LENK - Process Report

PROBLEM PRIORITIZING SERVICE A System for Quantifying Commuter Perception

Process Report

Abstract The purpose of this project has been to design a service system related to public transportation in the Copenhagen area.

Research and data collection initiated the process, and early on we narrowed down our focus to the S-train network and the commuters’ perception of maintenance and atmosphere in the stations.

Through triangulation of methods we investigated how DSB, BD and the surrounding municipalities take commuters’ opinions into account, and how they manage their own priorities.

We wanted to create a service that could answer the following problem statement: How can S-train stations be better maintained in the Copenhagen area? How can the priorities of all stakeholders be better aligned?

Project group no.: 4

Master Programme: Service Systems Design

Members:

Semester: 1st semester

Lara Clare Casciola

Title: Problem Prioritizing Service - A System for Quantifying Commuter Perception Project Period: 12th September 2014 – 22nd December 2014

Esben Grøndal

Semester Theme: The System Around the Product Supervisors: Nicola Morelli and Amalia de Götzen

Nea Alina Annika Kosonen

Katharina Maria Stark

Aalborg University Copenhagen A.C. Meyers Vænge 2450 København SV, Denmark Semester Coordinator: Amalia de Götzen Secretary: Judi Stærk Poulsen Copies: 3 Pages: 100 Finished: 11th December 2014

Copyright © This report and/or appended material may not be partly or completely published or copied without prior written approval from the authors. Neither may the contents be used for commercial purposes without this written approval.

3

Term Definitions S-train: Copenhagen’s urban rail system, consisting of 85 stations and both above-ground and in-tunnel rails.

S-train station: Platform and surrounding buildings, staircases and premises.

Copenhagen area: The municipality of Copenhagen and the surrounding boroughs and suburbs where the S-trains operates.

Commuter: Regular traveler and user of the S-trains in the Copenhagen area.

Maintenance: The process of maintaining or preserving something, in this case the S-train stations. We define this to include cleaning, repairing, and upgrading.

Abbreviations DSB: Danske Statsbaner BD: Banedanmark GM: Gentofte municipality SERS: Station Evaluation Rating System

4

Table of contents Introduction Learning goals Methodology Project Management Project context Problem Definition Initial Problem Statement Division of DSB and BD Project Limitations Case Study

6 7 8 10 12 14 16 17 18 18

Service Development Process 19 Online Presence and Feedback Channels 22 Existing Services 23 Maintenance Issues at S-train Stations in Copenhagen Area 24 Perception of S-train Network and Maintenance 26 Commuter Perception 26 Organizational Points of View: An Interview-Based Exploration 28 Stakeholder Map 30 Summarized Findings 32 Final Problem Statement 33 Defining Problem Areas 34 Preliminary Solution 36

Preliminary Ideation 36 Preliminary System Map 38 Preliminary User Journey 39 Solution Development 40 Actors: Content Providers and Controllers 40 Touchpoints 42 First backLENK Concept 42 First frontLENK Concept 42 Awareness Test with Tags 44 MIT’s Place Pulse and CPH’s Urban Puls 45 Target Users 46 Age Group 46 Target Group on Social Media 46 Commuter Critical Factors 47 Custom-Developed Program 47 Goal-Directed Personas 48 Final Concept 50 Solution Refinement 52 App Interaction 52 Flow Charts 53 Design of Interface 55 Engagement Testing 56

FrontLENK Touchpoint Testing backLENK Concept Motivational Considerations

59 60 61

LENK concept Description of LENK Motivational Matrix Role Personas Scenarios Interface description Lean Model Canvas Blueprint Service Outcomes

62 63 64 65 66 68 74 75 78

Discussion Validity of Data and Methods Further Research Expanding LENK DSB Clean Campaign

80 80 81 82 83

Conclusion Reflections on Group Work Reflections on Learning Goals

84 84 85

References

87

Appendices Appendix 1: Press release from DSB Appendix 2: SERS-survey Appendix 3: SERS-survey results Appendix 4: Narrative shadowing results (Appendix 5: Interviews, CD) Appendix 6.1: Version 1 Engagement test results Appendix 6.2: Version 1 Engagement test quotes Appendix 6.3: Version 2 Engagement test results Appendix 6.4: Version 2 Engagement test quotes

88 88 89 90 93

95 96 97 98

5

Introduction

This report is a result of a semester project by students from the master study in Service Systems Design at Aalborg University Copenhagen. Our group consists of four students, all with different study backgrounds, such as industrial design, media and communications, and aesthetics and culture.

This project was done for the module titled The System Around The Product, with the theme of ‘transportation’. Our group focused on public transportation and specially the S-train network operating in Copenhagen area, one of the biggest components of the city’s public transit system. We explored maintenance in the S-train stations, and investigated whether commuters could be dynamically involved in this.

This report will show our iterative design and research process, culminating in a validated service concept. We will write about the process informally from the researchers’ perspective.

6

Learning goals After examining the course description, we selected learning goals which we as a group felt were particularly important. In addition to this we have unanimously decided upon some further learning goals to pursue.

Our personal learning goals will elaborate on (Aalborg University 2012): “Must be able to apply appropriate methods and tools to organise sequences of events and interactions in a service.”

“Must be able to analyse the products’ interplay with users and take into consideration and account for the contextual circumstances that necessitate a particularly active behaviour and analysis.”

as well as introduce several new themes.

To understand an organization from both the service providers’ and other actors’ points of view, with the goal of designing better services for front-end and back-end users.

To understand emotional effects of two-way interaction between user and service at different touchpoints, in order to be able to capitalize on and manipulate these emotions.

“Must be able to synthesise technical, time and interaction related, social and cultural aspects into To explore the relationship between ownership a design proposal.” and access (e.g. commuters are allowed to access the station, but may not feel ownership towards “Must be able to design products and services it). In conjunction with this, we also want to integrating technical and user aspects through investigate perceptions of a publicly-owned proposal-making (synthesis) and assess their company like DSB, and how this affects userintegration.” provider relationships.

To integrate the technological tools we have available (e.g. our introduction to sketch programming) to prototype, and therefore test To collaborate effectively with stakeholders.

Aalborg University. “Curriculum for the Master’s Programme in Service Systems Design.” (n.d.): 9-10. 29 Apr. 2012.

7

Methodology

Understand We have employed an agile, iteration-centric approach in our design process, inspired by IDEO’s design thinking model. This model is made up of six highly interconnected, repeating steps. These steps are: understand, encourage designers to go back and revisit steps at all stages (Ratcliffe, 2009). This reduces complacency and paints a clearer picture of the design process as a dynamic method of evolving solutions.

speculation revolving around our problem statement. At various stages throughout the process we used this step to clarify the factors involved in solution development.

Method of thinking: divergent + explorative (IDEO, 2012) Tools: Discussions and brainstorming Triangulation of different data sources Exploration of related services Academic research

IDEO. Design Thinking for Educators Toolkit. 2nd ed. N.p.: IDEO, 2012. IDEO LLC. Web. 29 Sept. 2014.

8

Observe In this phase we conducted user-centered real-world research by using different kinds of tools. This helped us to establish the context of the project.

Method of thinking: convergent + empathetic (IDEO, 2012) Tools: Observations and shadowing Interviews Distributed data-gathering (social network exploration)

times, synthesised from the preceding steps.

From the wide array of potential focus areas this step forced us to insightfully narrow down to a Method of thinking: convergent + analytical (IDEO, 2012) Tools: Discussions and brainstorming

Ratcliffe, Jim (Ed.). “Steps in a Design Thinking Process.” The K12 Lab Wiki. N.p., 01 Aug. 2009. Web. 29 Sept. 2014.

Ideate

Prototype

Test

In this phase we proposed solutions for the

In this phase the proposed solution was made tangible through a variety of means, with the goal of creating a testable concept to facilitate

In this step concepts were tested with realworld users, and feedback was used to inform improvements.

and prototype steps, informed by occasional need-based steps back into the research phases.

Method of thinking: divergent + creative (IDEO, 2012) Tools: Discussions and think-aloud Brainstorming Storytelling Card sorting Unlimited association

Method of thinking: convergent + creative (IDEO, 2012) Tools: Visualized service schematics Role-playing Paper GUI and interaction prototypes Interactive digital prototype (processing)

Method of thinking: divergent + analytical (IDEO, 2012) Tools: User interviews Contextual user observation Data collection and analysis Design probe

9

Project Management

To meet this project’s deadline, we needed to limit the iterative nature of the six step method.

To do this, we employed a system of macro and micro organization, with micro processes repeated as required and macro processes linked more closely to the traditional ‘waterfall’ project model found in the book “Managing iterative processes” (Cotterell & Hughes, 2009). Macro process deadlines are shown in the following plan, with their iterative micro-processes

Scrum method (Schwaber & Sutherland, 2013) to follow this timeline. We created a Scrum board containing a ‘backlog’, ‘to-do’, ‘in-progress’, and ‘done’ column. At the beginning of each macro section detailed in the timeline we added notes to the backlog detailing tasks that needed to be done to complete that project phase. We did not use a Product Owner or a Scrum Master, instead Tasks were assigned through group discussion as they were moved from the ‘to-do’ column the criteria for moving a task to the ‘done’ column at the beginning of each new phase.

This combination of methods allowed us a high degree of freedom to iterate, while keeping us on

10

Schwaber, Ken, and Jeff Sutherland. “The Scrum Guide.” Scrum Guide. N.p., July 2013. Web. 02 Dec. 2014. http:// www.scrumguides.org/scrum-guide.html

Cotterell, Mike, and Bob Hughes. “Managing Iterative Processes.” Software Project Management. 5th ed. London: International Thomson Computer, 2009. 99-101. Print.

Week No. FOUNDATION

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49 + 50

SOLUTION DEVELOPMENT

SOLUTION REFINEMENT

REPORT COMPILATION

Buffer time

11

Project context

This project was done for the module titled The System Around The Product, with the theme of ‘transportation’. It was a broad theme, and we narrowed it down to ‘public transportation’ early in the process based on interest. The area of Copenhagen was chosen as a base because of its convenience regarding accessibility for research, but also for it’s large range of different means of public transportation. We discussed and compared different public transportation alternatives by making a mind map.

The most interesting themes that were discussed were lateness, communication between personnel, inconsistency of maintenance, perception of public transportation overall, as well as perception of transit companies. After evaluating our options based on perceived scope and interest level, we landed on ‘inconsistency of maintenance’ as a theme for our project.

12

Transportation mind map

13

Problem Definition

theme, we continued our research. After some discussions and a visit to Sydhavn station, we understood that the platforms and waiting areas are essential parts of the commuters’ travel experience. The platforms and waiting areas provide the option to access the vehicles, to purchase tickets, see timetables and route maps, and see the departure time for the next train or bus. On average, passengers spend seven minutes at a station (van Hagen & Heilligers, 2011), time that is valued “twice to three times lower than the stay on the train” (Wardman, 2004). This points to stations as an entry-point to improving the overall S-train service.

have been viewed as areas of transition where passengers quickly change from one mode of transportation to another (van Hagen & Heilligers, 2011). Increasingly, however, stations are viewed as “dynamic town portals that not only facilitate a quick transfer” (NS, 2006 as quoted in van Hagen & Heiligers, 2011).

Emphasis is not only being placed on the utility of the station, but also the customer experience while using them (van Hagen & Heilligers, 2011).

We discussed the most important values linked to the S-train stations and the maintenance process by using mind maps.

Through research we discovered a trend of station improvement globally. Previously stations

14

van Hagen, Mark, and Mel Heilligers. “Effect of Station Improvement Measures on Customer Satisfaction.” European Transport Conference 2011. 10 Oct. 2011. Web.

Wardman, M. Public Transport Values of Time. Leeds: University of Leeds, Institute for Transport Studies, 2001. 36377. Web. NS. “Nederlandse Spoorwegen Visie op Stations. Van overstapmachine naar dynamisch stadsportaal.” 2006.

Station mind map

Maintenance mind map

15

Initial Problem Statement

Based on discussions and observation, we found some problem areas that helped us to formulate the initial problem statement. The main issues were: Commuters are not used as a resource in the maintenance process.

Feedback system feels static and lacks responsiveness.

Stations were inconsistently maintained.

By understanding the context of the chosen theme and thoroughly discussing values and problems inside it, we were able to come up with the initial problem statement:

“How can S-train stations be better maintained in the Copenhagen area?

Can commuters be dynamically involved as a resource?�

Our initial problem statement served as a foundation for our analysis.

16

Division of DSB and BD

Early in our research we discovered that the S-train network is not only maintained by DSB but also BD. This added some complexity, and to gain perspective we investigated the reasons for this division.

DSB was split in January 1997 into DSB, an operator, and BD, an infrastructure provider. The main goal of the split was to enable free competition in public transportation, to comply with EU-directive #440 from 1991. The EU-directive did not cover the S-train network, but this network was split along the same lines. The split consisted of a division of ownership of existing material. Generally, BD owned what was related to infrastructure, while DSB owned all other buildings and materials, including stations.

