Deep Dive. Security frames research project

BHSAD PD L5 Product Design Explorations Anna Novitskaya Daria Meshkova Dmitrii Liubimov Emilli Monica Ramilison Faina Iasen Ksenia Semirova Mark Osenmuk

04.2019

DEEP DIVE

TEAM WORK Team Introduction 4 Research stage 6 studying security frames market and context 6 the analysis of official open sources 8 the analysis of the manufacturers research 10 personal observation 14 observed materials analysis 18 interviewing professionals 20 security frames exploitation report: stewards & security guards 22 interviewing users 24 questionnaire analysis 28 5 whys problem identifying method 30 Idea development 30 identifying area for ideation 34 how might we increase qualification of operators to improve their behavior and appearance?

40 profile and journey map for a security frame user 44 profile and journey map for a security frame operator 46 how might we support operator’s emotional stability through improving their working conditions?

48 finalizing idea 50 improved security operator journey map 54 Prototyping 56 scenarios 56 shifts scheme calculation 68 Conclusion 71 TEAM MANAGEMENT creating teamwork rules. identifying team roles. managing work space 74 meeting minutes of the project 76 teamwork evaluations 98 video 102

Team Work Every day millions of people travel to work or study, fly out to other countries for vacations and business trips, attend concerts and sports events. Billions of surveillance cameras monitor movement and are responsible for the safety of the general public in places vulnerable to terrorist attacks. These and several other technological inventions together conclude today’s security system. One of those devices is a metal detector that many of us know as a frame. This security scanning system helps to define the presence and amount of any metal on a person, its location and permissibility. An ordinary person passes through frames like these 2-3 times on an average day.

We decided to research the experience surrounding these devices and take this topic as our main area of focus.

3

Faina Iasen

Emilli Monica Ramilison

TEAM INTRODUCTION

Market and Context studies

Mark Osenmuk

Dmitrii Liubimov

User Experience studies

Ksenia Semirova

Professionals’ Experience studies

Management

Anna Novitskaya

Daria Meshkova

5

Faina Iasen

RESEARCH STAGE

Dmitrii Liubimov

Ksenia Semirova

studying security frames market and context

Mark Osenmuk

Anna Novitskaya

Daria Meshkova

Emilli Monica Ramilison

context studying. the analysis of official open sources

RESEARCH STAGE

Frame metallodetectory designed to ensure the safety and screening of people passing into the territory of the organization owning (leasing) data detectors.

can be carried separately, and then assembled.

The Moscow Metro consists of about 300 stations, each of the station’s lobbies is equipped with metal detectors, some conclusions can be drawn from sources.

Moscow, St. Petersburg and Nizhny Novgorod metros are equipped with SmartScan C18 frame metal detectors, according to the characteristics given on the official website (and the statements of Dmitry Basov, owner of Modern High Technologies,) this model has software that suppresses electromagnetic interference that distorts the results of the detector.

The program allows you to control the level of sensitivity to the amount of metal and visualizes the zones (18) of the intended location.

However, it does not allow to identify the object (gun, knife, keys, telephone, etc.). According to the technical characteristics of the frame, it’s parts should have a distance of 1 meter between them in order to operate correctly.

However, observing and assessing the reliability of the above characteristics point to a number of facts (some characteristics are also key in a security scenario).

The frames have, in addition, to the visual, sound identification of metal detection, however, (at least during peak hours) the sound is muted, since with an intense flow of people it does not carry useful information.

Since the established frame is not capable of recognizing objects, with a dense stream they are not able to identify a person with a firearm.

Nevertheless, including due to their reactions to metal clusters, every day security officers find 150200 dangerous objects (traumatic, hunting weapons, etc., not necessarily carried with a destructive purpose).

However, given the fact that in 2015, inspectors checked almost 17 millions of people and 9 million pieces of luggage, and only 2.4 billion people were transported last year, the figures are not comforting: based on these data, approximately 64,000 dangerous items were found during the year, while approximately 1/140 passengers were inspected.

An even more serious problem is that the framework does not respond to explosives. Taking into account the fact that it is not illegal to carry a bucket of hardware (which is the main striking filler of bombs), the components of a bomb

To detect explosives, there are gas analyzers at the stations, the reliability of which, however, is in doubt due to the strong air flow. The stations are also equipped with special equipment for suppressing radio lines controlling explosive devices (their reliable usefulness remains undetermined). In addition, there are x-ray scanners for baggage inspection (in fact they are the most effective means, as they are able to detect even plastic weapons, moreover, there are similar installations (including domestic production) that allow inspecting a person, even without removing the outer clothing, it takes a few seconds).

The location of the framework clearly indicates that their purpose is also to narrow the aisles and slow down the flow of people to facilitate the processing of information coming from the framework, but this is not a solution, since it creates congestion in front of them and nothing can prevent the terrorist from blowing up a bomb in the resulting mass of people (in the period 2012-2015, 39 people died from terrorist attacks in transport, 23 while passing through the frame).

An integral part of the security system are the operators of the frame and other equipment — security staff.

There are also a number of significant problems.

Private investigation in 2015 showed that the checks were formal, the security staff sought to fulfill

Mark Osenmuk

Based on the analysis of articles and interviews, we can distinguish two main groups of facts concerning equipment and people, as well as some general characteristics of the current situation.

In many cases (at shallow stations) the frames react to trains passing under them. In addition, in most cases the frames are installed with distances of less than 1 meter between them, so they can potentially distort each other’s work. Situations where frames are banal are not uncommon.

the plan, log entries of inspected people (30 per hour). Many workers do not look at the frame, and sometimes they are not competent in administrative legislation.

However, the main problem (partly the cause of the above) is a shortage of people. As well as the need to systematize their work.

For optimized work and greater employee efficiency, more people are needed. To ensure a sufficient number of employees (5 instead of 1-2), it is necessary to allocate about 2 billion more, otherwise the frame is in fact useless, due to the lack of operators.

In addition, systematization of the workflow is necessary, alternating changes in the activities of employees, in order to avoid dispersing attention, as well as creating systematic dynamics in the security system, it is necessary to create more comfortable working conditions (instead conditions for rest, although this goes without saying).

It also does not facilitate the work of employees surrounding space.

At many stations, in conditions of intense flows of people, employees are simply not able to squeeze through the flow of passengers and stop a potentially suspicious person to inspect.

The choice is subjective, in addition to this, employees are guided by one clear instruction: to pay attention to people with large bags (and behaving suspiciously).

All employees took refresher courses, attended the course “Culture of passenger service” and “Profiling” (a set of psychological methods and techniques for assessing and predicting human behavior).

However, without constant practice and deep immersion in this method, it is impossible to achieve real results, since there is no universal approach for analyzing people’s behavior.

Despite the conventionality of the practical benefits of passing the “Profiling” course by security

officers, the movement in this direction is extremely promising.

Thanks to this technique, it is possible to identify a person with destructive intentions. A person is much better than a machine can determine whether a person is dangerous or not.

Since terrorist organizations, using recruiters, are looking for a certain psychological stock, taking into account modern technologies, it is possible to compile a risk register, which could significantly increase security.

Since the bomb can be carried through in parts, inspections without an identity document are useless, only personal identification, provided the registry exists in the access of the staff, could give an adequate assessment of the situation.

In addition, if we talk, for example, of railway trains (in fact, the metro too), to commit a terrorist act it is not necessary to blow up the train, there are tens and hundreds of kilometers of railway tracks.

For the reasons listed above, specialists and passengers are skeptical about the framework (several successful attacks play a role), according to experts, not one prevented attack is known (thanks to the existing system).

There is another function of the frame and security officials, it is to create psychological pressure on potential criminals. Creating the appearance of protection, there are cases when a man in the form of a frightened single terrorist, and he abandoned his plan, but not a fanatic or a professional. Preventive (deterring) measures (due to the presence of frame metal detectors and employees in the form) taken publicly are often useless.

As proof of the inconsistency of the existing security system, the fact that secret security checks of the FSB conducted in 2016 showed a devastating result says that the FSB

officers were able to carry shahid belts into the subway, and only 4 times were detained.

Also in the Petersburg terrorist attack of 2017 there was a bomb filled with 30-40 balls for bearings, this is not so much to fix them if the shell was not metal, but from a different source the bomb shell had a fire extinguisher having a massive metal shell, based on This terrorist attack was a direct consequence of the failure of the existing system.

Thus, by and large, a terrorist act can be prevented only at the level of intentions, thanks to the intelligence work of the special services, but not in the subway. The framework in this case is useless.

Despite this, over the past few years, the framework has risen in price by 4 times, now the average cost is about 250,000 rub. Over the past few years, tens of billions from the budget have been spent on their purchase and maintenance.

An interesting fact is that, in contrast to the 39 people who died in Russia from terrorist attacks in transport in 2012–2012, in the same period about 33,000 people died in traffic accidents on oncoming lanes, not equipped with separators, the cost of installing them on federal highways approximately equal to the amount spent on the frame.

“Modern High-Tech Technologies”, whose frameworks are located in the Moscow, St. Petersburg and Nizhny Novgorod metros, have repeatedly won the tender, in situations where contests were frustrated due to the lack of access by other participants from the FSB.

market offering. the analysis of the manufacturers research

RESEARCH STAGE

The width

able to ignore personal belongings.

