes it easier to find your way in unknown surroundings.

Herr Driessen 68 years old, male, university degree Communication with the outside world/interests: Herr Driessen is very active in sports which he mostly conducts individually. He lives with his wife who is his main contact person.

He also talks regularly to his neighbours personally. He plays in an orchestra with whose members he communicates regularly.

Media repertoire: Herr Driessen uses PC for 40 years. Doesn’t use tablet or smartphone. Uses the internet for 15 years on a daily basis. Uses emails, timetables, radio and music, reading newspapers/magazines, online banking, shopping, information of public authorities, health, travel and accommodation, navigation. Mostly used browser (Chrome – for information/news), online banking, shopping (Amazon).

Views and use of technology: The self-perception of internet skills/literacy is “advanced”.

Thinks that the internet saves plenty running around, that one needs to use it to participate in discussion, to get inspiration and suggestions, that it offers good opportunity for entertainment, learning and getting knowledge, that it has become a daily companion.

Frau Machart 78 years old, female, completion of secondary education without high school, lives alone Communication with the outside world/interests: Mrs. Machart lives alone. She has several friends in the district. Her week is very much structured through different transactions inside the district (i.e. take her friends somewhere by car, shopping, doctor visits) and she knows many people quite well in the neighbourhood (salespersons, neighbours, etc.). Besides her personal contact to friends and acquaintances, her main communication is with her son and daughter who live in other cities and who she talks to almost on a daily basis via her landline phone.

Media repertoire: Frau Machart has never used any digital media. She has a PC at home that belonged to her late husband and which is broken. She has a mobile phone that she uses rarely. Mostly she uses her landline telephone for communication Views and use of technology: Frau Machart is very interested in using a PC and the internet.

Her own time constraints hinder her in joining a computer club and the absence of her children as well as her fear to bother them prevents her from asking them for help.

Frau Blume 71 years old, female, lives in partnership Communication with the outside world/interests: Frau Blume is very active in a church parish in the district, where she among others engages in volunteer work. She does lot of sports and has regular contact with friends (both personal in the district and via phone abroad). She has regular contact with her children via the phone.

Media repertoire: Frau Blume has a PC that she uses often and a smartphone that she uses regularly. She uses the internet on a daily basis. She uses email, time schedules for public transport, internet banking, she searches for information on the sites of public authorities and on health topics as well as general information. She uses WhatsApp specially to communicate with her children. She plays games on the computer.

© Copyright 2017 ifib

155 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

Views and use of technology: Mrs. Blume appreciates the possibilities that the internet offers for searching information and communicating. Nevertheless, an indulgent and secure handling of it is important to her.

Š Copyright 2017 ifib

156 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

Appendix XI: Cultural Probes as developed in Bremen Rationale

1

Convey a positive image about participants as being active (display with digital devices, cameras) and connecting with Osterholz (map)

Cultural probe

Cover

General information participants (once) 2

Personal information

Question

• • • •

n/a

about

Gender Year of birth (former) occupation Living circumstances (alone, in partnership, with family, other)

© Copyright 2017 ifib

157 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

3

4

diary allows Develop an participants understanding of the to record everyday activities of everyday the participants activities

Diary (daily): Please record what you have done today (morning, lunch, afternoon, evening)

Document the communicative practices of the media diary participants and their allows Media diary (daily): participants media repertoires to reflect on With whom did you have contact Develop an use patterns today and how? understanding of what and gives kind of relationships researcher a are mediated through first glimpse technology.

What are your communication patterns and what role do digital devices play?

Š Copyright 2017 ifib

158 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

Media (once) 5

Document repertoires

media

Develop an understanding of the use patterns of Internet technologies 6

Develop understanding participant's relationship technology

of

an a to

repertoire

questionnaire

Participants were asked to assess how often they use specific media (TV, radio, phone etc.).

Which media do you use on a daily basis for what purpose?

Internet service use questionnaire (once) Participants were asked to provide information about for what purposes they have used the Internet in the past 3 months (e.g. emails, chats, online-banking, routing, online-shopping)

Which types of services did you use the Internet for in the last 3 months?