(Appendix 1) Representatives from both organizations have meticulously combed through all stations to agree on ownership and responsibility. These negotiations were necessary to ensure effective maintenance and division of responsibility. The stations were divided one way in terms of ownership, but through practical negotiation, responsibilities were re-allocated. Examples of guidelines include that BD owns owns everything above. Furthermore, particularly relevant to the S-train network is that DSB is in charge of passenger information, while BD is responsible for the screens and speakers to convey this.

3

Division of responsibilities at the S-train platform (DSB & Banestyrelsen 2000).

DSB & Banestyrelsen. “Bodelingskort� [Powerpoint] Received from Tommas B. Thomsen at Banedanmark. 30 Nov. 2000.

17

Project Limitations

Case Study

Several factors limited the scope of this project,

We have worked with a problem area that involves big organizations, and it has taken made later in the process. The biggest of these time to build a relationship with them and to are described below. get the interviews that we wanted. Early in the research process, we realized that interviewing Due to learning goals, the project was heavily stakeholders in all the stations in the greater focused on pure service design. Therefore, Copenhagen area was a task beyond the timeconsiderations such as business feasibility, constraints of this project. To gain a more technical structure, etc. were not heavily explored. complete picture, we decided to structure parts of our research as a case study, centering around The project itself has had its limits regarding Charlottenlund station in Gentofte municipality time and money. We have had limited resources (GM). to do prototypes and tests as desired, however this is a student project that is aimed for learning According to psychometrics expert Robert purposes.

E. Stake, in his 1995 publication The Art of DSB and BD can not legally cooperate. This is important when designing a service that doesn’t interfere with this legal requirement, but at the same time can be useful for both organizations.

With only one native Danish speaker in our group, we were limited when, for example, doing our interviews with the Danish organizations.

Case Study Research, “our time and access for we need to pick cases which are easy to get to and hospitable to our inquiry, perhaps for and with actors willing to comment on certain draft materials” (Stake, 1995: 4). In this case, Charlottenlund station was positioned well for easy access, small enough to gain a complete

Stake, Robert E. The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 1995. Print.

18

picture, and stakeholders at this station were particularly receptive to our inquiries - all important considerations. According to Stake, the most important criteria for selecting a case is “to maximize what we can learn” (ibid.).

Interviewees in DSB and BD held positions that made them stakeholders in multiple stations. Therefore, the main repercussion of our decision to engage in a case study is that only GM was considered in this–although many other municipalities are involved with the S-train network in the greater Copenhagen area.

This should be taken into consideration when for case study researchers to make assertions on a relatively small database, invoking the privilege and responsibility of interpretation” (ibid.: 12).

Service Development Process

As described, we alternated between phases, building our solution through a variety of methods. The process is detailed here in chronological order. Steps are

19

Theme: Public transportation Brainstorm: Public transportation, stations, maintenance Initial problem statement Social media: Twitter, Facebook Research: Related services, DSB & BD Academic research

SERS Narrative shadowing Interviews: DSB, BD, GM, Property renter Initial stakeholder map Affinity diagram: Problem areas Interviews: Mid-level management, on-the-ground worker Final stakeholder map Final problem statement Preliminary ideation Preliminary system map & user journey Content providers, controllers Storytelling: Touchpoint interaction First frontLENK & backLENK concepts Tag prototype

20 Tag awareness test

Tag prototype Tag awareness test Existing services: Place Pulse & Urban Puls Age group in social media Commuter critical factors Goal-directed personas Final LENK Concept, system map App interaction frontLENK, backLENK interface frontLENK, backLENK flowcharts frontLENK app version 1 Engagement test 1

frontLENK app version 2 Engagement test 2 Finalized frontLENK touchpoint backLENK concept test Motivational considerations Various descriptive tools: Final LENK concept

21

Online Presence and Feedback Channels DSB

BD

GM

Twitter: @omDSB / #omDSB / #stog / #dsb

Twitter: #Banedanmark

Facebook: facebook.com/dsb Instagram: DSB.DK / #dsbudefra / #dsbstationer YouTube: DSBofficiel Social media research table.

22

To better understand commuter perception of the S-train network, we explored the online presence and feedback channels of organizations involved. We explored the nature of feedback given to each organization, and which (if any) methods they used to reply.

with commuters, and it appears that the inquiries are taken seriously. Instagram and YouTube are also being used actively, however Twitter and Facebook are the ones being used as two-way communication channels. In addition, DSB uses their website as a channel for receiving communication from their commuters.

of the three organizations. The company uses Twitter and Facebook for instant communication

BD does not have any accounts in social media,

However, this is not actively used by commuters, because BD is not online to give answers or comments, like DSB is. BD only has a phone number and an email address that commuters and other people can use to ask questions and give feedback.

still comes across as reachable. They can also be reached by phone and email.

GM is not active in any social media. On the other hand, their website is very informative and has a live chat. Therefore, the municipality

with.

Overall, only one of the organizations is active in a meaningful way over social media.

Communication online appears limited, and the

Existing Services

To gain insight into how similar systems deal with commuter feedback, we explored other described below.

Singapore’s SMRT uses a combination of feedback systems to encourage active participation of commuters in the improvement of their journey. They use iPads located at strategic stations and a reporting system linked to the popular social network service WhatsApp. (CNA/kk, 17 Sept. 2014)

An online service originating in England, with local authorities through an online platform with an integrated app. The platform delivers reports on whether or not the reports have been addressed, and it allows for cities all over the world to sign up. (FixMyStreet.com)

As stated by Mr Alvin Kek, Vice President of Rail Operations at SMRT Trains, “SMRT remains focused and committed to improving our safety and train reliability through on-going maintenance and upgrading programmes.

However, we recognise that service initiatives are also important to provide our commuters with a positive travel experience” (ibid.).

CNA/kk. “More Customer Feedback Channels, Safety Measures Unveiled by SMRT.” Channel NewsAsia. N.p., 17 Sept.

2014. Web. 11 Nov. 2014. http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/more-customer-feedback/1366268.html

The joined Dutch-Danish engineering consultancy Grontmij has developed an app-solution that allows citizens to report maintenance issues within the community.

Citizens make reports by taking and uploading pictures. The solution is sold separately to municipalities, so these can customize them to their organization, ensuring channel-control (“Giv Et Vink!”, 2014) None of these solutions is directly applicable to maintaining the S-train due to the complex organization structure surrounding the system.

Some elements of these services were explored as components of our solution, however.

“Giv Et Vink!” Gentofte Kommune. N.d. Web. 11 Nov. 2014. http://www.gentofte.dk/da/Borger/By-og-milj%C3%B8/Giv-et-vink-2014

23

Maintenance Issues at S-train Stations in Copenhagen Area To gain an overall idea of the general maintenance issues within Copenhagen area stations, we prepared Station Evaluation Rating System (SERS). SERS helped us to get condition of S-train stations. This was essential before starting dialogue with the stakeholders, who are responsible for the maintenance of the stations. visit to Sydhavn station and the issues we had encountered there. Questions in the survey were about issues, such as the physical state of the station, the general cleanliness, vandalism and usability. We tested the survey at Sydhavn and Charlottenlund stations and revised it to cover all relevant cleaning and maintenance problems (Appendix 2). We divided 18 stations, varying in size and geographical area, between the four project group members. We also took pictures of maintenance and cleaning issues.

Through SERS, we discovered that most stations, regardless of their size and location, were not lacking cleaning. Instead we noticed many medium- and long-term maintenance issues.

These issues, such as peeling paint, dirty walls impression of the stations (Appendix 3). After going through our results we understood that we should concentrate on maintenance rather than cleaning.

24

Stations evaluated with SERS.

25

Perception of S-train Network and Maintenance

Emotions Time is valuable

Experience

Satisfiers Dissatisfiers

Comfort

Physical Effort

Ease

Mental Effort

Personal convenience

No hassle, no stress

Travel time

Speed Safety

The faster the better

Reliability

Trust Safe and secure journey, get what you expect

Quality dimensions in order of importance (van Hagen & Heilligers, 2011).

To understand the scope of the system we embarked on a thorough exploration of stakeholder viewpoints. We personally interacted with as many people as possible who have direct contact with the S-train, gathering their differing experiences to draw wide-ranging conclusions.

26

Commuter Perception To begin considering how stations can be improved, “it must be clear how passengers experience the station and what their requirements are” (van Hagen & Heilligers, 2011). Previous research has determined what aspects of their transit experience commuters value most highly.

van Hagen, Mark, and Mel Heilligers. “Effect of Station Improvement Measures on Customer Satisfaction.” European Transport Conference 2011. 10 Oct. 2011. Web.

To clarify our understanding, we combined the methods of shadowing and narrative interviewing into a hybrid method which we called ‘narrative shadowing’. “Shadowing involves researchers immersing themselves in the lives of customers [...] in order to observe their behaviour and experiences” (Stickdorn & Schneider, 2011: 156). Narrative interviewing, on the other hand, is a method that “encourages and stimulates

event” (Bauer, 1996). Based on these methods, narrative shadowing is when researchers act as observers that listen to what the interviewees have to say during the shadowing. The researcher speaks as little as possible during the session.

The reason for doing this was that we wanted to see, and hear, what commuters actually do, think

Bauer, Martin. “The Narrative Interview. Comments on a Technique for Qualitative Data Collection.” London School of Economics and Political Science 1 (2006). Oct. 2006. Web. 17 Nov. 2014. http://www.lse.ac.uk/methodology/pdf/ QualPapers/Bauer-NARRAT1SS.pdf

Girl, 24. Danish. 1 month in Copenhagen.

Girl, 24. Bulgarian. 1 month in Copenhagen.

“Sometimes I am a bit uncomfortable at Ny Ellebjerg,

“Last time when it (the station) was not so clean, there were guys who were cleaning the trash.”

end-stations when I am on my own at night.”

Girl, 24. Spanish. 1 month in Copenhagen “I don’t usually think about the stations while I’m here… my mind is usually on other things.”

Boy, 21. Vietnamese. 2 years in Copenhagen.

“Some stations look quite safe, majority of them, but I have heard from few people that Enghave station is not that safe. [...] It looks quite scary to be honest.”

Boy, 25. Danish. 5 years in Copenhagen.

“This station, I don’t like it. It’s really cold... not like, temperature, but it’s not cozy or whatever.” and feel when they take the S-train. Through stations crosses their minds at all, and if so, how this affects their behavior.

We did the narrative shadowing ‘quick-andwere chosen based on their accessibility. Before starting the session, we asked them to talk about their behaviour, thoughts and feelings through

their journey. Each of the narrative shadowings was done with one researcher from our group, and with one participant. We observed what they did, and shadowed their movements at the station and on their journey, while also listening to their narrative.

commute. They referred to stations that they were not currently situated in, which points to their understanding of the S-train network as an interconnected whole. They referred to their emotional response to their surroundings more

Commuters talked about various issues they have previously encountered during their

The results also showed us that commuters are somewhat aware of the state of the stations. If

something stands out (e.g. broken, very dirty, newly painted etc.) they will most likely notice it. However, their journeys are in large scale affected by the use of mobile phones, listening to music, being social, and just shutting out the surroundings from their thoughts. In many cases the commuters won’t think more about the problems for more than a few seconds.

(Appendix 4)

Stickdorn, Marc, and Jakob Schneider, eds. This Is Service Design Thinking. Amsterdam: BIS, 2011. Print.

27

Organizational Points of View: An Interview-Based Exploration To better understand the complexity of the S-train network, and to explore possible service directions, we attempted to gain access to the point of view of each organizational stakeholder. To do this, we conducted a series of semi-structured, in-depth interviews with various employees within each organization. The interviewees include staff at different levels of the involved organizations as well as an indirectly affected neighbour to a station, in order to get contextual information. Below are summaries of the various interviews, highlighting important information gathered after speaking to each person.

Henrik, Gentofte Municipality in the ‘Roads’ department in GM. He informed us that it is actually not him we should be talking to about our project, as it is technically the jurisdiction of ‘Plans and Projects’. He has, charge of, station maintenance for some time.

Reference:

28

He talked about how the municipality is using an app-based service bought from previously mentioned Grontmij, that enables citizens to report on maintenance issues they notice in the city. The municipality will soon begin a large scale campaign to encourage use of the service.

They acknowledge that getting people to use the system is one of the greatest challenges to implementing it. (Appendix 5.1 - CD) In a follow up conversation, Henrik emphasized that the collaboration between the three organizations is gaining traction in a quite positive way, but that the process is still ongoing.

Helle, DSB Maintenance was with Helle, head of the maintenance section. in touch with Nicholas, head of properties and maintenance. When he realized we were more interested in every-day maintenance, we got encouraged to speak directly to Helle instead as she is less involved with overall strategy. Through the process of getting in contact with her, we became aware of the clear division within DSB between cleaning and maintenance.

Helle informed us about an increased regularity of meetings between DSB and BD, and that the relationship has been improving in recent years. Both organizations recognize a shared responsibility in S-train station maintenance.

She emphasized that the current state of responsibilities is slightly disorganized, and recognized a need for greater collaboration.

