1 Team 1

Research plan ´

After defining the subjects as well as the target group we wanted to focus on, was to find real problems and
concerns our target group had. We quickly came to an explicit consensus that the best way to understand the
target user is actually to talk to them about the subjects, and that’s what we did.

We interviewed 8 young adults through a semi-guided interview model. This interview model was divided into
3 different sections, one per task, where we started by asking more general questions like “Do you invest” and
then proceeded to narrow them down according to their answers, like “How does investing affect your men-
tal health?”. This was done this way to reduce interviewer bias as much as possible, by having this predefined
script, we wouldn’t lead the interviewee to any biased answer due to divagation or inconsistency.

With the interviews done, we were able to get a pretty good insight about our target group’s problems, needs
(both satisfied and unsatisfied) and concerns.

Data Analysis &

Similarly to our clustering approach, we created an af-
finity diagram where we grouped all the answers into
different sections, such as methods, motivation, tools,

Data Synthesis
and concerns. We also added a Suggestions section
due to the many suggestions we received from the
interviewees. Finally, we voted on the sets of answers
that were more important to explore.
CI MODEL
When it comes to our CI model, we didn’t follow the
correct order, only developing one at the end of our
thematic analysis.

This was one of the most challenging parts of our

work, but in the end we decided to create a cultural
model, as we were able to identify some clear distinc-
tions between those who lived with their parents and
those who lived with colleagues/friends. However, we
only found these differences for the topics of Budget
Management and Investment. For the topic of health
insurance, we found no correlation, likely due to a lack
of interest or carelessness on the part of our inter-
viewees.
Analogous to the Clustering, these cards are col-
As an example, we can clearly see that both groups or-coded according to the interview where the answer
see having a future financial cushion as a reason to came from. However, unlike the Clustering, these
invest. However, those who live with their parents cards aren’t from the interviews’ summary. Instead,
didn’t see a need to manage a strict budget, due to we wrote new cards based on the interview raw texts
not having a set of bills to pay. and the demonstrations the users made, making them
more granular than the ones from the interview sum-
CLUSTERING mary.

To start our data analysis, we utilized a clustering

method where we grouped various elements from the
summaries of each interview into different catego-
ries, outlining similar underlying ideas. This method
allowed us to identify some patterns between each
interview.
The cards are color-coded according to the interview
where the answer came from, allowing for easy visual
guidance.
AFFINITY DIAGRAM
CODEBOOK
Finally, in order to get a different perspective on the
data we had gathered thus far, we created a code-
book.
Utilizing this method, we delineated common patterns
between the interviewee’s answers. To do so, we
looked directly at our interviewee’s responses and the
previously done affinity diagram, creating meaningful
codes, as well as a description for each one, support-
ed by quotes (raw quotes from the interviews).

Team 1 2
3 Team 1
PERSONAS
With all the ideas consolidated and problems identi-
fied, we created 4 different personas that differed in
background, studying and working areas, and social
and financial interests, to better synthesise our tar-
get users’ profiles.

Here, we present one of them: Margarida is a

23-year-old medical student living with her parents
and is a part-time worker. She loves art and cinema.
She also doesn’t find particular interest in economy
and finances.

EMPATHY MAPS
We also made an empathy map for each one of the
personas, so we could better understand her goals,
thoughts, interests and manners.

SCENARIOS
After developing our personas and understanding
their thoughts, we formulated a scenario for each
one of them that synthetised who they are, what
they do, and what they want within the subjects of
our app.

Margarida’s scenario is simple to understand: She

wants to know all her finances and realize where she
spends most of her money to better understand how
to manage her monthly budget. She believes she
would benefit from an app that would track her mon-
ey and would let her manage her budget and expens-
es in a simple way.

STORYBOARDS
To better illustrate the personas’ scenarios and how our
app could solve their problems, we made a storyboard
for each one.

Here’s an example where we can see Margarida starts

lost by not being able to keep track of her income and
spending. Still, she then finds a solution that helps her
manage her budget and improves her budgeting skills,
and, consequently, gets her life more organized.