EvolV is claimed to have features similar to Metor6M and beyond it.

The hight This parameter is important for the frame-like construction and it floats slightly over meters for the most examples that the group has researched, with the only outlier being Metor6m by Rapiscan Systems, which is 2.5 meters high.

The depth The depth of the installed detector can hugely affect both perception and intimidation level and convenience of the installation process. The lowest depth across the board belongs to the SmartScan products — only 41 cm.

The bulkiest one depth-wise is EvolV’s system, 188 cm, with other detectors being in a range from 58 to 70 cm.

Construction type Almost all detectors presented in the table are firmly fixed and are not easily transportable or physically

Detection zones Most of the modern Metal Detectors have at very least 2 detection zones.

The only single-zone detector in this research is Pautina, and the only two-zone one is SmartScan A2SE — the cheapest in the SmartScan product range.

The highest number of detection zones is 18 in the most expensive SmartScan detector. In general, its normal that within the product range of one manufacturer detectors with higher number of zones are significantly more expensive.

Modes Yet again, on example of SmartScan we can see that cheaper product has less modes — only 7 in comparison to up to 26 in the expensive one. Its not true for the comparison between the manufacturers, though — the most expensive detector in this research that can be easily obtained (Metor6M) only has 14 while cheap Russian BlockPost PC Z-600 has 72.

Selective settings Not all manufacturers provide this information. Kordon S1 is claimed to have different sensitivity settings set individually for each of 6 zones, but an expensive Metor6M claimed to be

Sound For all metal detectors manufacturer either confirms the presence of the Sound alarm or don’t specify it at all. Kordon S1 has 3 levels of volume and 3 levels of sound duration.

Visual indication Just like with the sound, the presence of such feature either confirmed or not specified at all.

Bandwidths The standard peek bandwidth for the listed detectors is 60. Its only 50 for the fancy Metor6m, though.

Operating temperatures Detectors that operate in coldest conditions are Arka (up to -30°) and cheap SmartScan A2SE (-35°).

The only two devices that has rather low heat resistance are Arka and EvolV (both will stop working when the air will go over 40 degrees).

Material Two detectors are made of hardened aluminum (Garrett PD6500) and an unspecified metal (Metor 6M).

The rest of the listed hardware is

Dmitrii Liubimov

The Metal detectors’ width are usually 76 cm width CEIA’s minimal width at 72 cm and X-scan’s Kordon S1 being 70 cm. CEIA’s maximum width, though, goes as far as to 82 cm, same for SmartScan C18. The widest Metal detectors are Pautina-N2-1 — from 80 to 160 cm, — and EvolV Technology’s solution which is 142 cm wide.

adjustable. The only two modular ones are Pautina and Kordon S1.

made from either plastic, or material is unspecified.

Additional information Kordon S1 has the best description, and it’s mentioned to have little to no restriction on placement (which is a huge competitive advantage, since a lot of models have to be installed not closer than in 50-70 centimeters from each other. Also, Kordon S1 can be equipped with the people counter.

Summary Most of the walk-through Metal detectors are roughly equal, with the Hight slightly above 200 centimeters, width of 75-82 cm and depth of 60-70 cm.

There is no clear correlation between their specs and their price, the more expensive ones might be of a higher quality and be more effective, but we don’t have data to back it up.

Two of the most standing out systems are Pautina and EvolV. In the case of Pautina, it’s clear that the manufacturers sacrificed safety for convinence, but, yet again, it is unclear how much safety this solution lacks in comparison to the standard Walk-through detectors.

EvolV claims to have increased convinience and safety (though there are, again, no data to back it up) with what appears to be much higher price tag.

While we don’t have actual statistics on how the price of the device affects it’s safety, its r e a s o n a b l e to assume that the diminishing returns are huge and will surpass 80-20 ratio.

Since the role of Frame Operator is huge, it might be wise to invest in his training rather than more expensive frame.

RESEARCH STAGE

SmartScan SL Hight:

200 cm+

Width:

70-82 cm

Depth:

40-75 cm

Working temps:

20-40C

Bandwidth: 60 people/hour Detection zones:

1-33

Price:

80000-460000 rub

Variety of presets, audio/visual indication, autonomous mode

Dmitrii Liubimov

average walk-through metal detector

13

stand-out examples

Pautina N2-2 Detection zones:

1

Sacrifices efficiency for convenience

EvolV Technology Specs undisclosed Price undisclosed Cutting edge technology, face detection, machine learning. Price is yet to be revealed, but likely extremely high

Faina Iasen

Dmitrii Liubimov

Ksenia Semirova

personal observation

RESEARCH STAGE

Mark Osenmuk

Anna Novitskaya

Daria Meshkova

Emilli Monica Ramilison

observation of public transportation, shopping malls, etc.

17

RESEARCH STAGE

observed materials analysis

Metro

Shopping malls

Video in the metro

In total, 10 metro stations were studied.

Usually on one passageway stand from three to six frames, depending on the width of the passage.

They stand close to each other, thereby excluding the passage between them.

Next to the frames are always present 1-3 guards responsible for them.

At stations with a larger flow of people there are also guards from the police (in black uniform, with weapons) in addition to the usual metro staff (in blue and without weapons).

At stations with a small flow of people (new built stations that do not use such a large number of people), the police is almost not present, since there is no need of them.

Not all frames are working on the stations and sometimes there are only one frame working out of four.

Number of switched off frames does not affect number of guards in any way.

A total of 9 centers were studied.

Usually in shopping centers there are one or three frames that do not interfere with the flow of people.

In one shopping center, the frames were surrounded by additional fences so that people could not pass them by. Also in different shopping centers the number security is very different.

In two shopping centers, security guards stand next to the frames and make sure that people pass only through the frame. In two other shopping centers, security officers stand with a distance and do not regulate the flow of people at all. Also on the entrances with frames there are tables for examination of handbags, but they are rarely used by security.

Some tables are more well thought out (for example, the table cover may be softer to avoid scratching the keys/ phones that are placed on it), but this does not affect the frequency of their use.

On the video with escalators it is visible that people prefer to pass in the Central framework more, than in side ones. Also, this trend can be seen in the video with the exits from the subway — people choose the frame, which is located in front of the escalator. Even if there are more people going in the middle frame and there is a small queue — people are more likely to go into it, not in the side frames.

Also in the video with the flows of people it can be seen that streams of people on the stations with the transitions in the center of the hall, meet and face constantly.

At the station without transitions, where there are central separation columns, the flows of people are normalized and do not collide at all.

Stadiums

Emilli Monica Ramilison

Just was studied one stadium.

It is the protection of several people, in addition to the frame as inspected bags on the scanner. The frame excludes the passage of people not in it. Using the framework is only primary inspection, further inspection of the involved guards.

Seemingly, there is usually no system behind the number of metal detectors, their settings, positioning and even the presence or absence of the guards nearby.

It makes the metal detectors almost useless when it comes to public safety and very inconvenient and uncomfortable at the same time.

Daria Meshkova

Anna Novitskaya

RESEARCH STAGE

interviewing professionals

For this project, we managed to interview professional security guards and security frame operators to be able to analyze the experience of frame exploitation not only from the perspective of the user, but also from a professional side.

These interviews will help our team to analyze potential problems with security frames exploitation encountered by professionals.

Interview findings Stewards reported that they find security frames ineffective and that they serve more for a flow control, whereas the airport guard claimed that frames are effective and necessary.

Stewards reported that they have never been given instructions about security frames exploitation, while security guards in airports are obliged to get trained how to use these frames and other technical equipment and how to do manual inspection following the 104 and 224 standards.

Stewards reported that they encounter following problems: 1. Frames react on manual metal detector which means that steward would have to step back and that would cause people to get crowded inside the frame.

RESEARCH STAGE

2. Frames make continuous sound because many people enter the frame at the same time because they think that it will reduce the inspection time.

3. People forget their personal belongings on the table.

Airport guard said that there are no drawbacks.

Stewards suggested that the following changes will improve the experience of frames exploitation: 1. To attach some kind of hurdle so only one person could enter the frame.

2. To adjust frame’s sensitivity so it doesn’t react on small coins because when people place them on the table it takes a lot of time to remove it.

Airport security guard suggested : 1. To have a frame which would scan and detect not only the presence of excessive amount of metal and its approximate location, but so it shows the exact location and the shape of its object.

Anna Novitskaya

security frames exploitation report: stewards & security guards

According to the research findings, we have following statements: • Security system and security guard training in the airports are taken more seriously than in stadiums.

• Human factor can not be eliminated.

• Security training educational system is specific for each area (airport, stadiums, metro and etc)

Emilli Monica Ramilison

Faina Iasen

interviewing users

RESEARCH STAGE

from Russia

general statistics

95.2% Female

45.7% 31.4% students

full time employed

Male

age

26-35 age

18-25

27 Walk through

se

I also remember how

frame at leas t2 rity cu

on Leningradskiy railway

51.6% es per day tim

Do n o t fee

I don’t have anything against the frames themselves but the thought of interacting with the guards makes me anxious.

