Advertisement

Co-design of a Virtual Training Tool with Emergency Management Stakeholders for Extreme Weather Response

  • Jaziar Radianti
  • Santiago Gil Martinez
  • Bjørn Erik Munkvold
  • Morgan Konnestad
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10918)

Abstract

Emergency services usually prepare for the most frequent or predictable types of disasters, such as fires. However, preparation for complex, unpredictable disaster scenarios is infrequent, probably because of high resource demand and difficulty of covering dynamic training needs of multiple stakeholders. The use of serious game techniques as the core of simulated or virtual training tools opens for new ways of training and learning in emergency and crisis scenarios. However, the number of virtual training tools customized to specific disaster or crisis scenario that address needs of diverse user groups is limited. Existing tools are often tailored with a particular geographical setting and local threats, requiring an extensive adaptation outside the pre-defined settings. This paper describes the co-design process aimed at the creation of an emergency and disaster virtual training tool prototype linked to a Norwegian context. Two co-design workshops were run involving local emergency management actors. The general setting included an extreme weather scenario because of its high probability of occurrence and societal impact. The first workshop was used to gather end-user requirements for the training tool, explore the current gaps in the training practices, information needs and elements to improve training on decision making. In the second workshop, we focused on scrutinizing the detailed design, user interface, training use-case and learning points. Finally, we ran a small-scale usability testing of the initial prototype using SeGUE (Serious Game Usability Evaluator) instrument. The results of the prototype activities and the testing are reported in this paper.

Keywords

Emergency management Co-design Training tool Extreme weather User testing SeGUE Serious game 

Notes

Acknowledment

The KriseSIM project is supported by Aust-Agder Utviklings og Kompetansefond and Sparebanken Sør, Norway. We thank the emergency management stakeholders in Sørlandet, Norway, for fruitful discussions of the KriseSIM project, and all volunteers who tested the game. This project has been approved by Norwegian Data Protection (NDS), Project No. 54141. We are grateful to Mattias N. Tronslien, Max Emil Moland, Christian A. Kulmus, Kristoffer K. Thomassen who worked on the prototype.

References

  1. 1.
    Ford, J.K., Schmidt, A.M.: Emergency response training: strategies for enhancing real-world performance. J. Hazard. Mater. 75(2), 195–215 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Linehan, C., et al.: Thereʼs no ʻIʼ in ʻEmergency Management Team:ʼ Designing and evaluating a serious game for training emergency managers in group decision making skills. In: Proceedings of the 39th Conference of the Society for the Advancement of Games & Simulations in Education and Training. Innovation North-Leeds Metropolitan University (2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fanfarová, A., Mariš, L.: Simulation tool for fire and rescue services. Proc. Eng. 192, 160–165 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wang, B., et al.: BIM based virtual environment for fire emergency evacuation. Sci. World J. 2014, 1–22 (2014)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Martinez, S., Isaacs, J., Fernandez-Gutierrez, F., Gilmour, D., Scott-Brown, K.: Building bridges between user and designer: co-creation, immersion and perspective taking. In: Di Bucchianico, G., Kercher, P. (eds.) Advances in Design for Inclusion, pp. 117–129. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41962-6_11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cinderby, S., Forrester, J.M.: Co-designing possible flooding solutions: participatory mapping methods to identify flood management options from a UK borders case study. J. Geograp. Inf. Sci. 1, 149–156 (2016)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hughes, A.L.: Participatory design for the social media needs of emergency public information officers. In: ISCRAM (2014)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Munkvold, B.E.: Diffusing crisis management solutions through living labs: opportunities and challenges. In: Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management Conference, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (2016)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Petersen, K., et al.: Designing with users: co-design for innovation in emergency technologies (2015)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Radianti, J., Tronslien, M.N., Moland, M.E., Kulmus, C.A., Thomassen, K.K.: A crisis management serious game for responding extreme weather event. In: Dokas, I.M., Bellamine-Ben Saoud, N., Dugdale, J., Díaz, P. (eds.) ISCRAM-med 2017. LNBIP, vol. 301, pp. 131–146. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67633-3_11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sanders, E.B.-N., Stappers, P.J.: Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. Co-design 4(1), 5–18 (2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bødker, S.: Creating conditions for participation: conflicts and resources in systems development. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 11(3), 215–236 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Leicestershire: Working Together to Build Great Communities: The Leicestershire Communities Strategy 2017-21, Leicestershire County Council (2017)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hill, R., et al.: Workplace learning in the New Zealand apple industry network: a new co-design method for government “practice making”. J. Workplace Learn. 19(6), 359–376 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ramachandran, D., et al.: Social dynamics of early stage co-design in developing regions. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM (2007)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Prahalad, C.K., Ramaswamy, V.: Co-creation experiences: the next practice in value creation. J. Interact. Mark. 18(3), 5–14 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Vredenburg, K., et al.: A survey of user-centered design practice. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM (2002)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Middleton, P., Leahy, B.: Bushfire ready neighbourhoods: from informed and aware to engaged and prepared. In: Disaster Resilience: An Integrated Approach. Charles C Thomas Publisher, Springfield (2017)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mentler, T.: Applying usability engineering to interactive systems for crisis and disaster management. In: Proceedings of the 14th ISCRAM Conference, Albi, France (2017)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Radianti, J., et al.: Co-designing a virtual training tool for emergency management. In: Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management Conference, Rochester, NY, USA (2018)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Moreno-Ger, P., et al.: Usability testing for serious games: making informed design decisions with user data. Adv. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 2012, 4 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nielsen, J.: Usability inspection methods. In: Conference companion on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM (1994)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sujan, M., Pasquini, A.: Allocating tasks between humans and machines in complex systems. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Achieving Quality in Software (1998)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sweeney, M., Maguire, M., Shackel, B.: Evaluating user-computer interaction: a framework. Int. J. Man Mach. Stud. 38(4), 689–711 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nielsen, J.: Guerrilla HCI: using discount usability engineering to penetrate the intimidation barrier. In: Cost-Justifying Usability, pp. 245–272 (1994)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    ISO 13407: Human-centred design processes for interactive systems. ISO, Geneva (1999)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Brooke, J.: SUS-a quick and dirty usability scale. Usability Eval. Ind. 189(194), 4–7 (1996)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kirakowski, J., Corbett, M.: SUMI: the software usability measurement inventory. Br. J. Edu. Technol. 24(3), 210–212 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lewis, J.R.: IBM computer usability satisfaction questionnaires: psychometric evaluation and instructions for use. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 7(1), 57–78 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bevan, N.: Measuring usability as quality of use. Softw. Qual. J. 4(2), 115–130 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Gray, W.D., Salzman, M.C.: Damaged merchandise? A review of experiments that compare usability evaluation methods. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 13(3), 203–261 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Tidwell, J.: Common Ground: A Pattern Language for Human-Computer Interface Design (1999). http://www.mit.edu/~jtidwell/common_ground.html
  33. 33.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jaziar Radianti
    • 1
  • Santiago Gil Martinez
    • 2
  • Bjørn Erik Munkvold
    • 1
  • Morgan Konnestad
    • 3
  1. 1.Centre for Integrated Emergency Management (CIEM)University of AgderKristiansandNorway
  2. 2.Centre for eHealthUniversity of AgderKristiansandNorway
  3. 3.Multimedia and e-LearningUniversity of AgderKristiansandNorway

Personalised recommendations