H2OC Contextual Inquiry

Role
UX Researcher

Project Impact
UMSI Core Course

Duration
3 months

2023

Utilizing contextual inquiry methods to make recommendations on the topic of water conservation and protection in Michigan

Team
4 UX

Researchers

Skills

UX Research

Interviewing

Qualitative research

Storytelling

The Problem

"Access to clean and affordable water is a fundamental right. However, many vulnerable Michigan communities struggle to attain this necessity. According to the City of Inkster’s website, over 685,000 people currently live in poverty, increasing the need for assistance."

Since 2016, the Water Residential Assistance Program (WRAP) has assisted eligible, low-income households in avoiding water shut-offs by providing payment and bill arrearage assistance, along with water conservation support. Our research aims to identify information or access gaps within non-enrolled low-income households to better serve WRAP's target audience and environmental goals.

Research Process

We began our project by conducting background research to familiarize ourselves with the topic of water conservation and protection efforts.

We found 3 main themes from this step:

  • Assistance Programs and Infrastructure Improvement: WRAP provides financial assistance, monitors water usage, and funds plumbing repairs for eligible homeowners, emphasizing support for disadvantaged communities.

  • Environmental Health and Regulation: The Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE), through its divisions, enforces quality standards for drinking water, addressing issues like lead, copper, and PFAS contamination in Michigan, backed by federal acts.

  • Equitable Access to Resources: Programs in Michigan aim to ensure that even residents in poverty-stricken areas have access to clean water and resources to help manage and reduce their water bills, underlining the state's commitment to equity in water conservation matters.

Background Research

Plan for investigation

We planned to engage with a diverse group including local officials, program administrators, and the eligible yet non-participating individuals. Our research approach will encompass brief interviews to gain insight into the program's design, challenges, and underlying rationale, coupled with surveys targeting program users to collect large-scale, quantitative data efficiently.

To complement these methods, we'll conduct follow-up interviews to delve deeper into survey findings and observational studies within the community to witness firsthand how the residents react to WRAP information through interactions with advocates, aiming to pinpoint elements that create confusion or interest regarding the program.

Observing Interviews

The next step in our class was to observe an interview and take notes from Subject Matter Experts (SME’s) working towards water conservation and protection initiatives. The first was with Jon Allan and the second with Drew Groneworld, an associate professor at the University of Michigan School of Environment and Sustainability. They shared with us their concerns for the future of Sustainability as well as public misconceptions surrounding the issue.

Data Collection

Conducting Interviews

To gather more data specific to our research question, we then identified two interviewees from a list of organizations provided to us by our instructor to conduct our own interviews with. One of which is a program manager at the Great Lakes Commission and the second is the director of public engagement at FLOW (For Lover Of Water), a non-profit water conservation organization. We created an interview protocol consisting of an introduction, questions, and a conclusion script for each participant.

Organizing sources

Aside from the interviews, our secondary data collection includes diverse data sources that include details about the WRAP program, testimonials from current enrollees, infographics, water preservation campaigns, and articles that broadly cover water affordability and the communities that are most impacted. Using Google Sheets, we have assigned unique IDs to each piece of data, with the ID types reflecting their sources - infographics, reports, articles, campaigns, video interviews, and testimonials. These IDs take the first letter of the data type and are numerically assigned based on the order specified. This data is then arranged alphanumerically according to these assigned IDs.

For the organization of this data for the affinity diagram, our strategy involved using the collaborative platform Miro, which employed sticky notes for sorting information. As a team, we planned to note down all the collected data on sticky notes and then collectively brainstorm categories to group them accordingly. In the end, we ended up with 5 pink high level stick notes. The feedback we received is that further organization could have resulted in a higher level of analysis (green notes and smaller yellow note clusters).

This data used infographics as a visually engaging method of breaking down statistics into easily understandable formats. The data from video interviews, reports, and articles reaffirmed the necessity for assistance programs and provided statistical insights into income disparities and affordability issues.

Data Analysis

Findings

Our insights primarily came from background research and stakeholder interviews, with a focus on understanding the Water Residential Assistance Program (WRAP) and its implementation.

  • Information Gaps in Assistance Programs: Research identified significant gaps in communication between water assistance programs like WRAP and their intended users, with a noticeable discrepancy between the number of eligible individuals and actual program participants.

  • Challenges in Outreach: The inconsistency of water conservation tools and funding among Michigan cities intensifies outreach challenges, particularly in low-income Southeast Michigan areas where the demand for assistance is increasing.

  • Water Affordability is Complex: Insights from stakeholders and online forums suggest water affordability should be measured not just financially but also in terms of equity and sustainability, indicating that policy and systemic management play crucial roles.

  • Misconceptions about Water Conservation: A structured education plan is vital to correct the widespread misconception in the Great Lakes region that water conservation is unnecessary due to resource abundance, which affects attitudes toward assistance programs.

  • Need for Holistic and Continuous Approaches: The project highlights the importance of a holistic perspective when addressing water affordability and conservation issues, showing the necessity for ongoing educational strategies and program assessments.

  1. Conduct In-depth Interviews with WRAP Stakeholders:

    We will initiate qualitative data collection by interviewing key stakeholders directly associated with the WRAP program. This will include program administrators, policy advisors, and service providers. These interviews aim to uncover insights into the program's operational strengths and areas for improvement from an insider's perspective.

  2. Engage with a Broader Circle of Community Voices:

    To capture the multifaceted impact of WRAP, we will reach out to social workers, local officials, community leaders, and residents who have either benefited from or are eligible for the program. By engaging with this diverse group, we aim to understand the various touch points and challenges encountered by different stakeholders.

  3. Aggregate and Analyze Varied Data Points:

    Utilizing the information collected from the first two steps, we will analyze the data to identify common themes, barriers to enrollment, and suggestions for program enhancement. This process will involve scrutinizing interview transcripts, comparing stakeholder perspectives, and identifying patterns that will inform actionable recommendations for WRAP.

Next Steps

Summary

Reflection

Lessons

When working with all of these data sources it is important to stay organized throughout the process. We would not be able to draw proper affinity wall conclusions if our data collection was cluttered. Additionally, we learned that the research process is iterative and things do not always go according to plan. Our understanding of the problem space changed as we learned more from our sources.

Challenges

We ran into time limitations for gathering data, working together to organize the data, and finding and conducting the interviews. We also had less data to analyze because one of our potential interviewees could not meet with us. Next, we found that not all data sources are equally helpful to our project goals. Nonetheless, having various sources gives us a holistic view of the overall issue.

Improvements

Now that we have project experience with contextual inquiry methods and working under time constraints, in the future we can be sure to create a more attainable plan of investigation. There were many aspects that we we were not able to do that we instead moved to the next steps section of our report.