Denna uppsats syftar till att undersöka användandet av parallella prototyper i flera iterationer vid arbetet med en behovsanalys hos ett företag. Som grund för arbetet ligger ett uttryckt behov av ett verktyg för sammanställning och presentation av material skapat av designbyrån the Apartment i Stockholm. Utifrån den förfrågan som gjordes från byrån i ett första skede, togs två prototyper fram för att stödja diskussionen om företagets faktiska behov, som i vissa fall inte stämmer överens med de uttryckta behoven hos en beställare. Dessa första prototyper syftade till att skapa en bättre förståelse för företagets arbetssätt och konceptuella behov. Efter att prototyperna gåtts igenom skapades en andra omgång prototyper, den här gången mer utvecklade, och inriktade mot att ta reda på mer funktionella behov i processens slutskede (presentationsdelen). Alla prototyper gicks igenom med företaget i informella intervjuer. Delar ur de resultat som framkommit i undersökningen är att det visuella stödet som prototyperna gav upplevdes vara en fördel vid intervjuerna, men att det även fanns en viss risk att samtalet fokuserade just på prototypen istället för att utvidgas och gå igenom mer grundläggande, tidigare steg i processen. Tack vare användandet av parallella prototyper kunde projektets inriktning tidigt bestämmas, och det var inte alltid den "rätta" prototypen som gav mest information. Slutligen går det att diskutera huruvida denna typ av metod passade bäst in på det valda företaget, som är vana beställare och som är vana vid att kommunicera behov och själva visualisera olika lösningar på funktionalitet. Samtidigt märks vikten av att involvera kunden tidigt i arbetsprocessen, vilket tillsammans med prototypernas enkla utformning gör att projektet snabbt kan ändra riktning utan större problem. / This paper aims to examine the use of parallel prototypes of several iterations in the process of a needs analysis for a company. The starting point is an expressed need for a tool for the compilation and presentation of materials created by the design agency the Apartment in Stockholm. Based on the request made by the Agency, two initial prototypes were produced to support the discussion of the company’s actual needs, which in some cases do not conform to the expressed needs of a client. These First prototypes were designed to create a better understanding of the company’s way of working and conceptual needs. A#er the prototypes had been discussed, a second set of prototypes were created, this time more developed, and focused on !nding out more about functional needs in the end of the working process (the presentation part). All of the prototypes were discussed with the company in informal interviews. One of the results obtained in the study is that the visual aid of the prototype was an advantage in the interviews, but also a risk, as the conversation tended to focus on the actual prototype instead of extending to the more basic, earlier steps in the process. Thanks to the use of parallel prototypes, the project focus could early be determined, and it was not always the “right” prototype that gave the most information. Finally, it is possible to discuss whether this type of approach is best suited for the selected company, who are used to commission work and who are used to communicating needs and visualising di$erent solutions for functionality. Nevertheless, the importance of involving the client early in the working process is noticable, which together with the simple design of the prototypes ensures a project that quickly can change focus without major problems.

This study is a software usability design case about information presentation in a software dash­board. The dashboard is supposed to present system information about an enterprise resource planning system. The study aims to evaluate if the intended users of the dash­board prefer a list-based or an object-based presentation of the information and why. It also investigates if the possi­bility to get familiar with the prototype affects the evaluation’s result. The study was performed using parallel prototypes and evaluation with users. The use of parallel prototypes is a rather unexplored area. Likewise, little research has been done in the area of how user experience changes over time. Two prototypes were created, presenting the same information in two different design solutions, one list-based, and one object-based. The prototypes were evaluated with ten presumptive users, with respect to usability. The evaluation consisted of two parts, one quantitative and one qualita­tive. Half of the respondents got a chance to get familiar with the list-based prototype, and half the object-based prototype, after which they evaluated both sequentially. The result of the evaluation showed that seven out of ten respondents preferred the list-based prototype. The two primary reasons were that they are more used to the list-based concept from their work, and that the list-based prototype presented all information about an application at once. In the object-based prototype the user had to make a request for each type of information, which opened up in a new pop-up window. The primary reason that three of the ten respondents preferred the object-based prototype was that it had a more modern look, and gave a cleaner impression since it only presented the information the respondent was interested in at each point in time. The result also implied that the possibility to get familiar with the prototype by testing it for a couple of days affected the result. Eight out of ten respondents preferred the prototype they got familiar to, and the only ones that liked or preferred the object-based prototype were those who had gotten familiar with it.   The results of the study support the results of the existing research done by Dow et al. (2010) on the use of parallel prototypes, i.e. creating several prototypes in parallel, and conform with the results of the research of Karapanos et al. (2009) on how user experience changes over time. Some other interesting information that emerged from the study was that all but one of the respondents thought that the prototype they got familiar with had an acceptable level of usability. The study also validated that all respondents are positive to use a dashboard in their work, and that the presented information was enough for a first version of the dashboard. It also validated that the different groups of users would use the dashboard differently, and therefore are in need of slightly different information.