Postcard 1 7

Learning about biographical relevance of technology

Participants were asked to reply on the back of the postcard to the question: â&#x20AC;&#x153;What was the technical invention that revolutionised your everyday?â&#x20AC;?

Š Copyright 2017 ifib

159 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

8

Understand relationship to spacerelated dimension of inclusion (e.g. bonds to living environment)

Timeline Osterholz (once) time line allows to capture time dimension

Which events have changed life in Osterholz over the past years/decades und what implications did this have to you personally? Please add year and explanation. Mark the three most important ones.

Map (once)

9

Participants were asked to highlight Understand social inclusion with respect map allows where they live (red dot), where to primary networks to capture friends & family live (blue dots), spatial where important places for their and space. dimension everyday are (yellow dots). On the right is the map of participant #1.

What is your personal relation to Osterholz, your district and your neighbourhood?

How connected do you feel to people/places and what is the spatial dimension <neighbourhood, quarter, district, clubs)?

Which social networks are you part of and where do you meet?

Mobility maps (daily) 10

Understand the reach of people's activities, and understand their relation to space.

map allows to capture spatial dimension

The participants received 7 printed district maps and were asked to draw their movements each day, if possible with explanations about modes of transport etc.)

Which places do you go regularly to? What are your mobility patterns?

Š Copyright 2017 ifib

160 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

11

12

Understand participants emotional bond to the district (places, people, photographs animals, etc.) allow to see Develop a common Osterholz understanding with the (between co-creators) participants' of what may need to be eyes seen in a service that aims to improve social inclusion.

imagining the future Learning about how may invoke people perceive of the associations future of the district about visions (positive/negative) & ideas for service

Disposable camera What do you do/where do you usually go/With whom do you speak if…?

• • • • •

You feel lonely You are upset You need help You want to relax You want to get diversion

What are the places/people that are important to you? How do they look like?

Please take pictures of places, people, objects and/or animals.

Postcard 2 Participants were asked to reply on the back of the postcard to the question: “How will Osterholz look in the future?”

What could be better/improve in the district?

© Copyright 2017 ifib

161 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

13

sketching Learning about what allows for makes Osterholz participants unique creativity

Postcard 3 36 Participants were asked to draw a doodle and imagine an emblem of Osterholz

What do people perceive as unique about the district?

Postcard 4 14

36

Participants were asked to reply on the back of the postcard to the question: “In the old days everything was better?!”

The picture on the right hand side is a completed probe from one of our participants.

© Copyright 2017 ifib

162 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

Appendix XII: Personas in Bremen Persona 1: Uwe Meier 71, retired, widower, lives alone in house with garden Herr Meier has a good pension Mobility: good (on foot, with bike), owns a car but also uses public transport frequently

Herr Meier has regular and close contact to his children (and grandchildren), who do not live in Osterholz. Close contact with friends who live outside Osterholz is very important to Herr Meier and he visits them regularly. Some of his acquaintances live in Osterholz.

He runs his daily errands (e.g. grocery shopping) usually outside the district (city centre, e.g. organic food stores).

Herr Meier has many hobbies (e.g. attending concerts, exhibitions, theatre, and sports) which often take place outside of Osterholz. His relationship to the district is not very close as he spends most of his time outside and follows his interests and needs elsewhere. The district is mainly his house and garden. He knows the area around his house very well.

Herr Meier is a competent PC and smart phone user. He uses digital media regularly, but does not always take his mobile phone with him.

Future scenario & questions:

As Herr Meier grows older and becomes less mobile, he cannot travel to the city centre as often (on his own). He needs support in running his household.

• • •

How can Herr Meier be supported with respect to his inclusion/integration into the district?

Which aspects of inclusion are important?

What needs to change in his living environment?

• How could the Mobile-Age app support her?