Where have you had to walk through a security frame?

n fe i a ls

63.7%

I entered the frame station. The “roller” for bags was placed on some hight so my mom could not place her bag on it and the guards

-3

presence of t

urity frames c e s he

refused to help her.

02

04

06

08

01

00

I’m always afraid of leaving my things in a separate table as I’m afraid that people who go forward will steal my possessions.

I accidentally took another person’s phone.

I had to put it on the table when going through and didn’t pay attention that the woman after me had the same model so I accidentally stole hers.

RESEARCH STAGE

In the scope of this project we’ve combined a questionnaire for the general public that has everyday experiences of walking through the security frames. We made it in two versions — one in English and one in Russian for those uncomfortable with writing in a different language.

Then we used our team’s network of friends and fellow students to spread the questionnaire, using our social media accounts for maximal reach.

Presence

While it’s good for us as designers to have personal experience with the target of our design, it is crucial for the design process to involve the general public which at the end of the day will be affected by the changes we decide to implement. So the main goal of our questionnaire was to find some popular opinions and collect some statistics to refer to in the later steps of the design process.

Safety?

Outreach

Public Opinion

We received an unexpectedly high number of responses and it was versatile enough in the time we were given for us to draw many useful conclusion from. It is clearly seen that we had almost equal amount of male and female interviewees of different ages and occupations, most of them from Russia.

One of the main question in the form was about people’s worst experience with the security scanning frames and we received quite a few valuable points from those who face these problems in their everyday life.

Many of the points highlighted were already on our list but some of the responses stood out so it was a

This data from our questionnaire shows how deeply integrated are the frames in to our everyday lives — we see them in subway and malls, train stations and airports, museums and stadiums — all kinds of places.

Most people have to walk through them two to three times a day on average, some more than 6 times in one day.

According to the results of the questionnaire, 70% don’t feel safer in the presence of the security scanning devices and more than a quarter of the interviewees feel intimidated by the guards standing by the frames, which is a big downside.

This way the level of comfort drops while the levels of prejudice and stress rise.

insightful experience. Here are some of the answers: 1. I also remember how I entered the frame on Leningradskiy railway station. The “roller” for bags was placed on some hight so my mom could not place her bag on it and the guards refused to help her.

2. The frames were placed right in front of the entrance and people were packed so everyone tried to squeeze through the frame at the same time, so yeah, it wasn’t really good.

3. To be honest, I also feel anger every time I’m in a line for a frame. Even if I’m not in a hurry, I feel uncomfortable because lots of people are concentrated in one place and it brings lots of stress. :( 4. I accidentally took another person’s phone. I had to put it on the table when going through and didn’t pay attention that the woman after me had the same model so I accidentally stole hers.

5. I had to walk through the same frame four times, taking something new out every time and the guard just kept telling me to remember what i left in my pockets. I really wasted time.

6. Every time I go to the car station there’s a huge crowd that is created just because of these frames and it spends a lot of

Faina Iasen

questionnaire analysis

time for what seems like nothing useful.

7. I had to go to the same building 3 times because I was looking for someone, and every time I had to open my bag for a security to briefly look through it. It was more annoying than funny.

8. In the mall the guard spend a lot of time putting me through these frames again and again as something was sending it off. The whole time air was filled with this AWFUL sound, which was really annoying and loud.

9. I had to empty out my whole bag in the club on the table because of one tiny key. Had to take out everything including hygienic products and contraceptives.

One of the main trends we saw in these results is that many people take more offence with the people who operate the scanning frames rather than from the devices itself.

We thought it was a really interesting direction to dive deeper into. Another trend was the inefficiency of the tables where you have to put your personal belongings, which is more in the physical design area.

Faina Iasen

Ksenia Semirova

Dmitrii Liubimov

IDEA DEVELOPMENT

5 whys problem identifying method

Mark Osenmuk

Anna Novitskaya

Daria Meshkova

Emilli Monica Ramilison

Frames in public places ( stadiums, metro, malls and etc.)

Existing frames cause stress for many people

Create the feeling of intimidation (guilty until proved innocent).

Many are intimidated by this experience.

People are annoyed and irritated with Metal detectors

To detect potential terrorist.

Many people feel like they are suspected when innocent.

Removing stuff from the pockets is very inconvenient.

G o a Valuable belongings could be stolen, it’s long and holds the queue back

Many people find existing frames uncomfortable

They slow down the flow of people and waste their time.

People have to empty the pockets and bags before walking through a frame.

T p m to

Why cause distrust, discomfort?

People fill Invasion of personal comfort zone.

The presence of an observer is noticeable to humans.

U w w

More women feel intimidated by this experience that men

Because they feel more vulnerable when confronted by the male guards than men do.

Most guards look quite aggressive and thus intimidating to those who posses less physical strength.

T s

Why is it inconvenient to pass through the frame if you are a nonstandard: tall, fat, in a wheelchair, pregnant, etc.?

There is a fixed standard size of 72x200, most fit for it.

The most intimidating part is the person behind the detector

People are mostly intimidated by a person near the frames

Why is it like that?

Easy to make / easy to filter passing / easy to inspect.

This person has a right to check your belongings and usually will do it in an impolite way.

Because they are afraid that guard will pick them out of the crowd and start the inspection.

Why the design does not adapt / does not change under passing?

It

Metal detector operators usually acts similar to a cop and cops usually treat civils as their enemies.

Because they are not sure how the whole system works and how guards pick people from the crowd.

B p

Frame operator is necessary

Because the frame itself can only detect metal objects which are not the only potentially live threating objects.

The frame itself can not detain a person in case if potential threat was detected.

People scanning security frames cannot work properly without help of professional steward

Human factor is important during the work with scanning frames.

The equipment has the ability to break, to be buggy. Moreover this types of frames are not capable to consider human emotions.

The Metal detectors are bottlenecking people

They are positioned too close.

There are technological limitations in these particular frames.

Huge queue before passing scanning metal detectors

When people should be properly inspected, through these metal detectors should pass only one person at a time, the next one should wait until the security guard inspects the person after passing the frame.

Key point of the work of the scanners is to detect certain amount of metal. This detector is working depending on the properties established depending on a type of work which they have to carry out. The possibility of scanning people 40-50 p per hour. Person is working behind the scanner.

Why there is a crush around?

The process of passing through the frame is not optimized.

The space in which the inspection takes place and the inspection process itself are not optimized for a quick check and the passage of a large number of people.

The inspected person performs a series of actions, on each of which there can be a delay, or the need to repeat, that delays the next person, people interfere with each other.

T o th in

Why Look pathetic?

Bad visual design, communication design.

The goal was not to make high quality industrial design (especially the visual component).

Requires additional investments, in what it seems there is no need.

Requires additional investments, in what it seems there is no need.

U

Why is the sound indication so irritating?

To attract the attention of the guard

Why does his attention need?

To search / identify threats

Why is a person / his incomprehensible things a threat?

T th

Why is the sound indication so irritating?

This is the easiest set of sounds. It takes little memory.

Why is there not enough memory for sound in the device?

Memory is needed for other functions. For example, on the preinstalled programs.

Why is a lot of space need for it?

T

Frames cause stress more when they are placed near entrance

Because it slows people down.

Because they need to make additional movements.

B th fr p

People don’t feel the need for frames

Because it seems that they are not working.

Because even with frames there are terrorists in the shopping malls and metro.

B o

Existing frames create danger of terrorism

It would cause more damage if a bomb went off in front of the frames than if it blew up inside the building.

The frames create a so-called “bottle neck”.

T o c c

g?

33 To prevent terracts or other threat.

Guards tend to randomly pick out people from the crowd for additional security checks.

So people feel safe while using public transport or while visitng public places.

Our society is very prejudiced and posses many stereotypes which are then enforced by the guards.

The tables near the Metal detectors are poorly designed, usually only 1 table for 2 frames is used.

Because existing frames can’t distinguish between weapons and personal belongings (phones, keys, coins, etc.).

User Experience of communication with technology & security workeris far from Invisible design.

Interaction with them creates barriers on person track.

The guards are also experiencing stress caused by the frames.

The way frames operate puts a lot of responsibility on those operating them.

y

Why is it fixed like that? Where is the “brains”?

The operation of these frames is imperfect and can’t eliminate the human factor of guards, so it’is subjective and often discriminative.

There is no special thought put into these tables, space constrains also play the role since usually only one tables for two frames is used.

They detect all metal objects on a person’s body so one has to put all metal objects on the nearby table to not confuse the frames.

It is fixed on the floor.

So people spend money on public transport or on social events.

There is a light indicator is sides, “brain” in the top.

Creation of expectation of undue attention in the context of suspicion.

Do not fit organically into the surrounding space.

The process of operating these frames puts most of the duty on the operator rather than on device.

Why is the indication on the sides, if it does not clearly show where and which item inside?

It is a Russian tradition, I suppose.

People with power will abuse it and public will try to stay away from these people.

Because it seems like guards are picking people spontaneously.

r

n

Because there are no explanation of the reasons why guards are stopping and checking YOU.

Because guards are not taught to do so and there is no such instruction.

Because technology is not developed to the extent when it would substitute the human labour completely.

Even if such technology exists, it would be much more expensive than human labour

Settings for these machines allow only to define different amounts of metal (aluminium/gold/etc); however they are not able to read the expressions and emotions of people.

