MOBISERV – FP7 – 248434
An Integrated Intelligent Home Environment for the
Provision of Health, Nutrition and Mobility Services to the
Elderly
Final Deliverable
D2.7: MOBISERV User Acceptance Criteria
(Issue 1)
Date of delivery: Dec 20th 2011
Contributing Partners: UWE, SMH
Date: 20th Dec 2011
Version : Issue 1 ver6
D2.7: MOBISERV User Acceptance Criteria Report – Issue 1
2/53
Document Control
Title:
D2.7: MOBISERV User Acceptance Criteria
Project:
MOBISERV (FP7 248434)
Nature:
Report
Dissemination Level: Restricted
until publication in journal
Authors:
UWE, SMH
Origin:
UWE
Doc ID:
MOBISERV D2.7 Issue 1 v6
MOBISERV
FP7 248434
D2.7: MOBISERV User Acceptance Criteria Report – Issue 1
3/53
Amendment History
Version
Date
Author
Description/Comments
v0.1
2011-09-01
UWE
First Version
v2
2011-09-12
UWE
Findings from Embodiment Workshops
v3
2011-10-10
UWE
Findings from Survey
v4
2011-11-29
UWE, SMH
Findings
Workshops
V4
2011-12-1
UWE, SMH
Draft sent
V5
2011-12-16
UWE, SMH
Final version
V6
2011-12-20
UWE, SMH
Responses
to
Internal
(SYSTEMA) incorporated
MOBISERV
from
Scenario-focussed
Moderation
FP7 248434
D2.7: MOBISERV User Acceptance Criteria Report – Issue 1
4/53
Table of contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... 9
1
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 12
1.1 SCOPE OF THE STUDY .................................................................................................. 12
1.2 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................... 13
1.3 INTENDED AUDIENCE .................................................................................................. 14
2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ................................................................................... 15
2.1 SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... 21
3
METHODOLOGY FOR PRIMARY RESEARCH........................................................... 22
3.1 FOCUS GROUPS WORKSHOPS ..................................................................................... 22
3.1.1 Embodiment workshops......................................................................................... 22
3.1.2 Scenario-focussed workshops ............................................................................... 24
3.2 SURVEY ........................................................................................................................ 24
4
RESULTS OF THE EMBODIMENT WORKSHOPS...................................................... 25
4.1 DISCUSSIONS ON THE NATURE OF AN IDEAL ROBOT .................................................. 25
4.1.1 Functionality ......................................................................................................... 25
4.1.1.1
4.1.1.2
4.1.1.3
Memory associated tasks .......................................................................................................................... 25
Cleaning tasks ........................................................................................................................................... 25
Assistive tasks ........................................................................................................................................... 26
4.1.2 Behaviour and Appearance ................................................................................... 26
4.2 DISCUSSIONS ON THE NATURE OF A NIGHTMARE ROBOT.......................................... 28
4.2.1 Behaviour and Appearance ................................................................................... 28
4.2.2 Loss of Control and Reliability ............................................................................. 28
4.3 DISCUSSIONS PROMPTED BY A DOCUMENTARY ON ROBOT DEVELOPMENT .............. 29
4.3.1 Initial Feedback, impressions and opinions.......................................................... 29
4.3.2 Cue card discussion and comments ...................................................................... 31
4.3.2.1
4.3.2.2
4.3.2.3
4.3.2.4
4.3.2.5
5
Cue Card A ............................................................................................................................................... 32
Cue Card B................................................................................................................................................ 32
Cue Card C ............................................................................................................................................... 33
Cue Card D ............................................................................................................................................... 34
Cue Card E................................................................................................................................................ 35
RESULTS OF THE SCENARIO-FOCUSSED WORKSHOPS ....................................... 36
5.1 USER ACCEPTANCE ..................................................................................................... 36
5.2 EMBODIMENT .............................................................................................................. 38
5.2.1 Behaviour and appearance ................................................................................... 39
6
RESULTS OF THE SURVEY AND DISCUSSIONS ...................................................... 40
The information contained in this report is subject to change without notice and should not be construed as a commitment by any members of
the MOBISERV Consortium. The MOBISERV Consortium assumes no responsibility for the use or inability to use any software or
algorithms, which might be described in this report. The information is provided without any warranty of any kind and the MOBISERV
Consortium expressly disclaims all implied warranties, including but not limited to the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a
particular use.
MOBISERV
FP7 248434
D2.7: MOBISERV User Acceptance Criteria Report – Issue 1
5/53
6.1 SOME OBSERVATIONS FROM THE QUESTIONNAIRES .................................................. 40
6.2 NEW ROBOT FUNCTIONS AND CHARACTERISTICS DRAWN FROM THE DISCUSSIONS . 41
7
CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION ............................................................................... 43
8
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. 44
9
APPENDIX 1 - QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES .......................................................... 45
MOBISERV
FP7 248434
D2.7: MOBISERV User Acceptance Criteria Report – Issue 1
6/53
Table of Figures
Figure 1 Eight different shaped robots images used in Broadbent et al.’s study ..................... 17
Figure 2 Hopis and In-touch Telemedicine Robot from the Broadbent et al. study ................ 18
Figure 3 Robot A Care-O-bot II Fraunhofer IPA .................................................................... 32
Figure 4 Robot B (PaPeRo 2005 From NEC) .......................................................................... 32
Figure 5 Robot C Seeker by David Shinsel ............................................................................. 33
Figure 6 Robot D ApriAttenda by Toshiba.............................................................................. 34
Figure 7 Robot F, RIBA "Robot for Interactive Body Assistance" Institute of Physical and
Chemical Research, Japan, and Tokai Rubber Industries, Ltd. ............................................... 35
MOBISERV
FP7 248434
D2.7: MOBISERV User Acceptance Criteria Report – Issue 1
7/53
List of Tables
Table 1 Breakdown of participants by type of workshop ........................................................ 22
MOBISERV
FP7 248434
D2.7: MOBISERV User Acceptance Criteria Report – Issue 1
8/53
Glossary
Term
MOBISERV
PRU
WHSU
MOBISERV
Explanation
An Integrated Intelligent Home Environment for the Provision of Health,
Nutrition and Mobility Services to the Elderly
Portable Robotic Unit
Wearable Health Support Unit
FP7 248434
D2.7: MOBISERV User Acceptance Criteria Report – Issue 1
9/53
Executive Summary
This document, D2.7: MOBISERV User Acceptance Criteria Report - Issue 1, discusses a
range of issues which have been identified as being significant for user acceptance of the
MOBISERV system as it is conceptualised and initially implemented, in particular, those
relating to the robot which provides the primary interface to the system and the smart
garments.
It should be noted that the first MOBISERV prototype (which was due in M21) has not
been available for this study, only initial versions of individual components of the
MOBISERV system were shown to the participants. As such, this user acceptance
criteria report is made available as Issue 1, and Issue 2 will be made available in month
35 when the users have had adequate opportunities to experience the MOBISERV
system and technology first-hand, and thus make better informed judgements of what is
acceptable and what is not to them.
The findings in this report are based on review of recent literature, workshop discussions and
questionnaires with a range of primary and secondary users.
In summary, the criteria for user acceptance are as follows:
1. High level of intuitiveness for interfaces and interactions with high technical
performance and reliability
Successful interaction is based on knowledge of context – if a robot is perceived to be
“intelligent” it will be expected to interact “intelligently” with appropriate feedback to
user interactivity. When this is not present, or not easily discernable, then frustration
can ensue, as well as a feeling of failure. It is natural for people to assume that if the
robot did not respond as expected, then the mistake was theirs for not having
communicated correctly, which can result in low self-efficacy, whereas the poor
response is invariably due to the poor quality of voice recognition and touch-screen
performance.
MOBISERV
FP7 248434
D2.7: MOBISERV User Acceptance Criteria Report – Issue 1
10/53
2. Flexibility to enable personalisation of system features and settings
For a robot this means personalising gender, voice, accent, speed, nature and style of
feedback/interaction e.g. the graphic user interface specifications. The personalisation
would ensure that the system could be integrated into the persons’ particular social
context, which they felt comfortable with. This customisation would also ensure that
the system would cope with the users’ specific needs and limitations, both physical
and cognitive.
3. Offer assurance of operational safety
4. Provide means for people to create their own engaging learning about the system
benefits by controlling information privacy
