Serious Game for Amsterdam Nieuw-West

Serious Game for Amsterdam Nieuw-West User Research - Quantitative Date: By: Coaches: September 2013 G. Kijne Dr. Ir. R. Mugge Dr. Ir. N.A. Romero Herrera V. Bolsius Dr. I. Wenzler

User Research Methodology This questionnaire follows the methodology of the Conversion Model, outlined in the works of Hofmeyr and Rice (2000) [1]. In this, they have specified a very limited number of questions in order to determine the level of commitment a person has towards a particular brand. In turn, this level of commitment has been shown to be correlated to more traditional notions of marketing, such as purchase intention. In total, there are eight available categories in increasing commitment ranging from strongly unavailable non-users to entrenched users (see Figure 1). Although this model has been designed with brands in mind, it has been applied in other contexts, such as the level of commitment South African women have towards smoking (Marks et al., 2000) [2]. Consequently, it might very well be applied to the evaluation of the commitment to particular Smart Solutions. The Conversion Model evaluates four aspects and applies a predetermined algorithm to determine a person s level of commitment. Need satisfaction: this is the extent to which consumers needs are satisfied by Figure 1. Categories of Users. Source: Hofmeier and Rice (2000) 2

User Research Methodology a particular Smart Solution, measured on a 7-point Likert scale. In the event that users are not familiar with the Smart Solution at hand, they are asked whether they think that it would increase their quality of life. This is traditionally the aspect that is measured with regards to predicting future sales and albeit important, it is not enough. If it were, satisfied people would always stick with their choice and dissatisfied people would always switch, but we know that is not the case. Clearly there is more at play. Involvement in the category: this expresses the importance of the branche choice in the category to the consumer, measured on a 7-point Likert scale. Determining if people care about the problem that the Smart Solution is trying to solve is the second important influence on the level of commitment. People who have a high involvement in a category (i.e. think that the problem at hand is an important one) are more willing to accept a lower level of satisfaction and, as a result, have a higher commitment to a specific Smart Solution. People with a low level of involvement might have a low level of commitment, even if the Smart Solution satisfies their needs adequately. A small price increase for example, might be all they need to stop using it. Attitude to alternatives: this reflects the levels of commitment of the consumer to the status quo, measured on a 7-point Likert scale. In contrast to involvement, a high score on this scale will result in a lower commitment level. If the consumer is relatively satisfied by the status quo, the incentive to commit to a Smart Solution will be much lower. Intensity of ambivalence: this is the degree to which the consumer is uncertain about the Smart Solutions 3

User Research Methodology on offer, measured on a 7-point Likert scale. This last aspects measures how much the respondent has mixed feelings for a particular Smart Solution. a person who strongly believes that a Smart Solutions would create as many problems as it would solve will postpone making the decision for as long as possible and will often take whatever choice is easiest. People who are highly ambivalent are difficult to predict and further, The aforementioned algorithm that interprets this data is proprietary information of a market research company called TNS Global and as a result, is not available in the public domain. It is stated in an article by Rice & Bennett (1998) [3] however, that it is based on the mathematical catastrophe theory and more specifically, the butterfly cusp. This formula is built up as follows: V = x 6 + Ax 4 + Bx 3 + Cx 2 + Dx more qualitative research is needed to discover the source of the ambivalence. Figure 2. Hierarchy of Categories 4

User Research Methodology In which, in our case: changing the formula as follows: V is a commitment score. A, B, C, and D are control parameters defined by the scores from 1 to 7 given by respondents on their level of satisfaction (A), category involvement (B), attitude to alternatives (C) and intensity of ambivalence (D) respectively. x is a constant that has been chosen in such a way that V ranges between a value of 0 and 100. We know that the perfectly commited person has a maximum satisfaction level for the proposed solution (A=7), is deeply involved in the category (i.e. is concerned with the problem being solved) (B=7), has no regard for alternatives (C=1) and has no ambivalent feelings (D=1) (Hofmeyr and Rice, 2000) [1]. We account for the negative effect on commitment resulting from a high score in the attitude to alternatives and the intensity of ambivalence by V = x 6 + Ax 4 + Bx 3 - Cx 2 - Dx By now choosing a value for x (x= 1.65342) in such a way that for the perfectly committed person a value of 100 is reported while the least committed person outputs a 0, we can obtain a commitment score scale ranging from 0 to 100. This scale is then divided into four equally spaced segments. Although we now have a commitment score for each respondent, we still need some more information to determine the final category in which a person can be allocated. This is because we know that for example, there are some people that have a very low commitment score, but are nevertheless users of a Smart Solution (perhaps no viable alternatives exist) and alternatively, some people who have a high score are not users (maybe because there are high initial costs) (Hofmeyr and Rice, 5

