Transforming Haptic Storyboards into Diagrammatic Models: TheScene2Model Tool

Elena-Teodora MironUniversity of Vienna

elena@dke.univie.ac.at

Christian MuckUniversity of Vienna

christian.muck@univie.ac.at

Dimitris KaragiannisUniversity of Vienna

dimitris.karagiannis@univie.ac.at

Abstract

Haptic storyboarding tools supporting storytellingas a Design Thinking approach, enable earlyexploration and validation of design alternativesregarding services, new product (features), innovativeprocesses and disruptive business models. They dohowever not communicate the exact meaning andthe importance of each object nor do they showrelationships between them. Yet when aiming tomaterialize an innovative idea these aspects need to beunambiguously described.

Diagrammatic models play an essential role hereas they capture different aspects of the problem.When computed by means of software they alsoexplicitly show details which in haptic storyboards usersimplicitly fill with their own world-understanding, thusfostering a clear and transparent representation of theproblem space. In addition, diagrammatic modelscan be enriched by semantics and subsequently bemachine-queried, -analysed and -processed.

The paper at hand shows the DIGITRANS projectapproach for an automated transformation of hapticstoryboards into diagrammatic models and theirprovision in a computer-aided design environment.

1. Introduction

Digitization greatly challenges small and mediumenterprises (SMEs) to be more innovative in theirproduct/service offering as well as in their businessmodels in order to remain competitive. In theexemplary case of a German SME, who was previouslya producer of industrial ventilation systems, theprice-driven competition from South-East Asia induceda steep business decline. Competition on productlevel was no longer feasible, as product features arequite standardized and easy to replicate. Thus thecompany transformed its business model by offering“air-as-aservice”. This meant that industrial customersno longer paid for the product, i.e. ventilators, but

for the service, i.e. the guarantee the firm provides,monitors and sustains an air quality corresponding to therespective standards in industrial settings.

To achieve this result the company had to a)tackle a problem space which had yet to manifest(“air-as-a-service”), b) solve a complex and diffusenew problem (the ecosystem for installing, operatingand continuously monitoring as well as maintainingthe ventilation system), c) integrate new actors (urbanplanners, construction companies, architects, softwareengineers) in the service design process and d) fostercreativity and innovation in this new setting [1].

Requirements for the work on the innovativeservice and business model transformation withinthe company included a) collaborative design workof a multidisciplinary team, which was not usuallycollocated, b) the need for ongoing and asynchronousinput into the project as not all ideas occur duringa workshop, c) the need to share the project withdistributed teams of different domain-experts, d) theneed to access domain-specific views of the innovativeservice, beyond the big picture, in order to provideinformation on specific aspects of the solution and e) theneed to integrate all stakeholder inputs in the evolutionof the innovative solution and validate them against theoriginal value proposition.

While Design Thinking concepts and tools likepersonas, strategy map, customer journey, empathymap etc. are helpful to foster ideation, teamworkand communication in early design phases andcollocated environments, little research could befound on how to effectively support distributedmultidisciplinary design teams during an innovationand transformation project. [2] propose a mediamodel-based framework for team-based design thinking.While the approach incorporates diagrammatic modelsand Design Thinking, its aim is to explore how muchDesign Thinking is incorporated in software engineeringtools and not on how tools can support the DesignThinking process. [1] propose an agile and participatoryframework for social software engineering where they

Proceedings of the 52nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences | 2019

URI: https://hdl.handle.net/10125/59494ISBN: 978-0-9981331-2-6(CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

Page 541

combine physical prototypes with digital artefacts toenable a better communication within the design teamwhile at the same time maintaining the advantagesfrom physical prototypes. However, the integration ofdistributed design teams is not considered. [3] create acomputer-processable tool for design team interactionsaiming to capture communication in real time and thusimprove the overall communication process in complexand distributed project teams. Yet the focus is solelyset on the communication aspect of the design process.[4] address distributed teams and the use of tangiblemeans (e.g. sticky notes). Their proposed solutionincludes tele-boards, which digitize the completeDesign Thinking process and tools, thus losing theadvantages which tangible objects bring in the designprocess. [5] propose the media model approach to assessappropriate prototyping and modelling approaches indifferent stages of the Design Thinking process. Theirresearch found that diagrammatic models, specificallybusiness process management (BPM), are highlyabstract, highly resolved and made available in mediathat restricts collaboration. To foster user involvementthey argue for tangible artefacts, like prototypes of BPMclasses. In line with [5] the paper at hand aims toexplore:

How can tangible objects and abstract IT-artefactsbe combined during the Design Thinking processto support the work of multidisciplinary, distributeddesign teams?

The research at hand was done in the context ofDIGITRANS (cf. [6]), an EU-funded project, whichdelivers a Design Thinking-based method and a set oftools to support the digital transformation process ofSMEs.

The remainder of this paper is structured as follows:Chapter 2 provides some background on storytellingand storyboarding in the context of Design Thinkingand diagrammatic models as well as the researchmethodology applied. Chapter 3 presents the proposedmodelling method and the Scene2Model tool. Thetool and process evaluation results from a series ofworkshops are described in Chapter 4, while Chapter 5concludes the work with an outlook on future activities.