That’s why the work of the employees is important while working with these equipment, as people can take the person’s excitement and anxiety before going into the building and prevent an attack.

The installed frames are cheap and have been chosen thanks to the corruption schemes.

Public doesn’t hold officials accountable.

Steward is obliged to examine the people personally.

Because the machine has the property to break and not to work. Moreover these machines cannot read out human emotions.

ng

y

, d.

The verification steps are carried out in a confined space in which the activities of the inspected intersect.

People are in a hurry, they do not wait until going ahead has completely finished the procedure.

The number of actions performed and the resources (space, officers, etc.) aimed at operating these actions (in combination with the flow of people) is not balanced.

Utilitarian applying.

In the process that performs this object, only the utilitarian value is nested.

No pursuit to design high culture.

Mentality, values.

at?

The guard does not know what is there / does not see the scan.

Why there is no scan technology in the security frame?

Sound is a cheaper technology.

And the scan is expensive

Why cheap technology is used to create security systems?

?

They are many: from 16 and more.

Why is so many?

To facilitate setting the machine in place.

Why, when the device is stationary (does not move to other points), and is configured once?

Because people pass through the entrance gates and sometimes frames stand not in front of the person, but dioganally.

Because the width of the gates might be different from the width of the passageway.

Because terrorists find new ways of hiding themselves.

Because terrorism is not about killing people, it’s about scaring them.

They create crowds and jams of people before them, thus collecting a lot of people condensed in one small space.

The frames only allow one person to go through at a time, which significantly slows down the flow.

They does not care about protecting people

Because that’s the point of terrorism and that’s how they can become more powerfull.

IDEA DEVELOPMENT

identifying area for ideation

Exploring the topic of security frames and analysing the gathered research we’ve managed to define 6 clear groups of problems. Before deciding on which one we were going to work with we categorized them using PEST system (Political, Economical, Social and cultural, Technological) to see what areas of life they fall into and be able to make a more informed

Faina Iasen

Dmitrii Liubimov

Ksenia Semirova

decision.

Mark Osenmuk

Anna Novitskaya

Daria Meshkova

Emilli Monica Ramilison

IDEA DEVELOPMENT OPERATING STAFF

TECHNOLOGY

The people behind the frames

Technological limitations and possibilities

S

Subjective and often discriminating judgment of operators

How might we change operator’s judgment to be more objective and inclusive?

S, E

Under-qualified; often poor behavior and appearance

How might we increase qualification of operators to improve their behavior and appearance?

E

Intimidating militarylike uniforms of the operators

How might we change the operator’s uniforms to be less repulsive and more friendly?

T

Light indication system is not clear enough

How might we improve the visual indication system for it to give clearer information?

T, S

Annoying sound indication system brings up stress levels

How might we modify the sound indication system to decrease stress levels caused by it to both operators and the public?

SPACE & FORM Setting, positioning and appearance T, E

Frames aren’t properly set up thus they aren’t used to their full potential

How might we modify the frame’s set up procedure to make it easier to use its full potential?

T, E

The hardware of a frame is tiny, but the body of it is necessarily massive

How might we use the compactness of the frame’s hardware to optimize the size of its corpus?

T, E

The environment is not adapted to people having to empty their pockets

How might we improve the environment of the frames so it’s more convenient for people to manage their belongings during the scanning process?

PERCEIVED SAFETY Users’ level of comfort and perception of risk T, E

Uniform appearance of the scanning frames is familiar to the public & commonly accepted

How might we change the form of security scanning without losing the perceived safety caused by the familiar appearance of the frames?

How might we use the commonly accepted form of the frames to maintain the perceived safety caused by them?

S, E

Education through PR decreases levels of intimidation

How might we educate the public through PR to decrease levels of intimidation and stress caused by security scanning?

TECHNOLOGY & SPACE & FORM Technology overlaps space & form T

The function is the key, not the form (the device doesn’t have to look like a frame)

How might we modify the form of the security scanning system without losing its function?

T

Technology affect the placement of the frames

How might we apply existing technology for the frames placement to be unrestricted?

T, E

The frames have to be used as a separate element that often disrupts its environment

How might we integrate the scanning system into existing environment to optimise use of space, resources, etc.?

EFFICIENCY Are frames the most efficient way to ensure security?

S

Operators become stressed and aggressive due to inefficient operating procedure

How might we change the operating procedure to lessen the stress levels for those operating them?

T

Vague indication system slows down the scanning process

How might we modify the indication system to shorten the time of security scanning?

T

The one-at-a-time restriction makes the frames inefficient in rush (peak) hours

How might we integrate the scanning system into existing environment to optimise use of space, resources, etc.?

How might we modify the scanning device by getting rid of the one-person limit to make it more efficient during rush hours?

O P E R AT I N G STAFF How might we increase qualification of operators to improve their behaviour and appearance?

39

Faina Iasen

IDEA DEVELOPMENT

Dmitrii Liubimov

Ksenia Semirova

how might we increase qualification of operators to improve their behavior and appearance?

Mark Osenmuk

Anna Novitskaya

Daria Meshkova

Emilli Monica Ramilison

43

profile and journey map for a security frame user

IDEA DEVELOPMENT

45

profile and journey map for a security frame operator

IDEA DEVELOPMENT

47

Faina Iasen

IDEA DEVELOPMENT

Dmitrii Liubimov

Ksenia Semirova

how might we support operator’s emotional stability through improving their working conditions?

Mark Osenmuk

Anna Novitskaya

Daria Meshkova

Emilli Monica Ramilison

IDEA DEVELOPMENT

finalizing idea

Team building

Monitoring system for operator’s condition

Motivation + Education.

• Giving them an opportunity to be better: training in first aid, antiterrorism training.

• Motivation through a game: you do better job — there’s a chance to get a reward.

• Give knowledge of secret checks by administration.

• Searching challenges.

• System of person matching by some characteristics useful for security.

•

Change the system of shifts From 12-12 to smaller parts to eliminate fatigue.

• Help guards to make routine less tiring and exhausting.

• An interactive digital table for shift scheduling.

• Tryouts in airports and other institutions. Maybe make a network for these guards.

• A better breakroom environment for guards to relax during breaks.

• Swapping their place of work with people on registration.

• Circular change of activities.

• Relief operator.

• • • • •

Make the profession more prestigious: ads, posters, photoshoots.

Increase technological level of work.

Virtual reality training in different scenarios.

Ethic classes for operators.

Psychological counseling to help operators accept the routine and cope with it in a healthy way.

Improve educational system by using graphic design methods: visual information, graphic posters with reminders.

Reward system Money, extended holidays, social privileges.

• Making a system for guards’ motivation: not only career but like competition.

• Notification like ‘Vitalya molodets’.

• Promote the profession on TV and put best operators in ads.

• To have a system of reviews and public thanks to guards on a website of metro.

• To put a ‘please rate us’ system for guards like they have in MFC. • A comparative list (for the best guard, etc) with rewards or public announcements.

• Give them a chance to get promoted to new kinds of work (in Metro department, but still better).

• Implement some star reviews in the Apps of Yandex.

• Discount system in some shops + bonus points to spend.

51

Improving the setting in which security guards work • •

Organize station space.

Monitor closely and promote friendly interactions between guards, metro workers and policemen.

Change the task plan Faster flow — rewards, avoiding crowds — rewards.

• Develop a system of threat levels that allows for less attention to be paid in peace.

Outfits • • •

Make better shoes that will help with the full-day on feet work.

Redesign their uniform.

Custom uniform by individual measures on completion of education course.

After our brainstorming sessions and research analysis we had several promising areas to chose from.

We decided to take up the operators’ shift system as it seemed as the area with the most potential.

We had to keep in mind our limited time and resources so we thought this topic was our best shot.

53

improved security operator journey map

IDEA DEVELOPMENT

regular performance

55 performance as mobile operator

Possible negative scenarios for Prototyping 1. Guard is late after his break / lunch. Mobile Guard will be late for his shift 2. Guard and Mobile Guard poor work attitude (“lyasi tochit”).

3. Shift system malfunction.

4. Detention and Guard and Mobile Guard are witnesses.

5. Guard and Mobile Guard find a thread (bag, bomb, etc.)

6. Conflict of/with users.

7. Guard and Mobile Guard feel bad / health conditions — Guard will replace Mobile Guard, Turnstile operator will replace Guard.

8. Guard and Mobile Guard suspicious crowd distracts them (How will they solve the problem?).

Faina Iasen

Dmitrii Liubimov

Ksenia Semirova

scenarios

PROTOTYPING

Mark Osenmuk

Anna Novitskaya

Daria Meshkova

Emilli Monica Ramilison

To see what problems could come up during the shifts of operators and how they can be solved we performed a play-pretend session using Lego and a station mapped out on paper.

We generated and illustrated a standard average subway station with multiple frames, narrow aisles and generally inconvenient layout.

scenario

01

Participants: • • •

Turnstile worker Policeman Vitalya

Time: Not during the rush hour

Unit 1 walks through frames.

Vitalya considers Unit 1 suspicious and takes him to the X-ray to check his bag.