User Research Methodology 2000) [1]. In solving this problem, the aforementioned catastrophe theory needs a little more explanation. Figure 3 illustrates a simplified example of the formula used in this paper but the principle is the same. It is simplified in the way that this example only has two controlling parameters, while this paper s has four. The controlling parameters used in this example are Rage and Fear. As these parameters are influences, the behavior of the dog will change according to the behavior surface. In this example, the behavior of a dog is modeled in which the top of the fold bifurcation represents one behavior (attacking, or in this paper s case, being a user of the Smart Solution), while the behavior surface below the fold bifurcation represents another Figure 3. Catastrophe Theory. 6

User Research Methodology behavior (retreating, or in this paper s case, not being a user of a Smart Solution). It is important to note that for the area in the fold bifurcation, the same controlling parameter values can produce two different disctinct behavior patterns, a situation that is similar to thte one that is presented in this paper. For more information regarding catastrophe theory, you are referred to Zeeman (1977) [4]. To determine whether the respondent of the questionnaire is on top or below the fold bifurcation (i.e. uses or does not use a Smart Solution), the respondent is simply asked. When this level of commitment is determined for a representative selection of Smart Solutions, we can take the average and determine a person s attitude towards Smart Solutions in general. When the average of a representative group of residents of N-W is taken, we can say something about attitude towards Smart Solutions of people living in N-W. With this level known, an appropriate strategy can be determined to have the highest possible effect. Additionally, through the application of ANOVA s, it will be possible to screen for any demographic data that might be related to certain levels of commitment in categories of Smart Solutions. For example, we might discover that men living in Nieuw- West and earning between 30.000 and 40.000 Euros a year are significantly more interested in Smart Mobility Solutions than any other group. This would make targeting certain types of Smart Solutions at specific groups of people much more efficient. In order to determine these commitment levels for the residents of N-W, an online questionnaire with a representative selection of Smart Solutions was presented to respondents that were recruited through direct 7

User Research Methodology emailing and directly approaching people in the streets. The Smart Solutions used in this research were each presented with an image and a neutral toned paragraph of text and consisted of: Smart Lighting Smart Parking Car Sharing Goods Sharing Smart Trashcan BedrijfZoektBuur GiveaMinute Home Energy Management Civilian Participation VerbeterDeBuurt.nl Crowdfunding ThuisAfgehaald.nl In appendix B, the complete questionnaire can be found. The output that can be expected from the Conversion Model allocates people to one of eight categories ranging from entrenched users to strongly unavailable non-users. Figure 4 shows the commitment profile for the Smart Solution VerbeterDeBuurt. This profile shows that this particular Smart Solution is very popular. The users (4 left bars) Figure 4. Example of Conversion Model Output 50 40 30 20 10 8 Entreched Average Shallow Convertible Available Ambivalent Weakly Unavailable Strongly Unavailable

User Research Methodology are mostly entrenched while the nonusers (4 right bars) are mostly available or at least ambivalent. Additionally, this profile indicates that most of the people are non-users while the people that are users are enthousiastic. An appropriate strategy could consist of incentivising non-users and specifically the Ambivalent users to just try it once and The correct allocation of users to these categories is something needs to be verified by conducting interviews and have been found to correspond correctly. Because the Conversion Model was designed for brand comparisons, these qualitative interviews, as well as the qualitative data that could be entered in the questionnaire provide a context of meaning for each of the categories. Users Entrenched Entrenched users are Smart Solution advocates. They love the product/ service and actively promote it with their peers. E.g. on Home Energy Management: Mijn vader gebruikt dit zeer fanatiek en is er zeer positief over. Hij is veel bezig met zo min mogelijk energie verbruiken en op deze manier is dat goed mogelijk. Thuis komen in koude tijden en dat je huis lekker opgewarmd is, vindt iedereen fijn. Op deze manier is dat ook mogelijk met zo min mogelijk energieverbruik. Average Average users are less satisfied with a Smart Solution but are still committed to stick with it. They are unlikely to abandon the Smart Solution in the short term. E.g. on Civilian Participation: Ik heb meegedaan met de toekomstvisie N-W en was daar erg negatief over. Echter, het is wel heel belangrijk om bewoners te betrekken bij het maken van dit soort beslissingen en dit is waarom ik niet heel negatief ben. Ik zou 9