2. Background

2.1. Research methodology

The work presented here follows the Action DesignResearch Method proposed by [7]. The initialproblem formulation at the basis of our researchwas done through interviews with practitioners fromthe health care, creative industries and information

and communication (ICT) domains in seven differentEuropean regions, where DIGITRANS project partnersare located. The insights obtained were used to definethe DIGITRANS method (cf. [8] as well as to researchexisting Design Thinking tools. The research questionwas formulated after exploring existing technologiesand prior research.

Subsequently an initial design of the IT artefactproposed to solve the research question wasconceptualized in the form of a modelling methodand the Scene2Model prototype was implementedusing the ADOxx [9] meta-modelling platform. A firstevaluation was performed in small group workshopswith selected organisations involved in problem findingas well as with other stakeholders. Evaluation was doneusing focus groups and questionnaires. The resultsof this initial evaluation are presented in Chapter 4of this paper. Currently the input we received fromorganizational use is incorporated in a new design cycle.By October 2018 a larger number of organizations indifferent regions will use the second prototype in theircontext for further evaluation. This process is expectedto yield several iteration cycles until May 2019. Theevaluation questionnaires are currently being extendedto better reflect the organizational context as well as thespecific design team requirements. In parallel researchwork has been undergoing to better understand howtechnologies (like text recognition, ontologies etc.)can be integrated into the Design Thinking process toaid the innovation work of design teams. On a theorylevel research is ongoing on the use of diagrammaticmodels and haptic design artefacts in the media-modelsframework [5].

2.2. Storyboards as a visualization tool forinnovation and design

One of the approaches DIGITRANS proposes forthe innovation work of multidisciplinary design teamsis storytelling. In an organizational setting storytellingcan be used to observe and understand the explicitand implicit behaviour of (potential) customers [10],understand meaning-based needs as an innovationenabler [11], as well as a tool for strategic decisionmaking [12]. Because problems faced in the digitaltransformation process tend to be complex and vaguelydefined developing a story around them makes themeasier to grasp.

Storyboards are a visualization tool which displaysthe key moments of a story, synthesizing them in acohesive and illustrative flow [13]. The simplicity ofstoryboard sketches or objects and the light annotationis meant to encourage discussion, team collaboration

Page 542

[14] and enables designers to explain events, to identifylogical errors in the story flow or present results[15]. Additionally, storyboards can be used to createprototypes for early solutions and test hypotheses [10].However, research has shown that when directed atgroup work, like in innovation, storyboarding tools workbest when all participants can contribute equally to thesketches and are not restricted by single-user interfaces,like a computer screen [15]. Additional researchposits that using haptic storyboards where designersare able to touch and manipulate the objects providesan immersive experience and activates the brains mosteffective learning mechanism [16].

Although storyboards are easy to use and intuitivelyunderstandable, the only possibility to annotate themand add information is by attaching handwritten notesto the figures themselves. There is also, currently,no possibility to connect the different objects witheach other. Thus the common understanding of theobject positioning and meaning remains with the teamwho has developed them. This is a problem, becauseDesign Thinking workshops are held in small groups,which means that only a few members of the overallproject team can be involved, while others may needto be informed subsequently. If not accompanied byan explanatory written narrative, the context of thedeveloped solution will be difficult to understand bynon-team members. But long textual descriptions oftenhinder the usage of the generated information.

The results of haptic storyboards are also static.Their adaptation is often a non-trivial but necessarytask, because sometimes specific aspects of a projectare evolving during its implementation and it wouldbe beneficial to capture these changes consistent to theinitial documentation of the requirements.

Currently there is also no possibility to referencefrom the storyboard (panels) to a specific enterpriseresource (e.g. existing capabilities, processes, etc.),which introduces a break in the process of transformingthe innovative solution prototype into an operationalproduct/service.

Transforming the haptic storyboard by means ofan automated import into computer-aided diagrammaticmodels and facilitating semantic enrichment (e.g.by adding properties from domain ontologies) canhelp increase the information transparency, modelconsistency and clarify the meaning for model users.More formal abstractions (e.g. business processmodels, business capabilities, elements of enterprisearchitecture) help connecting the innovation to itsenterprise context. The machine-readable semanticsenable additionally automated mechanisms for designassessment and decision making.

2.3. Storyboards in Design Thinking

The Design Thinking process as described by[17] incorporates five distinct phases: empathizing,defining, ideation, prototyping and testing. Stories andstoryboards can be used in each phase for differentpurposes.

The empathize mode is the work to understandpeople in the context of the design challenge [17] andaids designers in defining value propositions for thecustomer [11].

Sketching as an ideation technique can be done viastoryboards, similarly to prototyping and testing. In anideation context storyboards are useful to pre-structurestory information, identify key events of the story, andvisualise the logical flow of the information [18]. Whileworking collaboratively the innovation team discussesthe most important goals of the solution and they derivekey value propositions, without describing the featuresand capabilities necessary to realize them [11].