Team 1 4
Ideation
1st step 􀄫 Brainstorm-
ing + Voting
For our ideation, we began by focusing on the most
important answers from the affinity diagram, as well
as the developed scenarios. utilizing these assets, we
held a brainstorming session to come up with multiple
seed ideas.
Each member of the group proposed multiple ideas
that fit different scenarios, resulting in 18 different
candidate ideas. We then voted for the ideas we liked
the most, each member being allowed one vote per
scenario. The results allowed us to determine the
most valuable ideas, and proceeded to filter out the
ones we didn’t take an interest in.
2nd step 􀄫 Aggregation
􀅼 Voting
For the second step of our ideation, we began by
merging some of the winning ideas from the previous
step, as few were similar or shared common patterns.
5 Team 1
We then held a second round of voting, with each
group member being allotted 2 total votes. Similarly
to the previous step, we identified the most valuable
ideas, filtering out the rest.
3rd step 􀄫 Final Ideas
Using the results from the second round of voting, we
were able to delineate 4 different features for an app:
• A feature for health insurance that lists different
plans and services that best fit the user’s condi-
tions.
• Two budget management features. One that au-
tomatically accounts for and categorizes transac-
tions, and another to plan trips within a budget.
• An investment feature that provides information
on different types of investments and offers tips
and automatic investment plans
Narrative realization
and idea dropping
Through this ideation process, we believe we were
able to come up with various features that addressed
the most relevant needs and worries of our target
group.
However, these ideas were missing a concept that
united them. Though the features may be useful, we
found that developing an app in which its core func-
tionalities held no correlation would be unappealing.
As such, we came up with a narrative of Self-improve-
ment. In essence, we would be developing an app that
provides a set of tools to help those wishing to lead
better and healthier lives, while expanding their bud-
geting and financial literacy.
Once the narrative behind our solution was defined,
we decided to discard the “trip planner” idea, as it did
not match our objectives. With that, we settled on the
remaining 3 features we previously proposed.
Final step 􀄫 feature it-
eration and voting
After settling on the core aspects of our solution, we
Team 1
proceeded by developing each one of our proposed
features even further. This allowed us to not only
expand their functionalities, but also introduce some
novel ideas:
- Providing the user with automatic and semi-per-
sonalized AI-assisted investments.
- Representing doctor’s appointments with a tablet
of pills in a creative and engaging way.
- Use of an AI to make personalized recommenda-
tions for budgeting.
By both exploring the current market for applications
similar to ours, generalizing their features and imple-
menting similar ones into our solution, as well as in-
troducing various innovative elements into our design,
we were confident that our solution was more than
adequate, allowing us to proceed into our prototyping
phase.
6
LO-FI Prototype
Prototype features
At the end of the first assignment, we reached four fi-
nal ideas in the Ideation phase. To start the lo-fi proto-
type, we departed from there. We brainstormed each
of those ideas, ending up with many ideas for our app
as a whole and each category (budget management,
health insurance, and investments). Although we kept
most of the ideas, a few of them had to be discard-
ed or changed. Before doing the prototype itself, we
briefly defined an “app map” that departed from the
budget section, the part that would head our app and
then lead to investments and health.
Testing structure and
model
We used the Wizard of Oz methodology with 5 testers.
Four of our tests had both screen and voice recorded
so that we could then evaluate them better. Behaviors
and complaints were registered. The tasks performed
were, for the different sections:
Budget:
• Access the budget configuration menu
7 Team 1
• Create a new vault and add a friend to it
• Add a new transaction via a physical receipt
• View your transactions
• Accept a A.I suggestion
Investments:
• Create a high risk investment
• Obtain help about volatility
• Buy a APPL stock and see its graph
Health:
• Check the best insurance option for a dermatolo-
gy appointment
• Add Dentistry to your favourite options
• Check your most expensive consultations in the
past year
Testing feedback
Overall, the results obtained from this first stage of
testing were good. However, some issues were de-
tected and dutifully noted before proceeding to Mid-fi.
Most users navigated through the app without any
problem, but one major complaint was the use of
unsuitable iconography across a significant part of
the screens, which generated confusion and anxiety.
Another aspect pointed out was the lack of cohesion
in the structure of the app.
MID-FI Prototype
Prototype changes
and improvements
Having in mind the feedback received from the Lo-Fi pro-
totype, we fixed many of the existing issues and further
expanded some of our design ideas and features. We will
now describe the changes and improvements made for
each section of our app.

Budget:
• Added a simplified view of the current budget statis-
tics and account balance.
• Improved the overall iconography and labels for bet-
ter guidance
• Savings configuration menu redesign with the addi-
tion of the spending slider and timeframe configura-
tion
• New budget category configuration page

Investments:
• Main page redesign with the addition of the new sec-
tions like “trending/hot” stocks
• Improved iconography
• Community/Manual investments redesign

Health:
• Appointments page redesign
• Added wind-down feature for entering relaxed mode
• Initial setup redesign with added information
• Improved iconography
• Added specialty search menu

Testing structure and

model
Regarding testing, we created a set of tasks for each of
the app sections and tested them with 7 users. The tests
were conducted either in person or by video call through
the use of Figma prototypes. The prototype connections
were previously created in Figma so that we could con-
duct the tests. Each user tried to complete every task and
gave its feedback throughout the execution of the test.