User Research Methodology toch in de toekomst mee willen werken aan iets dergelijks. Shallow Shallow users are likely to abandon the Smart Solution in the long term. Some significant change is often necessary to keep them committed. E.g. on Car Sharing: Ik vind dat het handiger is als je belasting betaald wanneer je tankt bijvoorbeeld. Want de één gebruikt zijn/haar auto meer dan de ander. Convertible This group of users are the most negative of all and there is a high probability of abandonment of the Smart Solution in the short term. Non-Users Available The highest scoring group of non-users. These people are ready to accept the Smart Solution at it is proposed today and would be most easily persuaded in the short run. E.g. on Smart Parking: Is zeker een groot probleem in Amsterdam, dus lijkt het mij een heel efficiënt en belangrijk systeem. Zal zeker helpen want het is een veel voorkomend probleem, een top idee!! Ambivalent These people are supportive of the Smart Solution, but do not see a direct personal advantage (yet). They could, however be persuaded in the long run. E.g. on Car Sharing: Ik heb nu een eigen auto. Maar ik zou best eens willen kijken of dit iets voor mij zou kunnen zijn. Weakly Unavailable This commitment level category will be very hard to persuade to adopt the Smart Solution even in the long run. Significant changes would have to be made in order to reach these people. E.g. on Thuisafgehaald: 10

User Research Methodology Het idee achter deze slimme oplossing vind ik erg sympathiek, maar ik zou er niet de doelgroep van zijn. Strongly Unavailable This last group is the least committed to the Smart Solution of all. They really have nothing positive to mention and would never consider adopting the Solution. E.g. on Thuisafgehaald: Er zijn in mijn buurt genoeg service locaties waar je tegen een kleine vergoeding onder de mensen kan eten. 11

User Research Results Demographics Demographic information gathered from the respondents indicates that Gender a reasonably representative group of people has been reached. In total, 116 52 64 Female Male useable responses have been recorded. Data from respondents corresponds roughly to data from the municipal department of Onderzoek en Statistiek. Living 23 Other 93 Nieuw-West Respondents O+S Data Children 52 Children 62 No Children Voting Behavior GL Other/wouldn't say SP VVD D66 PvdA House 7 44 65 Other Renting Buying 12

User Research Results Compared to N-W population, the respondent s age is slightly skewed towards a younger group, but political preference is very comparable. No significant differences have been found in answers from N-W or non- N-W residents and Figure 6 shows a normal distribution. 30 25 O+S Data Respondents 20 15 10 5 0 24 29 39 49 64 100 Figure 5. Age Distribution 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 400 620 780 1040 Figure 6. Commitment Score Distribution 13

User Research Results Figure 7 displays a graphical representation of the mean responses given by respondents on the questions asked in the survey for each of the proposed Smart Solutions. For results of the performed ANOVA s see Figure 8. Interesting observations include the envisioned improvement in their life by the two Smart Solutions, Sharing Stuff (i.e. Spullen Delen) and Smart Parking, while Thuisafgehaald is not popular at all. Thuisafgehaald Crowdfunding VerbeterdeBuurt Burgerparticipatie Home Energy Management GiveAMinute BedrijfZoektBuur Slimme Vuilnisbak Spullen Delen Auto Delen Smart Parking Slimme Verlichting Thuisafgehaald Crowdfunding VerbeterdeBuurt Burgerparticipatie Home Energy Management GiveAMinute BedrijfZoektBuur Slimme Vuilnisbak Spullen Delen Auto Delen Smart Parking Slimme Verlichting 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I think this Smart Solution would improve my life. Disagree Agree Satisfaction 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I think that the problem being solved is important. Disagree Agree Involvement Figure 7. Means of Controlling Parameters per Smart Solution (Satisfaction, Involvement, Status Quo & Ambivalence) 14 Thuisafgehaald Crowdfunding VerbeterdeBuurt Burgerparticipatie Home Energy Management GiveAMinute BedrijfZoektBuur Slimme Vuilnisbak Spullen Delen Auto Delen Smart Parking Slimme Verlichting 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I am currently satisfied with the Status Quo. Disagree Agree Status Quo Thuisafgehaald Crowdfunding VerbeterdeBuurt Burgerparticipatie Home Energy Management GiveAMinute BedrijfZoektBuur Slimme Vuilnisbak Spullen Delen Auto Delen Smart Parking Slimme Verlichting 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I think this problem should be solved in another way. Disagree Agree Ambivalence