During prototyping storyboards are used to generatea first solution design. Users and designers canengage in play, explore boundaries, test hypotheses andultimately develop the best story for the new solution[10]. Similarly, storyboards are a quick and valuablemeans to test the convergence between user needs andthe proposed solution.

2.4. Diagrammatic models as a link betweenstoryboards and enterprise models

Diagrammatic models are, in our understanding,abstract representations aiming to reduce complexityby employing a specific type of representation, i.e.diagrams. They are used for a purpose, e.g. improvingmachine and human understanding, analysing orcommunicating properties of a system under study,and comply with a formal meta-model. Diagrammaticmodels are used for externalisation of knowledge andmachine processing [19].

If deployed as a tool, diagrammatic modelsderived from a meta-model are Design Scienceartefacts comprising several building blocks [20]: a)a modelling language containing the notation, syntax(language grammar and constrains) and semantics (thedomain) and b) mechanisms and algorithms to providemodel-based functionality (like generation, simulation,model transformations, interactivity, automation, etc.)[19].

Diagrammatic models were used to overcomethe shortcomings of the haptic storyboarding tools,as described previously, and enrich these withinformation and functionality aiming to facilitate

Page 543

Figure 1. Visualization of the Scene2Model process

an easier integration into the context of a specificinnovation and transformation project.

The conceptualization and implementation of thetool in the ADOxx platform [9], as well as the automatictransformation process between haptic objects andmodels are presented in the following chapter.

3. The Scene2Model tool:Conceptualisation andproof-of-concept

We propose a solution aiming to provide acomputer-aided design environment which incorporatesthe benefits of haptic storyboards (e.g. physicality,extendability, intuitiveness, ease of use, orientationto co-creation and innovation) with diagrammaticmodels (e.g. abstraction, semantic enrichment,machine-processability), while at the same timeautomating as much of the transformation processbetween physical world and information system aspossible to lower usage barriers.

The participants of the Design Thinking workshopsuse the storyboarding method. However, the createdresults can now be automatically transformed into adigital model, which then can be used and enrichedin the modelling tool. In figure 1 the high-levelprocess behind the Scene2Model approach is shown.A group of participants creates storyboards from theirscenario, using SAP Scenes. Afterwards, each scene isimported into the Scene2Model modelling tool, where adiagrammatic model is created automatically.

An example on how such a transformation can bedone is given in section 3.2.

3.1. Conceptualization of the Scene2Modelmethod

To achieve the desired integration a Design Thinkingmethod, an enterprise modelling language and a domainontology must be chosen (see Fig. 2) first. In ourcase we used storyboards for the former and businessprocesses (BPMN) for the latter. The ontology createdwas general purpose.

The approach can be used for any Design Thinking

Figure 2. Conceptual framework of the

Scene2Model method

method which complies with the minimal characteristicsof a modelling method (e.g. Business Model Canvas,Customer Journey) and for most enterprise modellinglanguages and ontologies.

The objects of the selected Design Thinking methodmust be abstracted, so that the concepts used can berepresented by the modelling method. For informationon how modelling methods can be created and whichaspects must be considered see for example [20, 21].Depending on the chosen Design Thinking method, itis possible that a domain-specific context is necessary,which must be added if the proposed framework is used.One example for a domain sensitive approach would bethe health care domain. The domain-specific vocabularyand concepts are important, as there must be a physicalrepresentation in form of haptic objects as well as usableconcepts in the modelling tool for the innovation team tobe able to use them in workshops.

To support the embedding of the created knowledgeduring a Design Thinking workshop and its createdartefacts into the context of the enterprise, wesuggest to integrate one or more enterprise modellinglanguages into the created modelling method andthe computer-based modelling tool. This couldbe especially helpful, if the enterprise already usesdiagrammatic modelling for other aspects of itsbusiness. Linking the Design Thinking models withenterprise models can be done during the workshop orafterwards. The modelling languages, which are usedshould increase the captured knowledge and in the idealcase should be integrated with an already existing poolof models, which is already available in the company.

For the models in the Scene2Model methoda meta-model was created to define the differenthaptic objects. Using meta-modelling allowed us togroup different modelling objects together and defineproperties for these groups or classes. Each classpossesses multiple graphical presentations, which aredefined by the Type of an object. Type is a property,which is available for every class, just like the propertiesName and Description. The first one defines an identifier

Page 544

Figure 3. Visualization of the Scene2Model meta

model

for a modelling object and the second one holds a naturallanguage description. Classes with a Text property, showthis text directly in the diagrammatic model. The classCharacter also implements the properties Role and Age,which can be used to specify humans in the modelledscenario. A graphical representation of the meta-modelcan be seen in figure 3.

An ontology is used to map the IDs, from thetag recognition to modelling objects. Therefore, theinformation from the meta model is saved in theontology and enhanced with a TagID property.

3.2. Proof-of-concept: The Scene2Model tool

The Scene2Model tool is a proof-of-conceptprototype implementation of the proposed method.The goal of the implementation was to explore howan automatic transformation from the (often) physicalDesign Thinking methods to digital diagrammaticmodels can be done and to have a tool to collectfirst impressions on how such a process is received bypotential users.