Conclusion Frames are left unattended.

scenario

1.2

Participants: • • •

Turnstile worker Policeman Vitalya

Time: Not during the rush hour

Unit 1 walks through frames.

Vitalya considers Unit 1 suspicious and takes him to the X-ray to check his bag.

Turnstile worker substitutes Vitalya at the frames while he inspects Unit 1.

Conclusion Turnstile worker has to be trained and qualified as much as Vitalya is to be able to operate the frame.

scenario

02

Participants: • • •

Turnstile worker Policeman Vitalya

Time: Rush hour

Vitalya and turnstile worker operate the frames.

Turnstile post is unattended.

Conclusion If Vitalya is at the X-ray, turnstile worker operates the frame alone.

scenario

03

Participants: • • •

Turnstile worker Policeman (If a policeman can be involved into frame operation).

Vitalya

Time:

Turnstile operator is at the post.

Not during the rush hour

Vitalya is at the frames.

Policeman operates X- ray.

Vitalya takes Unit 1 to the Policeman so he inspects Unit 1.

Conclusion Frames are left unattended for a short period of time. If a policeman is involved, Vitalya can do his job alone not during the rush hour. Turnstile operator has to do her job and stay at the turnstile post, Vitalya needs a co-worker.

scenario

04

Participants: • • • •

Turnstile worker Policeman Vitalya 1 Vitalya 1

Time: Not during the rush hour

Turnstile worker is at the post, Vitalya 1 and Vitalya 2 operate the frames.

Vitalya 1 takes Unit 1 to the X-Ray. Vitalya 2 operates the frame while Vitalya 1 inspects Unit 1.

Conclusion If Vitalya 1 and Vitalya 2 operate the frame, then they do their task effectively.

scenario

05

Participants: • • • •

Turnstile worker (at her post) Policeman (at his post) Vitalya 1 Vitalya 2

Time: During the rush hour A massive flow of people through the frame. One potentially dangerous Unit. Unit should be inspected.

Vitalya 1, 2 should identify who should be inspected.

Vitalya 1 takes Unit 1 to the X-Ray.

Vitalya 2 catches Unit 2, takes him to the X-Ray.

Conclusion Frames are unattended (even) for short period of time. Vatalya 1, 2 need another operator for rush hour.

scenario

06

Participants: • • • • •

Turnstile worker (at her post) Policeman (at his post) Vitalya 1 Vitalya 2 Mobile operator

Time: During the rush hour

Vitalya 1 takes Unit 1 to the X-Ray.

Vitalya 2 catches Unit 2, takes him to the X-Ray.

Mobile operator operates frames while Vitalya 1, 2 are busy. Mobile operator can also go to the X-Ray, because Vitalya 1 will come back.

Conclusion Vitalya 1, 2 need to be trained to identify potential threads by “reading” faces.

Turnstile worker has to be trained as Vitalya 1, 2 to be able to substitute frame operators (research needed).

scenario

07

Participants: • • • •

Turnstile worker (at her post) Policeman (at his post) Vitalya 1 Vitalya 2

Time: Not during the rush hour

Vitalya 1 leaves his workplace because of urgent issues. Vitalya 2 operate the frames.

In the case, if Unit came, Vitalya 2 take Unit to X-Ray. Frames are unattended.

Turnstile worker substitute Vitalya 2, (1) at the frames.

Conclusion Turnstile worker has to be qualified. Mobile operator is needed for brakes and rush hour.

scenario

67

08

Participants: • • • •

Turnstile worker (at her post) Policeman Vitalya 1 Vitalya 2

Time: Anytime

Policeman caught Unit, 2 witnesses are needed.

Vitalya 1 leaves his workplace to be witness, Policeman take one more from the crowd. They (4 person) go away.

Only Vitalya 2 on workplace at the frames, Turnstile worker have to help Vitalya 2.

Conclusion Only Vitalya 2 on workplace at the frames, Turnstile worker have to help Vitalya 2.

shifts scheme calculation

PROTOTYPING

05:00 - 06:00 06:00 - 07:00 07:00 - 08:00 08:00 - 09:00 09:00 - 10:00 10:00 - 11:00 11:00 - 12:00 12:00 - 13:00 13:00 - 14:00 14:00 - 15:00 15:00 - 16:00 16:00 - 17:00 17:00 - 18:00 18:00 - 19:00 19:00 - 20:00 20:00 - 21:00 21:00 - 22:00 22:00 - 23:00 23:00 - 24:00 00:00 - 01:00 01:00 - 02:00 02:00 - 03:00 03:00 - 04:00 04:00 - 05:00

Shifting at the start of the hour This is a prototype of a new scheduling scheme which included Mobile Guard. But it revealed that the shifting will be all over the place even without consideration of Rush hour reinforcements and Mobile Guards’ breaks.

The team came to the conclusion that scheduling will require additional professionals or/and software solutions.

Mobile Guard is on duty Guard is on duty

69

Our attempt to calculate the shifts within the scope of one isolated station also demonstrated that if one Guard will become Mobile Guard for one shift, it is inevitable that the existing scheme: 3 Guards per position, day>night>day off — will not work and one guard will have to work 3 days in a row.

Hence, we concluded that here we also need external help with the scheduling.

DAY 1

DAY 2

DAY 3

DAY 4

DAY 5

CONCLUSION During research, we identified at least 6 areas where it is possible to vastly improve the experience of both passengers and security personnel. The team came to the conclusion that addressing the issues related to the Security Guard will be the most effective since he repeatedly resurfaced in our research. In a turn, Guards’ work can be improved in multiple ways and the most effective one is to educate them better.

Further development revealed that there are 4 ways to educate and improve the qualification of Guards. Since the team had very strict time constraints, it had to narrow down the list yet again.

Prototyping helped us to come up with the following proposals in regard to the Security check in the Moscow Underground system: 1. Better education can vastly improve the system. It is important that it has to be persistent (i.e. continue after the employee is admitted to work and go on on a regular); 2. The team recommends to improve staff schedule in three areas: a. Each entrance to the underground system has to be staffed with at least two Security Guards at any given moment; b. Right now long shifts of the Guards are extremely exhausting and negatively affect the experience of both Guards and passengers. There should be longer breaks during the shift; c. There should be a new position, a Mobile Security Guard who will through the day help to schedule the breaks on multiple stations and assist Guards during the Rush hour.

To develop new shifting system external specialists and additional tools have to be involved; d. The Turnstile Duty position is ambiguous and should be brought more in-line with the Security Guards in order of assisting the latter;

This interim conclusion should be a starting point for the next stage of research and development. This stage will even better diagnose the pain points of the security checks and will result in concrete, well-developed solutions for them.

VK for the fast communication

GCalender for the relevant schedule

Dropbox for the images and videos

GDrive for the documents

Team Management

73

TEAM MANAGEMENT

creating teamwork rules identifying team roles managing work space

Management

Emiliy-Monica Ramilison

TEAM B

Daria Meshkova Anna Novitskaya

Copywriting User experience studies

Professionals’ Experience studies

TEAM C

Dmitrii Liubimov

Final video creating

Meetings documenting Context and Market studies

Mark Osenmuk

Ksenia Semirova

TEAM A

Faina Iasen

Print layout, Presentation

Primary, secondary and field research. Analysis

Ksenia Semirova

basic principles of our team

discipline honesty confidence transparency respect commitment discipline

TEAM MANAGEMENT

meeting minutes of the project

Dmitrii Liubimov

Ksenia Semirova

It is extremely important to document every step during the project, and even more so when the teamwork is involved. It helps people to recollect the information if they forgot something and get up to speed if they have missed the meeting. For the team leader, it is an irreplaceable instrument to understand the performance of both individual members and a team as a whole.

But even more importantly, it might save a lot of time and nervous in case of a conflict or misunderstanding. Human memory is extremely unreliable and having written down all arrangements and responsibilities can save the day since the minutes of the meeting are not just written down, but also formally agreed upon by all members of a team.

15.01.2018 Attendees: Faina Iasen, Emilli Monica Ramilison, Daria Meshkova, Anna Novitskaya, Ksenia Semirova, Dmitrii Liubimov.

Approval of the agenda: Agenda is approved unanimously after its announcement.

Approval of minutes: Minutes of the last meeting approved unanimously after its’ announcement.

Minutes approved by: Ksenia Semirova, Faina Iasen, Emilli Monica Ramilison, Daria Meshkova, Anna Novitskaya.

79

Opening

New entries

Agenda of the next meeting

Regular meeting of Frames Group Started at 16:30 15.01.2018 in BHSAD by the chair Ksenia Semirova.

Further workflow in the scope of the project: 1. Daria Meshkova and Anna Novitskaya will form a team (in future Minutes might be referred as a “Team A”) and, as a team, will create questionnaires for the security detail personal (as an example of metal detector user) before the end of this working week; 2. Emilli Monica Ramilison and Faina Iasen will form a team (in future Minutes might be referred as a “Team B”) and, as a team, will create questionnaires for the non-designers before the end of this working week; 3. Dmitrii Liubimov is appointed as a secretary of the meetings; 4. Faina Iasen will film time lapses for the final video.

5. The cloud folder where members of the group will upload the material gathered during the field research will be closed on 21.01.2019. The same date the research phase will terminate.