A key part of acceptance is for older people to see the benefit of the system for
themselves. This can be achieved by allowing them to privately build a picture of
their own unshared data within the system, enable them to review it and share it with
a carer when they are ready. In this way, older people can learn about the system
features from an engaging example (i.e. their own data), rather than from some
generic data.
5. Enable fine grained privacy control
Sharing data is not simply a matter of yes or no, all or nothing. Higher-level abstract
representations of health status are currently accepted as forms of monitoring by older
people.
6. Respect a person’s personal routine
Learning behavioural patterns, and based on this making informed decisions of when
and where it is appropriate to interrupt and not interrupt the person and give context
appropriate responses and help.
7. Not undermine existing human contact
People are concerned that the robot will replace the current care and support they
receive from human carers. The argument that there will not be adequate carers
available in the future due to the vast numbers of older people in society is not well
known and thus not adequate to justify the need for a robot. As such it is important to
clarify the role of the MOBISERV system in aiding and assisting current carer models
and thus enhancing the quality and level of service.
MOBISERV
FP7 248434
D2.7: MOBISERV User Acceptance Criteria Report – Issue 1
11/53
8. Offer mixed format training and a phased introduction – to prevent a feeling of
intrusion
Training, in the form of videos, instruction leaflets, pictorial cards, addressing
different learning needs, and brief introductory interactions spaced over a period of
time, would make the system seem more familiar to the person, making them more
comfortable with having the system around.
9. Provide a clearly defined case for how the MOBISERV system, and in particular
the robot, will improve the quality of life, from a wellbeing, as well as social
perspective
It is difficult for a person to psychologically accept that they actually require
assistance – most people prefer to remain in denial. A robot assistant or companion
could make the admission of need too real for people to accept, which could also be
seen as a social stigma. The robot really needs to offer significant support and be
provided as an alternative to care by unknown human carers and/or residential care.
10. Involving all stakeholders in the design of the technology in a participatory
manner
Engagement with all stakeholders within different levels and forms of participatory
design will help to ensure that stakeholder needs are explicitly considered and
addressed in the way the system is developed and the functionality shaped. It should
be recognised there is some tension between the needs of primary users (e.g. privacy)
and secondary users (e.g. monitoring). It is imperative for user acceptance that the
needs of primary users are met above the needs of secondary users – after all,
secondary users are dependent on primary users accepting it.
MOBISERV
FP7 248434
D2.7: MOBISERV User Acceptance Criteria Report – Issue 1
12/53
1 Introduction
1.1 Scope of the study
In developing the MOBISERV system and technology it is important to consider and define
what aspects will make the technology acceptable to the users. Without the presence of the
integrated system, users can only base their views on the design concept and initial
components implementation and have to imagine the scenarios to be able to say what will,
and what won’t, be acceptable to them. They can only do so on the basis of their past
experiences, often shaped by the media – science fiction movies that they have seen and
books they have read. The research team can offer them realistic scenarios and examples, and
artefacts such as concept videos and existing technologies and initial version of individual
components, however this will only provide a guide to prompt the discussion. A realistic
understanding of user acceptance criteria can only emerge when users have experienced
something tangible and understood fully the scope of what is proposed by interacting with it,
to truly say what is acceptable and what isn’t.
This document therefore discusses a range of issues which have been identified as being
significant for user acceptance of the MOBISERV system mainly as it is conceptualised
(and less as it is initially implemented), in particular, those relating to the robot which
provides the primary interface to the system and the smart garments.
It should be noted that as the first MOBISERV prototype (which was due in M21) has
not been available for this study, only initial versions of individual components of the
MOBISERV system were shown to the participants. As such this user acceptance
criteria report is made available as Issue 1, and Issue 2 will be made available in month
35 when the users have had adequate opportunities to experience the MOBISERV
system and technology first-hand, and thus make better informed judgements of what is
and what isn’t acceptable to them.
The findings in this report are based on review of recent literature, workshop discussions and
questionnaires with a range of primary and secondary users.
MOBISERV
FP7 248434
D2.7: MOBISERV User Acceptance Criteria Report – Issue 1
13/53
1.2 Aims and Objectives
The purpose of the primary research for this study is to ascertain the criteria that will
maximise the user acceptance of the MOBISERV system and components. To this end we
aim to:
1. Discover older people’s perceptions, expectations and impression of domestic care
service robots and other MOBISERV assistive technologies
2. Provide an opportunity for members of the target user groups to discuss both their’s and
each other’s perceptions, expectations and impression of the MOBISERV system.
3. Discover what potential functions and tasks members of the target user groups would
expect such system to perform.
4. Discover with members of the target user groups: 1. what their individual ideal
embodiment preferences and requirements are for a domestic care service robot, 2. What
physical and functional properties would be ideal for other assistive technologies.
MOBISERV
FP7 248434
D2.7: MOBISERV User Acceptance Criteria Report – Issue 1
14/53
1.3 Intended Audience
This report provides key guidance for the consortium for shaping future developments of the
technology as well as for considering aspects that will be significant for the exploitation and
dissemination of the system as a whole and the various sub-components. In addition it will
also guide the perspectives and agenda for public engagement and dissemination to promote
further conversations and discussions about how this technology can be designed to be
acceptable.
It should be noted that this report (Issue 1) is mainly based on the conceptualised
MOBISERV system, rather than the actual integrated prototype (as this was not available)
and Issue 2 of the report, which will be delivered at the end of the project (M35) will relate to
the actual MOBISERV system.
MOBISERV
FP7 248434
D2.7: MOBISERV User Acceptance Criteria Report – Issue 1
15/53
2 Review of the literature
This section consists of a brief literature review of studies conducted in order to discover and
take into consideration stakeholder perspectives and acceptance criteria in regards to humanrobot interaction within the home.
In one of the early studies regarding embodiments of assistive robots, Mataric (2005) argues
that a robot’s physical presence and shared context with the end user is a fundamental and
crucial area of design and development for assistive robots in order to provide a supportive
role for older adults. This is due to the complex nature of the interaction that must take place
between the end user and the machine in order to establish credible human-robot interaction.
Mataric also argues that the same supportive role can be provided by disembodied solutions
embedded within the user’s environment.
Mataric draws upon prior research that suggests that people will assign personality, emotions,
intentions and objectives towards machines no matter how complex or simple they might be.
This process is affected by various factors including an individual’s background or culture. In
order to successful develop robotic solutions for a highly complex domain such as care for
older people, it is necessary to take into account these issues so that the end user is confident
and capable of interacting and engaging with the technology.
In order to demonstrate the importance of the role of embodiment in regards to assistive
robots for older people, Mataric (2005) explored developing prototypes of embodied
technology and compared their effectiveness against disembodied equivalents. The Clara
assistant nurse robot described in the study is capable of locating a hospital room, bed and
patient for the purpose of spirometry. This task is performed by nurses for patients recovering
from heart surgery, who are required to undertake breathing tests in order to monitor
regaining lung functionality and to avert infection. Clara is also required to perform several
monitoring tasks associated with this function and interacts with patients via speech. Clara
has been designed to describe the spirometry task to the patient, provide feedback,
encouragement and report its findings to staff within a hospital. The robot is capable of
performing these tasks amongst patients based on their preferred personality and mode of
MOBISERV
FP7 248434
D2.7: MOBISERV User Acceptance Criteria Report – Issue 1
16/53
interaction in order to personalise the experience. Mataric also researches the benefits of noncontact socially assistive robots for post stroke rehabilitation therapy that includes monitoring
and encouraging exercise as well as providing feedback. Results are positive with stroke
patients increasing the amount of exercise as a result of interacting with the system.
Mataric argues that a greater understanding of the role of embodiment is required for the
design and development of assistive robots for older people on the grounds that this user
group may be more technologically disinclined compared to younger users. Furthermore
Mataric also argues that more research is required with respect to different types of behaviour
in relation to the embodiment, with different users groups. Again this is a crucial area of
study in regards to older people in order to establish credible human-robot interaction for
providing care service for this user group.
Related to the behaviour of assistive robots, the degree of autonomy and supporting roles that
