TOPIC-Kickoff-Meeting on 7^th June, 2013 in Vienna

Minutes
Sunday, June 30, 13

Contents

GENERAL DISCUSSION........................................................................................................... 2

Users................................................................................................................................................................................... 2

Clarifications................................................................................................................................................................ 2

SPACES OF THE TOPIC-PLATFORM..................................................................................... 3

Learning Corner (LC)............................................................................................................................................... 4

Fun Corner...................................................................................................................................................................... 5

Chat Room....................................................................................................................................................................... 6

Support Group Corner............................................................................................................................................ 6

Market Place (MP)..................................................................................................................................................... 7

Surveillance Corner............................................................................................................................................. 7IC

ORGANISATIONAL ISSUES..................................................................................................... 8

Meetings for the TOPIC-project........................................................................................................................ 8

Logo/Website/CSS/CI............................................................................................................................................. 8

Communication tools.............................................................................................................................................. 8

Share/Exchange of documents.......................................................................................................................... 8

Internal Deadlines..................................................................................................................................................... 9

Time Records................................................................................................................................................................ 9

Intellectual Property............................................................................................................................................... 9

BUSINESS MODEL/PLAN: IDEAS.......................................................................................... 9

NEXT WORKPACKAGES AND TASKS................................................................................. 10

T1.1. Identification of end-users (M1-M3)............................................................................................. 10

Actions......................................................................................................................................................................... 10

T1.2. Pre-Study (M4-M6).................................................................................................................................... 10

Actions......................................................................................................................................................................... 10

T1.3. Identification of use cases (M10-M13)......................................................................................... 10

WP5.................................................................................................................................................................................. 10

GENERAL DISCUSSION

· Research project à Keep doors open

o Test things that may not work.

· We will create new things, not only use things that are ready to use.

Users

· User-Centered and Participatory Design Approach à Keep in mind: Work for the users, with the users.

· Necessary to say how long we will stay in each home.

o Suggestion: Use different data collection methods. à Use instruments for data self-collection (e.g., diaries).

· We have to know for whom we are going to design and deliver our platform. à We have to create Personas[1]^,[2](e.g., caregivers, customers, professional caregivers, etc.) to define our end-users.

o Suggestion: 3-4 personas the most: one primary, one secondary and one non-persona for that reason. This will depend on the T1.1 and T1.2 results from WP1.

o In order to design the platform that would be truly helpful to users (e.g., caregivers), we must first define the needs of the caretakers, analyze how informal caregivers can help and what actions they perform, and then for each of the actions see how it can be enhanced through the TOPIC platform.

· User participation à Discussion on whether the users should participate for the whole period of the project.

o Suggestion: To adapt and change users in the different phases. Further discussion in the brainstorming session for WP1.

· Questions we have to answer for the definition of TOPIC end-users:

o Who are the end-users of the TOPIC platform?

o How will they use the system?

o What will be the impact of the platform on their social lives?

o What will be the outcome/benefit for the end-users?

o What content shall be used by whom of the end-users?

Clarifications

· “Living Lab” is a research concept[3] and can be defined differently, very narrow stressing the lab in which users can spend time and can be studied, and very broad including every place in which the users spend time and interact with the systems provided.

· User requirements will be defined from the studies run in the first phase of the project. à User-Centered Design approach

o Industry partners are concerned that they will have to implement many different versions of the tools, given that the requirements are not defined yet. à First artifacts to be shown to users will be simple prototypes, i.e., they don’t need to be fully functional. Then, we have more defined systems or services that we communicate with the industrial partners. These will be then implemented in TOPIC.

· Scale of the studies for WP1: 30 people or 30 household?

o Small pool at the beginning (around 10 participants); gradually scale up.

· How to motivate participants (e.g., money, tablets, final product, feeling of helping the society and contributing to the research, …)

o Different partners have different previous experiences with users.

o Users from different culture and background have different motivation. Important to find our strongest selling point à Agreement on using the argument that we strive to reduce the burden of the users as the main selling point for recruiting users.

o Be careful about how to talk about the study. If users perceive the study as something that will demand a lot from them they will not participate.

· Focus on informal caregivers? Would the platform not be interesting for formal caregivers as well? à It could.

· What comes first: Defining personas or selecting users à This should be done simultaneously in the first months.

Further questions:

· How do we find our users?

· How do we run our preliminary studies? Should we use Living Labs?

SPACES OF THE TOPIC-PLATFORM

Figure 1: TOPIC CarePortfolio.

Learning Corner (LC)

There are two scenarios/settings relevant for LC:

1) Users visit it for the 1^st time à we have to motivate them for this, i.e., we have to offer interesting relevant information for our users so that they can see the need to visit the LC, also the ways how we let them to interact there can be very inviting. We should not take for granted that the users will go to the learning corner just because it is available to them.

2) Users come back again to LC à We need to offer new content over the time and keep the web site attractive for the users. They should be eager to find out whether there is something new for them in the LC. We need someone or some organizations putting relevant up-to-date data into the LC. If we apply the prosumer-consumer approach, we have to have a mechanism for approval of the content before published in the LC.

