Final Blog Installment

For the past week we did the following tasks:

First, we presented in front of the class on Tuesday.

Second, we went through the feedback that we received during the presentation as a team.

Third, we revised our solution as a team.

Fourth, we updated our high level diagram.

Fifth, we updated our low level "detailed" diagram.

Sixth, we updated our high fidelity wireframes.

Key Screens and Presentation (11/29 - 12/1)

For the weekends, we mainly worked on refining our key screens and our final presentation. We figured out our demo scenario and adjusted our screens to that specific scenario.

User Experience Flow and Screens (11/26)

First we started simplifying our process flow to make a user experience flow to present user interaction with our tool.

Then we started sketching our demo screens for our final presentation and report. We decided to choose the situation where a new user create an account and conduct a doctor search. Our key screens for the demo include the user profile, the search screen, the result screen, and the doctor profile.

Update Work Flow (11/24)

We started our meeting by list all the to-do items for the rest of this project in the Google doc.

Then, we worked on modifying our process flow to incorporate feedback from last Thursday.

 

 Our updated process flow looks like the following:

 

Also, we worked on our search result screen. 

Flow Model and Others (11/23)

After we met with Linda, Karen and Irish (from Premera) yesterday, we started today by redefining our solution system. We started with Chris presenting his thoughts on how the system should work. We also considered an approach similar to dating website, but then we agreed that this approach might have more privacy concern and not quite fit our goal (although the idea of reaching out to the reviewers who are similar to you might be a nice feature to add to our solution).

Then we started constructing the flow model for our solution. We tested our flow with two scenarios we discussed before. 

Our flow model:

We decided that the next step to refine our solution would be defining the details for patients' profile (categories for lifestyle and personality) and situational values. We also started a document for final report.


Feedback from flowchart presentation:

• We need to keep in mind that users want to see the tool working as soon as possible, they will have very little patience for filling out detailed information about themselves (for their profile) up front. 

Need to identify the minimum threshold for required info about the user that is necessary for the tool to work properly. Aim for this threshold as the main use-case as opposed to trying to get all the information up front. Find a good way to prompt user for information after search results are presented --> "want better results? Fill out more information about yourself in your profile..."

• May be good to show example of the system prompting the user for more information throughout the interaction flow (when does this happen, what does it look like?)
• Want ability to start searching without logging in, but then have the option to save any inputed settings/preferences to their profile by signing in at the end of the search process.
• Would be good to show the parallel UX for the two main use cases: Someone who is using the tool as a guest (Have yet to sign into their premera account or fill out profile info), and someone who is signed in and has filled out their profile information.
• It will be important to show an example of a user profile, what does it include, what does it look like, where in the process would it be edited?
• Important to show results, how are they presented, how are they calculated?
• Focus on the user's ability to determine how they and a given reviewer are similar. Make it clear to the user how they are matched with a reviewer/review

Process Blog and Scenarios for Using the Tool (11/10 - 16)

(11/10 - 12 ) We started this week by preparing for Thursday's presentation on our concept. We met on Monday and Tuesday afternoons to develop our concept and finish the slide draft for feedback. After reading Linda and Karen's feedback, we decided to simplify our presentation of solution by just providing key information. We decided to present two slides with illustrations showing two important steps in our proposed solution.







(11/14 - 16) Chris went through all the feedback of our presentation, organized them in Google doc and we will discuss them next week. We met on Saturday to discuss possible scenarios for using the tool and we came up with four scenarios (each of us will make a sketch for each scenario):

1. A person with a painful toothache which also causes a headache, wants to see a dentist as soon as possible: This person is organized and likes his doctor to prepare a plan for him to follow situational attributes: urgency(availability, wait time), location

Result: The patient will type in the type of doctor he would like to see and would select urgent !! As a result the system will limit the amount of attributes for this patient and filter the results based on availability, wait time and location.

2. Plastic surgery: a person has enough time to find the right doctor. She would like to improve the look of her nose and she cares about her safety. She wants to make sure that her new nose looks better. She wants to connect with people who are the same age and have been through a similar process.

Profile attribute: Likes her doctor to make her feel safe and age

Result: The patient will type in the type of doctor. As a result the system provides more attributes to choose from (why does it provide more options?). The system will use the profile attributes to provide suitable situational attributes for this patient based on age. Doctors that have a good reputation for making their patients feel safe will have higher ratings..