When asked her opinion on the Grontmijdeveloped service used in GM, Helle told us that DSB were not interested in having a mobile application because they were afraid that it (Appendix 5.2 - CD)

René, Bike Smith In order to get a more complete picture of the cleaning and maintenance procedures, we approached a neighbour to Charlottenlund station who has recent experience with renting property from DSB. His experience of a collaboration between the three responsible organizations was not positive, but his grievances were not directly related to this

project’s focus. His interview did give us a richer understanding of the stakeholder map, although he could not provide information about the collaboration between the organizations. lack of thoroughness in the maintenance work in the area surrounding his shop. His contact person within DSB was unable or unwilling to communicate his grievances, so he ultimately cancelled his lease based on these complaints.

(Appendix 5.3 - CD)

Tommas, BD Maintenance telephone or via email. Eventually we approached BD’s reception directly and asked who we should talk to. We got directed to head of station maintenance in BD, Tommas, and he gave us an interview.

Tommas informed us that BD has outsourced their maintenance work to a third-party provider named Forstas. He is in direct contact with managers at Forstas, as well as with Helle and statement that the DSB and BD have a high

level of communication and try to synchronize their work. Most of the communication is done at a high level, however. Tommas thought that workers from different organizations working within the same station rely on undocumented ‘gentlemen’s agreements’ to smooth out the most illogical divides. Tommas stated that there is currently no co-operation between BD and the municipalities. He pointed out that Forstas’ workers only have a commitment to BD and therefore are motivated only to complete BDassigned tasks.

Tommas stressed that for the most part they cannot act in response to customer enquiry, because cleaning is part of a pre-organized, static routine. It would come at a high cost to require Forstas to move out to smaller incidents.

Tommas would like the commuters to have more faith in the organizations involved in the S-train, and trust them to get their job done. He feels that there is a lot of negativity in the feedback BD receives from commuters. Most feedback for BD comes through DSB, as commuters can most easily contact them.

circumstance, and so we decided not to pursue customer’s shoes. He says that he has begun and inconvenience the workers in Forstas. Having to do hour-long observation-walks around the this part of our understanding of the S-train station, where he and a maintenance-employee try to look at the station from the commuter’s project would take shape, as we would be limited point of view, because they are aware that they in our ideation around cooperation. (Appendix quickly get too focused on the procedural tasks 5.4 - CD) at hand.

Kim, DSB Maintenance Kim is an inspector in DSB and is based in the local service center at Hellerup station.

He is responsible for three team leaders, who combined cover 41 stations - a majority of which are in the S-train network. Kim’s subordinates were not available to interviewing, but he made two hours available to us for a thorough talk.

Kim gave us valuable information about how the system is made up and run. Kim, abiding by the new company policy, is very keen on maintaining a clean journey throughout the system. This means that he is willing to encourage his staff

responsibility.

Although Tommas was kind enough to introduce He is furthermore a staunch proponent for us to a team leader in Forstas, we never got a reply from them. We understand time is a limiting the newly established goal of getting into the

Kim mentioned that an independent company (Service Mæglerne) reviews the stations periodically, the frequency of these visits is determined by commuter volume. They provide DSB with reports on the stations’ condition.

Kim emphasized that their highest priorities are safety for commuters and staff, but next to that they prioritize based economic planning rather than commuter perception of the issues.

(Appendix 5.5 - CD)

Morten, Gentofte Municipality

emptying trash cans, but he sometimes encounter things on other parties’ areas of responsibility which he would then take care of, because he feels responsible for the customer experience. He sometimes meets citizens who mistake him for a DSB-employee because he cleans around the stations, and he is sorry that he can not always yet.

Morten does not know who his peers are in the other responsible organizations, but he thinks it would be nice if they could at least share each others schedules so that they could coordinate their efforts. He feels responsibility for the station, and knows that the citizens do not only notice his job but also the work of the others. It impacts the perceived quality of his work if the rest of the station is not cleaned around the same time or if employees from the other organizations do not perform at his level.

(Appendix 5.6 - CD)

Morten is employed at ‘Parks and Roads’ in GM. He is responsible for the cleaning of the municipality’s parts of the stations, i.e. mostly the outer perimeters. Morten is alone with the responsibility for cleaning around bike-stands and

29

Stakeholder Map This diagram represents our understanding of maintenance in the Copenhagen area. Actors within the yellow area are in direct contact with the physical station - commuters, sub-contractors, DSB staff, property renters, municipality staff, and Forstas staff. Communication in each organization is hierarchical, with multiple middle-men between on-the-ground staff and management.

30

DSB In direct contact with station

BaneDanmark

Information flow (arrowhead indicates control)

National Service Center

Customer Center

Helle*

Tommas - Maintenance Section Head

- Maintenence Dept.

Manager

Forstas

Commuter

Thomas

Gentofte Kommune

Parks & Roads

Local Service Center

Forstas Worker Sub-Contractor

- Operations Manager

Kim - Area Service Inspector

Station Morten

DSB Worker

- Maintenance Staff

Henrik - Operations Manager

3 x Team Leaders Rene** - Property Renter

Citizen * Helle is one of three department heads in closely related areas (maintenance, cleaning, etc.)

Landscape Maintenance

** Rene is in concact with exclusively DSB Property Rentals (not shown)

31

“We know the problem, we have to prioritize the resources available to us based on safety and regularity more than peeled as a commuter can come with the train to the right place at the right time.” Tommas BD (Appendix 5.4 - CD)

Summarized Findings Together the interviews and narrative shadowing provided a relatively complete picture of how the S-train network functions at an organizational level. As described, we gained a multitude of insights, the most relevant of which are noted below.

“Some stations look quite safe, majority of them, but I have heard from few people that Enghave station is not that safe. [...] It looks quite scary to be honest.”

Narrative shadowing #5 (Appendix 4)

Much of the collaboration between DSB, based on the motivation of individuals Low-level maintenance workers have little to no contact with each other or with commuters Commuter feedback is viewed as hard to deal with and often negative by DSB and BD Stakeholders throughout the S-train network have differing priorities Commuters view the S-train as an interconnected whole Commuters generally respond to stations details Reference:

32

Final Problem Statement

Our initial problem statement was “How can S-train stations be better maintained in the Copenhagen area? Can commuters be dynamically involved as a resource?”

After we completed most of our research, however, we revised this statement to:

“How can S-train stations be better maintained in the Copenhagen area?

How can the priorities of all stakeholders be better aligned?”

We implemented this change for several reasons.

As our knowledge grew, we wished to expand the problem statement to encompass the complexity of the system. By aligning the priorities of everyone involved in the system, communication between actors could be made more relevant - they might be able to more easily ‘speak the same language’. Commuters were included in the the previous “Can commuters be dynamically involved as a resource” into the new problem

33

Defining Problem Areas

COMMUTER

EXPERIENCETECHNOLOGY

SOCIAL MEDIA

While completing the previously mentioned problems. At this point we had gathered interesting and useful information from the interviewees which we could base our discussions on.

We started by writing down a lot of keywords that had come up through all the interviews.

To get an overview, we put them up on the wall in random order. We continued by sorting the keywords to get a clearer picture. We put them on a board, and grouped them together based on They ended up being sorted into three groups, although they did overlap some places. The commuter group consisted of keywords related to the commuters and their experience. The organizations group consisted on the other hand of keywords related to different levels of the three organizations and the complexity of the system. The keywords in the outside group were related to the external factors.

34

COMPLEXITY RESPONSIBILITY

ATMOSPHERENEGATIVITY APPMANAGEMENT

ROUTINE WEATHER

CO-OPERATION

LOCATIONHELP GRAFFITICOMMUNICATION CHANNELMEETINGINFORMAL PUBLICSYSTEMPRIVATE FEELING OF SAFENESSGENTLEMEN’S AGREEMENTREPUTATIONCONTRACT

DIALOGUE

PRIORITIZATION STAKEHOLDER INQUIRIES FROM PASSENGERS COMMUNICATION

INFORMATION

DIVISION

REPORT

HUMAN FACTOR DYNAMIC SATISFACTION OUT-SOURCING

The next step was to point out problems related to the keywords. We paired up, three times, so that all the group members got to discuss with each other. We discussed the different problem areas for two to four minutes in each pair. We wrote the problems down on pink sticky notes, and put them on the board together with the yellow ones. The group then discussed each of the pink sticky notes in plenary. Many of the problems were related to each other, so we ended up sorting them into four groups. One of the in this project. It had to do with the complexity of how the organizations are built up and their routines.

The three problem areas that we continued to discuss were the ones that had to do with worker empowerment (of the low-level workers), system interaction (between the organizations and commuters), and low-level connection (between the workers on the ground and the commuters).

Although we sorted them into these three areas, it was clear for us that the one that had to do with low-level connection was closely related to the two other ones.

35

Preliminary Solution – Problem Prioritization System

and problem areas, we then proceeded with ideating possible solution areas.

We discussed the problems based on scope, interest, and access with the goal Preliminary Ideation We then began our ideation process. To determine which area we wanted to wanted to create solutions within, we looked more closely at the three general problem areas generated in the step above. We went through each column and added all the new information that we had, especially in the worker empowerment and lowlevel connection columns, and discussed each point.

Opinions varied about the tone of the discussion (more solution oriented or more problem oriented), but we practiced successful disagreement mediation and the discussion remained productive. Gradually the general problem areas were narrowed down, and

36

eventually a group decision was reached that the two most relevant problem areas were on-theground communication and dynamic commuter involvement.

We then started to ideate in each of the two areas, noting previous ideas and coming up with some new ones. We discovered that practical ideation based on dynamic commuter involvement was the easiest, and it also seemed most realistic. Some of our general ideas were: a panel of commuters giving feedback in some way, commuters using the station as a medium of communication, or a way for the commuters to prioritize or rate problems related to maintenance of stations. We discussed each of the ideas, and decided to narrow our focus down on building a system that could make commuters prioritize maintenance problems. A brief discussion of what key features it could include then followed.

Our initial discussion revolved around a photograph-based digital concept. Images would be displayed, in the style of apps like Tinder, and could be voted on by users of the service, gathering information via mass interaction. We considered showing multiple images that could be compared with each other.

HUMANIZING MAINTENANCE A problem prioritizing system could contribute with giving DSB, BD and the municipalities a better understanding of the commuters and what they like or dislike. The system could also improve the commuters’ perception of the organizations and help to humanize maintenance staff.

In the long run it could help the organizations to know which of the long term maintenance problems are most important for the commuters three organizations could be empowered in a system like this if they, like the commuters, had the chance to impact priorities. At this point our conceptual problem prioritizing system facilitated both dynamic commuter involvement and worker empowerment. To help with the discussion, we named the service concept LENK.

COMMUTER PERCEPTION

UNDERSTANDING COMMUTERS

PROBLEM PRIORITIZING SYSTEM WORKER EMPOWERMENT LONG TERM MAINTENANCE PROBLEMS

37

6

7

8 ?

5

?

2

1 4

Preliminary System Map To help to ideate a clear and understandable service, we sketched out the preliminary functions of LENK. At this point we wanted LENK to enable commuters to prioritize maintenance issues at S-train stations while giving the processed data to the three different

38

organizations maintaining stations. This would enable organizations to argue for long-term maintenance decisions based on actual commuter feedback.

Content is uploaded by content-producers in direct interaction with the stations. This content is then passed through a main server to users, who use it to create meaningful data which is passed back to the organizations. The

organizations can then give this information to on-the-ground maintenance staff to help with prioritizing maintenance issues that matter to commuters. As a result, LENK could help organizations realize the full impact of issues such as the peeling paint at Enghave station.

Sketching out the preliminary system map helped us to acknowledge that there were still some

3

e.g. who puts the content in. We also understood that commuter motivation was one of the main themes: the interaction between LENK and commuters should be worthwhile, dynamic, appealing and engaging. To bring the interaction to a more advanced level, we hoped to have interaction also outside mobile-platforms.

Try this new LENK

I see posters about the service

I’m waiting for my train

I’m using my phone anyway, so…

I download and open frontLENK

I engage with the content

I can associate content directly with the station around me

I get digital feedback

My train arrives and I put my phone to sleep

New content arrives in LENK

I receive notifications when issues I have voiced my opinion on are resolved

Preliminary User Journey motivation for using our service, we needed to picture how commuters would interact with LENK while creating useful information. We sketched a preliminary user journey, that shows how and when commuters would use and interact with LENK.

39

Solution Development In the initial solution development, we further ideated, prototyped and tested our service concept idea; the problem prioritization system. During this phase we sort of functionalities are needed to provide useful information? We continuously iterated our idea, as we needed to determine the motivation for all actors using the service, as well as what touchpoints would best facilitate this.

Actors: Content Providers and Controllers As seen in the preliminary system map, there are two points where maintenance issues are to the system and later on when the issues are prioritized. At this point in the design process, not decided on who would own, and therefore control, the system. This is an important factor, as legally the responsible organizations can not cooperate. To help to decide which stakeholders

40

would be responsible for uploading the maintenance issues and who would control the system, we discussed them thoroughly by listing advantages and disadvantages concerning each possibility. After that we ideated on different combinations of actors, and discussed their advantages and disadvantages. Throughout the process we evaluated options based on the key features mentioned in preliminary ideation: commuter perception, humanizing maintenance, understanding commuters, worker empowerment, and long term maintenance problems.

