Alison de Kruiff
Project case studies
Over the last decade, I’ve actively contributed to numerous research and design projects with interdisciplinary teams of varying sizes. On this page, I’ll highlight key research projects where I played a pivotal role as a researcher and designer. These projects showcase a variety of skills, encompassing both qualitative research through interviews and focus groups, and quantitative survey-based research. What ties them together is the common goal of using research to enhance people’s experiences.
Use the tabs below to see each case study.
Use the links below to see each case study.
Smart Mirrors for people living with dementia
Client
Dementia Australia.
Tools
Smart mirror, digital displays, voice assistants, Google Calendar, Apple iPad.
Audience
People living at home with early stages of dementia and their support person.
Team
Professor Sonja Pedell, Dr Jeanie Beh, Bridgette Engeler, James Berrett, Stuart Favilla, Dr Alison de Kruiff, Andrew Murphy, Carl Looper, Rahmat Dwi Putra, Dr Udi Weizman, Dr Ahsan Morshed.
My role
Field research, technology development, analysis, write-up of papers, presenting findings.
Context
Dementia is a significant issue in Australia, and many individuals with dementia wish to remain at home as long as possible. This project, funded by Dementia Australia and the Australian Government, explored the use of augmented assistive technology to support people with dementia at home, specifically with daily activities.
Methods
Over 18 months, a team of 11 researchers conducted interviews in the homes of 28 participants, including both individuals with dementia and their support persons. The goal was to understand their needs and test user-friendly off-the-shelf technologies, such as smart lighting, smart mirrors, and voice assistants. We aimed to enhance daily living activities and bring joy to the participants.
Process
We tested various technologies that could be integrated through an Apple iPad, including:
- Smart lighting,
- Smart mirror,
- Voice assistants.
People living with dementia often need reminding of daily events. Participants used a whiteboard in a common area. I implemented a smart mirror to show these events so that family members could update it remotely and Alexa could provide voice reminders
Product Design
Smart mirrors were made with the following materials:
- A 40cm x 40cm shadow box for the frame.
- A piece of one-way mirror glass.
- A small, flat display screen.
- A Raspberry Pi 3.
- Software from Michael Teeuw’s MagicMirror2 code from GitHub.
I simplified the design of the display to only show the day of the week, the date and any calendar events of the day. Text size was increased dramatically.By linking Google Calendar the support person could use a voice assistant or the iPad to update events
User Journey Map
Since the research focused on dyads (the person living with their dementia and their support person) both sets of experiences are included in the chart.
Outcomes
A list of recommendations arising from the research include:
- Smart mirrors are valuable when support persons use online calendars.
- They should be placed in areas with minimal sunlight to ensure readability.
- They excel in scenarios with multiple family members using one shared calendar.
- Voice assistants may have difficulty with event titles.
- Consider ongoing technical support.
- Further development could include creating a digital whiteboard for online calendar events.
- Individual needs vary; some prefer simplicity like a whiteboard or digital date display clock.
Virtual Reality in Education
Client
Swinburne School of Design and Architecture (SoDA).
Tools
eonReality iCube, Qualtrics, Microsoft Excel
Audience
Undergraduate architecture students.
Team
Professor Flavia Marcello, Professor Jeni Paay, Dr Alison de Kruiff.
My role
Research design, statistical analysis, interviews, thematic analysis, focus group facilitation.
Context
In architectural education, site visits to historic buildings are valuable, but not always feasible due to accessibility or preservation issues. This project aimed to use virtual reality (VR) to simulate site visits to non-existent buildings, enriching the educational experience beyond static documents and photos.
Methods
We conducted research with both university students and members of the public with the following methods:
- Questionnaires (paper and online),
- Focus groups, and
- Online interviews.
Process
- In Stage 1, architectural history students had an immersive VR experience in the Eon Icube. They read materials, attended a lecture, and took a virtual tour. Questionnaires assessed their architectural knowledge retention.
- Stage 2 involved non-architecture students who received a live presentation and took a self-guided group tour in the Eon Icube. They used worksheets to record interests and questions.
- In Stage 3, during COVID-19 lockdowns, virtual experiences moved online using Google’s Poly platform. Participants watched a video on architectural history, explored the online 3D environment, and completed questionnaires and interviews.
Analysis: Motivational Model (Do/Be/Feel)
We utilised data from surveys, interviews, and focus groups to create a Motivational Model, an analytical tool from software engineering that examines system requirements from a user’s motivational perspective.