· Do we need a real back-office where questions can be answered by professionals? Or LC is a virtual space where information is provided to certain topics which are relevant for informal caregivers?

· Is the technology Wiki-based? Can the consumer add also information to the offered data in LC or do they only consume it?

· Is a FAQ useable for our users? à They have no time to access it.

· Is Q&A an important feature of the environment? It is a learning environment, so maybe the most important thing is how to present the concepts? à Q&A is important to clarify doubts on the concepts presented in the LC.

· Should it be possible to exchange synchronous information with others? à Otherwise it would be very boring for the users.

· Call center strategy? Who would be available to answer the calls? Dedicated persons? What would be the (dimension of the) impacts on the costs of the platform?

· In LC events can be organized, in which users need to be present. à Life meetings for exchange.

· What is the quality of service we provide in the LC?

o Users can get immediately an answer to their questions …

o … from experts.

o Who should answer the questions in the LC? Only formal/professional caregivers? Former caregivers? Anybody in the platform? How should this be mediated?

o Problems with scalability and cost à How to answer questions coming from 10.000 people in the platform?

· LC should be well-organized

o Concepts should be clear and presented in a way to allow for easy learning about situations that our users deal with.

o What would be the learning theory behind it? Instructionism? Constructivism?

· Content presented in an on-line environment should be designed differently from content used in conventional learning? Who will be responsible for designing the LC content? à USI based on the results of the ethnography.

o Language used in LC à Expert vs. ordinary language. Farmer’s example: Concepts explained in expert language did not go through.

· There can be videos – how to’s – to present suggestions for solutions to practical problems. Maybe it is possible to share videos with other peers.

· LC is customizable and configurable for our users.

o Content LC should be tailored according to the “problem/illness” the caregiver is dealing with?

o It should use user profiles to select the appropriate content for the specific users. à How can the profile be defined? What are the parameters of a profile? We need this definition to filter the content in the LC and to present customized data with a corresponding navigation for the audience.

· What is the structure of the content provided in the LC? How is this connected to the user profiles and their preferences/configurations?

· Ethical restrictions

· We can motivate our users and other professional content providers to regular production of relevant up-to-date content for the LC. à How?

· Different types of interaction or format in the LC:

o Interactive Webinars[4] with persons moderated

o Instruction-based learning – information providing

o Peer-to-peer learning – videos

· In which ways is TOPIC LC different from conventional e-Learning environments? It should be different. à Is the fact that LC is integrated with different corners and possibly provide a different experience enough?

· Where the decisions on what should be in the learning corner come from? à The users should say what they need and then we prototype. We provide alternatives and test them, integrating the successful ones.

· Should LC be a closed group or open towards other communities?

· Problems with trust and correctness of information -> possibly solved through reputation systems and platform moderation

o Need for a person moderating the LC content?

We have to mind that we have different cultures and for that reason different personas! We have to consider the type of data we provide in the LC and the ways of accessing it, dependent on the culture, age, computer literacy of our users.

Fun Corner

· Maybe we need another name for this. à “way out”, “relaxing”, “laughing”, “escape”

· In this space we want to have funny things created and/or consumed by the users.

· Fun can be also defined as making fun of caring (jokes made). But this is not always same in different cultures.

o How important is it to think of cultural differences now? à Plan for the future. Intended scale of the project: All Europe? Worldwide?

o Problems with cultural differences may be naturally solved by organizing the content by language and considering these differences in the content generation.

o Disclaimer about nature of jokes made in a particular room of the fun corner?

· “Laughter Yoga”[5]: video-based, in English, in a room, interactive, active, films, (Mr. Bean, etc.)

· Browse Google Earth

· Games: simple, video, etc. à share/talk about dames, services

· Gymnastic, dancing, etc. individually or together

o Virtual Reality, Kinect games, Wii

o Real time video, with trainer + interactive

o Quiz – multi user?

· Recommender systems based on the social network of platform users

o Recommending things to do to have fun, share ideas for new fun.

o Quiz à e.g., “What do you do for fun?” type of discussions

Chat Room

· Chat with someone you don’t know.

o Probably recommended based on the users’ profiles (i.e., matching users who are dealing with similar situations)

· Anonymous? à As an option (switch on/off)

o Sometimes easier to open up with people that you do not know personally.

· Chat with someone not from the same community.

· Chat with another caregiver – have something in common.

· Group chats – join a chat group if it is open.

· In a specific place at home or not.

· “Speakers corner”[6] as a feature?

· Accessing the previous talks/chats if one has to pause or interrupt a chat session. à Continue chatting later on without loosing data, catch up.

· Synchronous & asynchronous communication (i.e., chat + forum)

o Important to be clear about labels

Support Group Corner

· Associations organizing Support Groups à Self-help groups

o Face-to-face à time constraints (only once a month)

o Virtual à more often

· There must be a protocol in place.

· It must be moderated à Think of the professionals who must be involved in moderating and keeping track of (inter)actions. Certain tools must be used to keep the (behavioral) protocols.

· Meetings should follow an agenda. à They are thematic and congregate people who have or had the same experiences.

· Online SGs à Easier for older men (according studies mentioned by Myriam).

· Closed vs. open to certain people.