3. Primary care doctor: a person don’t know exactly what type of doctor that he needs to see. He would like to meet with a primary care doctor who has good connections with other doctors so that he can point him to the right direction and recommend a good doctor to him.

Profile attributes: He likes his doctors to be talkative and caring

Result: The patient starts searching by selecting Primary care doctor. As a result, the system will provide this patient with relevant attributes to choose from that other patients with similar profile attributes have chosen before. In this case, the system will rank doctors based on their connections

4. Orthopedic Surgeon: A middle-aged patient is active but is considering getting a knee replacement because his knee is wearing down and preventing him from being active. This is not an urgent situation, and the patient has time to find the right doctor. They would also like to find someone who can help consult them to help decide whether the surgery is right for them. If it is, they want the doctor to help them create a recovery plan.

In their profile, this patient notes that they want to find a physician who is talkative and likes creating plans for patients. They also note that wait time is not much of an issue, they would rather find someone with a lot of experience.

When they go to search for orthopedic surgeons, the search tool provides a list of attributes that previous patients in similar situations have identified as important, such as: success rate, average recovery time, etc.

Physicians would then be returned in order of those receiving highest ratings for ability to create plans, helping patients reduce recovery time, success rates on this type of surgery, and experience doing knee replacements. Additionally those ratings would be produced mainly by people like the patient doing the search, so they know their are relevant and trustworthy.

Process Blog and Notes on Reviews (11/3-9)

Heuristic Evaluation Exercise

http://mhcid2014fall2ndprojectgjy.blogspot.com/2014/11/heuristic-evaluation-114-5.html

We narrowed down our concept to "search what people like me like". To refine our concept, we decided to do a little more research on reviews and explore our concept by sketching it out. The following is Chris' research note on reviews. We will meet on Monday to have consolidate our concept and prepare for Thursday's presentation.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1567422312000464

• “word of mouth” reviews are critical for “service-based” products (like finding a doctor) because there is no way to test the service before you purchase.

• consumers associate this type of good as higher risk and uncertainty, therefore they put more weight on the information they can gather

• “when perceived risk is very high, consumers use word-of-mouth as their primary risk-coping strategy”.

• finding a doctor is considered a “credence service” and is considered the highest risk of all types of service goods because there is a high level of uncertainty.

• “[because of a greater level of uncertainty], consumers evaluating credence services are more likely to place greater emphasis on specific aspects of reviews”

• reviewer’s “reputation” is correlated with the perceived usefulness of a given review

• There is lots of uncertainty about the authenticity of reviews because of promotional incentives, don't trust motives of other reviewers

• “consumers must handle the uncertainty regarding the integrity and intentions of the people who write the reviews”

• peer ranking reviews as “most helpful” has been shown to be a good way to help with this. Unclear whether this method is relevant for healthcare implementations

• but it does provide motivation for the reviewer to provide a high quality review. Recognition is a very strong motivator.

• “experience and credence services are subject to variation in individual tastes and are therefore subjective in nature. Consumers are often highly confident about their own tastes and subjective evaluations but skeptical about the views of others”.

• “therefore, advice and comments from experienced customers helps review readers experience the service offering vicariously”.

• “perceived similarity between the message source and recipient is extremely important when evaluating credence services”

• “personal identification of the source based on information such as gender and geographical origin considerably enhances the credibility of the message”

• disclosing reviewer identity helps with credibility

• another study found this helps boost sales

• some studies have found that those who are shown to have more experience (or expertise) with a product or service gives their review more credibility

• but the study citing this found contradicting evidence...

• Some studies have found that consumers pay more attention to the textual portion of reviews than the star rating.

• the number of reviews associated with a product/service is often used as a heuristic to assess the general quality of the good.

• this should be incentive for Premera to generate more reviews

• Consumers trust peer reviews over “expert” reviews for experiential products.

• negative reviews are considered more helpful.

• important to show negative reviews

• Previous literature indicates that “consumers sometimes pick only reviews written by reviewers who, the consumers feel, are genuine and have similar social backgrounds, tastes and preferences. As a result, some reviews have greater influence on consumers than others”.

• although the main study citing this finding resulted in a different finding…