require the user to engage with the system in order to achieve a desired objective raises a
variety of ethical issues that must be considered. These include vulnerability in the presence
of an assistive robot.
Ongoing research conducted by Mataric (2005) also includes modelling empathy. Empathy is
a key aid used by healthcare professionals in regards to providing care for older people.
Again this raises ethical issues related to an older person’s vulnerability, and the extent to
which they can be manipulated on account of cognitive decline.
In a study aimed to identify useful tasks for robots to assist residents of a retirement village,
and preferences for the appearance and features of healthcare robots, Broadbent et al. (2009)
used a mixture of questionnaires and interviews. Two sets of questionnaires were issued to
both staff and residents at retirement village and this was followed up by an interview to
discuss preference for the robot’s colour, shape, design and size. The questionnaires focused
upon which tasks a robot could be designed to assist with and general attitudes towards
healthcare robots.
In general residents’ responses were more positive towards robots compared to staff. This
information was gathered using a PANAS (positive and negative affect scale) scale. From a
MOBISERV
FP7 248434
D2.7: MOBISERV User Acceptance Criteria Report – Issue 1
17/53
questionnaire, 30 tasks were prioritised from most useful to least useful using an average of
the participants’ responses. Those tasks rated highest by the residents were detecting falls and
calling for help, switching on and off appliances, cleaning, making phone calls to a doctor or
nurse, lifting heavy things, monitoring the location of people, and reminders to take
medications.
The results indicated that residents prioritized healthcare related functions while staff
prioritized tasks related to their care roles. Participants were also asked to assess their
preferred embodiment and shape of a robot using the images below:
Figure 1 Eight different shaped robots images used in Broadbent et al.’s study
The participants showed a preference towards a robot with a screen held on the body
compared to a screen on the head. There were no major differences between a humanoid or
rounded, box shaped embodiments.
In regards to the height of the robot, 1.25m was the preferred height chosen by the
participants. Both carers and residents stressed the need for the robot to be non-intrusive yet
tall enough to perform bed related tasks. Bright colours were preferred with silver as the most
MOBISERV
FP7 248434
D2.7: MOBISERV User Acceptance Criteria Report – Issue 1
18/53
popular followed by gold and white. Participants were also asked to choose between two
robots for the following tasks: Medication reminding, companionship and blood pressure.
Over 70% of the participants chose Hopis (left in the picture below) for companionship and
over 70% of the participants chose In-touch (right in the picture below) for health related
functions. Comments from the participants in regards to Hopis, revealed that the participants
believed the older people would pay more attention to a soft touch “childlike” robot.
Comments in regards to the In-touch robot indicated that the participants believed such a
robot would be more capable at performing healthcare related functions.
Figure 2 Hopis and In-touch Telemedicine Robot from the Broadbent et al. study
Broadbent et al.’s results also suggested that the robot should have a clear voice, a middleaged appearance (if age is identifiable), and users should be able to choose the robot’s
gender. The appearance should not be too human-like and the robot should have wheels
(similar to Image 2 in Figure 1), and should be matched to its tasks. Credibility and
dependability of the robot emerged as important features.
Other studies involving user preference regarding robots include the study conducted by
Hendriks et al. (2010) which involved a semi-structured interview session with a group of 6
participants (2 women and 4 men) in order to discover end user preferences in regards to the
personality of a robot vacuum cleaner. Participants shared a similar background having a
MOBISERV
FP7 248434
D2.7: MOBISERV User Acceptance Criteria Report – Issue 1
19/53
busy schedule and a fondness towards technology. Before the interview took place,
participants were familiarised with the concept of a robot vacuum cleaner and were provided
with a presentation of visual displays of various robot vacuum cleaners. 30 personality traits
and characteristics were taken from the Five-Factor Model. This model organizes personality
traits in terms of five basic dimensions: neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience,
agreeableness and conscientiousness (McCrae and Costa (1987) as in Hendriks et al.).
For each of the 5 dimensions, 6 characteristics (3 positive and 3 negative) were selected for
cue cards to be used during the interview in order to provoke discussion of preferred
personality aspects of a robot vacuum cleaner amongst the participants. The results suggested
that the participants wanted a polite, efficient and calm robot vacuum cleaner, which was
capable of completing its primary function. Participants did not want a highly sophisticated
“fancy gadget” to perform the task of a vacuum cleaner.
The results of the interviews were used to construct a video prototype of the robot vacuum
cleaner. The video included various scenarios and tasks, which a real robot vacuum cleaner
would encounter within the home. These included recharging, detecting and cleaning certain
areas within the home. These scenarios were established with focus group discussion with
potential end users and ten scenarios were selected to be implemented in the prototype video.
The behaviour of the robot within the video prototype was based upon the results of the
previous semi structured interviews.
15 participants were invited to view the video prototype and discuss their impression and
opinions of the simulation. 3 out of 15 of the participants described the robot as appropriate, 3
stated its behaviour as calm. 2 of the participants mentioned that the robot was boring and 2
stated that it was careful with another 2 describing it as systematic. 14 participants applied a
gender to the robot.
Task based feedback in regards to the personality of the robot resulted with the majority of
participants stating the robot was calm, cooperative, systematic and routine driven. The robot
was generally described as polite.
Hendriks et al. (2010) conclude that end users anthropomorphize the robot vacuum cleaner
and as a result apply various personality characteristics and traits based upon its demonstrated
behaviour. Hendriks et al. (2010) also state that developers can use this as a means to
improve human-robot interaction and user experience by creating a specific personality for
MOBISERV
FP7 248434
D2.7: MOBISERV User Acceptance Criteria Report – Issue 1
20/53
the robot which helps the end user develop a conceptual model of how to interact with the
robot within the home.
Han et al. (2010) conducted a focus group study in order to discover end users perceptions,
opinions and expectations for a robotic receptionist. Han et al. selected a group of 36
participants, which were divided into 4 categories: creative, youth, middle aged and senior.
The creative group consisted of participants aged between 24 and 25 whose occupation was
related to creative industries or marketing, Participants within the creative group was also
well travelled. The youth group consisted of participants aged between 24 to 29; the middle
aged group, 31-39 and the senior group, 38-49. The youth, middle aged and senior group all
shared a similar occupational background in regards to having worked, studied or researched
computing, engineering, and life sciences. These 3 groups are also described by Han et al. as
open towards emerging technology.
Each group worked together for 2 hours on a different day from the rest, starting with the
creative group. The creative group produced mock up sketches of the robot, which were
evaluated by the other groups. 20 robot images were used as cue cards, which consisted of
motion and mobility, exterior shape, appearance (embodiment), head and functionality. Issues
and themes arising from the focus groups are summarised below:
Human Touch, Warmth and Friendliness - Due to the nature of the primary task and role
of the robot as a receptionist, “warmth and friendliness was highlighted as an essential
requirement.
Lack of Familiarity - Participants were unsure as to how people would interact and behave
in the presence of a robot receptionist. One participant stated that in the absence of a person
they would look for a security guard instead. Participants stated concern over the potential of
the lack of familiarity to create embarrassment and confusion for the end user.
Fear of Embarrassment - Senior local (Singapore based) participants expressed concern
over making a mistake upon interacting with the robot and stated that they would wish to
have access to an instruction manual or otherwise know in advance how to interact with the
robot in order to avoid a potentially embarrassing situation which draws attention to
themselves upon making an error while engaging with the robotic receptionist.
MOBISERV
FP7 248434
D2.7: MOBISERV User Acceptance Criteria Report – Issue 1
21/53
Perceived benefits of having a robotic receptionist amongst the creative group included:
Innovative company presentation, particularly if the robot was the property of a technology
related organisation, increase productivity benefits as the robot would not require breaks or
holidays; and consistency through interaction as the robot would treat all visitors the same no
matter how they behaved and acted towards the robot.
Major themes related to the appearance, and embodiment of the robot are familiarity,
friendliness, credibility and safety.
In regards to the functionality of the robotic receptionist, participants did not expect the robot
to go beyond expected receptionist roles such as first point of contact, information and
guidance provision for visitors and other tasks including booking a taxi and the ability to
speak multiple languages.
The results of the focus group were used as input for researchers and designer to create a new
design concept for a robotic receptionist. Han et al. concludes that by consulting the user and
understanding the expectations and their perceptions of robots, human robotic interaction can
be enhanced.
Summary
2.1
Previous studies from literature help to identify the following issues related to user
acceptance of robot assistants:

Customisability of voice

Not-overly human-like in appearance

Reliability

An embodiment that evokes friendliness
MOBISERV
FP7 248434
D2.7: MOBISERV User Acceptance Criteria Report – Issue 1
22/53
3 Methodology for primary research
A combination of focus groups and questionnaires have been used as a means of primary data
gathering to address the aims and objectives identified in section 1.2 of this report.
3.1 Focus Groups Workshops
This section explains the structure of the focus group workshops.
Two types of workshops were organised:
 Embodiment workshops, where the focus was on the nature of a robot as interface,
 Scenario-focussed workshops, were part of the evaluation phase of the project,
exploring issues related to user acceptance from a more holistic perspective.
Type
Embodiment workshops
Scenario-focussed
workshops
Male
8
11
Female
10
11
Table 1 Breakdown of participants by type of workshop
3.1.1 Embodiment workshops
Participants
There were three separate embodiment workshops focussing on the views of older adults group 1 comprising 3 males, group 2 comprising 10 females and group 3 comprising 5 males
(ages ranges across all three groups was 60 - 93). These workshops were carried out in the
UK. The decision to have single-gender groups was based on our previous experience of the
dynamics between male and female participants in discussing their views and relationship
with technology, and levels of contribution to such discussions. It was hypothesised that
single-gender workshops would reduce the level of inhibition and result in more candid
revelations.
Workshops organisation
Each of the embodiment workshops was broken down into three main discussion sessions.
MOBISERV
FP7 248434
D2.7: MOBISERV User Acceptance Criteria Report – Issue 1
23/53
In the first session the participants brainstormed their ideal robot assistant. To stimulate and
provoke ideas amongst the participants, a mystery bag of robot related items was brought to
the session. These included the following items: Robot doll, Xbox control pad, Xbox wireless
headset, Miniature toy robot (RoboQ), Toy 6 legged robot beetle, Roomba robotic vacuum,
Robosapien (humanoid robot toy), Head massage tool, Electronically controlled butterfly in a
jar toy, SMARTEX vests, Animated stick figure electronic toys. It should be noted that the
participants had also seen the Kompai robot in a previous requirements focussed workshop.
Following the brainstorming session, participants were asked to consider and discuss the
following questions:
If you could have a robot in your home,
What would you want it to do?
How would you want it to look?
In the second session, participants were asked to spend some time writing down ideas and
discussing with each other the following questions:
What would your nightmare robot be?
What would it do?
How would it look?
In the third session, in order generate further discussion of domestic care robots amongst the
participants, a short video documentary compiled by UWE researchers on the existing state of
the art in robotics was played to inform the participants of the robots’ developments and
capabilities that was divided into three main sections was shown. The three sections on the
video documentary were as follows:
1. Industrial – Briefly summarising the emergence of robots within industry, specifically car
manufacturing
2. State of the art – Brief summary of medical robots
3. Care robots – Brief summary of care robot developments
MOBISERV
FP7 248434
D2.7: MOBISERV User Acceptance Criteria Report – Issue 1
24/53
After the participants had watched the robot video documentary, the facilitator asked each of
the participants which aspects they preferred and why. This was followed by a further
discussion using cue cards which images of the care robots on the video.
3.1.2 Scenario-focussed workshops
These were conducted in smaller groups or individually and also included carers and
therapists. Three sessions were held in the Netherlands (NL) with a total of 9 participants and
seven sessions were held in England (UK) with a total of 13 participants: four face-to-face
and three via telephone. Overall there were 8 older adults and 14 secondary stakeholders,
with an equal mix of genders. The details of the composition of the groups and methodology
will be available in D2.5.
The participants were provided with scenarios relating to hydration, nutrition support,
voice/video calling, exercise and front door control. Key discussion points included the
following points: What is good? What is bad? What is the effect of this situation? Is it right or
wrong? How could this scenario be different? (e.g. extend it, change it). The scenarios were
presented both verbally and on paper.
3.2 Survey
A questionnaire (Appendix 1) was prepared and distributed at the Festival of Age Celebration
in Bristol, UK. This was an event for older adults to introduce them to a range of support
services and technologies organised by the Bristol City Council and Bristol Older Peoples
Forum. We showed concept videos of the MOBISERV system and gave a demonstration of
existing functionalities (voice control of shopping list, emailing, weather forecasts) on the
PRU, and the WHSHU (vests and live graphs of the sensor data). This was followed by
individual and small group hands-on sessions. Participants were then asked to fill out the
questionnaire. 29 older people completed the questionnaire (see Appendix 1 - Questionnaire
Responses for detailed responses) and took part in an unstructured group discussion.
MOBISERV
FP7 248434
D2.7: MOBISERV User Acceptance Criteria Report – Issue 1
25/53
4 Results of the Embodiment Workshops
The section contains a summary of the results recorded during the embodiment workshops.
For each activity in the session the summary of ideas recorded by the participants is listed
below.
4.1 Discussions on the nature of an Ideal Robot
The following contains contributions from the participants regarding what they would find
acceptable for their “ideal robot assistant”. Suggestions and ideas made by the participants
have been categorised into themes, which in some cases overlap with each other.
4.1.1 Functionality
4.1.1.1 Memory associated tasks

