Write a small report on learnings from the project and the collaboration including suggestions for future improvements and have a discussion on it (might be an in-person meeting)

[Flave]

[Flave]

Timeline

Mismatch between data availability and the need to have a presentable tool.

We can be involved early on in the project but not to produce refined graphics or to work on the final product. We would be conducting user research, attending stakeholder/user sessions, visualising intermediary research results, build data validation and internal communication tools, shape the requirements for the final tool. Only in the last phase of the project would we work on the public tool(s).

Design/Development work is only possible with real data

Focused tools vs monolithic tool

More focused scope of project would allow for better, more concise and understandable results. E.g. simply focus on one geography type such as cities or one sector which would allow for highly optimised visualisations and interface decisions just for that sector. Having to cater for any type of geography etc. increases complexity and waters down what we can show.

Focusing on one sector, or geography type etc. would also prevent us from overcomplicating parameters that in turn require a big amount of background knowledge. We wouldn’t have to account for various parameter interdependencies that only arise because we want to squeeze many different requirements into the same box that don’t really have much in common.

Research project could still be as broad as it is now but the access points to the research project need to be focused on the people using it rather than the data that comes out of it.

More involvement with users

Direct involvement with users would allow us to make better decisions on design and functionality and would give us a sense of the environment the tool will be used.

Budget constraints

Features, technical requirements, variety of data challenges, communication requirements were difficult to meet the available budget.