The possible content providers were:

organizations who are responsible for managing on-the-ground workers.

Commuter panel: A group of commuters that are Anyone: All people from inside any organization, recruited to provide information about the issues commuters, or citizens can submit content. at the stations. They would be compensated for their efforts.

We compared these possibilities according to how biased, expensive, accessible, knowledgeable On-the-ground Workers: Staff from the and motivated they would be, as well as how organizations involved with S-train maintenance much instruction they would require. We also who are physically involved with upkeep of the went through the key features and evaluated if stations.

Quality Team: 3rd party evaluation provider, that each actor could contribute on them. is already used by DSB. Team Leaders: Higher level staff from the

The possible content controllers were: 3rd party organization: LENK operates as an independent business, developing the platform and maintaining, storing and controlling content as necessary.

Organizational ownership: One of the organizations involved develops, owns and operates LENK. No control: System is uncontrolled and ownership is undetermined.

We compared these possibilities according to

how complex, biased, scalable, transparent, easy to implement and expensive the system would be. Also with these possibilities, it was important to evaluate how well the key features would be covered.

By combining the actors in various ways, we came up with very different concepts based on different key features. Some concepts were more feasible than others and those we compared by listing advantages and disadvantages. Quite soon we came to the conclusion that the most feasible one would be combination 1, where on-the-ground workers, team leaders and

commuter panel would act as content providers, while LENK business would act as owner and controller. In this concept content would be provided from very different perspectives and so on, it would add commuter and worker empowerment. However, it would also result in a large amount of content providers, which makes the system more complex and more instruction, devices etc. would be needed. LENK as the owner of the system would make the prioritization process less biased and complex, and also more scalable.

As the actor combination 1 was still very complex, we re-examined our goal, which was to provide commuter prioritized information to help the organizations to communicate and understand commuters. We realized that allowing on-the-ground workers to provide content for the system did not necessarily contribute to this goal. We also wanted to come up with a concept that we could prototype and test, and because of time and limited access, commuters were the only ones accessible for testing.

41

Touchpoints After deciding who generates the content and how the content is evaluated. As mentioned before, the two evaluation points are when the issues are registered to the system and later when they are prioritized. These points are touchpoints within the system and their interaction with the user should be clear and understandable. To help with our discussion we named these touchpoints backLENK, which interacts with commuter panel, and frontLENK, which interacts with the commuters.

42

First backLENK Concept We started ideating the concepts of the touchpoints by focusing on backLENK, where issues are registered by the commuter panel to the

or observations. To include the station more testing. This would enable commuter panel to dynamically, we brainstormed new ideas that place their opinion in a real environment, where would offer a more engaging experience. We all the station users could see them. came up with ideas where commuter panel would for example: First frontLENK Concept

without any recorded maintenance issues, they Place digital tags on maintenance issues, can not be prioritized later. We evaluated whether which could be seen with a mobile device the issues could somehow be prioritized as they using augmented reality. are put into the system, cutting out the need Place physical tags on maintenance issues. for a second prioritization phase. We discussed Use social media to voice their opinions. this option, but later agreed that the commuters Organize meetings at stations. should be involved to gather a greater amount of opinions.

We evaluated the ideas on how cyclical, dynamic and engaging this interaction could be. We found We discussed in what format the issues could the idea of using physical tags, placed by the commuter panel, interesting and worth further pictures, tick-boxes, recorded video or voice,

a commuter panel would place physical tags on issues they have noticed, we wanted to continue to the second touchpoint where commuters could prioritize these in some way. To understand the overall concept of this interaction point, we went through all the steps needed to gather commuter prioritized information. We discussed possible formats for commuter interaction, and realized that a physical platform (a notice board in the station, comment box, etc.) was not feasible due to the risk of vandalism in the

S-train stations. This meant, that the commuters would interact with the system on their own mobile devices.

Vote on different issues at this station.

This issue makes the station feel worse.

should we prioritize this.

We started by discussing what should happen We have noticed this, have you? when a commuter notices a tag at the station. By printing out all pictures taken during our previous We discussed these ideas by using a storytelling method, where we placed ourselves in the maintenance issues and how they could make the commuters’ shoes. We acted out situations where commuter feel. We divided the group and had the commuter would walk into a platform and short ideation sessions of few minutes, where we see different questions or statements displayed ideated what the tag might say. We came up with on tags. We explored how commuters might react the following questions and statements: to them. We encountered usability problems with some of the ideas, allowing us to narrow our idea pool.

How do you feel?

What do you think about this?

We did not choose a text for the tags at this point and moved on to what would happen when the commuters start the prioritization process. They would open a web-app to give their input, but know on which tag the commuters are giving feedback. We decided to implement QR-code scanning to this touchpoint to help with the geolocation. While sketching out this part of the user journey, we continued to ideate on what sort of questions could create useful information through commuter responses: Commuters could be asked to prioritize whether in general these sort of issues should be prioritized.

Commuters could choose all the keywords

about how the station makes them feel, e.g. safe, scared, happy or annoyed.

Commuters could answer yes or no to a clear statement.

Commuters could scan a QR code on the tag, and that would mean this issue is registered to the system.

We wanted to achieve cohesive and understandable interaction and ended up deciding on a combination. The tag would state “We have noticed this, have you?” and the webapp would have two different questions, “In 2. as soon as possible 3. when you have time 4. they don’t matter” and ”How do you feel? Safe, scared, happy, annoyed..?”.

43

Awareness Test with Tags To get a real-world understanding on how the commuters would react to the tags, we prototyped the tag and tested it on two S-train stations. Commuter awareness is vital to get their feedback and the tags need to look appealing and informative. We had some limitations when testing, as the context would be very different should the LENK service be launched. A marketing campaign would raise awareness and provide more context.

We sketched out different versions of the tag and also varied them in size. We discussed which up with an initial prototype. The prototype was then tested in the Enghave and Dybbølsbro stations on a Friday around midday. When testing we wanted to know how many people passed the tag, how many stopped to read them and how many scanned the QR-code. We also visited Sydhavn station, but the amount of commuters was too few for a clear observation.

It had also recently been renovated, so there were not enough maintenance issues.

44

At Dybbølsbro, stickers were placed next to a panel of broken glass, on an elevator door (related to the elevator not working), and on a dirty ticket machine. Around 40 people passed each sticker, but only a few stopped to read them.

No one scanned the QR-code. At Enghave, two stickers were placed on dirty glass panels. The station was rather empty, and only a few people stopped to read the stickers. No one stopped to actually interact with the QR-code.

We acknowledged that this prototype failed to get the commuters attention or stimulate any interaction. We discussed issues with the design of the sticker, but also understood that the commuters already have a lot of visual triggers at the station. It is hard to notice the tag, when the platforms. After this test, we decided to reevaluate the touchpoint interactions as the tag was not a clear enough trigger to get commuters to interact with it.

MIT’s Place Pulse and CPH’s Urban Puls We realized after testing the tags that a new approach to LENK’s touchpoints was needed.

We began to think about simplifying the system, and returned to desk research to gather inspiration.

We came across the Copenhagen municipality project Urban Puls (Københavns Kommune, 2014), which is based on the method developed in the MIT Media Lab project Place Pulse, (MIT Media Lab, 2014). The method uses randomly chosen pictures tagged by professionals, which then get voted on by civilians through a webinterface. Votes are cast based on nothing else than the immediate impression of the images, as no prompts other than one broad question is provided.

Urban Puls. Københavns Kommune, n.d. Web. 24 Nov. 2014. http://urbanpuls.kl7.dk/

As for the content, the Urban Puls project used pictures put up by citizens to the popular image-sharing service Instagram with the hashtag #Mitkbh. The photos were amassed with no promise of reward, yet still more than 10.000 images were uploaded, giving the Urban Puls team ample resources to put into their program. satisfaction of being able to choose pictures, the MIT project has garnered over 1.1 million clicks.

The Urban Puls project, being started later and of a smaller scale, has accumulated over 100.000 clicks - despite the absence of any marketing efforts. This discovery encouraged us to pursue our initial Tinder-style voting idea, as it validated the frontLENK concept.

Place Pulse. MIT Media Lab, n.d. Web. 24 Nov. 2014. http://pulse.media.mit.edu/

45

500 Women 80.000

400 Men

Women 60.000

300

Men 200

40.000

100

20.000

0

0 10 -19

20 -29

30 -39

40 -49

50 -59

60 -69

Place Pulse users according to age and sex (Salesses, 2011).

10 -19

20 -29

30 -39

40 -49

50 -59

60 -69

Population in Copenhagen according to age and sex 1.1.2014 (Københavns Kommune og Danmarks Statistik, 2014).

Target Users

46

Using a variety of methods we determined what Age Group kind of people will use frontLENK. We explored Exploration of MIT’s Place Pulse provided us with a target user-group for frontLENK. Though age range and personality traits to determine the Place Pulse web application was open for anyone to use, the large majority of the 500.000 of the most critical aspects of our service. We clicks came from users between ages 20-29 developed both goal-directed and role-directed personas to better empathize with the user group. (Salesses, 2011). More men than women used Place Pulse, but LENK will be targeted towards both men and women as no explanation for this gap was provided. Our choosing this age range

is supported by census data from the greater Copenhagen region, which states that a high percentage of the population within the region area falls into this age category (Københavns Kommune og Danmarks Statistik, 2014).

Københavns Kommune og Danmarks Statistik 2014. Befolkningen efter køn og alder 1.1.2014. Web. 25 Nov. 2014. http://www.kk.dk/~/media/A4E43E34D01547CFA831D6CA6F9DF164.ashx

Salesses, Phil. “TEDxMidAtlantic 2011. Hot or Not for Cities.” YouTube. YouTube, 1 Dec. 2011. Web. 25 Nov. 2014. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iaUrue0fwtw

Target Group on Social Media To explore how our user group interacts with the S-train service online, we took some time to go through the social media channels of DSB again. We read through many of the comments

of some of them. This led us to the interesting insight that people writing to DSB on social media can be divided into different groups that act consistently across the web. The predominant age-group were people in their late 20s and in their 30s, more or less equally divided between the genders.

Opinionated Towards Commute

- Bothered easily by commute issues - Vocal about S-Train experience - Looses focus easily/becomes bored

-

Actively wants to improve the commmute Wants to be involved Uses LENK as a communication tool Focuses on tasks Not time waster/ Productive

Laid back/ Easily distracted -

Spends time on leisure activities Easily bored during commute Treats LENK as an amusing distraction Focuses on entertainment

- Spends the commute time working - Focused on work/book etc.

- Doesn’t get distracted

*Not LENK target user

Not Engaged with Commute

Commuter Critical Factors In order to clarify which parameters were most important for motivating users, we brainstormed some critical factors related to commuter characteristics: desire to express themselves smartphone use productivity on commute patience how much they care about commute ownership towards station/train

We sorted them and decided on the two most relevant characteristics to use for creating determined to be the commuters’ behaviour during their journey and their engagement with the commute. We used the ‘quattro stagioni’ approach to frame our personas “derived from two variables, with two extreme states each” (Jonas, 2001).

In this matrix, each of the quadrants present different characteristics of our user group. The

two green areas shows the kind people that are possible users of the service, while the yellow area shows the ones that could use the service, even though they are not directly our target group. We agreed that the grey area does not show LENK’s target users due to their nonengagement with their commute. These factors were then used to develop goal-personas.

Custom-Developed Program To assist in persona development we used a custom-developed program, Personate, that randomized our ethnographic research removing as much personal bias as possible.

The program, developed in the Java-based language Processing, allows the user to input both qualitative and quantitative values collected during research into a database. From these personas are generated based on random combinations. Details were also added, providing realism.

Jonas, Wolfgang. “A Scenario for Design.” Design Issues 17.2 (2001): 64-80. Web. 01 Dec. 2014.

47

Goal-Directed Personas We created three goal-directed personas, based on the determined characteristics in the green and yellow areas in the ‘quattro stagioni’ and our previous research. General characters were created by Personate and used as an inspiration All three of these personas are potential users of LENK. Jon, as he falls into the yellow quadrant, is less of a focus than the other two.

After concluding this section of our process, we had a clear idea of the potential user group of frontLENK, as well as the factors that contribute to their motivation.

MARIE [female, 28]

JON [male, 30]

MONICA [female, 24]

CONSTRUCTIVE CRITIZISER

OPINIONATED COMEDIAN

CASUAL ENTERTAINMENT SEEKER

[productive, energetic, dedicated, active]

[active, extrovert, easily distracted, social]

[laid back, creative, social, urban]

Marie is an energetic person who makes friends easily.

She lives with her fiance in the suburbs of Copenhagen.

She loves to read local news and more than anything, to spend time working on community projects. She doesn’t like to waste time, and she is usually very engaged in the things that she does.

Jon is a social guy who easily gets restless. He lives with his girlfriend and works as a financial advisor. He normally spends his evenings and weekends doing activities, such as playing football with his childhood buddies. He likes to express his opinions on things, and is quite loud in a social setting.

Monica is a social woman with many friends, although she lives by herself. She is outgoing and loves going to concerts, music festivals and other events. She is laid back, but easily gets bored.