Persona 2: Gertrud Fischer

© Copyright 2017 ifib

163 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

63, employed, Regularly looks after her grandchildren Married, lives in house with garden Frau Fischer has a sufficient salarly, but expects only a small pension Mobility: Limited (uses her bike, but not as much), no car and hence dependent on public transport

Her partner and her neighbours are very important to Frau Fischer, her family also lives in the district. She knows many people in her neighbourhood, contacts to people outside Osterholz are less important and less frequent.

Frau Fischer and her partner run their daily errands (e.g. grocery shopping) primarily in the districts (e.g. farmers market, super markets, bakery). Frau Fischer volunteers in a charity for refugees and socially disadvantaged families). Once a week Frau Fischer and her partner go bowling with a group of friends.

Frau Fischer is deeply rooted in Osterholz and holds a strong bond to the district and its residents. She likes Osterholz very much and knows the district very well. Frau Fischer knows many formal and informal stakeholders and hence know where to turn with her requests. She also knows the cultural offers very well and knows where to find information about them.

Frau Fischer rarely uses digital media. Her husband owns a smart phone, but she is rather sceptical towards technology. In her opinion risks associated with technology outweigh possibilities.

Frau Fischer has some minor health issues, but is overall fit.

Future scenario:

Frau Fischer retires. She will have a tighter budget, but at the same time will also have more time.

• • •

What might change in Frau Fischer’s life?

Which different needs or resources might Frau Fischer have?

How could the Mobile-Age app support her?

Persona 3: Ursula Greve 80, retired, She cares for her critically ill husband. They live in a small flat.

Frau Greve was a housewife for most of her life.

The pension of her husband covers their expenses.

© Copyright 2017 ifib

164 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

Mobility: Limited (she can’t walk long stretches or use the bike), family Greve owns a car which they use on a daily basis.

Her partner and her family (who also lives in the district) are very important to Frau Greve.

Frau Greve runs her daily errands (e.g. grocery shopping) primarily in Osterholz (Weserpark or super market close by).

Because of lack of time, Frau Greve does not do any charity work or has time for hobbies. Once a week Frau Greve attends an aqua sports group.

Her relation to the district is primarily related to her immediate neighbourhood, in which she spends most of her time. She knows the neighbourhood very well and also knows about social and cultural activities. Frau Greve only knows very little about other neighbourhoods of Osterholz. She like living in her neighbourhood.

Frau Greve uses different digital media. She communicates daily with her children via WhatsApp (smartphone) and looks for information on the Internet (e.g. news). She is not concerned about data protection.

Future scenario:

Frau Greve‘s husband dies. After a long time, she has more time to herself. Because of her small pension she is required to move out of her flat.

• • •

What might change in Frau Fischer’s life?

Which different needs or resources might Frau Fischer have?

How could the Mobile-Age app support her?

© Copyright 2017 ifib

165 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

Appendix XIII: Co-creation activities in phase 2 Co-creation plan Bremen In Bremen, the focus will continue to be on social inclusion. The related public services that are meant to be co-created are that official government information on “elderly care” (Altenhilfe). Government´s Social Services for the public are defined in German’s Social Security Code 37: The provision of relevant information to the older citizen population is specified as part of “the work with elderly” (Altenhilfe) and aims to ensure their social inclusion and active participation in social life as long as possible. For the 2nd phase we approach social inclusion with respect to information on old aged person (OAP) suitable living.

While the categories of OAP-suitable living options are pre-defined, the attributes with which they are described and the type and quality of the respective information are subject to cocreation. Stakeholders and co-creators in this case still have to be identified and recruited.

This process will start with the government unit that has to provide this information, so far most of all via an annual booklet and include official and elected representatives of seniors in Bremen (Seniorenvertretung) as well as welfare organisations and building companies and other stakeholder and service provider. Basic data about the different kinds sheltered homes are openly available. One of the challenges in this case is that there are at least four different catalogues, some online, some in print, which have to be validated and integrated and amended by information that concerned seniors as well as their relatives would like to know.