For implementing the prototype, we chose the SAPScene (cf. [22]) storyboarding approach as the DesignThinking method. SAP Scene uses paper figures tovisualize the key moments of the customer’s interactionwith the company’s product or service. An example forsuch paper figures can be seen in figure 4. The figuresare available in different downloadable domain-specificsets on SAP’s homepage. Every key moment isrepresented by one scene, which can be then combinedto storyboards. SAP Scenes was chosen because theyoffer a wide range of different and meaningful freefigures.

The described meta model (cf. section 3.1) wasimplemented in the ADOxx meta-modelling platform,which supports the definition of classes and theirproperties, the implementation of mechanisms as wellas the use of a built-in modelling toolkit for the createdmodels.

One mechanism implementation is used to triggerthe automatic transformation directly from the ADOxxmodelling tool. The data is gathered from an externalapplication, which provides IDs of the paper figures andtheir position. Using these IDs additional informationis read from an ontology and the diagrammatic modelis created. A more detailed description of theScene2Model implementation can be found later in thissection.

The focus of the Scene2Model approach is on theautomatic transformation of the tangible paper figures ofSAP Scene into the digital model. Therefore, tags wereattached to each paper figure. For an example see figure4 on page 6. The advantage of those tags is that they canbe recognised very efficiently by software. But not onlythe tag itself can be identified, the application is also ableto determine the position in form of coordinates of a tag.Each tag represents one integer value, which then can bemapped to an object in the modelling tool. The integervalue is an ID for the tag and each tag has a different andunique ID.

Therefore, from the tags alone an integer value andthe position can be retrieved. The additional informationneeded for mapping the tag ID of the haptic figures totheir corresponding modelling object is taken from anontology. It contains information about what classesof objects are available for the modelling method andwhich properties can be assigned to the modellingobjects. An ontology further allows to save semanticinformation, which can then be queried. The resultscan be automatically included in the modelling tool viaservices.

The implementation of the prototype itself consistsof two applications. One is the modelling tool, whichwas implemented using the ADOxx meta-modellingplatform. The other is the tag recognition software,which uses the ArUco library. The tag recognitionsoftware extracts the IDs, calculates the coordinatesand sends the information to the modelling tool. Thismaps the IDs to the corresponding modelling objectsand creates the diagrammatic models. The user is thenable to change the properties of the objects, rearrangethe model or add/delete modelling objects. The tagrecognition software runs on a Linux-based operatingsystem (Fedora for the prototype) and ADOxx is aWindows application.

Two settings were implemented for theScene2Model prototype. One was designed forstationary and the other for a mobile usage. Thestationary version uses a transparent table top andthe tags on the paper figures faces downwards, inthe direction of the table top. The camera for therecognition software is placed beneath the table and

Page 545

monitors the tags. In this scenario fixed markers arepositioned on the table top (also facing downwards)and the position of the figures is calculated relativelyto them. Using the fixed tags, the calculation of thetag coordinates is independent from the position of thecamera. This allows the size of the table top to varyand is mostly dependent on the light conditions andthe quality of the camera. The recognition softwarecontinuously sends the IDs and coordinates to themodelling tool, which can be fetched at any time by theuser.

The mobile setting contains an A4-sized sheet, onwhich the figures are placed. In this scenario, thetags face upwards, so that the sheet can be put on anystraight surface. Then a picture of the scene is taken,e.g. on a mobile phone, and the coordinates of thetags are calculated relatively to their position in thepicture. In this setting the environment is easier toestablish however the pictures, which are the basis forthe automatic transformation, must be taken manually.Further, as the position is dependent on the size of thepicture, it cannot be easily used with a bigger size thanA4.

As last step, an enterprise modelling language waschosen, which should help to increase the capturedknowledge of the used Design Thinking method. Asingle scene captures a static point in the user story andonly through their combination can a dynamic behaviourbe derived. Therefore, the BPMN business processmodelling language was added to the Scene2Modelmethod, to allow the capturing of dynamic aspects in ascene. Furthermore, BPMN is a well-known modellinglanguage, which is already used in many companies.For the usage in the scene models, a process object wasadded, which visualizes one process. The object itselfcan be linked to a BPMN process model, which capturesthe dynamic aspects. Such a link is not mandatory.Initially the process object can be inserted only with aname and the model itself can be added later on. Theprocesses can be connected to objects of a scene, tosignal their togetherness.

A storyboard model and a process map can beautomatically generated to allow a big picture overviewfor the design teams. The storyboard model links tothe different scenes. The process map shows all processobjects used in a single model.

The Scene2Model modelling tool and the tagrecognition software can be downloaded from theOMiLAB project page for free. The project canbe found under: http://austria.omilab.org/psm/content/scene2model/info.