Marie takes the S-train every weekday during rush hours, from Husum to Enghave. She thinks the commute takes too much time, as she has to change to a bus in Enghave, because of her job in Sydhavn. However, she still thinks that it is more convenient than driving or biking.

Jon takes the S-train to his work in the city centre every day during rush hours. His journey is normally from Charlottenlund to Vesterport, ie. six stops. He is not a big fan of taking the S-train because it is often crowded or delayed, but he still thinks that it is better than biking during rush hours.

Monica lives in the city centre of Copenhagen and her closest station is Nørreport. Her journey goes from there to Vangede, where she works at a café, five days a week.

The journey is seven stops long. She takes the S-train because of its convenience regarding location, and she saves some time compared to biking. Her working hours vary, so most of the time she takes the S-train outside of rush hours.

During his commute, Jon usually uses his smartphone to browse through his social networks, however he gets easily distracted by the things going on around him. He is opinionated towards his commute, and likes to share his opinions with acquaintances. He is also the one that could give an ironic comment to the person sitting next to him on the train, in order to share his frustration.

During her journey, Monica normally listens to music from her iPhone. She does not read books, but she often skims through some blogs and newspapers on her phone.

Sometimes she even plays some games to make the journey go faster. She doesn’t usually think too much about her commute, but always makes sure to check in and out with her Rejsekort.

Jon recently tweeted to DSB: “So you’re just going to cancel the 7:40 train from Charlottenlund? People need to get to work! @omdsb”

Monica recently tweeted about the S-train: “I never really understood the people that run after their missed train when it has already started moving. #strain #commuterlife”

Marie is emotionally invested in her commute. She thinks Denmark’s transit system functions well, but that it could be improved. She believes that her opinion deserves to be taken into account in public matters and has contacted DSB a few times regarding certain issues. Marie believes that time spent traveling should be spent doing useful things. During her commute, Marie checks her emails or skims through the latest news.

Marie recently tweeted to DSB: “Hi @omsdb, is it up to us to tell all the smokers on the platform that they can't smoke here anymore? I miss clear signage. Thanks in advance!”

48

Opinionated Towards Commute

- Bothered easily by commute issues - Vocal about S-Train experience - Looses focus easily/becomes bored

-

Actively wants to improve the commmute Wants to be involved Uses LENK as a communication tool Focuses on tasks

Not time waster/ Productive

Laid back/ Easily distracted -

Spends time on leisure activities Easily bored during commute Treats LENK as an amusing distraction Focuses on entertainment

- Spends the commute time working - Focused on work/book etc.

- Doesn’t get distracted

*Not LENK target user

Not Engaged with Commute

49

Final Concept The solution development phase resulted in a which are shown in this diagram.

We decided, after some exploration, that the main content of LENK would be photographs of station maintenance issues. A selected commuter panel would create and upload these pictures through a backLENK app. Commuters could interact with the content through frontLENK, in which the pictures would be displayed and compared.

50

Customer

backLENK

LENK Business frontLENK

Commuter panel

Commuter

LENK server

backLENK

frontLENK

51

Solution Refinement mentioned, we are dealing with two apps in our service, frontLENK for the commuters and backLENK for the commuter panel. Using several prototyping methods we ideated and tested interactions with the goal of having a complete service.

App Interaction interaction for users of both the frontLENK and backLENK apps. We focused on ease-ofuse and maximizing user motivation throughout interaction. We began by printing a large quantity of templates. By stacking them sequentially, we ideated the users’ progression through each app.

This process allowed us to discuss each small step and easily change the order or add steps.

frontLENK

backLENK

#1 Open app #2 Wait for loading screen

#1 Open app #2 Wait for loading screen #3 User is presented with a main menu on which

appears. #3.5 Swiping right reveals statistics of the app #4 Tapping on the overlay reveals two images with an ‘=’-sign button in the middle. #5 Tapping on an image highlights it and a new set appears.

52

#3.5 Tapping on mail icon opens chat #4 Tapping camera allows for image capturing #6 A prompt will ask for tags #8 Submitting the picture by tapping button

backLENK

Flow Charts The results of this prototyping process are

53

frontLENK

54

Design of Interface In frontLENK we were concerned about whether the app would be engaging enough to actually have people using it. We realized that engagement would be largely based on the interface of the app. Users should have fun while using it, as this was deemed more motivating than expressing opinions on S-train station maintenance issues. We were initially divided between an interface mimicking the arrow-based layout found on the Place Pulse-site, and a more sleek, image-heavy interface. Even though the direct interaction in the more image-heavy version was more visually appealing, we were sceptical about whether it would be intuitive or not.

We drew up two different prototypes for frontLENK on paper, using cut-outs from our SERS photographs. These we tried out ourselves and put in the hands of other people to get their feedback on the interface. We experienced intuitive on the mobile-screen, because frequent users of touch-devices are used to interacting directly with the object of interest.

This helped us to see what our digital prototype should look like. We programmed the interface in Processing and loaded 90 images we had gathered ourselves during our previous research.

We loaded this onto a mobile device for easy testing.

55

Engagement Testing Bringing our digital prototype, we walked around the university campus and presented students within our target age-group with a simple questionnaire and the frontLENK prototype.

In the questionnaire we asked for details like age, home station, preferred activities while commuting, and frequency of S-train use. We instructed the test-subjects to use the prototype for as long as they felt engaged while we timed and observed them. (Appendix 6.1) After testing the app with 11 students, it became clear that the interaction was quite intuitive, but we also realized that the purpose of the ‘=’sign button was not clear. People did not mind

56

using the app and going through the images, but as there was no indicator of progress they had a hard time knowing when they could stop - and they were obviously frustrated about this.

(Appendix 6.2) We then decided to implement some changes based on the results before further testing. We addressed the lack of progress feedback in version 0.2 of frontLENK by adding a ‘status’bar which showed progress from zero to ten image pairs. After reaching the 10th the user is prompted with a ‘thank you’ message asking if they wish to continue. We furthermore added an instructional start-screen and created a Danish version to widen our test group. The ‘=’ sign was redesigned.

Version 1 Version 2

0 sec

30 sec

60 sec

90 sec

120 sec

150 sec

Time spent with app.

We headed out to Enghave station, but quickly realized that it was not a station where anyone was spending more than a few minutes at a time.

So we decided to go Copenhagen Central station, where a lot of people would be gathered and waiting for longer periods of time.

It paid off. We got in touch with 10 people of different age and gender, but focused on our target group of younger people in their 20s and 30s.

As can be seen in the graph above, we reduced the average engagement time, because users often played through one set of 10 and then gave us the phone back. However, users also exhibited a higher level of engagement. We estimated the level of engagement by listening intently to the users as they explained what they think about their commute and the stations, all the while we observed their facial expression. The average level of engagement for the users who

tried version 0.1 was 5.08 while the average level of engagement for version 0.2 was 5.9. People appeared to allow themselves to concentrate more - most likely because they could see that there was progress and perceived a goal.

(Appendix 6.3)

57

Opinionated Towards Commute

Not time waster/ Productive

Laid back/ Easily distracted

First test More engaged Less engaged Second test More engaged Not Engaged with Commute

Using the questionnaire results and results of frontLENK testing, we placed test-subjects from stagioni’ matrix. Engagement levels varied, but the majority of very engaged users fell into the lower left quadrant. This aligned with our previous hypothesis that users in this quadrant were in our target group.

58

Testing our prototypes provided valuable insights such as the common observation that people quickly became concentrated and focused all their attention on the content. One participant described it with saying “I tried to be as good as I could” while another explained her focus by saying that “I like to try myself in quizzes and stuff ”.

Test-subjects commented that the content of the prototype app prompted them to become more aware of what actually caused their emotional response to different aspects of the stations. more too open spaces”

Less engaged

people I’m worried about”. respondents choices in the app. (Appendix 6.4)

frontLENK

FrontLENK Touchpoint both our apps, tested and prototyped to the highest level possible within time constraints.

59

Testing backLENK Concept We built a preliminary test of backLENK on our previously ascertained results. Using the ‘quattro stagioni’ matrix of our test subjects, we selected individuals who fell into our target groups and exhibited a high level of engagement while testing frontLENK. We asked them to send us photographs of things they noticed in the stations they used on their daily commute. No further instruction was given - the nature of the pictures was left to their discretion. They were offered a small prize of chocolate or coffee if they complied.

The goal of this test was not, as with the previous frontLENK test, an attempt to quantify user engagement. Instead, there were three goals in the the backLENK test: 1.

60

To ascertain what sorts of issues an untrained, but interested, member of our target group would notice when interacting with S-train stations.

2. able to express notable issues through photographs.

3.

To determine how enthusiastically users might adopt backLENK in their daily commute when provided a small reward.

We received several pictures from our test instructions to focus on maintenance issues, the photographs received contained a variety of station-related topics. It was generally easy image; they successfully communicated their observations through their photographs even with no instruction. This, coupled with the subjects’ willingness to comply, was a positive reinforcement of the feasibility of backLENK. Next steps in backLENK testing are discussed in the further research section (pg. 81).

Motivational Considerations User motivation was a key consideration in commuter panel members would be rewarded largely enough to provide adequate incentive to regularly engage with backLENK. Panelists would be selected on the basis of their interest, and a reward system would be determined collaboratively with participating organizations.

Commuter panelists would receive their rewards on a regular basis provided they meet their content-generation goals.

User engagement while using frontLENK was tested in real-world situations using a working exploration of user motivation was when users become aware of and download frontLENK. Time and project-scope restraints did not allow us to perform much testing in this area, but we carefully considered what approaches could be taken to provide initial-use motivation.

LENK would be launched in the S-train network along with a digital and physical

advertising campaign. Posters would be placed in the stations and on the trains informing commuters of LENK’s existence, emphasising the game-like nature of the frontLENK app and the possibility for them to contribute real, actionable feedback. The tags we previously considered as a touchpoint could be used instead as an advertising method. Several of our frontLENK testsubjects mentioned the need for such a campaign, supporting our theory that this could be a successful method for informing commuters about the service.

LENK could also be advertised through social media. Facebook ads would give commuters, concentrating on their mobile devices, a way to become informed about frontLENK even if they do not notice posters hanging in the station. For example, DSB could promote LENK through its Twitter feed as a means for accessing commuters through the content they already engage with on their mobile devices.

61

LENK concept

Our research resulted in a concrete service system called LENK. All aspects we

62

Description of LENK Customer requirement

Pictures

Image comparison

Commuter Prioritization Information

App A-0. System Description. Developer Viewpoint.

LENK is a service by which information on customer perception and prioritization is created.

It is an independent service to which large organizations in need of such information can subscribe. In the case of the S-train network in Copenhagen, LENK could be subscribed to

by DSB, BD, and the individual municipalities.

LENK would then recruit a panel of commuters and provide them with basic instruction and some motivation – for example, subsidised travel.

The commuter panel would be given access to backLENK.

The commuter panel would then incorporate LENK into their commute by taking pictures of maintenance issues using backLENK, tagging them with essential information (location within the station and nature of the problem), and uploading them to the collected image pool.

The images would be geotagged, linking them to the station they were taken in. The commuter panel would be able to receive information from LENK about suggested issues to photograph.

LENK would base these recommendations on requests from participating organizations.

Location-centric content display model.

Members of the commuter panel could contact LENK through backLENK.

content display model. A promotional campaign within the S-train stations and vehicles would alert commuters to the service. LENK would When the images are uploaded to the image pool, gradually gather a large pool of ‘clicks’ as users they would become accessible to the general interact with the pictures. These would be sorted public via frontLENK. FrontLENK would through algorithms within the program, resulting be available for free on mobile platforms, so in useful parcels of information that could be any commuter, citizen, or organization-worker passed back to the participating organizations. could gain access. Users would interact with photographs nearest their geographical location The service can be summarized in this simple IDEF0-diagram. in the app (shown above in the location-centric

63

Motivational Matrix In order to be sure to consider the motivations of the different stakeholders, and to iterate what they expect of the service, we employed the motivational matrix method (Manzini et al., 2004).

COMMUTER

Platform for expression Entertainment

Manzini, Ezio, Stephen Evans, and Luisa Collina. Solution Oriented Partnership: How to Design Industrialised Sustaina-

LENK

CUSTOMER (BD, DSB, MUNICIPALITIES)

Fun/Entertainment Opinion expression

Engaging photographs

64

COMMUTER PANEL

Prioritized information

Means of involvement with commute

Outlet for feedback Perks

Content

Provide service of high enough quality to gain and preserve customers

Packaged, prioritized user information

Payment ($$$)

Increased understanding of commuter opinions and perception

Role Personas We used role personas to clarify the roles of actors within the service. Using the structure outlined by qualitative research expert S. Hosono in his 2009 paper A methodology of personainformation about each actor and created role tables.

Hosono, S. et al. “A methodology of persona-centric service design.� Proceedings of the 19th CIRP Design Conference–Competitive Design 31 Mar. 2009. Web. 01 Dec. 2014.

65

Scenarios We used scenarios to more concretely show the two different motivations for users of the frontLENK app. A more generalized commuter panelist scenario describes one usage of backLENK.

