Overview of feedback data 139!

11 designers gave feedback on the Inspire Ideas tool. Q1 shows that 18.2% of the respondents

had used an environmental design tool before. These respondents then listed up to 15 various tools. Again, there must have been some confusion among respondents as six respondents went on to answer Q2. Table 36 illustrated the discrepancy.

Table 36 – Overview to responses to Q1 and Q2.

Questions Rating Rating definition Responses % Q1. Have you used an environmental design tool before? (n = 11)

Yes 2 18.2%

No 9 81.8%

Q2. If Yes, please rate how useful you found the tool? (n = 6)

1 Very useless 16.7%

2 Useless 16.7%

3 Neutral 33.3%

4 Useful 33.3%

5 Very useful 0.0%

The results for Q3 shown in Table 37 and illustrated in Figure 30 show a disappointingly low positive result, with only 18.2% of respondents finding the tools “4 = Useful” or “5 = Very useful”. The majority of respondents (63.6%) rated the tool “3 = Neutral”.

Table 37 - Overview of responses to Q3.

Questions Rating Rating definition

Responses (%) Q3. How useful did you find the tool? (n = 11)

1 Very useless 0.0% 2 Useless 18.2% 3 Neutral 63.6% 4 Useful 18.2% 5 Very useful 0.0% Figure 30 - Reponses to Q3 as a proportionality diagram. Legend corresponds to adjacent Table.

Q4 is of considerable interest as it shows that a huge majority of respondents (72.8%) found the tool either “4 = Easy” or “5 = Very easy” to use. This is further emphasised by the lack of negative responses, i.e. “1 = Very hard” and “2 = Hard”, detailed in Table 38 and Figure 31.

Table 38 - Overview of responses to Q4.

Questions Rating Rating definition

Responses (%) Q4. How easy did you find the tool to use? (n = 11)

1 Very hard 0.0% 2 Hard 0.0% 3 Neutral 27.3% 4 Easy 45.5% 5 Very easy 27.3% Figure 31 - Responses to Q4 as a proportionality diagram. Legend corresponds to adjacent Table.

Table 39 shows that Q5 gave disappointing result with only 18.2% positive results, and a large 27.3% negative, i.e. “1 = Very poor” or “2 = Poor”. This left a significant 54.5% of the

Table 39 - Overview of responses to Q5.

Questions Rating Rating definition

Responses (%) Q5. How well did the tool help you generate

ideas/solutions? (n = 11) 1 Very poor 9.1% 2 Poor 18.2% 3 Neutral 54.5% 4 Well 18.2% 5 Very well 0.0% Figure 32 - Responses to Q5 as a proportionality diagram. Legend corresponds to adjacent Table.

The responses to Q6 show some promise, as illustrated in Figure 33. 27.3% of respondents thought the tool helped them explore ideas ‘well’, but no one thought it helped ‘very well’. Only 18.2% of responses were negative, as shown in Table 40.

Table 40 - Overview of responses to Q6.

Questions Rating Rating definition

Responses (%) Q6. How well did the tool help you explore

ideas/solutions? (n = 11) 1 Very poor 9.1% 2 Poor 9.1% 3 Neutral 54.5% 4 Well 27.3% 5 Very well 0.0% Figure 33 - Responses to Q6 as a proportionality diagram. Legend corresponds to adjacent Table.

Table 41 - Overview of responses to Q7.

Questions Rating Rating definition Responses (%) Q7. How relevant was the content of the “Guidance” pages (i.e. Strategy inspired, Function inspired, TRIZ inspired) to

the product you were developing? (n = 11) 1 Very irrelevant 9.1% 2 Irrelevant 0.0% 3 Neutral 54.5% 4 Relevant 36.4% 5 Very relevant 0.0% Figure 34 – Responses to Q7 as a proportionality diagram. Legend corresponds to adjacent Table.

Q8 allowed multiple answers and received a total of 20 responses from 11 respondents. The most prominent strength was ‘Simplicity’, chosen by 63.4% of the respondents. ‘Interface’ and ‘The ‘strategy inspired’ section’ were also popular being chosen by 27.4% of respondents. Interestingly, the ‘No strengths’ option and ‘Other…’ free box achieve 18.2% of respondents each. The remaining four options, shown in Table 42, received 9.1% of respondents’ votes, except from ‘The ‘TRIZ inspired’ section’ which received none.

Table 42 - Overview of responses to Q8.

Question Response count, ap _{Responses a}p_{/n (%)} Q8. What, in your opinion, are the strengths of the tool? Please choose as many as you like. (n = 11)

Simplicity 7 63.4%

Interface 3 27.4%

The 'strategy inspired' section 3 27.4%

No strengths 2 18.2%

Other… (free text box) 2 18.2%

The 'function inspired' section 1 9.1%

The support offered 1 9.1%

External links 1 9.1%

The 'TRIZ inspired' section 0 0%

Total responses 20

17 responses were received from 11 respondents to the multiple answer, Q9. 45.5% of them further explained their views of the tools weaknesses using the ‘Other…’ box as shown in Table 43. Table 44 shows that ‘Lack of information’ followed by ‘Lack of case studies’ and ‘Navigation’ were identified as other weaknesses, including a ‘Lack of support’. ‘Complexity’ was not identified as an issue.

Table 43 - Comments from the ‘Other…’ option to Q9.

Comments from the ‘Other…’ free box option to Q9 lack of process and materials

No breakdown of components hotspots; hard to examine sensitivity of inputs (eg product lifespan)

A little over simple? I tried a simple 5 product input and could see numerous input variants with an impact on end of life power usage that were not considered.

Table 44 - Overview of responses to Q9.

Question Response count, bp _{Responses b}p_{/n (%)} Q9. What, in your opinion, are the weaknesses of the tool? Please choose as many as you like. (n = 11)

Other… (free text box) 5 45.5%

Lack of information 4 36.4%

Lack of case studies 3 27.3%

Navigation 3 27.3%

Lack of support 2 18.2%

Complexity 0 0%

No weaknesses 0 0%

Total responses 17

Table 45 illustrates that 40% of the respondents would actively consider using the Inspire Ideas

tool in future projects. It is noted that only 10 of the possible 11 respondents answered this questions.

Table 45 - Overview of responses to Q10.

Question Response count Responses % Q10. Would you consider using the tool in future projects? (n = 10)

Yes 4 40%

No 6 60%