User Research Results In the second question, whether respondents believe that the problem being solved is important, the most notable results are the perceived importance of VerbeterdeBuurt and the Smart Trashcan (i.e. Slimme Vuilnisbak). DF Error F P Satisfaction 11 1128 9.729 <0.01 Involvement 11 741 6.062 <0.01 Status Quo 11 741 5.438 <0.01 Ambivalence 11 816 3.632 <0.01 Figure 8. ANOVA results The third question, to which degree people are satisfied with the Status Quo indicates that the areas in which Thuisafgehaald and Smart Lighting (i.e. Slimme Verlichting) are working offer the least room for improvement, while VerbeterdeBuurt offers to solve a nuissance that is experienced by the majority of the respondents. Initial conclusions are that VerbeterdeBuurt, the Smart Trashcan (i.e. Slimme Vuilnisbak), Sharing Stuff (i.e. Spullen Delen) and Smart Parking would be rated positively, while on the other hand, Thuisafgehaald, Crowdfunding and Smart Lighting (i.e. Slimme Verlichting) would be rated negatively. The last question regarding the degree of ambivalence asks whether people believe that there would be a better way to solve the problem at hand indicates the lowest degrees of ambivalence for VerbeterdeBuurt, the Smart Trashcan (i.e. Slimme Vuilnisbak) and Smart Parking. Figure 9 on the following pages will show the results of the commitment level profiles for the three most and least positively rated Solutions, giving more insight in people s ratings. Appendix A comprises the commitment profiles for all of the Smart Solutions in the questionnaire. 15

User Research Results Figure 9. Commitment Profiles per Smart Solution - 3 most positive on the left & 3 least positive on the right 50 Smart Parking 50 Crowdfunding 40 40 30 30 20 20 10 10 0 Entrenched Average VerbeterDeBuurt Shallow Convertible Available Ambivalent Weak Unavailable Strong Unavailable 0 Entrenched Average Shallow Civilian Participation Convertible Available Ambivalent Weak Unavailable Strong Unavailable 50 50 40 40 30 30 20 20 10 10 0 0 50 Entrenched Average Smart Trashcan Shallow Convertible Available Ambivalent Weak Unavailable Strong Unavailable 50 Entrenched Average Thuisafgehaald Shallow Convertible Available Ambivalent Weak Unavailable Strong Unavailable 40 40 30 30 20 20 10 10 0 16 Entrenched Average Shallow Convertible Available Ambivalent Weak Unavailable Strong Unavailable 0 Entrenched Average Shallow Convertible Available Ambivalent Weak Unavailable Strong Unavailable

User Research Results Figure 9 shows the three most positively rated Smart Solutions on the left (Smart Parking, VerbeterdeBuurt and the Smart Trashcan) and the three least positively rated ones on the right (Crowdfunding, Civilian Participation and Thuisafgehaald). For the left three Smart Solutions, most respondents fall in the Available and Ambivalent categories indicating a readiness to adopt the Solution as it is proposed right now. In the example of VerbeterdeBuurt, the profile for users is also positive, showing that most of the people who have tried the service are very positive and actively recommend it to their peers. An appropriate marketing strategy for VerbeterdeBuurt could consequently be to convince non-users to try it once by giving introductory discounts. It is interesting to compare these commitment profiles with qualitative data that was optionally provided in the questionnaire as well as obtained in interviews with selected respondents to try and determine the possible reasons for their success. The positive ones seem to relate directly to problems that people experience in their neighborhood. For example, on the Smart Trashcan, a respondent from the Available category had this to say: Als dit systeem gebruikt gaat worden zien de straten er eindelijk weer schoon en netjes uit!!!!!!!!! which roughly translates as If this system would be used, the streets would finally look nice and clean again!. This indicates that thrash in the streets is an annoyance for a lot of people in N-W and indeed, reactions like this have been recorded on several occasions. Even residents who do not have to cope with this problem themselves acknowledge that this is a problem in N-W and like the Smart Trashcan concept. Prullebakken in mijn wijk zijn niet overvol, dus er is geen 17