Figure 4. Visualization of the Scene2Model

approach [23, p.4]

4. Evaluation of the Scene2Modelapproach

The Scene2Model approach is a proof-of-conceptprototype implementation. To collect a first evaluationon how the approach and tool are accepted bypotential users we conducted several small workshopswith testing groups, where we gathered feedbackusing questionnaires and focus groups. This sectionwill introduce the structure of the workshops, thequestionnaire and the evaluation results.

4.1. Case study design

The group which tested the Scene2Model toolincluded several types of test persons. Half wereprofessionals, either from industry or academia, andthe other half were graduate students from BusinessAdministration or Information Systems programs. In aseries of eight workshops a total of 66 persons used thetool and gave their feedback via questionnaires. Out ofthe 66, 31 were students, 22 industry professionals and8 academic staff. On five of the returned questionnairesthe professional affiliation was missing.

Each workshop lasted for one and a half hours.Participants were given a short introduction to DesignThinking with focus on storytelling and storyboardingas well as on how to use the Scene2Model tool.

In a moderated session the teams co-created theirscenarios using the haptic paper figures of SAP Scenes.Each finished scene was automatically imported into themodelling tool and after all scenes were completed, thewhole group adapted and enhanced the digital models.A visualization of this process can be found in figure 4.To do so, the modelling tool was shown with a projector,one participant was assigned to operate the tool and allparticipants gave their input. The workshop moderatorguided the discussion and provided technical supportwhere necessary.

One important premise for the workshop was,that the participants had a scenario, which theycould explore and discuss with the given haptic andcomputer-supported tools. Some of the students

Page 546

http://austria.omilab.org/psm/content/scene2model/infohttp://austria.omilab.org/psm/content/scene2model/info

integrated their workshop in another course, so that theyalready started with a familiar scenario. For the otherparticipants, a short scenario was prepared. Therebyit was important that the topic is well-known andbroad enough, so that every workshop group can finda (sub-)scenario, on which they can focus and discussthe proposed solutions in detail.

The overall topic of the given scenario was smartmobility. The scenario describes the journey of amanager, who arrives at her home airport and mustspontaneously join a meeting at her office. Even thoughit is her home town, she does not have in mind, whichroute is the fastest. There are also problems with theticket machine, which costs her valuable time. Afterthe meeting she has to perform follow-up work, eventhough she is getting hungry and does not know if shehas something to eat at home. To summarize the trip, sheencountered different problems, like not knowing thefastest route to the office building, no taxi was availableand she does not know what she can cook at home as shedoes not remember what ingredients she has.

The description of the scenario itself was oneA4-page long and the participants could choose onwhich (sub)-aspect of the problem they wanted to focus.The goal was to analyse the trips from the customer’sperspective and find innovative solutions. How thecustomer interacts with the different solution ideasshould be analysed using the haptic figures and thedigital model.

4.2. Acquisition of information

The authors’ goal during the workshops was toget feedback on the overall idea of the Scene2Modelapproach and on the prototypical implementation. Thefeedback should on one hand give an approximationabout how useful the approach is deemed by theparticipants and on the other hand which improvementscan be made. The acquisition of the information wasbased on three pillars. One was a questionnaire, whichwas given to each participant. The second one wasa focus group at the end of each workshop. Finally,the participants were observed during the usage of theScene2Model tool.

Because the major part of the Scene2Modelapproach is the computer-based tool support, it wasdecided to base the questionnaire on the SystemUsability Scale (SUS) (cf. [24, 25]). The usage andbenefits of haptic figures was outside the scope ofour evaluation. The SUS questionnaire is composedof ten questions and offers a short way to evaluatethe usability of an information system. SUS waschosen because it is an established questionnaire,

where evaluation guidelines and result interpretationsare available. On the other hand, the Scene2Modelapproach is more than a computer-aided tool. Itcontains haptic figures, an automatic transformation anda creative and collaborative based approach. Therefore,we expanded the ten questions with three additionalones. In the end, our questionnaire consisted of thefollowing thirteen questions or statements:

1. I think that I would like to use this systemfrequently.

2. I found the system unnecessarily complex.

3. I thought the system was easy to use.

4. I think that I would need the support of a technicalexpert to be able to use this system.

5. I found the various functions in this system werewell integrated.

6. I thought there was too much inconsistency in thissystem.

7. I would imagine that most people would learn touse this system very quickly.

8. I found the system very cumbersome to use.

9. I felt very confident using the system.

10. I needed to learn a lot of things before I could getgoing with the system.

11. I think the haptic figures helped the exploring anddiscussing of the found scenarios.

12. I think the processable and enriched digitalrepresentation helps to use the results later in theimplementation of found services/products.

13. A simple picture of the created scenes is morehelpful than the digital model.

The first ten questions were taken from SUS (cf.[24], while the other three focused on the haptic figuresand the estimation of the usefulness of the generateddigital model. For all the thirteen questions, the userhad to check one of five boxes, from strongly disagreeto strongly agree. Therefore, every question could getbetween one (=strongly disagree) and five (=stronglyagree) points.

Further, two open questions were embedded inthe questionnaire to allow the participants to mentionaspects which were not covered by the other thirteenquestions. Therefore, the following two questions wereadded:

Page 547

• What do you think is the best aspect of thissoftware, and why?

