Each year, supporters of the aquarium's mission donate collected specimens spanning the entire spectrum of the ocean’s biodiversity. These artifacts are a valuable resource for researchers, educators, and students interested in studying ocean life. As the collection has grown, they recognize that the current way they keep track of things will not scale well. The artifacts are also lent out to others, and they would like a solution where they could easily keep track of that status alongside the database itself.

Our task was to explore, design, and recommend a technological solution while keeping their specific circumstances in mind. What we’ve created is an internal artifact database, which we've named Bay Archive after the project’s completion.

This project was introduced to us in March, and we knew that we only had until the end of our Masters program to complete it. That’s about 5-6 months, and we wanted to jump in immediately. We decided to follow the framework of the Double Diamond design process, which splits a project into four distinct phases:

Of course, while we were working on direct research and design related to the problem, we were also producing reports and taking care of other administrative tasks, such as scheduling and communications. While peripheral to the main task at hand, these are also important activities that need to be taken care of in any project!

In the Discover phase, we just want to gain as much information as we can to contextualize our understanding of the problem & solution space. We did this through a Literature Review, Competitive Analysis, and visiting the actual site where we could do Field Observation and conduct some Interviews.

When it comes to the world of digital inventory systems, we dove deep into the treasure trove of research articles to uncover the best ways to categorize items and artifacts. We examined a total of 12 research papers that explored various aspects of inventory management, from the latest technologies being used to the transformative impact of digitizing these systems.

Our exploration kicked off with an investigation into the methods for categorizing items and artifacts. We looked into various strategies to see what works best in different contexts. Then, we delved into the modern technologies currently in the inventory management scene. These studies revealed how these tech solutions are being implemented to streamline operations and boost efficiency. We also checked out how digitizing these systems has been a game-changer. These studies highlighted the significant improvements in efficiency and error reduction that come with going digital.

Here's a quick summary of the overall ideas:

You can review each of the articles in the section below. You can also read a write-up of our findings here.

Methods for Categorizing

Technology

Challenges

Misc. Literature

Our group conducted a comprehensive competitive analysis of four existing solutions. We employed Nielsen's 10 heuristics to meticulously evaluate their usability, ensuring our insights are grounded in industry standards. Additionally, we performed a SWOT analysis to identify each solution's strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. This included an in-depth overview of potential risks and their competitive edge.

This activity helped us gain context on how similar organizations organize their respective databases. We took note of patterns that we liked, as well as things to avoid. In particular, we started realizing that having a combined database and borrowing process was pretty similar to an online shopping experience.

Here's a quick overview of the four solutions we evaluated:

Libby

Libby is a convenient in-browser and mobile app designed to streamline the borrowing of e-books, magazines, streaming services, and audiobooks from your local library. By connecting to your library's catalog, it functions as a virtual extension of your library's online management system, offering the same functionalities and access.

San Diego Museum of Art

The San Diego Museum of Art, located in Balboa Park, San Diego, features a store section on their website where users can browse items by category, name, and more. Their catalog system is particularly relevant to our research.

Birmingham Zoo

The Birmingham Zoo, located in Birmingham, Alabama, features a website section where they list their animals by category, with detailed pages for each species. Their approach to categorization and the details provided could be particularly relevant to how MBA might want to categorize their artifacts.

Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History

The Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History, located in Washington, D.C., focuses on the natural world and its connection to humans. Their website features a research and collections database, allowing users to search for specific exhibits and pieces using various identifiers. This searchable database is particularly relevant to how MBA might want to organize their artifacts.

Below is the result of our SWOT analysis, though you can view the full report (which includes product overviews and the heuristic evaluations) here.

On May 16th, Julie and Catherine traveled to Monterey to do first-hand observation of the space, while Jesse and Christy stayed behind to wrap up our previous activities. Field observation is important because it helps us understand the environment and context in which everything happens!

The Storage Area

Additional Photos

You’ll see in these pictures that the actual storage space is in a narrow room, with multiple shelf levels that hold boxes of labeled stuff. The employees do their best to organize them, but not everything is consistent with a line of logic, and the artifact locations are mainly kept track of through memory. There were all kinds of artifacts there - some small, some preserved in a jar of mysterious liquid, and others large and freeze-dried.

Of course, while we were there, we had to talk to our actual users! We talked to a handful of employees, but had proper, sit-down interviews with two key people: Erin, from another department that requests to borrow artifacts, and Bryant, who is in charge of artifact management.

