Team Meeting 04.23

Each of us introduced all four concepts to the group again, and conduct the process to choose the final concept according to the preset criteria framework.

There are seven aspects that we care about, which are listed below. Each criterion has its weight. Social, public, inventive and feasible weights 20%, while the each of other four weights 10% respectively.

Criterion	Weight
Social	20%    (pass/fail)
Public	20%    (pass/fail)
Inventive	20%    (pass/fail)
Feasible	10%
Interactive	10%
Cost	10%
Scalable	10%

Each of the criterion has five grades, ‘very poor’, ‘poor’, ‘average’, ‘good’, ‘excellent’, and the rubrics are listed below. We also introduce a 'pass/fail' rule for social, public, and inventive, which are the three criteria that we concern the most. Therefore，we set the rule that if a concept completely violate any of these three principles, in other words, if a concept get a 'very poor' grade at 'social', 'public' or 'inventive', we just dump it, no matter how high the grades are of other criteria.

1.      Social

Very poor	1	Not social at all, can’t use the product socially
Poor	2	Individual, social under particular context
Average	3	Social, but only small group engaged
Good	4	Social, many people engaged, can share with others
Excellent	5	Social, easy to share with others

2.      Public

Very poor	1	For one person
Poor	2	For few people
Average	3	For certain group
Good	4	For most people
Excellent	5	Everyone can use

3.      Inventive

Very poor	1	Existing idea, totally the same
Poor	2	Existing idea, slightly changed
Average	3	Existing idea, have some original thoughts to improve it
Good	4	Inventive, not that creative
Excellent	5	Inventive and creative

4.      Feasible

Very poor	1	Not practical at all
Poor	2	Hard to implement
Average	3	Can be partly implemented
Good	4	Practical, and can be implemented but not that easy
Excellent	5	Completely practical, and can be easily implemented

5.      Interactive

Very poor	1	No interaction at all. Violate the conceptual models; no feedbacks of the product/service; no constraints of using, user has too many options; no affordance, user has no idea what the product is about and how to operate the product/service
Poor	2	Have some interaction. Follow the conceptual models; have feedback in some cases and vague; a few constraints of using
Average	3	Interactive in some case. Follow the conceptual models; have some feedback; decent constraints of using
Good	4	Good interaction. Follow the conceptual models; have feedback; have constraints of using; but either the feedback is not explicit or the constraints are not that effective
Excellent	5	Follow the conceptual models, have explicit feedback; have constraints of using and it's effective, user can easily know what he has done, what he can do next and how to do it.

6.      Cost

Very poor	1	Very High, e.g. technology service, labor, hardware
Poor	2	High
Average	3	Moderate
Good	4	Not much
Excellent	5	Economic

7.      Scalable 

Very poor	1	Not scalable at all
Poor	2	Can be expanded and upgraded under a particular circumstance
Average	3	Can be expanded and upgraded in some level
Good	4	Easily to expend or upgrade
Excellent	5	Can be easily expended or upgraded

Criteria Process

At the first stage, we discussed together to grade all the 20 concepts according to the criteria, then we dumped the ones who failed at the criteria of ‘social’, ’public’ and ’inventive’. Next, we calculated the total grades of concepts with the weights and work out the top five concepts. At the second stage, we discussed about if there were similarity between the five concepts. Finally, we decided the final concept for user evaluation.