• What do you think needs most improvement, andwhy?

The focus group at the end of each workshop wasused to get feedback on the structure of the workshopitself and a further evaluation on the Scene2Modelapproach. We wanted to know how participants liked thehaptic paper figures and the automatic transformation.The questions and topics of the focus group were not asstrict as in the questionnaire, but were based on authors’observations during the workshop and how discussionitself evolved.

4.3. Results of the evaluation

The first ten questions of the questionnaire werebased on the computer-aided components of theScene2Model approach and questions eleven to thirteenwere mostly focused on the digital model and the hapticfigures. The last three questions got above averagerating. The twelfth question was about the enrichmentof the digital models and if they could support a laterimplementation of the new-found service or product.This question got an average rating of approximately4.17 points from maximum five. The eleventh questionwas focused on the usefulness of the paper figures andwas rated with an average of approximately 4.03 points.The thirteenth question compared the usefulness of adigital model to taking a photo of the created hapticscene. This question got approximately an average of3.23 points. These ratings indicate that the participantsliked to discuss and explore their ideas with the means ofhaptic objects and found it beneficial to get an adaptabledigital model for later usage. In the workshop theyused the modelling tool to rearrange the modellingobjects, add or delete some, define properties and addhigh-level processes to the created scenes. Regardingthe preference of a digital model over a photograph theaverage participant was nearly indifferent between thetwo possibilities.

The first ten questions of the used questionnairewere taken from the well-known System UsabilityScale approach and were also evaluated, using theapproach from [25]. Using the proposed calculation weobtained a score of approximately 70 points. Using theclassification from [26] our approach is set just beneaththe threshold for the GOOD class. Therefore it is inthe upper range of the OK class. We concluded thatthe computer-aided part of the Scene2Model approachshould be improved but is usable as it is.

The next part of the evaluation will be focusing

on the qualitative questions from the questionnaire andthe insights from the focus groups. Therefore, someof the individual expressions of the participants willbe discussed. For this purpose we will consider themain questions, the authors wanted to answer with theevaluation.

4.3.1. How feasible is the Scene2Model approachfor supporting creative Design Thinking processes?In the context of this question the focus was especiallyset on the following sub questions:

• Is the tool easy understandable for novices?

• How useful is the additional functionality, like thedifferent export capabilities, importing of files andadaptation of the data?

• Can the tool support a connection betweendifferent domains (like e.g. Design Thinking withBusiness Process Management?

The questionnaire and the focus group discussionat the end of each workshop showed that most peoplewere able to use the basic functionalities of the tool withonly a short introduction. The transformation of hapticfigures into a digital representation, adding/removingmodelling objects, adapting the properties of themodelling objects and creating a process map or astoryboard are the functionalities which were introducedduring the workshops. The possibility to share themodels in an adaptable format were received positivelyby many participants and supports a collaborationbetween different stakeholders of common projects. Alot of information was generated during the discussionof the scenarios, using the haptic figures. It was deemedbeneficial to add this information direct to the digitalrepresentation, through the adaptable properties of themodelling objects and textual notes. The average scoreof 70 points in the SUS questionnaire further underlinesthe usability of the tool. The straight-forwardness ofthe tool was one point, which was often highlightedin the first qualitative question. The feedback onthe transformation functionality were mostly positiveand many participants liked the way, how they couldimmediately start the adaptation of the digital modelafter the haptic scene was finished. In this context oftenan optimization of the transformation mechanism wassuggested, like the positioning of the digital objectsand the overall layout. For the digital representationitself, several participants wished for more drawingcapabilities of the tool. Drawing in this context means,that they wanted basic geometrical forms (like circles,

Page 548

triangles, ...), the ability to change the colours of theobject, rotate the objects and so on.

Regarding the combination of Design Thinkingwith Business Process Management, our observationand the feedback in the focus group showed that thecombination of the created scenes with business processwas a well-accepted feature. Especially the groups withtheir own scenario and therefore a more detailed idea oftheir use case and their goals, liked to add processes totheir scenes. One suggestion for improvement in thiscontext was the integration of already existing processesmodels, which could already exist in a company.Another idea was the extension to other (enterprise)modelling languages so that more different aspects ofthe companies can be added or integrated if they alreadyexist. The approach of combining scenes with businessprocess (or other enterprise modelling methods) seemspromising. We learned that we needed to includequestion to this regard in further questionnaires andevaluations.

One negative aspect, which was often mentioned inthe questionnaire and the focus group, was the limitedset of figures for creating the tangible scenes. Manyparticipants would have liked more figures to betterexpress the scenario, as imagined by them. This wasespecially a problem by scenarios with a very narrowdomain. From this feedback we learned that the figuresshould be tailored to the participants of a workshop andthat it is important to have additional figures prepared,so that the participants are not limited in their creativity.