Research results Further scheduling

Each member of the group will make a small research and presentation on one of the walk-through metal frame detectors’ manufacturers.

Closure of the meeting The meeting was closed at 17:00 by the chair Ksenia Semirova.

The time and date of the next meeting: 14:00 16.01.2019 in BHSAD.

Dmitrii Liubimov

Agenda

16.01.2018 Attendees: Faina Iasen, Mark Osenmuk, Daria Meshkova, Anna Novitskaya, Ksenia Semirova, Dmitrii Liubimov.

Approval of the agenda: Agenda is approved unanimously after its announcement.

Approval of minutes: Minutes of the last meeting approved unanimously after its’ announcement.

Minutes approved by: Ksenia Semirova, Faina Iasen, Emilli Monica Ramilison, Daria Meshkova, Anna Novitskaya, Mark Osenmuk.

81

Regular meeting of Frames Group started at 13:20 16.01.2018 in BHSAD by the chair Ksenia Semirova.

Agenda 1. Discussion of administrative and organizational issues; 2. Reports on the Metal detectors’ manufacturers: Most entries are about Russian OEM’s. The most stand-out one was

by Faina Iasen about brand-new cutting-edge security system by EvolV Technologies.

Mark Osenmuk mentioned the system Pautina that is installed in the malls; 3. Personal experience reports: Mark Osenmuk explained that the thing he irritates him the most is the fact that you need to take everything from your pockets and how poorly the tables for pockets’ content organized (also a table with a slope for better convenience has been mentioned). Faina Iasen said that the number and placement of the metal detectors in the Atrium mall doesn’t make any sense. The common themes in people’s observation that in a lot of cases Metal detectors are either not working, not being used properly or so poorly placed that they create a bottle neck by just existing.

Anna Novitskaya worked in Stadium

security in the past and, by her words, a lot of Security people don’t even know how to work with the installed and working detectors.

Agenda of the next meeting

New entries

The meeting was closed at 14:20 by the chair Ksenia Semirova. The time and date of the next meeting: 16:30 18.01.2019 in BHSAD.

Further workflow in the scope of the project: 1. Better comparative table for different Metal detectors must be developed, everyone should contribute.

2. Team A will compose an interview instead of questionnaire; 3. Each member of the group will think on 3 issues about the Metal detectors and apply the method of “5 Why’s” on these questions.

Deadline for this task is Monday, 21st of January, 2019.

4. Every member of the group should think on the interview/ questionnaire questions and present them on the next meeting.

Questionnaires

Closure of the meeting

Dmitrii Liubimov

Opening

18.01.2018 Attendees: Faina Iasen, Mark Osenmuk, Daria Meshkova, Anna Novitskaya, Ksenia Semirova, Dmitrii Liubimov, Emilli Monica Ramilison.

Approval of the agenda: Agenda is approved unanimously after its announcement.

Approval of minutes: Minutes of the last meeting approved unanimously after its’ announcement.

Minutes approved by: Ksenia Semirova, Faina Iasen, Emilli Monica Ramilison, Daria Meshkova, Anna Novitskaya, Mark Osenmuk.

83

Regular meeting of Frames Group started at 16:35 18.01.2018 in BHSAD by the chair Ksenia Semirova.

Agenda Provided information: 1. The method of 5 Why’s is best used in appliance to Problem Solving and Quality Improvements.

It also has a variation when the chain is brunching, but it’s likely to appear too complicated for this task; 2. Another system we may use is SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats).

Using this one it’s important to remember that each letter is measured in a specific way rather than just listing all Strengths and Weaknesses; Questionnaire for non-professionals.

Things to add: 1. Add questions on sex, age and occupation;

a non-insulting way to ask people if they are ones; 5. Add a question about the number of times people pass the detectors a day; 6. Add a question on how intimidating the Security guard behind the detector is; 7. Translate questioner to Russian to get a broader response; Questions for an interview for the professionals (Security industry): 1. Add a question on how much the security detail use the Metal detectors’ readings in comparison to the appearance of the suspect when they decide to stop him/ her;

New entries None

Agenda of the next meeting 1. Discussion with a client (Angus Colvin) 2. Beginning of the process of defining the problems;

Closure of the meeting The meeting was closed at 17:10 by the chair Ksenia Semirova. The time and date of the next meeting: 16:30 21.01.2019 in BHSAD.

2. Add a question on Intimidation factor — do intimidating and threatening appearance of both Metal detector and its Operator play any role in rattling the suspects to detect real threats; Deadlines:

2. Remove the word “experience” as potentially confusing;

1. Questionnaire, composition — 19 of December 2019;

interview Saturday,

3. Add a question on efficiency of Metal detectors (as if they feel safer);

2. Pictures — Sunday (the folder on Dropbox will be closed on Tuesday);

4. Think on the stick-out and atypical people — if there is

3. Questionnaire execution — Friday, 25 of December 2019;

Dmitrii Liubimov

Opening

21.01.2019 Attendees: Faina Iasen, Mark Osenmuk, Daria Meshkova, Anna Novitskaya, Ksenia Semirova, Dmitrii Liubimov, Angus Colvin.

Approval of the agenda: Agenda is approved unanimously after its announcement.

Approval of minutes: Minutes of the last meeting approved unanimously after its’ announcement.

Minutes approved by: Ksenia Semirova, Faina Iasen, Emilli Monica Ramilison, Daria Meshkova, Anna Novitskaya, Mark Osenmuk.

85

Regular meeting of Frames Group started at 10:40 21.01.2018 in BHSAD by the chair Ksenia Semirova.

Agenda Ksenia Semirova debriefs Angus Colvin on work that’s already done. Angus Colvin approves our efforts, recommends to proceed to the ideation stage — like brainstorming and playing out scenarios.

Angus Colvin announces new deadlines — February 1st for the presentation and February 4th for the group labbook submission.

No final physical prototype is expected.

All members of the group are reporting on the “5 why’”s. Main and common sentiments: 1. The men behind the Metal Detectors’ are as, if not more, important as the devices themselves; 2. These men (referenced in the future as “Frame operator”) are under a huge amount of stress and redirect their frustration towards the public; 3. The technology in the widespread Metal Detectors’ models is subpar — it restricts how they can be installed; what materials can be detected and how precisely they can be detected; 4. Metal Detectors are frequently poorly set-up: the high-pitch noise annoying people around and their sensors can barely

detect anything since they work in a wrong mode; 5. Is perceived safety as high as real safety and if no, how can we manipulate it in order to ease up this point of fatigue.

6. Are Metal Detectors in their current form really necessary for the safety?

7. Sometimes Metal Detectors create bottlenecks for the people — in a rush hour in Moscow Underground it’s pretty much their only function (intentional); 8. Metal Detectors do not eliminate the threats that will go off right in front the Safety Theatre; Daria Meshkova found the statistics of how many terrorist acts has happened in Russia since the Metal Detectors were installed in most public spaces. She has also mentioned that, according to the news sources, Israel backpedals on their policy of technology’s role increasement and downscale scanning technology in order to increase human’s role in threat detection.

The areas of ideation that we the group decided to pursue: 1. Frame operator 2. Perceived safety 3. Technology and its appliance 4. Metal detectors’ tuning, positioning and appearance 5. Efficiency of the walk-through metal detector in its current form and in general

Semirova walks Angus through the stuff that has been done by the group on this day. After that Angus Colvin asks people about the roles and if people understand them clearly.

Angus Colvin recommends splitting the jobs that no one wants to do (like the group did with the Market Research).

He also raises the question that as the creative field will narrow down it will be harder to utilize all 7 people equally and that management, while strict in administrative questions, should keep things more equal when it comes to creative processes.

New entries 1. Dasha should make a time-lapse on the stadium; 2. Faina should make a time-lapse on metro; 3. Sketches for the scenarios as an outcome should be nice. Faina said that she and Monica can do it;

Agenda of the next meeting 1. Finalization of the ideation stage (based on the new research input and current ideation statements); 2. Experimentation stage (if there will be enough time)

Closure of the meeting The meeting was closed at 16:25 by the chair Ksenia Semirova. The time and date of the next meeting: 14:00 23.01.2019 in BHSAD.

After the lunch the group has another meeting with Angus Colvin. Ksenia

Dmitrii Liubimov

Opening

23.01.2019 Attendees: Faina Iasen, Daria Meshkova, Anna Novitskaya, Ksenia Semirova, Dmitrii Liubimov.

Approval of the agenda: Agenda is approved unanimously after its announcement.

Approval of minutes: Minutes of the last meeting approved unanimously after its’ announcement.

Minutes approved by: Ksenia Semirova, Faina Iasen, Emilli Monica Ramilison, Daria Meshkova, Anna Novitskaya, Mark Osenmuk.

87

Opening

Closure of the meeting

Regular meeting of Frames Group started at 14:00 23.01.2018 in BHSAD by the chair Ksenia Semirova.

The meeting was closed at 15:00 by the chair Ksenia Semirova. The time and date of the next meeting: 10:30 25.01.2019 in BHSAD.

Agenda Ksenia puts emphasis on importance of the deadlines.

Faina debriefs the group on the interview with the Metal detector operator she has conducted. He explained the structure of the Security system and how the Metal detector itself works, including the Rush Hour situation and the Chemical Analysis device.