Mobile Services

Information provision about old aged person (OAP) suitable living

Problem Domain

Supporting decision-making about different forms of OAP suitable living and the respective information provision

Related public services

“Elderly care” services • • •

Datasets (potentially included)

• • • •

Collaborating administrations

public

Senior Citizen Associations & Interest Groups

health (e.g. doctors, pharmacies, support centres); social security; day-to-day activities (e.g. lunch specials, farmers’ markets, post offices, shopping facilities); leisure and culture (e.g. meeting places, cultural and educational venues, cafés, recreational spaces); kind of home and support (e.g. residential homes for elderly, special care homes); day care and neighbourhood servicesadditional useful information

Ministry for Social Welfare, Children, Youth and Women, Free and Hanseatic City of Bremen 38

Senior Citizens Council Bremen (Seniorenvertretung) , Social Welfare Organizations,

37

SGB XII §71: Work with the elderly (Altenhilfe) (http://www.sozialgesetzbuch-sgb.de/sgbxii/71.html) The Seniorenvertretung is the official representation of the 180.000 older citizens of Bremen (60 years and above).

38

© Copyright 2017 ifib

166 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

Seniorenlotse Senior Citizen Meeting Places

• •

39

German Red Cross meeting places Church of Bremen meeting places

Co-creation plan South Lakeland In South Lakeland, the focus is on independent living. Loneliness and social isolation was identified as the key issue that SLDC and Age UK identified as being fundamental to independent living. In phase two the aim is to continue to work with our older adult cocreators to continue to develop the app that is under construction. This will include not only further development of the events app, but also in providing a portal that provides access to information and services. The focus of our new work, however, will be with intermediaries.

We aim to work with intermediaries and co-create access to services that a older citizen located in a rural area requires but finds difficult to access. For this we have been in talks with South Lakes Housing, an organisation which provides sheltered accommodation in rural areas in South Lakeland. Given that one of the main areas of work for this organisation is to foster ‘independent living’ amongst residents. We aim to work with their ‘Independent Living Officers’ as well as residents. We will also work with intermediaries such as village agents that work for Age UK SL and other government staff such as the customer service agents. Through this collaboration we envisage working simultaneously on the needs of older citizens and intermediaries. As in Phase one, researchers hope to tease out a set of needs and requirements for a rural-based older citizen population to work on. Learning from Phase one will obviously be carried forward to inform co-creation activities in Phase two. Here the challenge will be developing services for the majority of older adults in South Lakeland. We will explore expanding our events app to allow for the provision of SMS based services. This will allow us to attend to the issues of accessibility discussed in deliverable 1.1 such as limited internet access and use of technology amongst the older adult population in South Lakeland.

Mobile Services Problem Domain Related public services

Datasets (potentially included)

Collaborating public administrations (Senior Citizen) Associations & Interest Groups

Information provision about services of relevance to a rural population in South Lakeland Supporting uptake of mobile access to (open) data/services SLDC open government services services (e.g. refuse collection, benefits, community news) day-to-day activities (e.g. exercise clubs, lunch specials, village social events, post offices, shopping facilities); transport (e.g. bus/train services to nearest town; facilities to and from hospital); living (e.g. residential homes for elderly, special care homes); additional useful information SLDC Age UK South Lakeland, South Lakes Housing, SLDC

• Dissemination of activities • Advisory role Senior Citizen Meeting Places

39

South Lakes Housing community meeting space in their sheltered accommodation (for older citizens)

It operates the blog Seniorenlotse (http://seniorenlotse.bremen.de/)

© Copyright 2017 ifib

167 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

• Dissemination and provision of a meeting space for weekly meetings

South Lakes Housing meeting room in Kendal (for intermediaries) (provisional at the moment)

Co-creation plan Zaragoza The objective of the co-creation activities in Zaragoza is to redesign the portal for older citizens that is available at http://www.zaragoza.es/ciudad/sectores/mayores/. The redesign of the portal is to follow some principles such as: • • • •

To offer collaborative tools so that seniors citizens are able to improve the quality of existing information.

To respond to the necessity and expectation of older citizens.

To facilitate public services.

