Week 5 – Refining the Prototype

According to the sprint plan, this week was to be dedicated for making the prototype and refining it after testing its first iteration during the second translate session.

On Monday, before dividing tasks to finish the prototype, we gathered to settle on the questions and the possible answers. We faced some difficulties so we asked Mick for some help and we were able to better direct them slightly only to differ on some points again. Luckily, we had an idea of what we wanted the board to look like; so we decided to start making it and wait on the questions as they were to be hung last on the board. Sascha and Eva went to the makers lab to drill holes in the board, screw the hooks in (this was where the answers will be hung), place the string rolls at the ends of the board, and finally cut the foam where the questions will go. Neel was in charge of getting some supplies (glue tack and magnets) and refining the questions afterwards with Ola. Lama was in charge of digitizing the questions, the answers, and the logos and prepare them to be printed.

On Tuesday, we went about preparing for the translate session with Jacqueline, Eveline, Ylona and Emma. We printed out a few workable forms from our lecture on the ethics of design by Charlie Mulholland. During the translate session we tested our prototype and received feedback on the content and formulation of the questions on the board. With the help of forms we received more insight into the values of the different stakeholders involved in the project.

On Wednesday, we held our personal feedback session in which we helped each other with the prompt “you were very helpful to the team when you X and I would like to see you do more of Y”. We had a good atmosphere during the session and created a safe environment for feedback. Sascha contacted two colleagues of the police involved in the Next Web. Ola and Neel prepared for our meeting on friday by reading the third and final publication by Carlijn Naber of her foresightstudy on the future of safety.

On Thursday Neel, Ola and Sascha summarized and held a recap about all the publications by Naber and attempted to create a schema. Lama went out and bought new and improved supplies for the prototype board. Ola created a list of questions to ask Carlijn Naber after the lecture on friday at the ministry. Neel started with replacing parts of the board as Lama printed out the logo’s with the help of a UV printer.

On Friday the team split up as Lama stayed in Amsterdam to attend a workshop about data visualization and the software R. Neel, Ola and Sascha visited The Hague with Ylona and Eveline to attend the presentation of the final publication of Carlijn Naber and asked her questions afterwards.

Week 4 – Make Make Make

At the start of week 4 we made a plan for sprint 2 with the feedback from sprint 1 in our minds. Thanks to a tip from Jacqueline, we discovered the Stichting Toekomstbeeld der Techniek (STT). We analysed and discussed the two publications by Carlijn Naber, a futurologist who is currently running a project at the STT about the future of security in the Netherlands. We summarized her publications for ourselves and found new possible frameworks for our own research. Unfortunately Eva fell ill and had to leave the team for the majority of the week. On Wednesday we had a workshop by Zlatina about professional development and our office was reorganized. On Thursday we bought supplies at Action, Hema and Gamma and created a design for a question board. After a paper prototype we created our first design with a laser-cutter. On Friday we made another paper prototype and we had a workshop about ethics of design by Charlie Mulholland.

Week 3 – Sprint Review and Peer Pitch

Due to a change in scheduling, our team had to think on their feet and turn their translate session results into something worth presenting at the sprint review. We created two more prototype ideas alongside the original idea by Lama. The first new prototype was proposed by Eva and Ola, and featured two mirrored sequences of scenario’s, urging the participant to increase their awareness of the dichotomy of safety in both the physical and digital realms. This prototype would help us to gather quantitative data on our target audience’s behaviours with regards to preventive safety measures. The second new prototype was proposed by Sascha and featured multiple-choice questions or dillemma’s for participants to answer to increase their thought processes about their own security values and priorities.

On Tuesday we visited the Landelijke Eenheid again in Driebergen and had our Sprint Review with Mick, Wouter, Ron, Evelien and Jacqueline. Ola and Neel presented our findings and possible prototypes. Afterwards we had a small discussion about the wishes or curiosities of the police with regards to digital natives and safety. We also briefly touched upon the conference The Next Web and spoke about a talk at the Ministry of Justice and Safety on the 22nd of March where we will be able to meet an experienced researcher in the field of future safety.