Informs user of the date and any appointments

Reminds user what to take with them and what they have arranged to do for the day
(arranged duties)

Reminder for birthdays and anniversaries

Medication reminders, dosage, schedule

Wake the user at a certain time

Remind the user to check their diary

Act like a diary

To be able to answer questions

To ask the user if they switched everything off at night
4.1.1.2 Cleaning tasks

Clean under bed

Turn mattress
MOBISERV
FP7 248434
D2.7: MOBISERV User Acceptance Criteria Report – Issue 1

Clean the oven

Clean windows

Clear up kitchen waste and take to bin

Clean corners, under chairs

Remove cobwebs on ceiling and walls

Robot as a vacuum – access corners, Hoover stairs, under chairs
26/53
4.1.1.3 Assistive tasks

Hang up laundry

Read instructions, open packets

Make user aware of potential hazards, obstacles - to let the user know if they were
likely to fall over an obstacle

Cooking and serving a meal

Answers the phone

Ability to pick up objects and pass to the user

Help with clothing, putting on shoes, tie laces, do up buttons

An ejector seat

Be able to lift item

Some form of mobile support to assist with playing croquet

Load washing machine and remove washing from

Ironing
4.1.2 Behaviour and Appearance
Results on considerations of behaviour and appearance show some notable differences
between male and female perspectives.
MOBISERV
FP7 248434
D2.7: MOBISERV User Acceptance Criteria Report – Issue 1
27/53
Female Perspectives:
 Social companionship
This was a key aspect that emerged as more of a female perspective in the focus groups. Here
is one specific quote from a female participant which communicates this particularly
poignantly: “…it would be comfortable and nice and maybe make me think of my younger
days and my family…that would be very nice and companionable and if I can’t have
something living, I’ll have that doll…it’s the feeling of comfort. I think comfort is very
important, extremely important.”
 Would like a robot to ask how they are feeling
 To look like a machine not a human

To look like a doll, at least pleasant

Appearance: “I wouldn’t mind how it looked but happy perhaps?”

Smell of a human

While working, to sing like Frank Sinatra

Window cleaning, to sing like George Formby while performing this task

Sound –soft music, Viennese waltz, not noisy

Like it to look like George Clooney

Voice: A Scottish or Irish woman’s accent

Wake up the user at a given time, pleasing colour and smiling face

Colour red with some white

Pleasing voice, easy to operate, to make a washing sound when approached

Dome shaped

Not life-like

Materials: Natural wood

Voice: Female, not like a satellite navigator
Male Perspectives:

Merge into the surroundings, similar to the furniture (table) although a human form might
enable certain functionality such as picking things up
MOBISERV
FP7 248434
D2.7: MOBISERV User Acceptance Criteria Report – Issue 1
28/53

Social companionship was not a priority

Functionality over appearance dominated the discussions

A system with attachments which could be swapped depending on the tasks required

Voice: Female

Clean lines and easy to clean
4.2 Discussions on the nature of a Nightmare Robot
A useful method for understanding user acceptance is to reverse the question and get them to
consider aspects that would not be acceptable to them. The following is a summary of the
outcomes of the second sessions from the workshops.
4.2.1 Behaviour and Appearance

Never stops talking

Always asking questions

“Rushing” around

Threatening appearance, metallic “Terminator like”

Makes frightening noises

Removing the human element in daily life

Lack of human / personal touch

Loud repetitive annoying sounds

Lack of setting preferences

Unnatural voice

Plastic

Metallic
4.2.2 Loss of Control and Reliability

Cannot be stopped, uncontrollable
MOBISERV
FP7 248434
D2.7: MOBISERV User Acceptance Criteria Report – Issue 1

Turns on by itself, particularly at night

Noisy, smelly, a fire hazard

Causing one to become dependent upon it

Unreliable
29/53
The following two comments capture the above concerns that were frequently echoed:
by female participants: “...it would be a nightmare, what would happen to you if the
tablets were there to order…that would be my greatest worry that I…that something
would go wrong with it and something that I was depending on for medication
wouldn’t be available and it could be quite damaging.”
“…that it would run amuck…and that you wouldn’t be able to know how to stop it
making horrible harsh noises…frightening noises.”
Male participants in general, did not seem perturbed by the appearance, with one
saying: “I don’t think I would find it scary. I like machinery, all kinds of machines.
That wouldn’t frighten me. Whether it speaks or doesn’t speak, whether it moves or
doesn’t move”. However, there was general agreement that they would be concerned
about a robot’s advancing intelligence: “If the robot got that clever and it then
decided that I was more stupid than the robot and it wasn’t going to let me switch it
off, so I lost control of the robot, that would cause me a lot of trouble.” During the
discussions, it was clear that people tend to base their impressions on what they have
seen in science fiction movies, with one male participant referring to the movie, IRobot commenting: “If they were able to communicate with each other and start to
think independently…then that would start to get scary”.
Examples were also given relating to the complexity of technology and some older
peoples’ lack of cognitive ability to ensure safe use.
4.3 Discussions prompted by a documentary on robot
development
After discussing with the participants, ideas and themes resulting from the nightmare robot
activity, participants were shown a brief documentary about robotic development, from
industrial, to state of the art and finally care robots as described in 3.1
4.3.1 Initial Feedback, impressions and opinions
MOBISERV
FP7 248434
D2.7: MOBISERV User Acceptance Criteria Report – Issue 1
30/53

A female participant stated that they preferred the “pet” embodiment robots, referring
to the Paro robotic seal, compared to a humanoid robot: “A fury animal or a machine,
rather than something that’s pretending to be…I don’t like that.”

Another female participant supported the previous comment regarding humanoid
embodiment : “ I don’t like the figures, they seemed ghostly.”

A female participant approved of the Paro robotic seal embodiment but also asked
whether or not it would be applicable to someone who did not suffer from dementia
and therefore whether it would have any benefit.

A female participant stated that the video acted as a confidence builder: “It was a
confidence builder to see how reliable those huge machines were in the car
industry…I mean they, presumably never fail?”.

The male participants enjoyed the video pointing out the compliance of the industrial
assembly robots.

A female participant stated that they would not like the robot to be entirely in control
of themselves: “…It would have to be there as a background and as a convenience to
me not to control me and take over my own feelings and my own personality. It would
have to be there just as a help, solely as a help.”
o A female participant stated that if this was the case (referring to the previous
comment), that they might not require such a system if this was the case.
o Another female participant agreed and stated that much of the features and
benefits of the Care robots, would not be applicable to themselves on the
grounds that they were very mobile and active: “…and really it’s like being on
another planet at the moment. I can’t imagine being put in that position but if
I was I am sure I would only want it there for what it’s meant to be… ”

The facilitator asked the participants how they would feel if they did require more
support and such a system (as a care robot) was made available to them and whether it
would be better to be introduced to using such a system before it became more
applicable due to increasing needs.
o All participants agreed that it would be better to have had previous experience
with the system before their needs increased to the extent where such a system
would be more applicable. A female participant stated the following: “Like
everything else, it’s always good to be one step ahead.” Another made similar
comments and referred to have to adjust to living in the retirement village site
compared to living in their own homes: “…if that was brought in gradually
that would be very satisfactory.”
MOBISERV
FP7 248434
D2.7: MOBISERV User Acceptance Criteria Report – Issue 1
31/53
o A female participant further stated the following: “You could just have it
there, even if you didn’t need it, but you could give it things to do and you
could get used to it having the feeling of it helping you”, with another stating
that this would be similar to “learning the computer.”
4.3.2 Cue card discussion and comments
After the post-video discussion, the images shown in Figures 3 to 7 were shown to the
participants in order to prompt further discussion. A summary of key responses that emerged
from the discussions are included in each section.
MOBISERV
FP7 248434
D2.7: MOBISERV User Acceptance Criteria Report – Issue 1
32/53
4.3.2.1 Cue Card A
Figure 3 Robot A Care-O-bot II Fraunhofer IPA

Participants made comments about the size of such a robot and raising concerns about
how much space it would take up.