4.3.2. How useful is the combination of the digitaland the haptic tools for the ideation stage? Theresults of the evaluation indicate that the haptic toolshelp to formulate and specify use cases. Participants,which already had an use case prepared, often foundnew aspects to it or changed smaller and bigger parts ofit. In the qualitative questions and the focus group theystated that thinking through the use case step by stephelped them to better understand the users perspective.These findings then led to changes in their primarilyunderstanding of the scenario.

In the workshops the participants also adapted theautomatic generated digital version together. Thisserved as an evaluation of the defined haptic scenarioand often lead to new ideas regarding the use caseand the role of the customers in it. They used themodifying of the digital representation as an evaluationof the newly defined use case. In the feedback, theparticipants stated that the haptic tools supported theirideation and a mutual understanding of the scenario andthe combination with the computer-based tool was also

well-accepted by the participants. The goals and usageof the model differed from group to group. All groupsused the digital model to add knowledge in form of textand properties of the modelling objects. Some groupsadditionally focused on the graphical representation andtried to make the digital pictures itself as expressiveand appealing as possible. The focus of one othergroup during the workshop was mostly set on addingthe needed business processes to the scene.

The acceptance of this approach could also beseen in questions eleven and twelve of the quantitativequestions. Both questions got over four from fivepoints. This supports the thesis, that a combination ofdigital and haptic tools can help in the ideation stage.The digital part often serves as a tool for rethinkingthe formed use case and supports a later usage of thegenerated knowledge.

One negative aspect that was mentioned by theparticipants was, that they had to install a program ontheir computer, if they wanted to use the models afterthe workshop. They had preferred an online tool, whichcan be used for interacting with the created models.

5. Conclusion and future work

In this paper an approach for an automatictransformation of the results from a haptic DesignThinking method into digital diagrammatic modelswas introduced. The approach was tested with aproof-of-concept prototype, which was evaluated withdifferent testing groups. The idea of the automatictransformation and the prototype were well-receivedby the participants of the testing groups. Also, theusage of digital diagrammatic models was received asan improvement versus pictures or textual descriptions,which are often the results of Design Thinking methods.

As the conducted evaluation was meant to reviewthe acceptance of the proposed approached and the firstprototype, we are encouraged to further improve andenhance the approach. The request for online toolavailability and the possibility to work remotely on themodels indicated that teams saw value in having themodels available at a later time and also being able towork independently on them.

Based on the feedback, we identified differentaspects which demand further work. On the onehand the improvement of the functionalities of theScene2Model prototype is important, so that the usersatisfaction can be increased. On the other hand ananalysis of other physical Design Thinking methodsand how they can be automatically transformed into adigital model will be conducted. Further research isalso necessary in how to ensure model consistency in

Page 549

distributed design teams as well as in how to integratedomain-specific views and enable checks for constraintsand coherence in the overall scenario. Anotherinteresting topic for the future is, which enterprisemodelling language could be useful in the context ofDesign Thinking and how well they are accepted in thecombination with Design Thinking.

This leads to the need to further improve the existingand the implementation of new prototypes and theirevaluation in organizational contexts to contribute to thepractical applicability of the Scene2Model approach inindustry design environments.

Acknowledgement: The work presentedhere was funded by the Danube TransnationalProgram through the DIGITRANS (DTP1-193-1.2)project. This paper uses ScenesTM by SAPAppHouse (https://experience.sap.com/designservices/approach/scenes),licensed under CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 InternationalLicense (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/).

References

[1] P. Newman, M. Ferrario, W. Simm, S. Forshaw,A. Friday, and J. Whittle, “The role of designthinking and physical prototyping in social softwareengineering,” in Proceedings of the 37th IEEEInternational Conference on Software Engineering,pp. 487–496, Florence, Italy, 2015.

[2] A. Grosskopf, J. Edelman, M. Steinert, and L. Leifer,“Design thinking implemented in software engineeringtools proposing and applying the design thinkingtransformation framework,” 2010.

[3] M. Uflacker, T. Kowark, and A. Zeier, “An instrumentfor real-time design interation capture and analysis,”in Design Thinking: Understand - Improve - Apply,pp. 131–145, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2011.

[4] R. Gumienny, C. Meinel, L. Gericke, M. Quasthoff,P. LoBue, and C. Willems, “Tele-board: Enablingefficient collaboration in digital design spaces acrosstime and distance,” in Design Thinking: Understand -Improve - Apply, pp. 147–164, Springer-Verlag BerlinHeidelberg, 2011.

[5] J. Edelman and R. Currano, “Re-representation:Affordances of shared models in team based design,”in Design Thinking: Understand - Improve - Apply,pp. 61–79, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2011.

[6] “Digitrans - digital transformation in the danuberegion.” http://www.interreg-danube.eu/approved-projects/digitrans. Accessed:7-6-2018.

[7] K. Maung, O. Henfridsson, S. Purao, M. Rossi, andR. Lindgren, “Action design research,” MIS Quarterly,vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 37–56, 2011.

[8] DIGITRANS CONSORTIUM, “Digitrans method forthe digital transformation of smes.” http:www.digitrans.me.

[9] BOC Group, “Adoxx.org - a meta-modelling platform.”http:www.adoxx.org.