To change the architecture, navigation and visualization layout with the following premises: Mobile first. Open data by default.

For this reason, in the co-creation process we will work with older citizens in these three aspects: • • •

to review the information and services available at the municipal website. to design together with older citizens, the services to be available from smartphones or desktop computer, to increase participation and collaboration of older citizens in all the co-creation processes.

Mobile Services

Information provision about elderly care services and activities in Zaragoza

Problem Domain

Active and healthy ageing

Related public services

“Elderly care” services • •

Datasets (potentially included)

• • • • •

Collaborating public administrations

Zaragoza city council Office for Elderly People

Senior Citizen Associations & Interest Groups Dissemination of activities Advisory role

30 centres for elderly people with more than 60.000 members participating in activities and projects promoting active and healthy ageing.

Project +Mayores en la Red, a group formed by 40 volunteers invigorate computer labs Group of hikers

Senior Citizen Meeting Places Dissemination and provision of meeting space for weekly meetings

collaborative maps city equipment (e.g. residential homes for elderly, special care homes, pharmacies, hospitals, public toilets, meeting places, cultural and educational venues, restaurants, recreational spaces) city events complaints and Suggestions spatial data Infrastructure procedures and services friendly routes.

Centres for Elderly People a

© Copyright 2017 ifib

168 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

Co-creation plan Thessaloniki The objective for Thessaloniki is to create an application suitable for the older adults (60 years old plus) in order to provide useful medical and environmental information for the above mentioned age group. The main principles of the application design should follow the requirements below: • • •

User friendly interface designed especially for the target group.

Simple and useful personalised information easily provided with the minimum effort.

Automated update procedure in order to provide the most up-to-date information.

To meet the above requirements, in the co-creation process we will work with citizens of 60 years old and above in three major fields.

• • •

to evaluate the provided information together with the study group of elderly people. to find the proper front-end design together with the study group to increase interest and co-operation engagement of the target group through presentations and educational sessions.

Mobile Services

Information provision about health care services and environmental info.

Problem Domain

Elderly people are not familiar with applications and technology devices (especially people over 65 years old).

Related public services

Useful health and environmental information

Datasets (potentially included)

• • • • • •

Medical practioners in Thessaloniki metropolitan area.

Pharmacies located in Thessaloniki metropolitan area.

Rehabilitation Centres of RCM Physio practitioners located in Metropolitan area.

Opticians Micro pollution particles data

• • •

Medical Association of Thessaloniki.

Pharmaceutical Association of Thessaloniki RCM- General Directorate of Health and Social Care services.

RCM – Directorate of Development and Environment.

Municipalities (3) of Metropolitan Area

Collaborating public administrations

• • Senior Citizen Associations & Interest Groups

6 Elderly Care Centres located in at least three municipalities.

Dissemination of activities Advisory role Elderly Care Centres

Senior Citizen Meeting Places Dissemination and provision of meeting space for weekly meetings

a

RCM Premises

© Copyright 2017 ifib

169 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

Appendix XIV: Co-creation observation templates Diary template for co-creation activities Stage Event Date Length Location Participants Intended goal/researchers agenda before intervention Describe your intention/goal when setting up/planning for the interventions.

Activities/tasks Describe how the intervention was conducted.

Observation notes Note anything noteworthy about the event. Things that you surprised you, what worked well or not so well.

Reflection Reflect on what worked well, did not work well with respect to your objectives/goal. Please also reflect on any decisions, deviations, plans for amendment or change.

Decision log for technical development 40 Name:

Decision

Description:

Brief description of topic (functional requirement, design feature)

History:

Causes and background of the need for a decision need

Available Options:

List of options with risks and benefits

Recommendation

Rationale for preferred option

Feasibility:

Time and resources needed

Decision:

Selected, recommended option

40

http://modernservantleader.com/resource-files/decision-document-template.pdf

Š Copyright 2017 ifib

170 | P a g e

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

Next Steps:

Actions, which arise from the decision

Š Copyright 2017 ifib

171 | P a g e