1. Problem Definition: “Is the Problem clearly defined and illustrated with a compelling Problem Scenario that involves specific Stakeholders and their current Activities?”
Applies to: Operational Demands -- Problem Scenario, Operational Demands -- Stakeholders, Operational Demands -- Situated Activities
Operational Demands -- Problem Scenario
Meets the criterion:
Narrative describes the caretaker juggling explanations and residents with memory-related difficulties during recreation.
2. Stakeholder Analysis: “Are Stakeholders well-defined using rich Personas? Does the documentation thoroughly analyze their needs, motivations, and core Values?”
Applies to: Operational Demands -- Stakeholders
Operational Demands -- Stakeholders
Meets the criterion:
Differentiates direct and indirect stakeholders and enumerates needs and concerns.
(Potential) Improvements:
Expand to persona sheets including routines, social network, cognitive/sensory profile, value priorities, and technology familiarity.
Map possible value tensions (e.g., autonomy vs. safety; efficiency vs. personalisation) and define resolution principles.
3. Depth of Contextual Analysis: “Does the documentation provide a deep and granular analysis of user Activities and Tasks, effectively explaining how they are shaped by the rich real‑world Context?”
Applies to: Operational Demands -- Situated Activities
Operational Demands -- Situated Activities
Meets the criterion:
Provides scenarios, environments, and activity intents that situate the work in care settings.
Improvements:
Decompose activities into actions (who/what/when/where), artefacts, and contingencies.
Include contextual constraints of the environment and define triggers for switching difficulty or offering help.
4. Human Factors Grounding: “Does the documentation ground the design in established scientific Knowledge by articulating relevant Human Factors concepts?”
Applies to: Human Factors -- Situated Cognition, Human Factors - Evaluation Methods
Human Factors - Situated Cognition
Meets the criterion:
Articulates social, cognitive, and affective processes and design guidelines (curation of photos, adjustable difficulty).
(Potential) Improvements:
Operationalise each HF aspect with candidate measures (engagement, affect, frustration) and define prerequisites (e.g., caregiver photo curation).
Human Factors -- Evaluation Methods
Meets the criterion:
Suggests engagement and performance metrics and post‑task questionnaires.
(Potential) Improvements:
Specify instruments, sampling, and reliability procedures tailored to PwD; align measures directly to HF premises to enable future claims.
5. Technology Rationale -- “Is the envisioned Technology described with a clear rationale for its selection, including an analysis of its potential benefits and drawbacks?”
Applies to: Technology -- AI and ICT, Technology -- Social Robot
Technology -- AI and ICT
Meets the criterion:
States conversational support, speech, and content management as enabling components.
(Potential) Improvements:
Detail data flows, consent, storage, and on‑device vs. cloud choices; address failure modes (speech/NLP errors) and fallback strategies.
Technology -- Social Robot
Meets the criterion:
Pepper was selected for an integrated screen, speech, and embodiment relevant to the game.
Improvements:
Provide more explicit trade‑off analysis of alternatives (e.g., pet‑like vs. humanoid) and document constraints (mobility, maintenance).
6. Component Integration -- “How well are the Operational Demands, Human Factors, and Technology integrated to form a coherent and justified Foundation for the project?”
Applies to: Operational Demands, Human Factors, Technology
Meets the criterion:
Concepts reasonably align memory game activities to Human Factors (cognitive stimulation, social connectedness) to Pepper and conversational AI.
(Potential) Improvements:
More explicitly link Operational Demands and Human Factor knowledge to the potential of the surveyed Technology.
Project home
1. Problem Definition: “Is the Problem clearly defined and illustrated with a compelling Problem Scenario that involves specific Stakeholders and their current Activities?”
Applies to: Operational Demands -- Problem Scenario, Operational Demands -- Stakeholders, Operational Demands -- Situated Activities
2. Stakeholder Analysis: “Are Stakeholders well-defined using rich Personas? Does the documentation thoroughly analyze their needs, motivations, and core Values?”
Applies to: Operational Demands -- Stakeholders
3. Depth of Contextual Analysis: “Does the documentation provide a deep and granular analysis of user Activities and Tasks, effectively explaining how they are shaped by the rich real‑world Context?”
Applies to: Operational Demands -- Situated Activities
4. Human Factors Grounding: “Does the documentation ground the design in established scientific Knowledge by articulating relevant Human Factors concepts?”
Applies to: Human Factors -- Situated Cognition, Human Factors - Evaluation Methods
5. Technology Rationale -- “Is the envisioned Technology described with a clear rationale for its selection, including an analysis of its potential benefits and drawbacks?”
Applies to: Technology -- AI and ICT, Technology -- Social Robot
6. Component Integration -- “How well are the Operational Demands, Human Factors, and Technology integrated to form a coherent and justified Foundation for the project?”
Applies to: Operational Demands, Human Factors, Technology
Feedback on Revised Draft
Based on the dates for the edits, no updates to the Foundations have taken place since the last feedback.