[10] M. Beckman, Sarah L.and Barry, “Design andinnovation through storytelling,” International Journalof Innovation Science, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 151–160, 2009.

[11] M. Beckman, Sarah L.and Barry, “Innovation asa learning process: Embedding design thinking,”California Management Review, vol. 50, no. 1,pp. 25–56, October 1st, 2007.

[12] S. Denning, The leader’s guide to storytelling: masteringthe art and discipline of business narrative. John Wileyand Sons, Inc., 2005.

[13] N. M. Yusoff and S. S. Salim, “A review of storyboardtools, concepts and frameworks,” in Int. Proceedingsof the LCT Conference, Part 1, LNCS8523, pp. 73–82,Springer, 2014.

[14] A. Malizia, A. Bellucci, P. Diaz, I. Aedo, and S. Levialdi,“estory: A visual storyboard system supportingback-channel communication for emergencies,” Journalof Visual Languages and Computing, vol. 22, no. 2,pp. 150–169, April 2011.

[15] R. Walker, L. a. Cenydd, S. Pop, and H. C.Miles, “Storyboarding for visual analytics,” InformationVisualization Journal, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 27–50, 2015.

[16] M. R. Bhalla, B. H. Vardhan, and A. V. Bhalla,“Haptic technology: An evolution towards naturalityin communication,” International Journal of AdvancedResearch in Computer Science, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 97–103,2010.

[17] Institute of Design Standford, “An introductionto desing thinking: Process guide.” https://dschool-old.stanford.edu/sandbox/groups/designresources/wiki/36873/attachments/74b3d/ModeGuideBOOTCAMP2010L.pdf.

[18] L. Jeanne, “Innovative ways companies are using designthinking,” Strategy and Leadership Journal, vol. 42,no. 2, pp. 40–45, 2014.

[19] D. Karagiannis, R. A. Buchmann, and M. Walch,“How can diagrammatic conceptual modelling supportknowledge management?,” in Proceedings of the25th European Conference on Information Systems,pp. 1568–1583, AIS Electronic Library, 2017.

[20] D. Karagiannis and H. Kühn, “Metamodellingplatforms,” in EC-Web, vol. 2455, p. 182, 2002.

[21] D. Karagiannis, “Agile modeling method engineering,”in Proceedings of the 19th Panhellenic Conference onInformatics, pp. 5–10, ACM, 2015.

[22] SAP SE, “Scenes - every great experience starts witha great story.” https://experience.sap.com/designservices/approach/scenes.

[23] E.-T. Miron, C. Muck, D. Karagiannis, and D. Götzinger,“Transforming storyboards into diagrammatic models,”in International Conference on Theory and Applicationof Diagrams, pp. 770–773, Springer, 2018.

[24] J. Brooke et al., “Sus-a quick and dirty usability scale,”Usability evaluation in industry, vol. 189, no. 194,pp. 4–7, 1996.

[25] J. Brooke, “Sus: A retrospective,” J. Usability Studies,vol. 8, pp. 29–40, Feb. 2013.

[26] A. Bangor, P. Kortum, and J. Miller, “Determining whatindividual sus scores mean: Adding an adjective ratingscale,” J. Usability Studies, vol. 4, pp. 114–123, May2009.

Page 550

https://experience.sap.com/designservices/approach/sceneshttps://experience.sap.com/designservices/approach/sceneshttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/http://www.interreg-danube.eu/approved-projects/digitranshttp://www.interreg-danube.eu/approved-projects/digitranshttp:www.digitrans.mehttp:www.digitrans.mehttp:www.adoxx.orghttps://dschool-old.stanford.edu/sandbox/groups/designresources/wiki/36873/attachments/74b3d/ModeGuideBOOTCAMP2010L.pdfhttps://dschool-old.stanford.edu/sandbox/groups/designresources/wiki/36873/attachments/74b3d/ModeGuideBOOTCAMP2010L.pdfhttps://dschool-old.stanford.edu/sandbox/groups/designresources/wiki/36873/attachments/74b3d/ModeGuideBOOTCAMP2010L.pdfhttps://dschool-old.stanford.edu/sandbox/groups/designresources/wiki/36873/attachments/74b3d/ModeGuideBOOTCAMP2010L.pdfhttps://dschool-old.stanford.edu/sandbox/groups/designresources/wiki/36873/attachments/74b3d/ModeGuideBOOTCAMP2010L.pdfhttps://experience.sap.com/designservices/approach/sceneshttps://experience.sap.com/designservices/approach/scenes

IntroductionBackgroundResearch methodologyStoryboards as a visualization tool for innovation and designStoryboards in Design Thinking Diagrammatic models as a link between storyboards and enterprise models

The Scene2Model tool: Conceptualisation and proof-of-conceptConceptualization of the Scene2Model methodProof-of-concept: The Scene2Model tool

Evaluation of the Scene2Model approachCase study designAcquisition of informationResults of the evaluationHow feasible is the Scene2Model approach for supporting creative Design Thinking processes?How useful is the combination of the digital and the haptic tools for the ideation stage?

Conclusion and future work