On Wednesday we pitched our process and results again in front of all the teams at DSS and received feedback and provided other teams with theirs. We also concluded our sprint with a retrospective on the process led by Eva, in which we used three categories to mark our view on the past process and points of improvement. We decided to improve our documentation with the help of a physical diary and team notebook and hope to soon be in touch with a futurologist linked to the DSS.

Week 2 – Translate session and Prototyping

We started our third week with making a presentation for our first translate session with the Landelijke Eenheid in Driebergen. We compiled our research results and made a proposal for the next stage of our design process, namely doing user research through a questionnaire or prototype of another type. Our translate session was successful and we also met our product owner Ron for the first time. We discussed different ways in which each partner in the project could help and facilitate the other and aligned our expectations of the project.

Unfortunately after the translate session Eva and Ola both became ill again. To proceed with prototyping our team first questioned each other about their own perceptions of safety and actions or measures they take to protect themselves. This later inspired Lama to create a questionnaire for our peers which provided us with more insights into the different safety measures our generation generally takes for both their physical and digital safety. Neel then digitized the results of the questionnaires and created a visual representation of the results.

To take a step further with the prototyping process we also had a brainstorm afternoon with our coach Mick to dive deeper into the goal and form of the prototype. We created several sketches, scenario’s and questions. Then on friday, during a workshop by Abdo, Gijs and Carlo, our team was inspired by the prototype proposed by Lama in the form of an immersive experience in which priming will lead to different answers of participants.

Week 1 – Brief dissection and Individual Research

During our second week as a team, we started to dissect the brief we were given and bring together our understandings of our research topic. This proved quite difficult, as our problem statement was very broad and open to interpretation. However, as the team had an open association session and consecutively clustering, each team member eventually started on their individual research of one or more of the related terms to safety and security. We ended our individual research with presentations for our own team and created a list of unanswered or inspired questions to direct our further process.

Week 0 – SCREAM and Tinkering

During our first week our team was introduced to the team partner, de Landelijke Eenheid, and their assigned stretchers Ilona, Evelien, Sandra and Jacqueline. Together with them we had an introduction into the SCREAM process and the act of tinkering.

For the tinkering workshop (Eva and Ola could unfortunately not attend due to illness) our team created a marble coaster based on our brief. In the coaster the marble could go via 2 different routes and through a scanner and detector.

The beginning

After our first introductory week at the Digital Society School in Amsterdam and after thorough democratic decision-making, we formed our team for this semester: Lama Ahmed (Egypt), Ola Bonati (Poland), Eva van Haren (The Netherlands), Neel Koradia (India) and Sascha Vonk (The Netherlands) under supervision of coach Mick Jongeling.

Lama Ahmed (1995) is from Cairo and has studied graphic design at the American University Cairo. She likes to spend her time near the sea and has a passion for photography. For this semester she has also assigned herself the task of curating a team Instagram.

Ola Bonati (1992) is currently finishing her degree in New Media at the University of Amsterdam. One of Ola’s hobbies is kitesurfing and she is looking forward to trying this out in Egypt coming summer. Ola is also experienced in photography, video editing and vlogging.

Eva van Haren (1998) is in her second year of Game Development at the University of Applied Sciences. She likes to read and cook and prefers not the be photographed. Eva is a cat-person and has initiated an Instagram account for the unidentified cat who often visits the university campus.

Neel Koradia (1994) has studied New Media Design and has interned at Samsung where he created designs for patients with dementia. He is interested in data privacy and digital identity and is learning more about cooking Indian cuisine. His favorite Dutch word so far is ‘lekker’.

Sascha Vonk (1994) studied Social Science at Amsterdam University College. She likes to spend her time painting and drawing and is experienced in doing social research. She hopes to be admitted to Design School Kolding coming year for a master in Design for People.