· Tools: Join the SG, structure for continuous work.

· Should be widely disseminated in/through existing associations.

Market Place (MP)

· Providing service to each other (e.g., if you go to a movie theater, some one else can take care of the patient).

· Exchange good & services of any kind.

· Trust and security issues are important especially when offering services.

o Reputation system, suggestions, ratings, reviews, …

o Reporting if spam, does not follow regulations, etc.

· Recommender systems to personalize and address the users directly to services and offers of their choice, like pharmacy, super market, …

· Users: only informal caregivers?

o Who will be in this market place? Will doctors be able to advertise their services in this market place? à The idea was to have goods that can be consumed or exchanged à Does that include professional service that can be “consumed” by the users of the platform?

· The MP can be only location-related.

· It is possible to search in the MP.

· We need categories of services in the MP if there are many of them to make the access easier for the users.

· Based on end-user development the MP can be the space in which tools are established by the users themselves.

Surveillance Corner

· Integrate data coming from surveillance devices.

o Can the data be “integrated” captured by different devices?

o Aggregate (GPS, sensors, bracelets, etc.)

o We are definitely not going to develop surveillance devices in TOPIC

· Which devices and which data are used is case sensitive. We cannot establish overall the same surveillance equipment and services. Because it is also very delicate issue, we have to decide in which areas we want to work on this.

· One way to approach the sensibility of surveillance is to let users define whether and what devices shall be used.

· We need an interface to systems which are already available. We have to offer two features in this sense:

o Customizing by users.

o Data awareness à How to visualize the captured data? To whom?

· Who is using it?

o Informal caregivers

o Someone else, family members à Emergency numbers

· Safe motion à Check what is available technically.

o We can check the situation in an household, and help capturing emergencies or occurrences which need urgent attention of care givers.

· We should be careful with the wording. à Users may find the word “surveillance” threatening à Better refer to it as “information exchange” or “assisted living monitoring”

ORGANISATIONAL ISSUES

Meetings for the TOPIC-project

The whole consortium is holding a meeting once a month via Skype conference. Each meeting must have an agenda sent out at least one week before the meeting and a time structure and should be short. The consortium meetings should be used for reporting and decision-making. In general, every WP-leader has to report the current activities of its WP.

The WP-leaders have to organize meetings of their WPs itself. Since every partner is taking part in some activity of every WP, the idea is that the WP meetings will take place before the consortium meeting, so that people do not need to participate in 7 different meetings in a month (1 per WP + the consortium meeting). Therefore, the monthly meeting starts with the WP meetings and then continues with the consortium meeting. If there are decisions to be made, they can be discussed in the consortium meeting.

Over the 3 years of project duration we have 8 face-to-face meetings of the whole consortium in total. Three meetings during the first year (kick-off + 2 consortium meetings), 2 in the second year and 3 in the final year (2 consortium meetings + final meeting).

The next face-to-face meeting will take place from 24^th to 25^th October, 2013 in Paris hosted by the project partner “E-Seniors”.

Logo/Website/CSS/CI

· Logo/CSS – fonts and colors are organized by TUW and passed on to WEBINAGE.

· WEBINAGE implements the infrastructure of the website and makes it available.

· TUW enters the content to the website with the help of all partners.

· Important to keep the website up-to-date. Our reviewers and AAL officers pay attention to news, announcements, and stuff posted on the website.

· Templates for slides/documents are done by TUW.

· SOPHIA is sending ideas for a logo.

Communication tools

· Skype

· Mailing list

· BSCW

· Website: Company partner WEBINAGE does the host for the URLs http://www.topic-project.eu and http://www.topic-aal.eu.

· JIRA will be used for the configuration management, bug reports and change requests (ILOGS will care for) of the source code.

Share/Exchange of documents

The BSCW is used for sharing files: http://bscw.media.tuwien.ac.at/pub/

It will include folder for each WP, CI, Templates, etc. On this server no code will be uploaded, only documentation or requirement analysis describing it.

Internal Deadlines

For deliverables we are setting an internal deadline 2 weeks before due. At least there will be 2 partners for the review.

Time Records

Each partner reports according to the requirements of its country.

Intellectual Property

· Code generated for the project remains property of the group. Modules used from past projects that the partners were involved remain property of the partner who originally created it.

· The partners commit themselves to allow the platform to continue using their modules after its release.

BUSINESS MODEL/PLAN: IDEAS

Who is going to buy the product?

· Homecare organizations

· Residential homes

· Social landlords

· Real estate brokers

· Formal care givers

· HC networks

· Associations for family caregivers

· Insurances (social actions like launching online platforms)

· National HC systems

· Learning facilities (for formal caregivers) à certification

· Prevention programs/offers

· Important to define the business model from the beginning

· Necessary to interview potential buyers of the product

We have to work on that in parallel!

NEXT WORKPACKAGES AND TASKS

T1.1. Identification of end-users (M1-M3)

· Kind of people we would like as users + get them

· Core 10 users per country

· Think of strategies to keep the same core users involved throughout the whole process à Partners report successful experience in past projects in which they had users involved for extensive periods of time.

· Replace them only in case they ask for withdrawal.