A participant also commented about whether the robot could cope with “bumps” due
to different floor surfaces in their home and stated this would be an important
requirement should it be serving drinks.

A participant also asked whether the robot would be able to locate an item if it was
placed somewhere other than where the robot would expect it to be.
4.3.2.2 Cue Card B
Figure 4 Robot B (PaPeRo 2005 From NEC)
MOBISERV
FP7 248434
D2.7: MOBISERV User Acceptance Criteria Report – Issue 1
33/53

While some female and male participants thought these robots were cute and
reminded them of cuddly toys, others stated that they did not like this. One female
participant stated: “It would drive me up the wall to see something like that.” Overall
participants seemed to argue that these robots appeared too childish, with one
commenting that they would prefer a pet dog.

One of the female participants asked what were the robots “up to?” and what benefit
this would have for an older person.

One female participant stated that she would not mind having this type of robot, and
another stated that they were not frightening.

One female participant commented on how a robot without arms would not be able to
pick up items.
4.3.2.3 Cue Card C
Figure 5 Robot C Seeker by David Shinsel
 Participants made several comments regarding the size and storage of such a robot.
 Male participants were interested to know whether the robot did gardening tasks, and in
general liked the “machine” aspect of its embodiment.

One issue that emerged from the discussion by male participants of robots performing
tasks inside and outside the home was related to a feeling of loss of purpose. This is
encapsulated by the following quote: “What would I do with myself though if all these
MOBISERV
FP7 248434
D2.7: MOBISERV User Acceptance Criteria Report – Issue 1
34/53
little beasties are doing everything for me, because it’s part of my world to do the
gardening and everything. If it’s all done for me I might as well climb into a box and
…that would be a problem.” Further discussion revealed that a job sharing scenario
would be more acceptable.
4.3.2.4 Cue Card D
Figure 6 Robot D ApriAttenda by Toshiba

A female participant stated that she found this robot frightening with another commenting
that such a robot might be more suitable for a laboratory but not in the home.

While a female participant noted that the height of the robot was a necessity in order to be
able to access items in the fridge, another said that such a robot may find it difficult to
move through disabled access doors.

Male participants discussed safety and control issues with such as robot in relation to
administering medication and injections.
MOBISERV
FP7 248434
D2.7: MOBISERV User Acceptance Criteria Report – Issue 1
35/53
4.3.2.5 Cue Card E
Figure 7 Robot F, RIBA "Robot for Interactive Body Assistance" Institute of Physical and
Chemical Research, Japan, and Tokai Rubber Industries, Ltd.
 A female participant asked whether the robot would be able to get them out of the bath,
with another stating that nurses within the care home would appreciate the benefits of
having a robot that could lift people out of their bed
 Upon asked about the appearance of the robot, a female participant stated that they did
not mind the embodiment features: “I could live with that if I had to”.
 Regarding the appearance of the robot, a male participant noted that: If it is a machine,
make it look like a machine”, which was agreed as being acceptable by another male
participant.
MOBISERV
FP7 248434
D2.7: MOBISERV User Acceptance Criteria Report – Issue 1
36/53
5 Results of the Scenario-Focussed Workshops
While the focus of these sessions was the evaluation of MOBISERV components, the
ensuing discussions revealed important aspects relating to user acceptance and embodiment.
So while the entirety of the results emerging from these sessions will be available in D2.5, it
is thought appropriate to include the results pertaining to user acceptance and embodiment in
this report.
5.1 User Acceptance






Time
o One informal carer reported that older people will take time “to get used to it”.
(UK)
Aesthetics
o Aesthetics is an important consideration for older people. (UK)
Simplicity
o Carers advise to keep it simple. Often the most simple things are of most value!
(NL)
Understanding
o One informal carer reported if an older person doesn’t understand technology (e.g.
broadband), she/he won’t accept it. The novelty of the system, such as
computerised objects like smart garments, may form a barrier. It may not be
possible to ‘understand’ it. (UK)
Types of interactions
o Some older people are rejecters of computers – simply calling the system a
computer may be off-putting. Older people may accept a system if they can
interact implicitly (e.g. via sensors), rather than explicitly (e.g via PRU). (UK)
Process of introduction
o Introduction should follow a staged process of describe concepts and benefits,
demo/ show /explain, practice with demonstrator, trial alone, review acceptability
– if older people can’t understand the system’s benefits in relation to their
perceived needs, they will reject it before the demo! (UK)
o People really have to see the added value. They have to see and experience it is
worth it. People have to see, if you can show and let them experience the benefits
than they like it. We have to show them, then they will like it. (NL)
MOBISERV
FP7 248434
D2.7: MOBISERV User Acceptance Criteria Report – Issue 1





37/53
o Older people will need lots of time to adopt and get used to (e.g. a son already has
to set the alarm clock to summertime). It will overawe people with technology, it
moves, it makes you nervous. (NL)
o Easy manuals are important and crucial for seniors, not big books, but simple to
start using. Work with colours, good for older people. Link colour to certain
activity. (NL)
o Introduction in this setting should go slowly; first put the robot in their
environment for a couple of days standing still, then increase the functionality,
and then movements, step by step.(NL)
Cost
o There was a strong concern about the costs of running a MOBISERV system –
older people reported financial worries leading to a review of whether they should
carry on paying for internet access. Also, the cost of spending their time trying to
troubleshoot or delegate any technical problems is reported to be off-putting. (UK)
o Older people state that it would be great if we can use technology to decrease care
costs. Older people become expensive as soon as they go to care/nursing home,
not before. (NL)
o Older people and carers wonder what the added value of the robot is, compared to
other possibilities. Are the costs justifiable? Is it financially viable to have a robot
at home? (NL)
Dependency
o Some older people anticipate their own dependency on the system and report
when the will-to-live reduces they might start ignoring eating reminders and video
calls to be “bloody-minded” and “get on with life independently”. Carers report
that some older people deliberately refuse to eat. (UK)
Personalisation
o Personalisation / customisation was felt to be very important, according to an
informal carer, such as choosing voice (male/female, mechanical/human/family)
and robot name. (UK)
o Carers, doctors, and therapists see that maybe the robot should be different
depending where they are to be used and for whom. (NL)
o Older people ask for different options on the robot to communicate with the user.
(NL)
Carer’s perceptions
o Carers: It has to be an addition to the team, not a replacement of a carer. (NL)
Personality
o A robot just listens, without discussion, it does what it has to do. Maybe it should
sometimes say, you have not been very active, close the curtains yourself. (NL)
MOBISERV
FP7 248434
D2.7: MOBISERV User Acceptance Criteria Report – Issue 1
38/53
5.2 Embodiment




