Evaluation
This section evaluates on the design process of the Versitool. Looking at the process of the initial research and ideation, to the finished product and testing. The final product is elaborated on using its strengths and weaknesses which ultimately result in various design recommendations.
Research
Initially, during the reveal and communication of the case-owners, it was revealed to the group that the specific user had the case of long-COVID, which was the focus of the group's initial research. However, when meeting the case-owner for the first time, it was concluded that she does not identify with this diagnosis.
After the interview, it was discussed how the conducted research could still be applied to the chronic fatigue/sarcoidosis diagnosis that the case-owner does identify with. This resulted in some research being redundant and some loss in time during the first week of the project.
The main research question stated; “How does chronic fatigue affect lives of people?” Which was sub-divided into five research questions, broadening the groups knowledge and understanding on the subject and case-owner. Subsequently, it provided the group the opportunity to dive deeper into the specifics of the condition of our case-owner and design specifically for her.
Co-Designing
Because of the limited energy of the case-owner, two co-design sessions were planned. One for identifying current challenges and preliminary ideation, and one for further refining and adapting the most promising concept to her liking. The group implemented a guiding role in the ideation and validation during this phase, which helped the case-owner feel included in the design process, making her part of the team – a co-designer.
Both session 1 and 2 ran quite smoothly, which saw the goals of the group being met during both sessions. Following the first session, the design challenge was reformulated to better match the specific challenges faced by the case-owner during a certain activity. The final design challenge stated; “Making gardening more energy-efficient by reducing the energy required to bring tools along.”
Some possible improvement in session 1 can be achieved by more carefully planning the limited time the group had with the case-owner. A part of the session was spent going through her dog-walking routine, for which the case-owner mentioned not much improvement could be realized. This time could have also been spent on digging deeper into her gardening routine and challenges. E.g. after the first session an additional mail was sent to the case-owner regarding more questions related to her garden and routine. Furthermore, while initial sketches and ideation were effective, incorporating a variety of ideation techniques could further improve the creative process and reveal addition insights.
The second co-design session saw a more focused approach, with 4 different concepts being presented to the case-owner. This ultimately resulted in the final concept being a combination of two different concepts. Some additional changes were made to further tailor it to the case-owners needs, using a story board and plastic tracing sheets.
Prototyping and Testing
The Product
To evaluate the final product, a list is made highlighting its strengths and suggesting potential areas for further development.
Strengths
User-Centered Design: The design is specifically designed for the case-owners needs, helping her with gardening in a more energy and time efficient way, while also preventing physical strain. This is done through features like the integrated seat and knee pad, attachments for tools and ability to dispose weeds into the bucket, also making the Versitool a multi-functional product.
Attachments: The side attachment are designed for providing convenience to the user. This is done in easy attachment and detachment, stability by placement of the attachments in-line with the handle and being level to the ground, and easy maintenance by including water drainage on the bottom.
Seating: The seat includes features that enhance the users comfort while using the Versitool. This is done by providing the ability to sit on the Versitool and use the seat separately as a knee pad. Furthermore, it includes an opening to dispose weeds into the bucket while the seat is attached.
Alignment with requirements: The Versitool meets 100% of the requirements, indicating a successful and effective design process.
Areas for improvement
Material choice seating: While the material choice of the attachment lasts a considerable time, the foam used for the seating is prone to stiffen when exposed in the sun, making it not as long-lasting as the rest of the product – the seat will still be usable, only not as comfortable. Exploring alternative material choices could improve the durability and sustainability of the seating.
Handle: While the bucket to which the Versitool is attached already includes a sufficiently comfortable handle, it could still be improved. This could be done by designing a part that can attach or clip onto to the existing handle, making it more comfortable to carry for longer distances. Furthermore, when two attachments filled with tools are attached to the bucket, it can become considerably more heavy, making it necessary to include some sort of handle improvement.
Compatibility to variety of buckets: While the current product is designed around the most occurring 12L bucket size, it could be adjusted to be compatible with more varieties of buckets. To be a little more specific; Some buckets feature the handle below the top rim, which will cause problems when the attachment is placed over it. It therefore may be needed to change the backside of the attachment to make it possible to fit around the handle. Essentially, some material will need to be removed between where the two hooks connect to the attachment.
Product variations: To appeal to more users, the Versitool can be marketed in different colors or finishes.
Testing and User feedback: Due to limited energy and time of the case-owner, the product was not able to be tested by the specific user. It has been tested however by the group, making it possible for the requirements to be validated. Testing the product with the case-owner could provide more insights into performance, usability and potential areas for improvement.
During the product’s exhibition the case-owner did walk by to check on the product and how it turned out. Her reactions were positive and she seemed interested in the product.