Commuter panelist

Commuter panelist stands in station

66

He opens backLENK

BackLENK informs the panelist that LENK is looking for pictures of holes

Panelist searches station for holes

He finds a hole in the cement near the plaform

He photograhs the hole and submits it

He closes backLENK and continues on his journey

Panelist opens backLENK a few times a week during his commute

At the end of each month he recieves reward over email

Monica, casual entertainment seeker

Monica waits at Nørreport station

She feels bored, so she takes out her smartphone

She browses Facebook, and notices an ad for frontLENK

Monica downloads the app hoping to kill some time playing with it

She opens frontLENK and begins comparing photographs of Nørreport station

She chooses quickly, going with her gut response to each picture

Monica’s train arrives, and she is surprised that time passed so quickly

Monica plays with frontLENK while on the train, but closes the app at her destination

Monica uses frontLENK again on her next S-train journey.

She enjoys the simple but satisfying interaction and it keeps her from getting bored

Marie, constructive criticizer

Marie waits at Husum station

She notices peeling paint on one part of the station wall

She also notices a poster which reads, ‘help us help you’

Marie feels excited at the chance to give feedback

She gets out her iPhone and downloads frontLENK

Marie opens frontLENK and begins comparing pictures of Husum station

She carefully considers each choice

After comparing 10 pairs she feels satisfied and effective

Marie closes frontLENK and boards her train

Marie checks frontLENK for new content most mornings, and feels more involved in her commute

67

Which of these feels less safe?

WELCOME TO frontLENK

L L frontLENK

A LENK project, in co-operation with DSB, BD and Gentofte Municipality

frontLENK

frontLENK GUI illustration

Interface description The following three layouts are GUI sequences of frontLENK and two different backLENK functionalities.

68

Which of these feels less safe?

Respond to the question above by tapping on a picture, or the ‘=’ button if they are equal.

=

Swipe left to view statistics.

Your input helps us learn what commuters need!

=

Which of these feels less safe?

Which of these feels less safe?

Which of these feels less safe?

of these feels less safe?

You’ve responded to 10 image pairs, thanks!

REA

REALTIME STATION RANKING ENGHA VE

PERCEIVED SAFEST

VALBY NØRR

EPORT

VEST

ERPO

Tap to keep going

RT

VIRUM HELL ERUP LYNG

BY

=

=

=

=

CHARL HUSUM OTTEN LUND VANLØ

SE

ORDRU P KLAM PENBO RG SYDH AVN NØRR EBRO ØSTER

PORT

ÅLHO LM NY EL

LEBJER

G FLINTH OLM

PERCEIVED LEAST SAFE

69

1w ago

OFF

LOOKING FOR PHOTOS TAKEN IN HELLERUP STN. X

LOOKING FOR PHOTOS TAKEN IN HELLERUP STN. X

6d ago

YOUR JANUARY REWARD IS IN THE MAIL!

WELCOME TO backLENK

X

YOUR JANUARY REWARD IS IN THE MAIL!

X

X

LOOKING FOR IMAGES OF PEELING PAINT

X

2d ago

LOOKING FOR IMAGES OF PEELING PAINT

L L CONTACT US

backLENK

A LENK project, in co-operation with DSB, BD and Gentofte Municipality

backLENK

backLENK static state GUI illustration

70

CONTACT US

OFF

OFF

HDR OFF

HDR OFF

DYBBØLSBRO STATION

DYBBØLSBRO STATION

DYBBØLSBRO STATION

71

OFF

HDR OFF

DYBBØLSBRO STATION

DYBBØLSBRO STATION

PLACE PICTURE IN STATION

PLACE PICTURE IN STATION

DESCRIB SUBJECT YOUR IM

NO

backLENK

backLENK content-input state GUI illustration, reached if user takes a photograph

72

OK?

YES

NO

OK?

YES

1w ago

LOOKING FOR PHOTOS TAKEN IN HELLERUP STN. X 6d ago

DESCRIBE THE SUBJECT OF YOUR IMAGE

DESCRIBE THE SUBJECT OF YOUR IMAGE

YOUR JANUARY REWARD IS IN THE MAIL!

X

2d ago

LOOKING FOR IMAGES OF PEELING PAINT

RUST STAINS ON THE WALL

X

THANKS! RUST STAINS ON THE WALL

CONTACT US

SUBMIT? NO

OK?

YES

NO

YES

73

Lean Model Canvas

To tentatively outline the feasibility of LENK as a business, we used the Lean Model Canvas. As mentioned, business model plausibility was not the focus of this project, so some of the segments have been minimally considered.

Including this information in a readable format, however, does strengthen the premise of the service.

We used the Lean Model Canvas instead of the more well-known Business Model Canvas as it is specially formulated for start-up businesses (Maurya, 2014). Its focus is more on actionability and entrepreneurship (ibid.), making it well suited for analyzing LENK as a new and innovative business.

PROBLEM

SOLUTION

UNIQUE VALUE PROPOSITION

UNFAIR ADVANTAGE

CUSTOMER SEGMENTS

Organizations involved in the S-train network lack quantifiable information on the emotional and perceptive responses of their user group

Involving commuters with a digital service through which their emotional priorities are quantified

LENK provides customized user information, validated by thousands of interactions, in concise, actionable packages

Custom developed backLENK and frontLENK apps

Organizations involved with the S-train network in Copenhagen, looking to gather more usercentered information and strengthen their own customer relations

Users of the S-train service can feel disconnected from and powerless to influence the service providers

KEY METRICS

CHANNELS

Engagement with frontLENK and backLENK apps

LENK connects with customers through marketing

Validity of information produced

COST STRUCTURE App development Hosting LENK team Marketing of LENK service Not extensively considered

74

Custom developed datasorting algorithms

Maurya, Ash. “Why Lean Canvas vs Business Model Canvas?� Practice Trumps Theory. N.d. Web. 05 Dec. 2014. http:// practicetrumpstheory.com/why-lean-canvas/

REVENUE STREAMS Subscription-based Multiple customers Not extensively considered

Blueprint This blueprint shows all interactions involved with LENK. Individual rows can be traced to follow the timeline and interactions involved with each customer and user journey.

75

ACTOR

CUSTOMER

SERVICE

PRE-SERVICE Becomes aware of the service

Contact with LENK, decides on guidelines

Requests specification

(DSB, BD, KOMMUNE)

PHYSICAL EVIDENCE

Marketing material

COMMUTER

DIGITAL EVIDENCE Requitment, training and access to backLENK

COMMUTER PANEL

DIGITAL EVIDENCE

Arrives at station and notices a issue

Gets notified of specifications

Organises inbox

Pushes specifications

Maintains backLENK app

Prepares spesifications and pushes them to panelists

LENK-SERVER

LENK

76

Negotiates assigment, requites panel and trains them

Tags the issue Tags the place on a map

backLENK

Prepares marketing material and markets the service to possible customers

Takes a photo of an issue

AFTER SERVICE Gets commuter prioritized information

Distributes results to maintenance staff

Marketing material: Poster, link on web, app store

Becomes aware of service

Opens the app

Sorts through images

Checks statistics

Shares experience through word-of-mouth e.g. Twitter

frontLENK

Submits photo

Recieves reward

Organises images according to tags

Pushes images

Retrieves voting-data

Prepares marketing material and markets the service on locations and online

Maintains frontLENK app

Packages data

Processes data into statistics

Ships results to customer

Provides rewards for commuter panelists

77

Service Outcomes

As stated, the output of this service is concrete information about commuter priorities. External organizations (in this case DSB, BD and the relevant municipalities) are able to request feedback on how much certain issues matter to commuters. LENK makes this information a packaged, accessible commodity. The organizations can use this information to make more user-centric decisions and communicate better with each other. Commuter prioritized information, and the method by which LENK acquires it, address several issues uncovered through the preceding research.

New Channel LENK could provide an alternate channel for commuters to voice their opinions through.

Currently there is a lack of transparency between the organizations managing the S-train network and commuters using it. Commuters today have very few channels through which to register

78

complaints or provide feedback. LENK could help to alleviate the impression that the S-train organizations are not interested in commuter opinions.

User-Centered Information LENK addresses is the lack of commuterpriority information from an organizational perspective. As previously noted, our research uncovered a clear discrepancy between the perceived needs of commuters and their actual experience. LENK provides an alternative prioritization system that will allow upper level management to better align with commuter perception.

Common Language LENK can also be used to address one aspect of the communication issue between organizations.

The information collected by LENK could be

but some commonalities would inevitably exist.

This information, validated by thousands of commuters, could be considered a user-centered platform on which the organizations could determine their future goals. In this sense, the information could be used as a common language to bring the goals of DSB, BD, and the municipalities closer together.

Worker Empowerment LENK could provide some empowerment for on-the-ground workers from all organizations.

As Tommas from BD stated, workers create their schedules based on two parameters: regularity and safety. Commuter emotional needs are not considered at all, effectively distancing the maintenance workers from their customers.

The commuter prioritized information could be passed to low-level workers to allow them a third parameter for organizing their schedule.

79

Discussion Validity of Data and Methods

Validity was considered at several stages within this study. Triangulation, applied broadly, was the main method used for providing validity.

Qualitative research expert Robert Stake in The Art of Case Study Research (1995: 113), what we are observing and reporting carries the same meaning when found under different circumstances�. It takes on different practical applied. implemented in this study. In this iteration of the sources for information contained within a research (Stake, 1995). Data source triangulation was manifested in a thorough exploration of literature and the use of multiple interviewees.

Investigator triangulation (ibid.) was also considered. Unavoidably, personal paradigms will colour the reality of each individual researcher.

Using several individuals to observe the same

phenomenon or perform the same data-gathering method will both minimize this effect and have the added bonus of potential additional data (ibid.). In this study, two to four researchers participated in most activities. Sometimes each researcher worked alone, but in these cases the method was repeated by different individuals at a different time. Due to language restraints (most interviews in this study were conducted in Danish, and only one among the researchers was a native speaker), some interviews were conducted without this validation method - an acknowledged gap.

Theory triangulation (ibid.) was used to both corroborate data and highlight the multiple realities of actors in this study. Interviews were conducted with actors who had widely varying viewpoints on the reality of station maintenance, and their partly-overlapping accounts both researcher’s understanding. Management-level employees in the three different organizations involved in S-train station maintenance in

Copenhagen were interviewed, as well as lower level on-the-ground workers in each organization, property renters in the stations, and various types of commuters.

Finally, methodological triangulation (ibid.) was also considered. To further reduce (or highlight) for accessing similar information. This validation technique was used several times during our research. When initially ascertaining the condition of the stations, for example, widespread surveys, individual observation sessions, and in-depth interviews allowed for a clearer picture from through multiple channels - with data that considered validated.

To add reliability to our interview results, we employed member checking. Interview summaries were sent to the various interviewees, interviewees requested small changes, which were implemented.

Stake, Robert E. The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 1995. Print.

80

(Parts of this section was written by Lara Clare Casciola for the User Experience Design for Multimodal Interaction SSD7 2014 module.)

Further Research

The process of this research has been subject to several constraints as mentioned in the limitations-part (pg. 18). Here we will discuss what measures we would undertake, had some of the constraints not been present.

Regarding the backLENK app, we would have liked to test it more thoroughly. Ideally, we would have more people collecting pictures, essentially simulating the commuter panel, and then have those pictures put through the frontLENK, in order to get actual commuter panel generated content evaluated by actual commuters independent of the researchers.

As for testing the frontLENK app, we would have liked to test the interface in A/B-test two versions of the frontLENK

app, where one version would have the present 10-image-pair prompt, and another version with, for example, 20 image pairs.

This could provide insight about whether the actual interaction is the driving force, or simply motivation provided by the advancing progress bar.

As mentioned in regard to our interviews, we did not have access to all relevant resources during our research. With more time, we could have pursued more connections, presumably providing a richer context within which to situate our solution.

We would like to expand on our member checking by showing our solution to the various interviewees who contributed to this project. Their feedback could provide valuable insight, and inform future iterations and improvements in LENK.

81

Expanding LENK

This service could be widely expanded. For clarity, and due to project limitations, a basic implementation has been detailed in this report, but throughout the design process service scalability was considered. As a result of this thinking, LENK can be scaled in various dimentions.

Social media could be integrated into the service.

Added functionality within frontLENK could enable users to tweet about their progress, providing social motivation and spreading awareness of the system.

LENK could be used to gather other kinds of information related to the S-train network. In a manner similar to MIT’s Place Pulse a variety of questions could be added. Instead of just gathering information on perceived urgency and safety, frontLENK users could select from a list of questions. This would allow information to be gathered on a wider variety of parameters. Place

82

Pulse has also implemented an iteration where it displays for the user two versions of the same photograph (Salesses, 2011). One of the versions removed etc.). This allows them to pinpoint for example, removing garbage from a picture prompts users to give it a 30% higher perceived safety rating (ibid.). LENK could also implement this feature to gather more detailed information.