User Research Results directe ergernis bij mij. Ik vind het echter wel zonde dat er zoveel voor niets wordt gereden om halflege vuilnisbakken te legen terwijl op andere plekken in N-W de vuilnisbakken helemaal uitpuilen. Translating as: Trash cans in my neighborhood are not too full, so there is no direct annoyance for me. I do think that it s a waste that trucks pick up half empty trash cans while in other places in N-W they are overflowing. Another common reaction in the context of the Smart Lighting Solution is the following: Ik zelf vind het een beetje eng om zo op straat te lopen. De lichten gaan alleen aan als je voorbij loopt, op het moment dat je verder loopt gaat het licht weer uit. Je loopt hierdoor eigenlijk best veel in het donker en ik vind dat zelf niet echt prettig. Which translates as I would be a little scared walking around in the streets like this. The lights only turn on when you walk past. When you would continue, they would be turned off again. This way, you would walk around in the dark quite a lot and I would not like that very much. Although some factual misinterpretations seem to exist in this case, one cannot ignore the fact that safety, or at the very least the perception of safety are important issues in N-W. But also negatively rated Smart Solututions give insights into the issues in the neighborhood. For example the reasons that the Civilian Participation initiative from the municipality rated this poorly has to do with a general lack of trust in the government as responses such as these indicate: Ik erger me al jaren dat de overheid, ook de deelraad, over mijn rug beslissingen neemt. Meestal ter eigen eer en glorie. Zo mogen van mij de deelraden, met hun baantjesjagers, opgeheven worden. Translating as I ve been annoyed for years already that the government, 18

User Research Results municipality included makes decisions over my back, usiually for their own gains. In my opinion, the municipalities, with their job-hunters should be dismantled. In addition to lack of trust in the government, residents in N-W seem to have difficulty in trusting their neighbors. On the proposed Smart Solution, Spullen Delen (i.e. Sharing Stuff) a respondent has this to say: Mooi concept. Een eis is dat er duidelijke regelgeving moet zijn die geen tot weinig misbruik toelaat. Nice concept. But there should be from interviews that were conducted in the process is the fact that the municipality (Stadsdeel) of Amsterdam Nieuw-West has only been called into existence in 2010 by the merging of Geuzenveld/Slotermeer, Slotervaart and Osdorp and is consequently only three years old. As a result, this is not a homogeneous group of people and, for example, residents from Slotermeer have little affinity with residents from Osdorp. This translates in relatively low ratings for the Smart Solutions of Spullen Delen (i.e. Sharing Stuff) and Thuisafgehaald. clear rules that eliminate or at least limit abuse. Most of the respondents are in the Ambivalent category on this Solution and I believe that these issues of trust are the most important reason people are not in the Available category because, other than this, people are very enthousiastic. A last interesting insight that emerged 19

User Research Conclusions In conclusion, we can identify four main issues in N-W that could provide content to the game because they represent an issue in N-W that is widely shared by the residents. Smart Lighting as the majority of the people sympathize with the ecological benefits but still reject the Smart Solution because they feel that it would jeopardize safety. Trash in the Streets An issue that seems to carry significant weight in N-W and the main reason that the initiative of the Smart Trashcan was this widely supported. Many respondents explain that they are annoyed by trash that builds up near the central container dumps in the neighborhood. According to residents, this happens because some trashcans are not emptied frequently enough with the result that trash gets dumped next to the containers. Safety Another issue that is prevalent in the minds of many N-W residents is the perception of safety. This was exposed mostly in the example of Trust in Government The Smart Solutions that had something to do with governance, such as GiveAMinute or the Civilian Participation initiative were not only badly rated, but some underlying frustration seemed to exist. Most of the respondents acknowledge the importance of these initiatives, but are sceptical of the projected outcomes. This is further confirmed by the fact that respondents who have participated in similar initiatives are not in the Entrenched category because they have, most likely, have had a bad experience in the past. Community feeling This last identified problem is potentially the most interesting 20

