Three user-driven innovation methods were used to co-create cloud services: focus groups, online crowdsourcing, and direct interaction at an open innovation showroom. The focus groups produced quick feedback and ideas in a lab setting. Online crowdsourcing generated the most creative ideas from a large number of participants. Direct interaction at the showroom created close-to-real-life experience and tangible ideas by involving users in their environment. Privacy concerns were expressed across the studies. The methods provided different levels of insights into what cloud services users want.

1. Three User-Driven Innovation Methods for
Co-Creating Cloud Services
Ting-Ray Chang & Eija Kaasinen
VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland
Interact, Sept. 7, 2011, Lisbon
Cloud Software program

2. 08/09/2011 2
Agenda of the presentation
 Introduction: Cloud Services & Open Telco
 Motivations & some initial decisions
 Method one: Focus group ideation
 Method two: Online Crowdsourcing in Open Web Lab (Owela)
 Method three: Direct Interaction at the Open Innovation Showroom
(Ihme)
 Examples of user ideations and acceptance comments toward privacy
 Q&A

3. 08/09/2011 3
Introduction: cloud services & Open Telco
 Cloud Software: installable applications  web-based computing,
somewhat a new idea for everyday end-users
 Open Telco: Open API framework for mobile networks, aim to develop
services utilizing users’ data via tele-operators
 Creating value proposals within the project partners
 Expertise from the project group: technical,
business, designers, researchers, etc.
 9 value proposals
 Outcome  illustrated initial scenarios
 Technical possibilities  services users
actually want

4. 08/09/2011 4
User Driven Innovation & Co-Creation
 User-Driven Innovation [Holmquist, L.(2004)] :
Users considered as a source of inspiration that can foster
innovation.
 Co-creation: With USERS, designers/researchers gain insights in idea
generations to create services
 Co-design: User role is an equal design partner which enables the
designers and users make design decisions together
 Participatory design: multi-stakeholders work together in different
stages of design practices

5. 08/09/2011 5
Motivations & some initial decisions
 Cloud computing, what could it be for our end-users?
 To involve users in early design processes
 To gather different levels of insights from the end-users, from the
values of the services to specific interactions and user experiences
 Different types of user-involvement: real-world versus lab setting,
face-to-face versus online interaction, synchronized versus
unsynchronized ideation
 Resource dependent
 Quantitative versus qualitative analysis in goal-oriented research

6. 08/09/2011 6
Focus group ideation
 Established user study method
 Goal: feedback on acceptance and ideation of proposed value proposals
 8 participants, 4F+4M, invited and scheduled, user lab setting, one hour.
 Introduce value proposals with illustrated scenarios, comments and group
discussions. Followed by group ideations of future TV
 Lists of ideas and comments were produced, many consensus were reached

7. 08/09/2011 7
Online Crowdsourcing in Open Web Lab (Owela)
 84 Users from around the
world invited to participate
the online ideation
 Users ideated free from time
and space restrictions
 Researcher participation for
motivating and monitoring
ideation and discussions
 Large amount of data (221
threaded comments), crazy
ideas, deep feelings, and
vivid stories
 More tech-oriented user
groups

8. 08/09/2011 8
An example of user ideations of future TV

9. 08/09/2011 9
Direct Interaction at the Open Innovation Showroom (Ihme)
 Ihme: bring user research to the users’ world, in a living lab (in Finnish
Ihme also means miracle)
 Other new technology to try and experience (e.g. eye-ware-free 3D-TV)
 Semi-structured discussions between researchers, designers and users
 20 – 45 mins per session, 26 participants in first two weeks
 Users of all types could participate in & out freely, attracted “everyday”
user groups
 Pro: Designers/researchers in users’ shoes, co-create tangible UX
 Challenge: recruit & motivate participation, flexible schedule

10. 08/09/2011 10
examples of user ideations of future TV and M2M

11. 08/09/2011 11
Some acceptance comments toward privacy in all studies
@Focus group:
‘yes I think it can be a problem.’
‘yeah I also worry.’
@Ihme:
‘It [peer recommendation services] feels like being tracked when you are on the
road and everyone will make the same choices.’
‘If it [universal profile] follows me everywhere, it is like a chip in my dog...’
@Owela:
‘there are going to be serious privacy issues though, so this would definitely need to
be an opt-in service so people don’t get upset.’
‘I think I would be a bit worried about who gets access to my information and
possible misuse issues.’
‘It seems obvious to me that this information cannot possibly be kept private. It
already bugs me that my car can be tracked as I cross bridges or toll points.’

12. 08/09/2011 12
Comparisons of three studies
Focus group Owela Ihme
Length of the study 1 hour 1 month 3 weeks
No. of users involved 8 participants 84 online users, 49 M + 35 F 26 users
Procedure BriefingIdeation Briefing Briefing Ideation+Discussion
Discussion Ideation+Discussion
Study duration 1 hour 4 weeks 20~40 min per user, 3wks
Value proposals 4 (4, 5 and 6, 7) 5 (1, 2, 3 and 6, 7) 5 (1, 2, 3 and 6, 7)
Environment Laboratory Real world Real world
Illustration material PowerPoint, video clips of Screen shots of scenarios PowerPoint, video clips of scenarios
scenarios
Media Face to face Online Face to face
Data gathering Notes and post-its Online forum Interview notes & post-its
No. of comments 63 221 252
Data from Scen. 1-3 Acceptance comments + 5 Acceptance comments + 20 Questionnaire data (19 questions)
new* ideas new* ideas
Different categories of 4 12 13
ideas – future TV
Different categories of 5 12 5
ideas – M2M
Group/individual Group Group Individual
discussions
User participation, Scheduled Free Free
scheduled versus free

13. 08/09/2011 13
Take-away
 For our project:
 value proposals evaluated and further developed into cloud services,
ex. Group text chat, “why? I already have it on my phone..”
 Deep understanding of the end-users
 Ideation and evaluation with lead users and everyday users
 For researchers and designers:
Focus group was the most efficient method for producing quick ideas
and feedback;
Owela online co-creation gave most creative ideas; and
Ihme direct interaction in a living lab creates the most close-to-real-
life-experience (tangible) ideas.
 Other things to consider: resource, recruiting and motivating users

14. 08/09/2011 14
For further interests
 To find out more about User-driven innovation and TAMM
(Technology Acceptance Model for Mobile Services), see:
http://www.vtt.fi/people/eija_kaasinen.jsp?lang=en
 Cloud Software Program:
http://www.cloudsoftwareprogram.org
 Further questions or to get the PPT from this presentation:
Find ”Ting-Ray Chang” on LinkedIn, or (DesignResearcher)
http://www.linkedin.com/in/designresearcher

15. 08/09/2011 15
VTT creates business
from technology