This service could be implemented by other organizations or groups of organizations co-operating in some function. The output of LENK would always be user prioritized information, but this could be employed in a variety of situations. As LENK has been conceptualized as an independent, scalable, business, it would be able to sell its service to a multitude of customers. Some set-up would be required for each new implementation (the selection of a content-generation panel, question selection for frontLENK etc.), but as the service mainly regulates itself, this would be LENK’s main new-client investment. A hospital, for

Content generation could be expanded to other users within the S-train network. In the iteration detailed in this report, a commuter panel are the exclusive content-generators. BackLENK access could be expanded, however, to workers what makes its patients feel most comfortable, within each organization. This would give them a stronger sense of ownership over the service, and what sort of amenities will encourage customers allow them to more directly gather information to spend time there. on issues they need to know about.

Salesses, Phil. “TEDxMidAtlantic 2011. Hot or Not for Cities.” YouTube. YouTube, 1 Dec. 2011. Web. 25 Nov. 2014. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iaUrue0fwtw

DSB Clean Campaign

In the last days of this study, DSB launched a 3. campaign asking commuters about the cleanliness station right now? of the stations. This campaign is worth After the survey users can agree to give their full discussing both due to its similarity with the LENK concept, and the ways in which it differs. name, phone number and email address to be entered to win an iPad. The new campaign features posters placed in many of the S-train stations that show a spilled beverage and the words “Is it nice enough here?”. aspects of LENK. Underneath, the viewer is prompted to either The Clean Campaign makes an effort to send an SMS, scan a QR-code, call a number, or go to a website to access a survey about station relevance of the LENK concept: there is condition. No matter which method is used to a drive within S-train related organizations reach it, the survey remains the same. Users are toward a more user-centered, co-creational approach. (unrelated which station they access the survey from), asked to clarify whether they are on the organizations involved with S-train platform or in the station building itself, then maintenance feel they need commuter input asked three questions about station cleanliness: in this area–the primary function of LENK. 1.

The Clean Campaign relies on a terms of being free of garbage and waste on poster campaign to alert commuters the platforms? of its presence. The posters feature photographs of common station issues 2. which usually have negative connotations. the station right now?

The posters support our theory that an advertising campaign would prompt commuters to download and interact with frontLENK. They also highlight the fact that organizations involved do not view photographs of maintenance issues as an important point, as of course LENK would rely on participating organizations’ willingness to allow commuters to view these sorts of images.

LENK improves on the DSB Clean Campaign in several areas. Technically, there are issues with the Clean Campaign’s execution. The phone number listed is invalid, the survey is not related geographically to the station the commuter is standing in, the questions are limited, the method of answering is not very expressive, and the interface while answering the survey is not engaging. In its ideal form, LENK would address all these issues. LENK would also encourage users to engage more than once; the Clean Campaign is static, encouraging one-time-use.

83

Conclusion Reflections on Group Work

The group members’ different backgrounds and ways of thinking have been both challenging and rewarding. We clearly felt that service design is not practiced individually, but that the combined analysis and creative potential of the group is necessary to dissect and solve complex problems in innovative ways. We used our different national backgrounds in a myriad of ways. For example, we each brought up national examples during research and brainstorming-sessions. Overall the group was very productive and worked well together.

84

Reflections on Learning Goals

In conclusion, working on this project has helped us achieve the learnings we strived for with our personal learning goals, as well as

understanding was slightly incomplete due to lack of access to certain interviewees.

ability, applied the tools and methods relevant to service design when approaching our problem.

We successfully developed a working prototype on which to perform tests. By being supremely clear about our users and the environment and circumstances the different elements of LENK would be deployed, we believe we delivered a sound solution proposal taking into consideration the constraints and limitations we faced from the beginning.

some of our persona-generating efforts, were rooted directly in the skills we acquired from our programming course, so we succeeded in applying this in a meaningful service design context.

During our interview sessions we achieved a good understanding of the stakeholder’s perception of their own role in the system, and we succeeded in approaching and gathering information from them. Unfortunately our

our obtained understanding of users’ and their perception of the system, because we implemented a service system that taps into commuter’s tacit emotions toward their environment. Involving users in workshops and utilizing more co-creation methods would have improved this understanding.

85

86

References

Aalborg University. “Curriculum for the Master’s Programme in Service Systems Design.” (n.d.): 9-10. 29 Apr. 2012.

Bauer, Martin. “The Narrative Interview.

Comments on a Technique for Qualitative Data Collection.” London School of Economics and Political Science 1 (2006). Oct. 2006. Web. 17 Nov. 2014.

CNA/kk. “More Customer Feedback Channels, Safety Measures Unveiled by SMRT.” Channel NewsAsia. N.p., 17 Sept. 2014. Web. 11 Nov. 2014. http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/ singapore/more-customer-feedback/1366268. html Cotterell, Mike, and Bob Hughes. “Managing Iterative Processes.” Software Project Management. 5th ed. London: International Thomson Computer, 2009. 99-101. Print.

DSB & Banestyrelsen. “Bodelingskort” [Powerpoint] Received from Tommas B. Thomsen at Banedanmark. 30 Nov. 2000.

“FixMyStreet.” FixMyStreet. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 “Giv Et Vink!” Gentofte Kommune. N.d. Web. 11 Nov. 2014. http://www.gentofte.dk/da/Borger/By-og-milj%C3%B8/Giv-et-vink-2014 Hosono, S. et al. “A methodology of persona-centric service design.” Proceedings of the 19th CIRP Design Conference–Competitive Design 31 Mar. 2009. Web. 01 Dec. 2014.

IDEO. Design Thinking for Educators Toolkit.

2nd ed. N.p.: IDEO, 2012. IDEO LLC. Web. 29 Sept. 2014.

Manzini, Ezio, Stephen Evans, and Luisa Collina.

Solution Oriented Partnership: How to Design

Maurya, Ash. “Why Lean Canvas vs Business Model Canvas?” Practice Trumps Theory. N.d.

Web. 05 Dec. 2014. http://practicetrumpstheory. com/why-lean-canvas/ NS. “Nederlandse Spoorwegen Visie op Stations.

Van overstapmachine naar dynamisch stadsportaal.” 2006.

Place Pulse. MIT Media Lab, n.d. Web. 24 Nov. 2014. http://pulse.media.mit.edu

Jonas, Wolfgang. “A Scenario for Design.” Design Issues 17.2 (2001): 64-80. Web. 01 Dec. 2014.

Ratcliffe, Jim (Ed.). “Steps in a Design Thinking Process.” The K12 Lab Wiki. N.p., 01 Aug. 2009.

Københavns Kommune og Danmarks StatisWeb. 29 Sept. 2014. tik 2014. Befolkningen efter køn og alder 1.1.2014. Web. 25 Nov. 2014. http://www.

Salesses, Phil. “TEDxMidAtlantic 2011. Hot or kk.dk/~/media/A4E43E34D01547CFA831DNot for Cities.” YouTube. YouTube, 1 Dec. 2011.

6CA6F9DF164.ashx Web. 25 Nov. 2014. https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=iaUrue0fwtw

Schwaber, Ken, and Jeff Sutherland. “The Scrum Guide.” Scrum Guide. N.p., July 2013. Web. 02 Dec. 2014.

Stake, Robert E. The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 1995.

Print.

Stickdorn, Marc, and Jakob Schneider, eds. This Is Service Design Thinking. Amsterdam: BIS, 2011. Print.

Urban Puls. Københavns Kommune, n.d. Web. 24 Nov. 2014. http://urbanpuls.kl7.dk/ van Hagen, Mark, and Mel Heilligers. “Effect of Station Improvement Measures on Customer Satisfaction.” European Transport Conference 2011. 10 Oct. 2011. Web. Wardman, M. Public Transport Values of Time.

Leeds: University of Leeds, Institute for Transport Studies, 2001. 363-77. Web.

87

Fordelingen af tekniske anlæg, bygninger og arealer mellem DSB og Banedanmark er i grove træk: DSB:

Appendix 1: Press release from DSB Pressebaggrund

ar

emateriale

Fakta om fordelingen af opgaver og ansvar mellem DSB og Banedanmark 20-11-2008 13:55:00 Den 1. januar 1997 blev det daværende DSB opdelt i to selvstændige virksomheder, en operatørvirksomhed og en infrastrukturvirksomhed. DSB har nu ansvaret for togtrafikken, mens Banedanmark forvalter jernbaneinfrastrukturen.

t

lelser

Det overordnede formål med opdelingen var at gøre det muligt at køre togdrift i fri konkurrence.

Opdelingen gjorde det nødvendigt at dele opgaver, bygninger, arealer, materiel, infrastruktur mv. entydigt mellem de to virksomheder. Det overordnede princip for bodelingen blev fastlagt politisk og placerede de jernbanetekniske anlæg i det daværende Banestyrelsen (nu Banedanmark), mens DSB fx fik alle stationsbygninger.

ation

r

Hvorfor blev DSB delt op i to selvstændige virksomheder?

Opdelingen i en operatørvirksomhed og en infrastrukturforvalter udspringer af EU-direktiv nr. 440 fra 1991. De fleste EU-lande har efterhånden reorganiseret deres jernbane med henblik på at køre togdrift i fri konkurrence.

12/3/2014

Stationsbygninger Klargøringsanlæg Godsterminaler Remiseanlæg Værksteder- alt sammen inkl. tekniske anlæg, som spor, sporskifter og køreledninger.

Banedanmark: Genveje Banelegeme og baneleje Kundeservice Skinner og sveller Ledige stillinger Sikrings- og signalanlæg Presse Sporskifter og sporkryds Fjernstyringsanlæg Kørestrømsanlæg inkl. køreledninger og master Søg i meddelelser Kommandoposter, relæhytter, telehytter og brohytter Øvrige bygninger, der anvendes i forbindelse med infrastrukturen Dæmninger, grøfter og snehegn Årstal Overkørsler og underføringer Støjskærme Arbejdspladser langs banen Nyheder Opstillingsspor PresseFordelingen af teknik, servicefaciliteter og infrastruktur på perroner følger et overordnet princip om, at alt meddelelser fra perronbelægningen og nedefter tilhører Banedanmark, mens det meste udstyr ovenpå belægningen Pressetilhører DSB. Der er dog en række undtagelser fra det overordnede princip, fx tilhører perronure, baggrund teknikrum på perroner, perronbelysning, højttalere samt de skærme, der har med passagerinformation at gøre, Banedanmark.

Fritekst søgning De overordnede skitser over ejerforholdene på hhv. en fjerntogsperron og en S-togsperron findes her.

Bemærk, at skitserne ikke dækker alle situationer.

DSB: Fakta om fordelingen af opgaver og ansvar mellem DSB og Banedanmark

Hvem gør hvad?

Ifølge direktivet skal jernbanerne konkurrere på markedsbetingelser, hvis togtransporten skal overleve i fremtiden. En forudsætning for at drive jernbane baseret på udbud og efterspørgsel er en opsplitning af http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:rzb8UgSsdyMJ:193.28.147.158/da/om-dsb/presse/pressebaggrund/fakta-om-fordelingen-af-opgaver-og-…

DSB og Banedanmark har som overordnet princip hver især ansvaret for drift og vedligeholdelse af de de nationale baner i en operatørdel og en infrastrukturdel. Ifølge EU-kommissionen vil det nemlig være anlæg, bygninger og arealer, de ejer. Med hensyn til fx renholdelse og snerydning vil det sige, at DSB konkurrenceforvridende, hvis ét og samme selskab både ejer og administrerer skinnerne og samtidig Abonnér på som hovedregel har opgaven på stationsforpladser, ved cykelparkering og såkaldte indre adgangsveje, konkurrerer med andre operatører om kørslen. presseinformation dvs. hvor man skal ind gennem en bygning for at få adgang til perronen.

Tilmeld til RSS Hvordan foregik bodelingen?

Banedanmark skal holde rent og rydde sne på perroner, perronspor og ydre adgangsveje, dvs.

Folketingets Finansudvalg vedtog i juli 1997 de overordnede politiske retningslinier for delingen af adgangsveje hvor man ikke skal gennem en bygning for at komme til perronen. Dog er det stadig DSB’s bygninger, arealer og infrastruktur: opgave at tømme affaldskurve på perronerne.

De jernbanetekniske anlæg (fx skinner, signaler og sporskifter) tilfaldt Banestyrelsen Bygninger, der anvendes i forbindelse med infrastrukturen, fik Banestyrelsen. Alle andre bygninger, herunder stationsbygninger, tilfaldt DSB. Arealer, som er specifikke for DSB som operatør, blev i DSB, som også fik tildelt alle salgbare arealer.

Alle øvrige arealer fik Banestyrelsen.

Derefter fulgte en årelang proces, hvor DSB og Banestyrelsen bl.a. gennemgik hver enkelt station for at fastslå ejerskabet til de mange forskellige elementer og fordele ansvaret for opgaverne på stationerne.

Hvem ejer hvad?

Fordelingen af tekniske anlæg, bygninger og arealer mellem DSB og Banedanmark er i grove træk: DSB: Stationsbygninger Klargøringsanlæg Godsterminaler Remiseanlæg Værksteder- alt sammen inkl. tekniske anlæg, som spor, sporskifter og køreledninger.

Information om togdriften til DSB’s passagerer deles DSB og Banedanmark om. Informationen via højttalere og skærme er Banedanmarks ansvar. Information i togene varetages af DSB, som også står for trafikinformation på tekst-tv og DSB’s hjemmeside. Desuden er en ny sms-service med her-og-nu information specielt til pendlere på vej. Banedanmark yder landsdækkende trafikinformation på deres hjemmeside.

