Skip to content
BY 4.0 license Open Access Published by De Gruyter Open Access May 16, 2019

Robot use cases for real needs: A large-scale ethnographic case study

Leon Bodenhagen, Kerstin Fischer, Trine S. Winther, Rosalyn M. Langedijk and Mette M. Skjøth

Abstract

This article discusses the process of developing robot use cases using large-scale ethnographic observation as a starting point. In particular, during 296 hours of ethnographic observation of the workflows at seventeen departments at Odense University Hospital, 607 processes were described and subsequently annotated. The ethnographic method provided rich, contextually situated data that can be searched and categorized for use case development, which is illustrated on an example use case, describing the process and illustrating the type of data elicited, discussing the problems encountered and providing downloadable tools for other researchers interested in similar approaches to use case development.

References

[1] G. Lanzieri, The greying of the baby boomers: A century-long view of ageing in european populations, Eurostat: Statistics in focus, Techical Report, 2011Search in Google Scholar

[2] I. Kirchberger, et al., Patterns of multimorbidity in the aged population, results from the KORA-age study, PLoS ONE, 2012, 7(1):e30556, DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.003055610.1371/journal.pone.0030556Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[3] L. D. Riek, Healthcare robotics, Communications of the ACM, 2017, 60(11), 68–7810.1145/3127874Search in Google Scholar

[4] A. O. Andrade, et al., Bridging the gap between robotic technology and health care, Biomedical Signal Processing and Control, 2014, 10, 65–7810.1016/j.bspc.2013.12.009Search in Google Scholar

[5] J. Seibt, “Integrative social robotics”: A new method paradigm to solve the description and the regulation problem?, In: J. Seibt, M. Nørskov, S. Schack Andersen (Eds.), What Social Robots Can and Should Do, IOS Press, Amsterdam, 2016, 104–115Search in Google Scholar

[6] T. L. Whitehead, Basic classical ethnographic research methods, Cultural ecology of health and change, 2005, 1Search in Google Scholar

[7] J. Seibt, M. Damholdt, C. Vestergaard, Five principles of integrative social robotics, In: M. Coeckelberg, J. Loh, M. Funk, J. Seibt, M. Nørskov (Eds.), Envisioning Robots in Society – Power, Politics, and Public Space, IOS Press, Amsterdam, 2018, 28–42Search in Google Scholar

[8] M. Hammersley, P. Atkinson, Ethnography: Principles in Practice, 3rd edition, Routledge, New York, 2007Search in Google Scholar

[9] L. Suchman, Human-Machine Reconfigurations: Plans and Situated Actions, 2nd edition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 200710.1017/CBO9780511808418Search in Google Scholar

[10] J. Preece, Y. Rogers, H. Sharp, Interaction design: Beyond human-computer interaction, John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, 2015Search in Google Scholar

[11] B. Mutlu, J. Forlizzi, Robots in organizations: The role of workflow, social, and environmental factors in human-robot interaction, In: International Conference on Human Robot Interaction (HRI’08), 2008, Amsterdam, Netherland, ACM, New York, 2008, 287–29410.1145/1349822.1349860Search in Google Scholar

[12] W.-L. Chang, S. Sabanovic, L. Huber, Situated analysis of interactions between cognitively impaired older adults and the therapeutic robot Paro, In: G. Herrmann, M. J. Pearson, A. Lenz, P. Bremner, A. Spiers, U. Leonards (Eds.), International Conference on Social Robotics, Bristol, UK, Springer, Cham, 2013, 371–38010.1007/978-3-319-02675-6_37Search in Google Scholar

[13] J. Forlizzi, How robotic products become social products: an ethnographic study of cleaning in the home, In: Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot Interaction, Arlington, USA, 2007, ACM, New York, 2007, 129–13610.1145/1228716.1228734Search in Google Scholar

[14] J. Sung, H. I. Christensen, R. E. Grinter, Robots in the wild: understanding long-term use, In: The 4th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot Interaction, La Jolla, USA, 2009, ACM, New York, 2009, 45–5210.1145/1514095.1514106Search in Google Scholar

[15] A. M. Sabelli, T. Kanda, N. Hagita, A conversational robot in an elderly care center: an ethnographic study, In: 6th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, Lausanne, Switzerland, 2011, ACM, New York, 2011, 37–4410.1145/1957656.1957669Search in Google Scholar

[16] M. Maguire, N. Bevan, User requirements analysis: A review of supporting methods, In: J. Hammond, T. Gross, J. Wessons (Eds.), IFIP 17th World Computer Congress, Montreal, Canada, 2002, Springer, Boston, 2002, 133–14810.1007/978-0-387-35610-5_9Search in Google Scholar

[17] W. K. Juel, et al., The SMOOTH Robot: Design for a Novel Modular Welfare Robot, In: ICRA2018 Workshop on Elderly Care Robotics – Technology and Ethics, WELCARO, 2018, https://sites.google.com/site/icra2018welcaro/homeSearch in Google Scholar

[18] J. I. Westbrook, M. Z. Raban, S. R. Walter, H. Douglas, Task errors by emergency physicians are associated with interruptions, multitasking, fatigue and working memory capacity: a prospective, direct observation study, BMJ QUAL SAF, 2018, 27(8), 655–663, DOI:10.1136/bmjqs-2017-00733310.1136/bmjqs-2017-007333Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[19] L. Kendall, S. R. Mishra, A. Pollack, B. Aaronson, W. Pratt, Making background work visible: opportunities to address patient information needs in the hospital, AMIA Annual Symposium proceedings, 2015, 1957–1966Search in Google Scholar

[20] M. Weigl, A. Müller, A. Zupanc, J. Glaser, P. Angerer, Hospital doctors’ workflow interruptions and activities: an observation study, BMJ QUAL SAF, 2011, 20(6), 491–497, DOI:10.1136/bmjqs.2010.04328110.1136/bmjqs.2010.043281Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[21] S. Reeves, A. Kuper, B. D. Hodges, Qualitative research methodologies: ethnography, BMJ, 2008, 337:a1020, DOI: 10.1136/bmj.a102010.1136/bmj.a1020Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[22] J. Blomberg, M. Burrell, G. Guest, An ethnographic approach to design, In: J. A. Jacko, A. Sears (Eds.), The Human-Computer Interaction Handbook, L. Erlbaum Associates Inc., Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 2003, 964–986Search in Google Scholar

[23] J. Spradley, Participant observation, Holt, Reinhart and Winston, New York, 1980Search in Google Scholar

[24] N. Hook, Grounded theory, In: P. Lankoski, S. Björk (Eds.), Game Research Methods, ETC Press, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 2015, 309–320Search in Google Scholar

[25] K. Holtzblatt, J. B. Wendell, S. Wood, Rapid Contextual Design: A How-to Guide to Key Techniques for User-Centered Design, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA, 200410.1145/1066348.1066325Search in Google Scholar

[26] Z. Guo, X. Xiao, H. Yu, Design and evaluation of a motorized robotic bed mover with omni-directional mobility for patient transportation, IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics, 2018, 22(6), 1775–1785, DOI:10.1109/JBHI.2018.284934410.1109/JBHI.2018.2849344Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[27] C. Hasse, How robots challenge institutional practices, Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 2018, DOI: 10.1016/j.lcsi.2018.04.00310.1016/j.lcsi.2018.04.003Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2018-08-31
Accepted: 2019-03-29
Published Online: 2019-05-16

© 2019 Leon Bodenhagen et al., published by De Gruyter

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Public License.

Scroll Up Arrow