Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
Page 26
Page 27
Page 28
Page 29
Page 30
Page 31
Page 32
Page 33
Page 34
Page 35
Page 36
Page 37
Page 38
Page 39
Page 40
Page 41
Page 42
Page 43
Page 44
Page 45
Page 46
Page 47
Page 48
Page 49
Page 50
Page 51
Page 52
Page 53
Page 54
Page 55
Page 56
Page 57
Page 58
Page 59
Page 60
Page 61
Page 62
Page 63
Page 64
Page 65
Page 66
Page 67
Page 68
Page 69
Page 70
Page 71
Page 72
Page 73
Page 74
Page 75
Page 76
Page 77
Page 78
Page 79
Page 80
Page 81
Page 82
Page 83
Page 84
Page 85
Page 86
Page 87
Page 88
Page 89
Page 90
Page 91
Page 92
Page 93
Page 94
Page 95
Page 96
Page 97
Page 98
Page 99
Page 100
Page 101
Page 102
Page 103
Page 104
Page 105
Page 106
Page 107
Page 108
Page 109
Page 110
Page 111
Page 112
Page 113
Page 114
Page 115
Page 116
Page 117
Page 118
Page 119
Page 120
Page 121
Page 122
Page 123
Page 124
Page 125
Page 126
Page 127
Page 128
would make them more likely to submit a solution or problem and that the feedback system would make the whole process more appealing. The second method we used to prototype was interviewing different stakeholders. Our interview responses included Quirky community members middle and high school teachers students between the ages of 11-18 and professional community managers with successful experience in community building. This wide range of feedback helps us to accelerate the iteration process. The feedback from the wide range of stakeholders was very useful. The problem suggestion function was very well received as this would allow children who might lack imaginative or creative skills to still be part of the community. The teachers also viewed the idea of increased feedback throughout the process as very beneficial. Both children and teachers thought that the offline engagement could have real potential provided it was a safe environment and the children felt they would gain something from it. Although children are more involved in the online world one teacher mentioned that if children were to attend offline events they could be more driven to contribute as the setting might seem less informal. Teachers viewed this as a great opportunity in general since it could improve the childrens skills motivate them and could possibly help with future jobs. From our results convenience seemed to be a big factor to the people. We also asked for feedback on possible future partnerships for Quirky. The majority saw maker spaces and co-working spaces as most beneficial. Some considered educational institutions or other crowdsourcing communities such as Kickstartr. The overall opinion from our collaboration funnel was overwhelmingly positive with over 80 thinking it was a great idea. Still many pointed out that the success of the funnel would rely on easy implementation and usage. One interviewee voiced concern on how to filter out negative noise and how to reduce repeat submissions. Negative noise would be addressed by our code of conduct. For repeat submissions we are looking into developing an internal tagging system. That way users would be able to tag their ideas as detailed as possible. Ideas with very similar tags could then be matched up through Quirky as another way to increase collaboration between members. Another problem raised was that in order for collaboration to be successful you need to know who you are working with. This led us to the idea of introducing skill sharing between community members and the possibility of viewing other members profiles to judge whether their skill could be a good match for the project. Altogether our prototype proved to be very successful with almost 80 believing that the extra community input