Erin

Erin is a representative from another department that frequently contacts Bryant to borrow artifacts. She is usually the only requester, though there will occasionally be others who also request artifacts.

Key Points from Interview

• The main challenge is not knowing what props are available, relying on Bryant's knowledge.
• Erin's department uses props for volunteer enrichment and training. Other departments might also benefit from using these props, like team conservation leaders and guides interacting with school groups.
• Return dates and deadlines are managed through face-to-face interactions and verbal agreements. Bryant sends out email reminders to return artifacts.

Bryant

Bryant is the mastermind of the artifact lending system. He is the one that employees will reach out to if they want to borrow something, and he is the one who communicates with them and facilitates the entire process.

Key Points from Interview

• Borrowing procedures are done primarily through a mix of email communication, face-to-face interaction, and verbal agreements.
• The current catalog system is not searchable, and the database essentially lives in Bryant's head.
• Lendee, artifact, and timeline information is manually entered in an Excel spreadsheet. Bryant places calendar events as reminders for himself to remind people to return borrowed items.

Next, we moved into the Define phase - this is where focus is narrowed and problem statements are created to guide the rest of the project.

We already basically had the problem statement - how to create a database that could also facilitate the borrowing of artifacts - so for us, this phase was mostly about translating the information from our on-site into tangible themes and ideas, and making a definitive decision on our project scope and direction.

We did a lot of synthesis here - like transcriptions, flowcharts, affinity mapping, and lots of brainstorming - but in the interest of time we’ll only mention the bigger pieces: our personas and storyboards.

From our time on-site, it was obvious that there were really only two primary kinds of users: one who wants to borrow an artifact and puts in the request to do so, and the other, someone who facilitates the borrowing process and manages the database.

Our first persona, who we’ve named Sophia, represents the Requester. Sophia hosts training workshops and her goal is simple: she’d like to borrow some artifacts every once in a while to improve the quality of her trainings, but emailing back and forth with the Administrator is time-consuming - she has to first provide context, then keep conversing to figure out what is available and suitable for her workshop, and then coordinate a pick-up time. Sometimes she has to come to the storage room multiple times to figure things out with the Admin in person.

Our second persona is Michael, the Admin. As part of the department that oversees the artifacts storage, he is one of the most knowledgeable people on where and what everything is, but it would be nice if he didn’t have to rely on memory to keep track of where they all are. Because of that, he has to be the one to facilitate the inventory management and borrow requests. However, similar to Sophia, when someone makes a request, he has to do back and forth communication about what’s available, for what they want to borrow the artifacts for, and meet with them to show them options and work out other details.

We did a bunch of brainstorming on potential solutions, but ultimately decided that the one that was the most technologically feasible and made the most sense was this: some sort of website or application where both user groups could conduct the borrowing process with insight into artifact availability, request status, and purpose and timeframes of borrowings. This reaffirmed our impressions from before, that a combined database and borrowing process would echo an online shopping experience.

Below, we highlight two storyboards to show how this solution could work in MBA’s working environment – in the Big Picture storyboard, we see how a user might need to use this solution in their work: someone needs to lead a workshop and wants to borrow an artifact for demonstration purposes, and is able to use the hypothetical solution to easily find what to borrow, get their request approved, and make one visit to pick it up.

Big Picture Storyboard

In the Close-up Storyboard, we explore what the flow within the solution would look like, going interaction by interaction, page by page. A user can browse listings with filter & sorting options, add something to their cart, and “check out” their request.

Close-up Storyboard

Ultimately, we decided on two key flows that directly reflect our two personas’ roles:

With our direction and priorities decided, we were ready to actually start executing on our plans. This phase involved us creating Wireframes, getting initial feedback via Focus Groups, implementing changes and moving into our HiFi Prototype, and finally doing one more round of Testing with Users.

Before getting directly into making designs, we referenced our flowcharts and brainstormed ideas to help us shape the structure of the solution. Luckily, because our prior notes were already so detailed, we essentially had already established a site map in the form of our close-up storyboard. We used that information to jump into the first draft of wireframes.

Requester (General User) Screens

Admin Screens

With this first draft, we wanted to make sure we were headed in the right direction, so we hosted online feedback sessions - which we called Focus Groups - with our users.

