ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS - AED
UX RESEARCH HIGHLIGHTING ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS ON AED CASE STUDY
SYNOPSIS
Applying a Modified Root Cause Analysis Framework to improve the AED User Experience through user research
COMPANY / CLIENT
PHILIPS
CROSS FUNCTIONAL TEAMS
Usability Engineering
ROLE
User Researcher Lead
BACKGROUND
This research effort focuses on assessing the current AED user experience & identifying opportunities for improvement. A portion of the research is highlighted to exemplify my use of Root Cause Analysis to to discover opportunities.
Below is the step-by-step instruction booklet showing users how to operate the AED unit.
APPROACH - ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS
A Modified Root Cause Analysis approach is used to identify the UX improvement opportunities. This framework has been modified to include other User Research principles from Design-Thinking, Human-Centered-Design, and IEC 62366-1 standard. The inspired modifications include:
Qualitative user research to collect data regarding use scenario. This follows the framework of: Users | Environment | Context
Incorporating Users’ Direct input when assessing Possible Root Causes
Iterative Prototype testing
Formative & Summative testing
By including users’ input early on, we’re able to better understand how the units are utilized under real-world conditions
Below is an outline of the revised Root Cause Analysis
1. PROBLEM STATEMENT
“Users are confused about the AED operation instructions. Specifically, some users are not properly removing victim’s clothes, thus allowing the remaining clothing to interfere with the AED Pads’ shock delivery.”
Image below highlights the problematic portions of the Instructional User Flow as indicated by the problem statement.
QUALITATIVE RESERACH METHODS APPLIED:
2. DATA COLLECTION
To further collect information regarding the USER | ENVIRONMENT | CONTEXT , the following research method was applied.
1-on-1 Interviews & Contextual inquiry with affected Users
10-12 participants spread across
Gender
Age groups
Environment
Public vs. Private Spaces
Spacious vs. Tight
Ambient Noise Level
3. ANALYZE FOR ROOT CAUSE
A combination of the following methods were used to identify possible Root Causes.
FAULT TREE ANALYSIS / 5 WHY’S
FISH BONE DIAGRAM
POSSIBLE ROOT CAUSES
The following possible Root Causes are identified:
**Note: In additional to internal stakeholder review, we will be verifying our hypothetical root causes directly with users in order to gain a more complete perspective. Verification will occur in the later stages through User Research.
UNCLEAR INSTRUCTION ILLUSTRATIONS
The following factors contributed to visual miscomprehension:
monochromatic illustrations makes it harder to tell whether base skin is exposed & ready for AED pad application.
missing visual showing scissors utilization
missing visual of both genders; specifically, depicting the female scenario & the necessary removal of undergarment/bra
UNAWARE OF SCISSORS LOCATION WHEN REMOVING INHIBITIVE CLOTHING
Some users indicate that it was difficult to remember where the scissor is located during stressful real-world conditions
SPOKEN INSTRUCTION NOT AUDIBLE
Some users indicate that it was difficult to hear & decipher the auditory instructions from the unit’s speakers.
4. DEVISE POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS
BOOST AUDITORY INSTRUCTION
Increase volume of unit speaker
IMPROVED INSTRUCTION ILLUSTRATION
Apply color to illustrations in order to differentiate between clothing vs. exposed skin
Added visual showing scissors utilization
Added visuals show scenarios with both genders
Male - Cut open clothing covering torso
Female - Cut open clothing covering torso. This may include undergarment/bra
INDICATE SCISSORS LOCATION (HELP REMOVE INHIBITIVE CLOTHING)
Add visual showing scissors location
5. PROTOTYPE + TEST (FORMATIVE USABILITY & ITERATIVE TESTING)
This where I modified the Root Cause Analysis to encompass elements from Formative Usability & Human-centered-design Iterative testing. I applied Iterative rounds of mixed method user-research in order to gain substantive insights.
QUANTITATIVE RESERACH APPROACH - SURVEY
Conducive to only verifying insights regarding improved diagrams only. The auditory instruction testing is not conducive to survey testing because we won’t be close to testing under real-world conditions.
QUALITATIVE RESERACH APPROACH
2 rounds of moderated 1-on-1 interviews with affected Users
Usability Testing & Contextual inquiry
A-B Testing
Test all proposed concepts
10-12 participants spread across
Gender
Age groups
Environment
Public vs. Private Spaces
Spacious vs. Tight
Ambient Noise Level
RESEARCH TEST RESULTS
After several rounds of mix-method research testing, here’s the breakdown of the proposed changes effectiveness:
MOST IMPACTFUL:
Diagram updates to better instruct clothing removal
Diagram updates to remind users of the scissor location
MINIMALLY IMPACTFUL:
Increasing speaker volume - There is too much variance in ambient environmental noise to impactfully affect users’ ability to hear the instructions.
6. IMPLEMENT & MONITOR EFFECTIVENESS
Given the revised diagrams are proven to show the most impact, those will be the implemented changes. We will continue to monitor its real-world effectiveness as it encounters various scenarios. Implementation is sometimes preceded by Summative Usability Testing, if we need to pass FDA approval.
For the most part, Root Cause Analysis’ framework is applied without much change. The only changes implemented were the following:
By applying formative user-testing and qualitative user interviews, we un-earthed a more complete collection of possible root causes
By Iteratively user-testing possible solutions, we were able to quickly optimize the resolution approach to fix the problem’s root cause
Involving the user throughout the process allow the solution to quick evolve to better address the root cause.