Relevance of the robot
o Older people see the use of the reminder functions and like it, but some have
doubts about the need for a robot. (NL)
Human tasks
o Older people reported that drinking and eating reminders were ‘human’
activities (in the sense that these were tasks that people would normally do)
and they expected these reminding activities to be undertaken by a robot that
looked human. (UK)
Movement and sound
o Some older people were concerned about the robot moving around and
beeping. (UK)
o People state that in certain homes a robot would be difficult. Think of carpets,
doorsteps, books, slippery floors, etc. It looks like an inconvenient device for
an average household. For in care organizations, the patient would not be
afraid if a door suddenly opens with the robot, how wide are the corridors, can
they pass each other, and what are disturbing elements in terms of technology.
(NL)
o What if the robot goes to the user, and there are for instance some shoes on
floor, does the robot know? The dog will be nervous with a robot driving
around. (NL)
Devices
o Older people ask whether you need a robot that drives around. They suggest,
“maybe you can also use observation techniques and speakers and
microphones to give triggers. I can also have the same reminder on my video
mobile phone. Focus on the functions and forget the robot. A robot is not
suitable for the home environment; there are many barriers when you focus on
the robot.” (NL)
o “Standalone front door control systems exist, but they can have a link to the
robot. For the currently existing systems with a screen on the wall, you do not
need the robot.” (NL)
MOBISERV
FP7 248434
D2.7: MOBISERV User Acceptance Criteria Report – Issue 1
39/53
5.2.1 Behaviour and appearance



Pet ‘friend’
o Older people responded positively to the concept of talking to the robot (in the
manner that they talked to their pet). (UK)
Voice and companionship
o A non-staccato voice was preferred by some older people. (UK)
o Older people worry about speech output, it should not be strange or staccato.
(NL)
o Voice interaction with robot could lead to it becoming a “little friend”,
according to one informal carer and “the next best thing [to human contact]”.
(UK)
o The robot, including screen, coming towards you is fundamentally different
from a fixed screen or tablet. This mobility is its strength. (NL)
o Carers focus on who takes initiative. For people with dementia, this should be
the robot very often, to keep them busy and distract them. (NL)
o Speech technology is not really good to distinguish sounds and speech,
artificial sounds, not yet developed to give trust to older people. Articulation is
difficult with older people, so if they mumble, then maybe the curtains
suddenly open. (NL)
Bereavement triggers social technology adoption
o Older people who live alone report the adoption of social technology (email,
facebook, twitter, skype) after the loss of a life partner. (UK)
MOBISERV
FP7 248434
D2.7: MOBISERV User Acceptance Criteria Report – Issue 1
40/53
6 Results of the survey and discussions
The detailed results of the survey can be found in Appendix 1 - Questionnaire Responses.
6.1 Some observations from the questionnaires

Use of social media and internet telephony is higher among people living alone,
compared to people living with others.

People living alone were more accepting of the robot’s size, compared to people
living with others. Four older people reported that it should be half-size or slimmer,
due to constraints of their physical environment (“I have a narrow hallway”). One
older person reported that the small size of her house was a reason to not want one.
This suggests people without enough space will not accept the robot.

Some older people reported that it was important that the robot did not enter certain
rooms in the house (bedroom, bathroom). This suggests that robot interaction with the
user is highly contextualised: sometimes the user’s preferences about the physical
environment should be respected (e.g. user is asleep in bed) and sometimes the system
needs to override them (user has fallen in bathroom).

People aged 50-79 years old preferred to change the appearance of the robot. Being
able to change or customise or configure the robot appearance may be a key user
requirement and an important aspect in acceptability.

Other aspects of appearance reported included “softer” and “it looks like a toy”. This
suggests other materials – e.g. textiles and wood or metal – could improve
acceptability.

People living alone preferred a pet-like appearance.

People aged 80-90 years old would like the robot to be like a social companion

People living alone strongly wanted to interact by talking. Irrespective of living status,
this preference seems to increase with age.

People living alone strongly wanted the robot to perform care-related tasks.
Irrespective of living status, this preference seems to increase with age
Unacceptable aspects
Older people reported they did NOT want the robot
 To think for them
MOBISERV
FP7 248434
D2.7: MOBISERV User Acceptance Criteria Report – Issue 1