We planned a card sort activity to understand how MBA’s employees would group their artifacts together - for example we thought categories like “fish” or “mammals” would be sufficient, but we saw that they actually categorize their artifacts more scientifically, which makes perfect sense in hindsight. We also let them add in their own categories which gave us a better picture of how they categorize items in their heads. These focus group activities helped us gain key insights on the catalog’s filtering process, as well as how we should implement taxonomy and scientific names in our database.

Next, we presented our wireframes for the artifact management system, showcasing features like a searchable inventory, request management, and an admin dashboard. Our users commented on additional details to include, such as item descriptions, care instructions, ID numbers, and location information.

And finally, we did a quick survey just to gather any final thoughts, comments, or other general feedback. Overall, our participants seemed to have positive impressions of what we had so far, but we definitely had some things to update based on the session!

Based on the focus group feedback, here’s what we adjusted in our designs:

Enhanced Artifact Categorization

We Enhanced Artifact Categorization, we built on what we learned in our focus groups, and used specific taxonomic levels and scientific names for artifact categorization instead of broad categories.

Expanded Artifact Details

Expanded Artifact Details by including additional fields for item descriptions, care instructions, ID numbers, location, and request purpose.

Improved Search and Contextual Information

Improved Search and Contextual Information by implementing multiple tagging and keyword options for searching artifacts, and displaying preservation methods alongside artifact names in the inventory view.

Streamlined the Borrowing Process

And last, Streamlined the Borrowing Process by adding features for borrowers to explain the purpose of their requests and request extensions directly through the system.

We made the updates as we moved into transitioning into a higher fidelity mockup of our designs. We’ll just show a couple examples of screens here, since most of the design stays the same except for those updates.

Example: Item Listing Page

This screen is the item listing page. We tried to keep the visuals straightforward and borrowed existing assets from Google’s Material design system to streamline our work. The blue color palette comes from accents from MBA’s official website and their branding in general. From our research we found that preservation method, taxonomic structure, and care instructions were the most important information to convey. To conserve space, we used icons to demonstrate certain care instruction warnings to let the user know ahead of time what to expect before borrowing items. We also have a “save for later” button that they appreciated for planning future workshops.

Example: Admin Dashboard Page

Another example is the dashboard page, where an Admin can view all current and previous order details. Again, the big picture and overall layout is similar to our wireframe, though a few details were refined as we moved into higher fidelity.

With our implemented updates and higher-fidelity prototype in hand, Jesse and Christy put together a usability test and traveled to Monterey to put it in front of our users! With most of the bigger issues already ironed out earlier, we were now looking to get a final temperature check and hone in on any final details we may have missed.

We hosted our usability test on Maze, conducted further interviews, and created an anonymous feedback form to ensure we had a comprehensive understanding of what needed to be fixed. It was also great for Jesse & Christy to see the space and meet the employees, which they weren’t able to do at our previous on-site trip during the Discovery phase.

We tested our prototype with the corresponding people - we had Erin once again to test our Requester side, as well as another employee named Joey, and we had Bryant to test the Admin side. Overall, we generally received positive feedback, but did take some notes on some final details to iron out.

Additional Photos

With that final round of updates, we’ve arrived at our final solution. There can be an infinite number of things to change and update, but as with all projects, they need to be scoped and wrapped up at some point - and ours ends with our capstone timeline.

So, what’s next? Well, the idea of handing off our designs to UCI’s Master of Software Engineering students has been suggested, and, while we don’t know exactly what the fate of our solution is, we’ve prepared for this possibility. We put together a document of requirements, and will be packaging our designs into a file for any future developers who may work on bringing this project to life.

That was a lot of information, so we’ll do a quick summary.

We kicked off this project in late March with research into the field and problem space, and even got to visit the aquarium to talk to our direct users. Then, we synthesized our research, brainstormed, decided on a design direction, and began executing. With our first couple drafts, we sought out early feedback to make sure we were moving in the right direction. And again, we got to visit Monterey to see our users and their reactions face-to-face. And finally, we adjusted our designs to better align with our users’ expectations as well as improve general UI/UX. What’s next ultimately won’t really involve us, but we’ve prepared materials for any future parties to carry it forward!

That’s all from us! This experience was fun, educational, and we’re so grateful to have had Monterey Bay Aquarium’s trust in this project. We'd like to thank Pamela from MBA, who was our main contact. She frequently set aside time to meet with us as well as coordinate our on-site visits and activities.

If you would like to find out more about this project, feel free to contact us. Thank you!