User Research Conclusions as it concerns a social issue in the neighborhood. It concerns the lack of, and desire for a sense of community in N-W at the same time. Although the Commitment Level profiles for Spullen Delen (i.e. Sharing Stuff) and Thuisafgehaald are not very positive, the qualitative responses that could be filled-in indicate that people would love these kind of Smart Solutions to exist if only they could trust their neighbors. 21

22

References 1. Hofmeyr, J. & Rice, B. (2000) Commitment-Led Marketing, John Wiley: Chichester. 2. Marks, A. S., Hofmeyr, J., & Ratheb, E. E. (2000). Application of the Conversion Model to Analysis of the Determinants of Black South African Women s Smoking Lifestyles. Social Marketing Quarterly, 6(3), 28-34. Citeseer. 3. Rice, B., & Bennett, R. (1998). The relationship between brand usage and advertising tracking measurements: International findings. Journal of Advertising Research, 38, 58-66. Advertising Research Foundation. 4. Zeeman, E. C. (1977). Catastrophe theory: Selected papers, 1972--1977. Addison- Wesley. 23

Appendix A. Commitment Profiles per Smart Solution Smart Lighting Car Sharing 50 50 40 40 30 30 20 20 10 10 0 0 50 Entrenched Average Smart Parking Shallow Convertible Available Ambivalent Weak Unavailable Strong Unavailable 50 Entrenched Sharing Stuff Average Shallow Convertible Available Ambivalent Weak Unavailable Strong Unavailable 40 40 30 30 20 20 10 10 0 0 50 Entrenched Average Give A Minute Shallow Convertible Available Ambivalent Weak Unavailable Strong Unavailable 50 Entrenched Average Shallow Convertible Available Home Energy Managerment System Ambivalent Weak Unavailable Strong Unavailable 40 40 30 30 20 20 10 10 0 0 24 Entrenched Average Shallow Convertible Available Ambivalent Weak Unavailable Strong Unavailable Entrenched Average Shallow Convertible Available Ambivalent Weak Unavailable Strong Unavailable

Appendix A. Commitment Profiles per Smart Solution VerbeterDeBuurt Crowdfunding 50 50 40 40 30 30 20 20 10 10 0 0 50 Entrenched Average Smart Trashcan Shallow Convertible Available Ambivalent Weak Unavailable Strong Unavailable 50 Entrenched Average BedrijfZoektBuur Shallow Convertible Available Ambivalent Weak Unavailable Strong Unavailable 40 40 30 30 20 20 10 10 0 0 50 Entrenched Average Shallow Civilian Participation Convertible Available Ambivalent Weak Unavailable Strong Unavailable 50 Entrenched Average Thuisafgehaald Shallow Convertible Available Ambivalent Weak Unavailable Strong Unavailable 40 40 30 30 20 20 10 10 0 Entrenched Average Shallow Convertible Available Ambivalent Weak Unavailable Strong Unavailable 0 Entrenched Average Shallow Convertible Available Ambivalent Weak Unavailable Strong Unavailable 25

Appendix B. Questionnaire 26

Appendix B. Questionnaire 27

Appendix B. Questionnaire 28

Appendix B. Questionnaire 29

Appendix B. Questionnaire 30

Appendix B. Questionnaire 31

Appendix B. Questionnaire 32

Appendix B. Questionnaire 33

Appendix B. Questionnaire 34

Appendix B. Questionnaire 35

Appendix B. Questionnaire 36

Appendix B. Questionnaire 37

Appendix B. Questionnaire 38

Appendix B. Questionnaire 39

Appendix B. Questionnaire 40

Appendix B. Questionnaire 41

Appendix B. Questionnaire 42

Appendix B. Questionnaire 43

Appendix B. Questionnaire 44

Appendix B. Questionnaire 45

Appendix B. Questionnaire 46

Appendix B. Questionnaire 47

Appendix B. Questionnaire 48

49