På S-togsnettet har DSB også ansvaret for passagerinformation via højttalere og skærme.

Hvordan er fordelingen på S-togsstationerne?

Opgave- og ansvarsfordelingen på S-togsstationerne afviger på visse områder fra fordelingen på regional- og fjerntogsstationerne. Det skyldes, at S-banen kører i et regionalt system, som ikke er omfattet af det EU-direktiv, der afstedkom opdelingen i DSB og Banedanmark.

Fordelingen på S-togsstationerne følger i hovedtræk også princippet om, at stort set alle elementer over perronbelægningen tilhører DSB S-tog, mens alt fra perronbelægningen og nedefter tilhører Banedanmark. Undtagelserne fra dette princip er færre på S-togsstationer end på de øvrige stationer. På S-togsstationerne består undtagelserne af informationsskilte til lokomotivførerne og påbudsskilte, teknikrum samt køreledningsmaster, som tilhører Banedanmark.

I denne forbindelse defineres S-togsstationer som stationer, der udelukkende betjener S-banen.

Banedanmark:

88

Banelegeme og baneleje Skinner og sveller Sikrings- og signalanlæg Sporskifter og sporkryds Fjernstyringsanlæg

Tilbage til listen

1/2

ERS Advanced Form - F1

av 4

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1-3ucq7von2rqI40nh1o8l1...

Appendix 2: SERS-survey SERS Advanced Form - F1

SERS Advanced Form - F1

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1-3ucq7von2rqI40nh1o8l1...

SERS Advanced Form - F1

8. Are all necessary facilities available

Markér bare én oval.

Yes

https://docs.google.com/for

20. Markér bare én oval.

14. Is there water?

Garbage Cans, etc.

Markér bare én oval.

1. Station name?

SERS Advanced Form - F1 https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1-3ucq7von2rqI40nh1o8l1...

Less than 5

Yes

5-15

No

15-30

No

30+

15. Are windows transparent?

Markér bare én oval.

9. Comments on available facilities?

2. Are maintenance workers present?

Any short inputs?

Usability

Yes

Markér bare én oval.

No 21. Escalators working

Yes

Markér bare én oval.

16. Does it smell?

No

Markér bare én oval.

Yes No

3. What time of day?

1

Eksempel: 8.30

3

4

5

Flowers

Cleanliness

Physical State

2

Rancid

22. Signage working?

Markér bare én oval.

Yes

Vandalism

10. Is trash present outside of recepticles?

No

Markér bare én oval.

4. Is there visible damage to walls or floors?

17. Is there graffitti?

Yes

Markér bare én oval.

23. Signage for construction?

Markér bare én oval.

Markér bare én oval.

No 1

Yes

3

4

Yes

5

No

11. If yes, what sort of trash?

No

2

Less

Cigarette buds, old clothes etc?

More 24. Elevator Working?

Markér bare én oval.

18. Is "furniture" damaged?

5. Is the station under construction

Markér bare én oval.

Markér bare én oval.

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

25. Overall Impression of the station

6. Is there major safety flaws?

Markér bare én oval.

Guests

12. Is there visible dirt on walls or floors?

1

Markér bare én oval.

Markér bare én oval.

Yes

Yes

1 None

More

Drevet av

Markér bare én oval.

No

5

No

Markér bare én oval.

Yes

4

Yes

13. Are there spiderwebs / nests etc?

7. Protection from elements?

3

Less

Markér bare én oval.

No

No

2

19. Are people loitering?

2

3

4

5 Heaps 4 av 4

3 av 4

2 av 4

08.12.14 11:58

08.12.14 11:58

08.12.14 11:58

89

Appendix 3: SERS-survey results

90

91

92

Appendix 4: Narrative shadowing results

Narrative Shadowing #1 Subject: Danish girl, from Århus, has lived in Copenhagen for one month, student at AAU Date/time: 07.10.2014/16:45 Where: We took the S-train from Sydhavn to Nørreport.

This is what the girl said (that was relevant to our project): At Sydhavn station: “This morning I noticed that they painted these walls, and I thought it was nice. It kind of makes the station feel more welcoming. On the other hand, I think it’s a bit annoying with all this construction work. This scaffolding…”

“Oh, the escalator is not working?! Oh well…”

“I have just bought a Reisekort, so I hope it works. DING. Yes!” things that you don’t normally think about. But I think that the problem is that I don’t feel that there are so many problems. Like if there was something that annoyed me, I would’ve commented on it. You know, I would notice. But really think about it anymore.”

“In the beginning I took the train every day, but now I usually do it two times a week.”

“I have to switch trains one time on my journey, at Ny Ellebjerg.”

“Maybe this sounds kind of weird, but sometimes I am a bit uncomfortable at Ny Ellebjerg, because it is an outer station. So there are some

types there that are a bit scary or whatever.”

“In the beginning I didn’t know where to go at Ny Ellebjerg. I don’t think it’s very well signed. It “Usually I don’t do anything when I wait for the train, actually. I don’t like to look at my cellphone all the time, so I kind of take a break from it when i travel.”

“In the night time, the trains doesn’t go that often. That is a bit frustrating, because I have to wait for 20 minutes for my transfer. But I normally don’t go to Ny Ellebjerg, or the stations that are so far out. I can’t remember the name of avoid the end-stations when I am on my own at night.”

In the train: “Oh, look at that guy. (A guy is smoking on the train, by the doors, while the train is moving.)

That doesn’t look very legal. But i guess they have surveillance on the trains. But they can’t really do much about it now. Only if a controller passes.”

At Nørreport station: “There are so many people here!”

“At least there is a lot of light in here, compared to outside.” (It was a rainy and dark day.)

Later: “Oh! I just realized that I forgot to check out with my Rejsekort..! Damn it…”

Narrative Shadowing #2

Narrative Shadowing #3

Subject: Danish guy, has lived in Copenhagen for 5 years Date/time: 11.10.2014/13:00 Where: Bispebjerg - Hellerup - Klampenborg (with bikes) and Klampenborg - Vesterport

Subject: Spanish girl, has lived in Copenhagen for one month, student at AAU Date/time: 12.10.2014/17:00 Where: We walked around Nørreport station

At Bispebjerg station: “I don’t usually think about the stations while I’m here. My mind is usually on other things, so this is a very manufactured setting. Normally I would be thinking about my thesis or other things. I’m not sure what kind of information you’ll be able to get from me in this type of setting. Anyway, all I can really tell you is that I get so annoyed when people without bikes wait at the bike door and get on the train there. It slows everything down and doesn’t make any sense. You see? So many people waiting here when there is plenty of space on the platform.”

In the train: “So many bikes in here! Kind of stressful when it is crowded like this. I guess right now I feel stressful.”

Before the station: “Right now I think that this is super messy, but it’s because they’re building something here - I hope. It’s really hard to know what’s going on, and how to get to the station. But, I mean, I’ve been here before so I kind of know the way. We can go this way.”

At the station: “I think this is so messy now because they’re actually working here, but still it’s super dirty. I don’t really know what to tell you. I wish they you a good feeling. Like this open door and this… fence. This station, I don’t like it. It’s really cold... not like, temperature, but it’s not cozy or whatever.”

At Vesterport station: (Elevator not working, and up-escalator not working). “This is so frustrating! Look at that guy with a bike and a baby on the back, what is he going to do now? Maybe he needs help? I guess we will have to just carry our bikes up the stairs.”

Later: “Oh! I just realized that I forgot to check out with my Rejsekort..!”

93

Narrative Shadowing #4 Subject: Bulgarian girl, has lived in Copenhagen for one month, student at AAU. Takes the train every day.

Date/time: 06.10.2014/15:30 Where: Sydhavn station, travelling to Central Station At the station: “Today they have been painting here, because in the morning there were some guys painting. But it looks nice. It’s really bright, better than before.

Oh, the escalator is not working... It’s not usual.

Maybe from today they got these reconstructions. I think these reconstructions started like You can see that there is not that much place for people and if there is a queue with many people it will be hard to go home.”

At the platform: “Usually there are not so many people here, maybe it’s time to go home. There are ticket machines but I got a card so I don’t need to use some trash. But today it’s clean, but windy. It’s just the weather. The station is clean, because last time when it was not so clean, there were guys who were cleaning the trash. “ “Before, when I was living in Lyngby, I had to travel for more than twenty minutes. Lyngby station is clean, it’s a small one but there are so

94

many people. It’s because you know, it’s another neighborhood. It’s far away.”

“I have taken the train at night two times. But there are some delays, sometimes it was strange because maybe three or four times train stops and nothing was happening. It was announced lights change. That’s not good. Also maybe three times they were checking the tickets and the people who were checking, let’s say that they show to everybody if somebody is not with the ticket.

They are trying to show off these guys not with tickets, so be aware with your ticket. If they catch up somebody they will try to show everybody. It’s normal.”

“I usually wait for the train just here in the mid-

Narrative Shadowing #5 Subject: Vietnamese guy, has lived in Copenhagen for two years, student at AAU. Takes the train everyday.

Date/time: 06.10.2014/15:45 Where: Sydhavn station, travelling to Nørreport At the station: “I don’t feel that special. I come here everyday and it looks the same. Actually, I quite like the new painting they have done. It’s exciting to renovation. It has been quite old before and now it’s pretty new with new paint and stuff like that so it will look better soon. So looking forward to that.”

“It’s quite annoying that they’ll start to have these things, renovation, you sometimes only have this side to walk down. So during the rush hour it’s annoying. I arrive to the station in the morning around 8.30 or 9.30.”

At the platform: “I usually check in, I have the rejsekort. It’s more convenient I guess. I usually sit over there (while I wait), there is a bench.”

“There is a lot of bikes outside the station. It’s nothing special, except now they are building the sidewalk so you cannot walk there, you only have a small path and it’s quite annoying. But hopefully

there is no room.”

“I have taken the train a few times at night, you have to wait a little longer and sometimes it’s like 20 minutes or something. It’s better if you have Rejseplanen on your phone and then you just go”. Otherwise you just come here and if you’re if you’re not you have to wait like 20 minutes. It depends on the station whether it’s okay to wait there at night or not. Some stations look quite safe, majority of them, but I have heard from few people that Enghave station is not that safe. It has never happened to me, but I have heard that some people have been mugged. It looks quite scary to be honest, because it’s underground.

Here you go up and there is light everywhere.

There it’s dark.”

“Most of the time the trains are in a good shape, but it’s not exception that there are drunken some times you have like missing seats, but that doesn’t happen so often.”

“The Nørreport station is now under construction but it’s a nice place. Here at the platform in Sydhavn, it hasn’t really changed during the renovation, but two years ago they replaced the manual timetable screens to modern once, and they are a lot nicer. It is also good to see from the screen how long the train is so you know where to wait with your bike. I never sit inside, if it’s raining I just stand inside and wait for my train.”

Appendix 6.1: Version 1 Engagement test results

95

Appendix 6.2: Version 1 Engagement test quotes

27.11.2014 13.40-15.30 Subject 1.

“How to use this?”

“I was expecting an end.”

“I need some feedback.”

Needs a timeline etc.

Subject 2.

“I can go on, but let me know that you’re receiving something.”

Suprised when things work, notice positive things Subject 3.

“I can recognize it’s Vesterport station.”

“Depending on my day or how I feel.. I may do various things.”

“Sometimes it can be hard to decide, because you are not at that place right now.”

“It’s hard decision you know?”

“He he he, that’s funny.”

“Oh! I didn’t see the equals.”

“Can I choose another thing, other than safety?”

“I want to comment about how the train is late!

Instead of safety.”

“I’m not so into using Twitter just to make complaints, I use it to get information.”

“I would like this to give feedback on the escalators! They never work.”

96

Subject 4.

“When do they run out?”

Subject 5.

“I don’t care how the station looks.”

“I don’t do anything while I take the train.”

“Merkelig..”

“The pictures are the same.”

Subject 6.

“The metro stations are usually quite nice, but I don’t like it when it smells. Especially at Nørreport station it sometimes smells really bad.”

Subject 7.

“I care if it’s (train) late” “How many are there?”

Subject 8.

“Laugh.”

“It gets easier as we go.”

“Once you know you can click in the middle.”

“I don’t feel entertained.” (Laughs in the beginning > engaged > challenged > game) Subject 9.

Thought “=” was a indicator.

Clear interaction

Appendix 6.3: Version 2 Engagement test results

97

Appendix 6.4: Version 2 Engagement test quotes

28.11.2014 11.30-13.30 Subject 1.

I would play it more to help, for my conscience, than for entertainment Subject 2.

Was quite concentrated Subject 3.

“I tried to be as good as I could” Subject 4. scared, but more too open spaces” “I’m killing time, and I would use it if I knew about it from some campaign maybe” Subject 5.

“I like to try myself in quizzes and stuff ” (Then she kept going on playing) “I like the idea of the maintenance providers prioritizing according to my preferences, and I would like to help with that”.

Subject 7.

“It’s kindda boring” (Kept playing to 3rd round) Subject 8. and the people I’m worried about”

98