Give opinions

Make tinny sounds

Imitate a human

Move without being instructed
41/53
These findings chime with those obtained from the embodiment workshops as well.
Some people considered that they would not want the robot performing care-related tasks in
the future. This suggests low perceived needs (now, future) – and raising awareness of
potential needs in the future is a key criteria of acceptability.
6.2 New robot functions and characteristics drawn from the
discussions
1. The robot could come in different colours.
2. The robot could support unrestricted web browsing.
3. The robot could tell the older person they are not wearing the WHSU if it were able to
detect this.
4. The robot could support way-finding (i.e. lead the older person around a residential
home, from their room to canteen and back).
5. Several people (e.g. older person and their carer) may need to speak to the robot at
different times or within the same conversation. At the moment, it is inconsistent in
understanding different voices and does not distinguish them.
6. Popular areas for robot assistance were housework and fall detection.
7. Fall detection was reported as the only function that seemed to require a robot, the
other functions did not.
8. The system can be very slow updating the shopping list apparently due to fluctuations
in wireless network connectivity: connectivity should not impact of speed of humanrobot interaction, which will reduce acceptance.
MOBISERV
FP7 248434
D2.7: MOBISERV User Acceptance Criteria Report – Issue 1
42/53
9. Older people frequently were seen leaning forwards to read information on the visual
display, ergonomic comfort in accessing the data, particularly if used over long
periods of time will be crucial to long-term acceptability.
10. People did not seem to understand the environment mapping image: some controls to
re-orientate the mapped image would help, indicating a further need for enhanced
customisation.
11. Dancing with the robot was suggested as a fun activity. User acceptance could be seen
as being closely coupled with enjoyment of, and with the system.
MOBISERV
FP7 248434
D2.7: MOBISERV User Acceptance Criteria Report – Issue 1
43/53
7 Conclusion and Discussion
The focus group workshop sessions allowed for a deeper discussion of views in regards to
user acceptance of a system such as MOBISERV, focussing on the behaviour and appearance
of the robot that serves as an interface, but also considering associate functionality.
User acceptance is closely bound to the level of utility that is offered, and in the case of the
situations where age has impaired the ability to carry out tasks that require physical agility or
memory, alternative solutions that enable a person to continue with these, will always have a
high degree of user acceptance.
However, the discussions related to embodiments revealed some intrinsic fears and
misconceptions, which would be a barrier to user acceptance and need to be addressed by
higher levels of engagement, education and training.
Justifying the relevance of having a robot-based system for a specific task, also emerges as an
issue in regards to user acceptance. The solution offered to address users’ specific
requirements to enable independent living, needs to be seen by them to be at an appropriate
level; the right tool for the task at hand. People often see some of the current solutions being
offered as overkill.
We need to consider in more depth, how we communicate that the strength of what is being
offered in an effective manner. The MOBISERV system needs to be presented more clearly
as an integrated modular solution, providing the ability to add on functions based on
changing personal needs resulting from progression of aging. We also need to emphasise that
the robot potentially provides a more engaging, enjoyable and sociable interface, enhancing
the quality of the user-experience.
User acceptance will depend on the way we respond to, and address, the concerns and issues
highlighted in this report, through our communications with all stakeholders and the external
design of the system, always aiming for a flexible, customisable solution, rather than trying to
shoehorn a plethora of requirements into one solution.
MOBISERV
FP7 248434
D2.7: MOBISERV User Acceptance Criteria Report – Issue 1
44/53
8 References
1. Broadbent, E.; Tamagawa, R.; Kerse, N.; Knock, B.; Patience, A.; MacDonald, B. (2009)
Robot and Human Interactive Communication, RO-MAN. 18th IEEE International
Symposium on, Page(s): 645 - 650
2. Hendriks, B., Meerbeek, B., Boess, S., Pauws, S., Sonneveld, M. (2011) Robot Vacuum
Cleaner Personality and Behaviour, International Journal of Social Robotics, Vol 3, No.
2, 187-195, Springerlink,
3. Han B.S., Alvin, H.Y.W., Tan, Y.K., Li, H. (2010) Using Design Methodology to
Enhance Interaction for a Robotic Receptionist, IEEE, , RO-MAN, pp 797-802, 2010
4. Mataric M J. (2005) The Role of Embodiment in Assistive Interactive Robots for the
Elderly, AAAI Fall Symposium on “Caring Machines: AI for the Elderly”, Arlington VA
MOBISERV
FP7 248434
D2.7: MOBISERV User Acceptance Criteria Report – Issue 1
45/53
9 Appendix 1 - Questionnaire responses
1. Would you mind having a robot like this in your house
supporting you, if needed?
# Answer
Resp
onse
1 Yes
17
63
%
No, please state why
2 ........................................................................................................
.................................................................
10
37
%
Statistic
%
Value
Min Value
1
Max Value
2
Total Responses
27
2. Do you think this robot is too big for your house?
#
Answer
Response
%
1
Yes. If yes,
then please
state what
would be the
ideal size and
shape for such
a robot
13
46%
2
No
15
54%
MOBISERV
FP7 248434
D2.7: MOBISERV User Acceptance Criteria Report – Issue 1
46/53
Yes. If yes, then please state what would be the ideal size and shape for such a robot
Not sure but I am in a flat
Smaller shape is okay
monitoring screen
Small
Half-size
Reduced by 1/2 scale
Half the size
Stairs will be a problem
Can't say really
I don't think I could cope with it any size although I can see it would be useful
Slimmer as I have a narrow hallway
About half-size
Statistic
Value
Min Value
1
Max Value
2
Total Responses
MOBISERV
28
FP7 248434
D2.7: MOBISERV User Acceptance Criteria Report – Issue 1
47/53
3. How would you feel about the robot moving around in your
home?
Text Response
Okay
Okay
Not in bedroom or bathroom
Don't think I would like that (it's only a two-bedroom house)
Could be frightening depending on 'awareness'
Okay
Not good. It could be immobile
Okay
It's creepy
Would not be concerned
Okay
Scared to death
Doesn't matter to me
Okay
Fine
I wouldn't like it
Strange initially, but would soon become used to it
If it is helping you, you feel fine about it
Statistic
Value
Total Responses
18
4. Would you prefer the robot to have a different appearance?
#
Answer
Response
%
1
Yes
15
56%
2
No
12
44%
Statistic
Value
Min Value
1
Max Value
2
Total Responses
MOBISERV
27
FP7 248434
D2.7: MOBISERV User Acceptance Criteria Report – Issue 1
48/53
5. If Yes, then which of these would you prefer for the appearance
of the robot
#
Answer
Response
%
1
For the robot
to look more
human
6
35%
2
For the robot
to look like a
pet (dog, cat)
6
35%
3
For the robot
to look like a
piece of
furniture
0
0%
4
Other - Please
state
6
35%
Other - Please state
I don't want one
Screen
Softer
Less human
Look like a robot
Currently it looks like a toy
Statistic
Value
Min Value
1
Max Value
4
Total Responses
17
6. How would you like the robot to behave?
#
Answer
Response
%
1
As a social
companion?
9
35%
2
Non-interactive like a machine
(e.g. vacuum
cleaner)?
16
62%
3
Other - Please
state
1
4%
MOBISERV
FP7 248434
D2.7: MOBISERV User Acceptance Criteria Report – Issue 1
49/53
Other - Please state
As an aid to daily living
Statistic
Value
Min Value
1
Max Value
3
Total Responses
26
7. What would you NOT like the robot to do and why?
Text Response
Intimate personal needs
Make a tinny sounds
Personal care
Imitate a human
Nothing. Anything it could do - the more tasks the better
Give opinions or personal tasks
To think for me
Move without being instructed. Unnerving!
Statistic
Value
Total Responses
8
8. How would you prefer to communicate with the robot?
#
Answer
Response
%
1
Via the
interactive
touch screen
6
23%
2
Talking to it
20
77%
3
Other - Please
state
0
0%
Other - Please state
Statistic
Value
Min Value
1
Max Value
2
Total Responses
MOBISERV
26
FP7 248434
D2.7: MOBISERV User Acceptance Criteria Report – Issue 1
50/53
9. How old are you?
#
Answer
Response
%
1
Below 50
0
0%
2
50 - 59
1
4%
3
60 - 69
5
18%
4
70 - 79
14
50%
5
80 - 90
8
29%
6
Above 90
0
0%
Statistic
Value
Min Value
2
Max Value
5
Total Responses
28
10. What is your gender?
#
Answer
Response
%
1
Male
6
21%
2
Female
22
79%
Statistic
Value
Min Value
1
Max Value
2
Total Responses
28
11. Where and with whom do you live?
#
Answer
Response
%
1
In my own house
24
86%
2
In a residential
care home
0
0%
3
Other
accommodation Please state
3
11%
4
With someone
9
32%
5
On my own
11
39%
MOBISERV
FP7 248434
D2.7: MOBISERV User Acceptance Criteria Report – Issue 1
51/53
Other accommodation - Please state
At St Monica's care village with husband who has Parkinsons
Sheltered
with elderly parents
Statistic
Value
Min Value
1
Max Value
5
Total Responses
28
12. In the future, would you consider having the robot perform
care-related tasks for you?
#
Answer
Response
%
1
Yes, Please
state what
tasks
15
58%
2
No, Please
state what
tasks
11
42%
MOBISERV
FP7 248434
D2.7: MOBISERV User Acceptance Criteria Report – Issue 1
Yes, Please state what tasks
52/53
No, Please state what tasks
Act as a memory
Any
vacuum and clean windows
Sweep the floor and wash up. If I was stuck in bed or
a chair, but I don't know what I would need help
with..
housework
cleaning the house
Don't know yet (not yet applicable)
Illegible response
Anything it was able to do
house-work, gardening
vacuuming, cooking, ironing and polishing
Any
Turn lights on/off, radio/tv on/off, make a cup of tea
If I fall over (this keeps happening to a friend of mine)
personal care
At present I am able-bodied
Never
Can't see what these would be
It is okay for house-keeping but not for personal tasks
Until I was incapable
Statistic
Value
Min Value
1
Max Value
2
Total Responses
MOBISERV
26
FP7 248434
D2.7: MOBISERV User Acceptance Criteria Report – Issue 1
53/53
13. Do you use any of the following on a regular basis?
#
Answer
Response
%
1
Email
15
83%
2
Internet
shopping
7
39%
3
Skype
3
17%
4
Web browsers
for reading the
news or
searching for
information
12
67%
5
Word
Processing
9
50%
6
Facebook or
Twitter
3
17%
7
Computer
games
4
22%
8
Keep fit videos
0
0%
Value
1
7
18
MOBISERV
FP7 248434