A lot of people are concerned about the technological limitations, but Ksenia asks people to remember that the technology is out there, and as designers we should use it in our ideas.

New entries The group chose the area of ideation — Staff, the Metal detector operator, and his/her behavior; Daria will write a scenario for the video;

Agenda of the next meeting

Dmitrii Liubimov

Ideation process, experiments;

25.01.2019 Attendees: Faina Iasen, Ksenia Semirova, Dmitrii Liubimov, Mark Osenmuk, Emilli Monica Ramilison. Daria Meshkova and Anna Novitskaya were assigned to go to Sheremetevo airport.

Approval of the agenda: Agenda is approved unanimously after its announcement.

Approval of minutes: Minutes of the last meeting approved unanimously after its’ announcement.

Minutes approved by: Ksenia Semirova, Faina Iasen, Emilli Monica Ramilison, Daria Meshkova, Anna Novitskaya, Mark Osenmuk.

89

5. Learned about Story board, Desktop walkthrough techniques and received Opportunity card drafts.

sides of the work that has been done – for example, if the amount of people who’ve done the questionnaire is low, we should talk less about an absolute number and more about the statistics.

It is also vastly important to stick to third person or passive voice in the research reports.

Dmitrii Liubimov will make a separate page with pictures of the Detectors so the client will have more visual information.

The group unanimously approved the Labbook layout presented by Ksenia Semirova.

Due to the shortage of time, the group decided to have a Skype conference call on Saturday (26th of January 2019) at 18:00 to develop User profile and User mapping for the Metal detector Operator. The group will also use this call to come up with at least one idea (preferably, a hardware solution) based on the said profile and mapping.

Working meeting:

New entries

Ksenia debriefs the team on the importance of ethics and culture during the group projects and in the future, in real life situations. It is also very important to keep the team leader well-informed, since he/she is the one who will get all the flak from the higher-ups.

Each group member should write an evaluation on the team work (around 300-400 words).

Regular meeting of Frames Group started at 16:35 25.01.2018 in BHSAD by the chair Ksenia Semirova.

Agenda The things the group has done during the work day: 1. Developed a profile of a person who goes through the Metal detectors on the regular; 2. Developed User mapping for the said person; 3. Identified the weak spots and wrote statements based on them; 4. Generated number of ideas and made an attempt to develop one scenario through the Story board technique;

In communicating with the client it is better to put emphasis on the strong

Monday (28th): 1. Present reports to Angus Colvin; 2. Present profiles and mappings to Angus Colvin; 3. Develop solutions based on the statements and/or prototype them;

Closure of the meeting The meeting was closed at 17:10 by the chair Ksenia Semirova. The time and date of the next meeting: 18:00 26.01.2019 in BHSAD.

Agenda of the next meeting Saturday (26th): 1. Security personnel profile, mapping; 2. Idea generation based on them;

Dmitrii Liubimov

Opening

26.01.2019 Attendees: Faina Iasen, Ksenia Semirova, Dmitrii Liubimov, Mark Osenmuk, Emilli Monica Ramilison, Daria Meshkova.

Approval of the agenda: Agenda is approved unanimously after its announcement.

Approval of minutes: Minutes of the last meeting approved unanimously after its’ announcement.

Minutes approved by: Ksenia Semirova, Faina Iasen, Emilli Monica Ramilison, Daria Meshkova, Anna Novitskaya, Mark Osenmuk.

91

Opening

Agenda of the next meeting

Regular meeting of Frames Group started at 18:00 26.01.2018 in Skype by the chair Ksenia Semirova.

1. Group members should bring more statements on the next meeting; 2. Group members should finish their respective reports and upload them to the Google Drive folder before 12:00 Sunday, 27th of December;

Daria Meshkova debriefs the group on the information Team A gathered from their sources. Security really craves better precision from the Metal detectors, it might help them a lot. Every security guy in the airport comes to work early, goes through the daily tests and check the conditions of the hardware before the working day begins.

There are two different special zones where individual inspections take place – one for personal inspections (performed by the staff member of the same sex) and one for the inspections of the personal belongings. There are standard regulations in place on how the security guys are meant to behave during the personal inspections.

Usually there is one guard who’s reading the Walk-through detector’s readings and two person who work on the X-ray. Security equipment is similar and similarly calibrated at the entrance and on pre-flight security check.

After that the group profiled and mapped a Metro station security guard.

Closure of the meeting The meeting was closed at 20:35 by the chair Ksenia Semirova. The time and date of the next meeting: 10:30 28.01.2019 in BHSAD.

Dmitrii Liubimov

Agenda

28.01.2019 Attendees: Faina Iasen, Ksenia Semirova, Dmitrii Liubimov, Mark Osenmuk, Emilli Monica Ramilison, Daria Meshkova, Anna Novitskaya.

Approval of the agenda: Agenda is approved unanimously after its announcement.

Approval of minutes: Minutes of the last meeting approved unanimously after its’ announcement.

Minutes approved by: Ksenia Semirova, Faina Iasen, Emilli Monica Ramilison, Daria Meshkova, Anna Novitskaya, Mark Osenmuk.

93

Regular meeting of Frames Group started at 10:30 28.01.2018 in BHSAD by the chair Ksenia Semirova.

Agenda Recollection of the information and tasks from the last two meetings Group meets with Angus Colvin and debriefs him on the things that has been done since the last meeting.

It has been approved that the group should continue brainstorming and idea generation today.

The group (except Ksenia Semirova and Daria Meshkova) performs a brainstorming session on the Metal detector operator’s User mapping.

Based on this session, few areas of ideation have been formed: Teambuilding; 1. Improvement of guards’ perceived self-importance and prestige; 2. Psychological help and general life improvement programme; 3. Reward system, built on an app and a unified data-base for both guards and passengers; 4. Make it easier to get promoted, move within organization itself or on the similar position in different organizations;

5. Improve the system behind the shifts and their planning; Group voted for the direction that it shell pursue and chosen the last one as the result. Voting split: 1. Ksenia Semirova, Mark Osenmuk, Dmitrii Liubimov: 6 2. Emilli Monica Ramilison, Faina Iasen, Anna Novitskaya: 4 and 6 Number 6 won the vote.

During brainstorming session Daria Meshkova and Ksenia Semirova worked on the plan of a group video for the submission).

Group has a second meeting with Angus Colvin and debriefs him on the work that has been done today.

Angus Colvin approves group’s effort and recommends to research Guardian Angels from New-York City underground.

After the meeting with Angus Colvin group creates two new journey map — with the consideration of the new shift system, where a socalled “Relief operator” plays key role. Maps are promising, show huge increase in Guard’s mood. Based on these maps, group tries to find weak spots and create threats to the perfect scenarios.

New entries 1. Daria Meshkova will write text for the group video on Tuesday (29.01.2019); 2. Group will discuss the said text and record the video interview on Wednesday (30.01.2019); 3. Daria Meshkova will compose it on Thursday (31.01.2019); 4. Dmitrii Liubimov will make schemes for the new shift system on Tuesday (29.01.2019); 5. All group members will think on the possible threats to the latest User Journey’s.

Agenda of the next meeting Working on the scenarios;

Closure of the meeting The meeting was closed at 17:25 by the chair Ksenia Semirova. The time and date of the next meeting: 16:30 29.01.2019 in BHSAD.

Dmitrii Liubimov

Opening

29.01.2019 Attendees: Ksenia Semirova, Dmitrii Liubimov, Daria Meshkova, Anna Novitskaya.

Approval of the agenda: Agenda is approved unanimously after its announcement.

Approval of minutes: Minutes of the last meeting approved unanimously after its’ announcement.

Minutes approved by: Ksenia Semirova, Faina Iasen, Emilli Monica Ramilison, Daria Meshkova, Anna Novitskaya, Mark Osenmuk.

95

Regular meeting of Frames Group started at 15:40 29.01.2018 in BHSAD by the chair Ksenia Semirova.

4.

5.

Agenda The group has performed desktop walkthrough on the example of lobby of one station. A lot of problems and weaknesses have been realized: 1. It is impossible to assume that the Policeman will always help the Guard. They belong to the different chains of command and their nature of cooperation is unclear; 2. The Turnstiles Lady is a vital part of the whole system. She spends a good part of his day catching fare dodgers while it should be her priority to help the guard and replace him on Metal detectors if he goes to the X-ray machine and can’t monitor the detectors’ reads; 3. The Guard should have better qualification, since Metal detectors are useless during the Rush hours. There is no time to check each person with backpack/luggage with a handheld metal detector, so the Guard should be able to detect suspicious people by themselves.

Additional training in form

6.

7.

of a game will be welcome in the Resting area; The Turnstile Lady should have qualification like the Guard; Two people should manage the Metal detector zone at any given moment; Relief operator should come not just to help the Guards during their breaks, but also come at Rush hours to make their work easier and more effective; To calculate the complicated system of shifts additional tools and specialists have to be involved;

New entries Dmitrii Liubimov should write a conclusion for the whole project on Wednesday;

Agenda of the next meeting Recording of the interview; Finalization of the outcome;

Closure of the meeting The meeting was closed at 17:15 by the chair Ksenia Semirova. The time and date of the next meeting: 14:00 30.01.2019 in BHSAD.

