After all the turmoil last week, we finally hit the road and got off to developing a more comprehensive Needs Analysis for a ‘mock’ pitching proposal and pitching presentation to the class as users. This is a vital phase as it’s supposedly a make-or-break instance: we have to justify the need and convince the class that this is indeed a need to unravel, before we can ultimately advance and develop the product.
The Preparation
My team went into another enduring session of brainstorming early in the week to get ready the contents for the proposal and presentation. We took a systematic approach, researching into present car-parking experience: identifying target users, a preliminary investigation into the problems of present car-parking experience, possible modes of delivering, and the potential benefits of solution. With that, we laid the foundation of a mini literature review as well as the overview concept of what we hope to materialize.
We decided to probe further for our needs analysis, questioning more drivers this time round, and more probing into the problems they face with present car-parking experience: whether car-parking appeals to them as a positive or negative experience, what they would hope to be done to resolve this, and which are the things they will be looking towards for in the impending solution. From there, we move on to the collating the data of the user’s need surveys from all team members, analysis and evaluating them to produce a concise Needs Assessment.
A general synopsis of what we had analyzed from the Needs Assessment is the majority of drivers in Singapore actually have a negative perception towards car-parking in Singapore, particularly the town and crowded CBD areas. They felt that car-park lots are scarce and expensive, and the queue before entering the car-parks is particularly maddening. Very often the queue is often so long at peak hours and weekends, often causing traffic congestion as they stretch from the main road right to the entrance of the car-park, leaving them at a standstill, practically motionless and helpless. Worse still, they felt a sense of uncertainty and clueless about the then car-park status, and were at a complete loss at how long they have to wait to secure admission into the car-park, not to mention on finding the rare available lots within the car-park. As such, the mental states of these drivers generally perturbed, highly impatient and extremely exasperated, but they had no choice but to endure as this is generally the way of life for driving in Singapore, they felt. This is a very typical Singaporean issue indeed, and we are pretty positive that these user’s sentiments would be substantial in convincing the users that we will be encountering in the presentation.
The Day Has Come
Yes, the anxious day has arrived. Following the lecture, Mr. Reddy commenced the mock presentation. One by one, the groups pitched their projects in the hope of convincing the class of their ideas. To be honest, I was pretty shocked at the way the session had progressed, especially for the first few presentations (the ‘improved’ IVLE and Food ones in particular); the class was pretty heated u and hostile! To be exact, many groups were devastated when their presentations hit rock-bottom, hurled with never-ending ‘missiles’. Some audience apparently do not see eye-to-eye with the ideas, more often the part in concurring whether the idea was genuinely a need. Even though the group justified their stands, some audience persistently and critically questioned that most of their needs are not exactly needs, but more of ’self-wants’ and ‘improvements to existing implementations’, which are the needs for only small fraction of the community. For some, the benefits (product) of their needs seem to be of little significance to the community, which left the audience quizzical about the feasibility of team’s possible solution to the need. However, I felt this is way too premature to pronounce.
Crunch Time
Very soon, it was our time to present. With all the tension heated up, we were really uneasy, but were prepared and cautious. Thankfully, for our presentation, it was a breeze as most of the class got the gist of our needs analysis and were generally receptive towards it as a need. Although many of them aren’t drivers, they understand and were aware of the frustrations that their family encountered when trying to park in crowded places. Of course, there were some doubts on inherent physical infrastructure as well as the uncertainties surrounding the novel approach in making car-park ‘bookable’ online. For these queries, we had foreseen them coming and hence we were rather smooth at tackling them. With regards to the novel approach in making bookings online for car-park lots, its common that people will be skeptical but its still to early to tell, but we’re pretty convinced that it will work out. As for the physical infrastructure, it’s trickier. As we’re developing an interactive product to transform the car-parking experience, the physical infrastructure is something that we cannot possible lay our hands on, unless we’re really implementing it with the real official authorities that allows us to do so. But yes, although we can’t liaise with the authorities, we still did our homework in coming out with the various possible solutions and alternatives in modifying the physical infrastructure (subtle modifications so as not to affect too much on existing infrastructures).
But the most comforting moment has got to be instance after our presentation, our closer friends turned to us and commented “hey, great idea, one of the best in class!”, remarking that it’s indeed is a good need (and a real massive need that a solution to it would definitely entice the entire population). Ultimately, while there are a few reservations surround the implementation, the class generally felt that this might be the solution that would revolutionize car-parking experience for the better, which was good, exactly what we hoped to achieve!
REFLECTIONS
I strongly feel that there are plenty of UX issues out there that remained unsolved. However, we often fail to notice/ think of them, and more often, we complicate things by thinking that the UX remedies would be complex and knotty, but we did not realize how simple the need can be resolved. For our case, negative car parking experience is a prevalent issue, everybody knows that but seemingly everyone thinks that it would take a hero to resolve this tricky ‘experience’ issue. But the fact is that a more pleasurable user experience can perhaps be achieved, simply by providing accessible information for people to plan ahead. Though simple, it brings out a totally different (hopefully positive) user experience.
Also, with regards to all the presentations in general, it seems apparent that user experience and needs does varies from people to people. While some finds certain issues a need, some don’t, due to different inborn settings, upbringing, perspectives and experiences.
Ultimately, I felt that life experience and exposure is a factor in UX receptivity: to justify users of their needs, as well as for the user to understand and be convinced.