Categories of information include:
- Do (user actions in the system),
- Be (system attributes needed to achieve this), and
- Feel (user emotions at various points).
Virtual Pavilion Motivational Model
The model for the Virtual Pavilion installation is displayed below, highlighting key emotional needs, such as sociability, interest, a sense of specialness, autonomy, and agency. Some users reported occasional disappointment with the experience.
Online Triennale Virtuale Motivational Model
Now, let’s compare the last motivational model with the online experience model (below). With fewer interactions, there was less emotional engagement. While some users felt ‘presence’, truly being there, the overall experience was less immersive.
Future Motivational Model
With this information, we proposed changes to the system for future virtual experiences. To create an informative, rich experience with sociable engagement we propose a virtual tour guide in a shared, immersive experience. We would also add sound for a multi-sensory experience, though this can be problematic with historical displays where there are no recordings of authentic sounds from the site and time.
Outcomes
Key findings from Stage 1 (class tour and knowledge questionnaire) were:
- Students didn’t remember specific architectural facts but felt confident about what they learned.
- Students preferred questions seeking personal reflections and opinions over memory-based quizzes.
Based on these results, we aimed to use the virtual environment to spark more interest in the site, rather than emphasising memorisation. The focus group encouraged group discussions, curiosity, and observation rather than memory tests.
- Participants were highly engaged in the group tour.
- Participants enjoyed the shared experience.
- Worksheets helped them remember architectural details for discussions.
- Participants liked the freedom to explore the virtual environment.
- However, they felt the VR alone wouldn’t provide substantial learning.
Stage 3 included an informational video to set context, and the findings were:>
- Participants liked the information video and the engaging presenter.
- They preferred navigation freedom over fixed 360° views.
- Focusing on small details enhanced the feeling of ‘presence.’
Recommendations for future architectural history VR development:
- Start with an engaging and informative video.
- If possible, offer a 6-degrees-of-freedom virtual environment for navigation.
- Provide more detail on key elements.
- Consider creating shared group experiences where participants record their observations.
Agile design process in education
Client
Design Factory Melbourne
Audience
Undergraduate and postgraduate interdisciplinary university student teams.
Team
Dr Alison de Kruiff, Professor Anita Kocsis, Dr Christine Thong, Pauliina Mattila, Bert Verhoeven, Carl Turner.
My role
Lead Digital Innovation Projects, my role was to develop a new design process structure for student projects.
Context
Originally, Design Factory used a linear, waterfall approach for projects, following the UK Design Council’s Double Diamond process. This approach was problematic for research-heavy projects with evolving user needs. My goal was to create a more adaptable design structure for Digital Innovation Projects.
Methods
I used an action-research model, making changes based on observation, feedback, and academic literature, and reviewing them during implementation. Research methods included:
- Observation.
- Student feedback surveys.
- Discussions with students.
- Reflective team teaching / coaching meetings.
Process
Agile Sprint Themes
Agile Sprint Themes We replaced the 12-week, four-stage project timeline with three agile sprints. These sprints encompassed the entire project but allowed students to build skills and progress from start to finish.
The new stages were:
- Weeks 1 to 4: ‘See the context’ (literature review and competitor analysis).
- Weeks 5 to 8: ‘See the people’ (user research and analysis).
- Weeks 9 to 12: ‘Stretch the boundaries’ (experimentation and final prototyping).
Agile Sprint Stages
To ensure projects could adapt to new, challenging information at each stage each of these four-week stages were broken up into a sprint as follows:
- Week 1: Dissect and frame. What do you know so far? What do you need to find out?
- Week 2: Learning and hypothesise. Gather information and create ideas.
- Week 3: Make and test. Build prototypes and test them.
- Week 4: Reflect and reframe. What was successful? What have you learned? What needs to be done differently in the next stage?
Outcomes
The use of agile sprints helped students challenge their ideas and adapt to new data, but also had negative effects as reported by the teaching/coaching team and students.
Positive effects:
- Students came to expect change and respond to it quickly.
- Students were happy to gather information that challenged their existing hypotheses and design ideas.
- More research, ideation and prototyping methods could be covered by using different methods in each sprint.
- Projects were more innovative than in previous semesters.
Negative effects:
- Students felt rushed.
- Projects had less depth of research.
- Students found the process repetitive.
- Students felt like they weren't progressing enough because of the cyclical nature of the agile process.