Dmitrii Liubimov

Opening

30.01.2019 Attendees: Faina Iasen, Ksenia Semirova, Dmitrii Liubimov, Mark Osenmuk, Emilli Monica Ramilison, Daria Meshkova, Anna Novitskaya.

Approval of the agenda: Agenda is approved unanimously after its announcement.

Approval of minutes: Minutes of the last meeting approved unanimously after its’ announcement.

Minutes approved by: Ksenia Semirova, Faina Iasen, Emilli Monica Ramilison, Daria Meshkova, Anna Novitskaya, Mark Osenmuk.

97

Opening Regular meeting of Frames Group started at 14:10 30.01.2018 in BHSAD by the chair Ksenia Semirova.

Agenda Ksenia Semirova reports that she has recieved Feedbacks from every member of a team in a timely manner.

After that, the group splits — Dmitrii Liubimov and Ksenia Semirova work on Conclusion, while the rest of the people start filming the interviews for the video. Later, Dmitrii Liubimov joins them and gets his interview recorded.

Dmitrii Liubimov composes the final version of the Conclusion based on the draft that has been written earlier. At the same time, the rest of the people work on the recreation of the scenarios that have been played out during the yesterday’s session of Desktop walkthrough (in order to properly document and depict the process for the client).

3. Mark Osenmuk, Emilli Monica Ramilison and Anna Novitskaya should complete the process of documenting the scenarios; On the last day (Thursday, 31st of January, 2019) before the presentation: 1. Faina Iasen should be on duty as copyrighter and proofreader; 2. Ksenia Semirova should be working on labbook, presentation; 3. Rest of the team should be on stand-by, ready to help; There is no next meeting planned aside from the presentation of Friday (1st of February, 2019) since the group has finished the task.

Closure of the meeting The meeting was closed at 18:15 by the chair Ksenia Semirova.

New entries

Dmitrii Liubimov

1. Dmitrii Liubimov should record audio files for an intro and an outro for the video and send them to Daria Meshkova on Wednesday’s night; 2. Daria Meshkova should compose a final video on Thursday;

TEAM MANAGEMENT

Ksenia Semirova

teamwork evaluations

This group project to me was a twice harder than others before. I was assigned as a team leader that meant double effort and triple responsibility.

Furthermore, there were seven of us. Each one with a strong personality and vision what and how is right. I did not ask this role, but I decided to perceive it as a personal challenge both as a young design professional and as a former manager.

First of all, I explained my vision of effective teamwork to my team-mates. Especially, I highlighted the significance and necessity of discipline.

All the time I heard jokes about that, but, honestly, a joke is better than a missed deadline. To me, it was important to build honest, respectful and transparent relationships between team members. At the same time, each of us must understand

that collaboration was a core for effective performance.

Some of us studied new work approaches and others tried to find out that seven people in the team are not a sentence.

Also, the discovery of boring writing tasks and almost daily meetings have come to the fore.

It is not true to say that we had a 100% smooth teamwork processes. It is definitely true that team was tried to perform their best. For these three weeks, we learned not only some facts about security system of Moscow metro or the attitude for safety by government and business. Most importantly, we discovered the definition of a truly effective team, and I hope will utilize this knowledge.

Going into this project I had mixed feelings concerning the team, precisely the amount of members in it. The maximum team members I’ve had before was 4 and I perceive myself more of an individualist when it comes to working. So I was quite anxious about having to compromise and cooperate with 6 other people.

And I have to admit it was hard at first for me to adjust to other members’ ways of working and expressing their ideas, but with time I got more and more comfortable with the team, we’ve found our flow — much thanks to Ksenia’s brilliant leadership skills and every member’s desire to contribute — and went head and shoulders into the work. I don’t think I’ve ever produced such solid research documentation and analysis in such a short period of time. Many of the techniques I’ve learned I will continue to use in the future, seeing as I’ve already used the profiling method for the Brand project with Stepa.

I think this short and intense project was exactly what I needed to get more out of limits built by myself: fears of teamwork and cooperative contribution. I do want to especially recognize Ksenia’s steel balls for putting up with us and guiding us to the right tracks. As well as every member’s input and efforts — at the end it was a pleasure to work with this team in the scope of this project. It changed a lot of the views I had on group works, leadership and other people’s potentials.

Emilli Monica Ramilison

Faina Iasen

Dmitrii Liubimov This group project was very intense, and, in the end of the day, it went much better than I expected. Most of the team has been very involved from the very beginning of the project, thanks to our Team leader, who has been instrumental to our progress and orchestrated our work very well.

In my opinion, it could be useful to incorporate some sort of physical prototyping (body storming, desktop walkthrough etc.) on earlier stages.

The Desktop walkthrough that we did in a last couple of days was a breakthrough, in my opinion.

On the other hand, I attribute are relative success in the scope of the brief to the strict structure of our work and clear division of it into stages. Despite it, we stumbled a little bit because some sessions were practically lost thanks to the external factors we had no power over.

On the sessions themselves the discipline was good enough, but it could be even better, in which case we could do more in the same amount of time. Deadlines were mostly respected by the members of the team and materials/reports etc.

At the very beginning of a project, I was very worried about the lineup of the team: I never worked with two team members, and our leader scared me a little with her hyper responsibility. But now, when the project is finished, I understand that it was almost an ideal experience of teamwork for me. All members of the team are working smoothly and were doing their best, the leader assigns roles and taking into account the wishes of each of us, and the team in turn tries not to screw up and perform all what we’ve promised.

Yes, I will not hide the fact that at the beginning of a project the team of such a large number of people irritated me and scared at the same time, because I always have a fear that I will let the team down or that other members will treat the project differently from me. But for me it was a great experience in terms of team support (when I got sick, for example, the team still tried to bring me up to date, explain some points and give the opportunity to do something useful for the team) and work under a clear guidance in the design process.

I liked the fact that the team works very effectively together, that each member can express themselves in something and speak on any occasion as all our opinions are valuable.

At the end of the project, I still have a little fear that I didn’t do enough for the team, as I missed three days of hard work during my illness. But I tried to do my best and compensate for it by working at home and then participating in the life of the team.

In General, I consider myself a person who does not know how to work under someone’s leadership, but this time I did not feel much pressure and therefore it was easier to work than I expected. I hope I will have an opportunity to work with those people again!

Within the framework of this project, it was necessary to make a deep multidirectional primary and secondary research and use different creative methodic, but the project was headed by team work. The team consisted of 7 people. In order to organize and increase the productivity of such a number of people, it was necessary to appoint the chief, and also partially differentiate the duties of the team members.

Based on personal experience, our teamwork, although it was not perfect, however, was at a high enough level, in my opinion due to the organization and competence of our head Ksenia. In the course of numerous general discussions, its leadership has allowed us to avoid significant losses of time and unpromising wanderings.

The distribution of responsibilities, scheduling meetings and stages of research and idea development, as well as setting specific tasks and outlining possible directions on the way to the goal, all these components were organized at a high level, it also concerns the creation of a permanent motivational background that sets the mood of teamwork. Despite certain difficulties and obstacles related to the complexity of the chosen topic, delays in the cooperation of information caused by objective reasons or other factors, for example, my lack of professionalism regarding the deadlines set, the project was successful, without any irreversible timing. The team members showed themselves accordingly, showing respect and understanding for each other, each was in conditions in which he could express his point of view and be heard, which ultimately, during the discussion, allowed the team to come to a compromise or solidarity regarding questions posed. In my opinion, this experience allowed us to better understand and feel the importance of harmonious and harmonious teamwork, especially in the context of a relatively large team.

The design team for work on this project was chosen spontaneously.

Who came on the first day of study, those people were united in one group.

Our team consisted of seven people, seven different personalities, each of us was good in our way. As during this project we needed to work as a professional design team, we designated roles in our group. In my opinion, our team leader was perfect.

From the very beginning, team leader (Ksenia) chose the tactics on which we worked. There were established dates for different stages of work.

In my opinion, most of the team members have been very involved from the very beginning of the project.

Though periodically we delayed terms of delivery of the duties it to us did not prevent to conduct excellent research.

Sometimes our views and opinions were different and because of these disputes in the group were born, yet they lasted not long. Arguments well influenced us as we had more topics to discuss and ideas to get inspired from. However, work in a big team affected the results. The problem of missing deadlines led us to the fact that the final topic was revealed very late and we had a small amount of time to create the design solution.

Anna Novitskaya

Daria Meshkova

Mark Osenmuk

101

I think that as a team we performed well. Every team member contributed to the project when we had separated tasks and everyone showed the level of responsibility and professionalism.

Regarding team work I think that we managed to collaborate with each other like if we were a professional design team, we used different techniques for brainstorming, ideation and idea development which were based on a deep research we conducted in previous stage.

Obviously, our working process did not flow perfectly, we had some problems with time management since we finished almost all the tasks with 1 day delay from assigned deadlines. Also, since we have chosen quite a complex topic , which would require conducting deep research into multiple areas that are specific, we did not manage to make any “rendered” outcome, because as we tested different scenarios, we kept finding new problems which we could possibly find a solution for by conducting more research that we were not able to do due to time constraints.

video

103

BHSAD | 2019