Budget:
• Configure your budget by adding a new category
• Create a new vault and add a friend to it that will par-
ticipate in the vault with 50$/week
• Add a new transaction via a physical receipt
• View your transactions
• Accept a A.I suggestion Health:
• Check your future rewards • Compare your current insurance acp saude + with
medicare
Investments: • Explore your three best options for dentistry
• Join a high volatile community investment • Check your first appointment from the past year
• Make a short, high exposure auto investment • See how much you have saved from using acp saúde
• Read a help article about volatility + in the last year and check the community star rating
• You want to relax and see less stressful information of the insurance plan

Team 1 8

Testing feedback
Overall, users were able to finish most of the tasks, but
there were specific tasks that some were unable to finish.
The main problems were regarding confusing or ambigu-
ous interface elements and organization. Some users also
pointed out the lack of homogeneity throughout the app.
Next, we will describe more specifically, for each section,
the comments made by our users during the tests:
Budget:
• Couldn’t find budget AI suggestions due to ambigu-
ous icons and buttons
• Hard time finding the achievements page due to it
being away from other options
Health:
• Difficulty finding the best options for dentistry due
to ambiguous interface controls. Most users didn’t
realize they needed to scroll down.
Investments:
• Difficulty reaching a high-exposure investment be-
cause of ambiguous interface options
• Difficulty reaching the auto-investment options
• Ambiguity regarding the relaxed mode option.
HI-FI Prototype
Prototype changes and im-
provements
With the knowledge we obtained from both the lo-fi
and mid-fi prototypes and respective tests, we are
now in the position to start building the hi-fi proto-
type. To build it, we first needed to decide on what
design we would use.
Deciding the design language is essential to help create
an emotional connection with our users. Our user group
is young and modern, has broad concerns from health
to financial investments and budget management, and is
undoubtedly looking for an application that can quickly
grab their attention while being simple and quick to use.
To empower users, we used a modern design language,
with trendy effects, like blurred backgrounds. We used
the web app Spline to create multiple
custom 3d scenes for some icons
and backgrounds, and we created
screens that work natively on our
target platform - iOS - and don’t
look out of place.
9 Team 1
We decided on the name for our ap-
plication as it emboldens our app’s narrative. The im-
ages on the bottom of this page and on the next page
are a visual representation of our design language and
our most important features.
Testing structure and
model
To evaluate our prototype we required, once again,
our users’ evaluation, this time with a slightly more
detailed and structured testing session that consisted
in a pre-test briefing, a set of tasks for the users to
perform, and a post-test set of questions for the users
to answer. Before testing, we start by thanking the
users for their time, we then ask them for consent to
record their screen interactions and their voice. After
it, we introduce them to our app’s narrative and ideas,
as well as the remainder of the interview. The tasks we
ask the users to perform are spread across key fea-
tures and different subjects, them being:
• Check your transactions regarding, specifically,
the category “Garden Decor” and filter them from
smallest to highest.
• Check future rewards and set a future reward for
yourself.
• Ask a friend for contribution in your trip to new
york savings.
• Explore your best insurance options for dentistry
• See how much you have saved from using your
insurance plan in the last year and check its Com-
munity Star Rating.
• Check one of your health appointments in the last
year
• Check the current value of Apple stock in the last
week. If it was always higher than 105€, buy some
new Apple shares.
• Create an investment assisted by AI only for the
Transportation and Technology sectors
• There’s some interesting community investments
available. Join the one with the most users.
• Try to read information on bear traps from our
knowledge center
• Find yourself chill with our relax mode
After the users finish performing the tasks, we ask
them 10 quantitative questions that follow the Likert
Scale and were loosely based in the System Usability
Scale in terms of form and content, and 4 qualitative
questions, to better understand
where we are hitting the jackpot
and where we might be missing
the target.
Team 1 10

TESTING FEEDBACK FOR
QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITA-
TIVE QUESTIONS
We interviewed ten different target users and got
pretty valuable feedback. Generally speaking, they
liked our app and felt it was innovative, giving positive
feedback and insights on how and where we could
improve it.
To calculate our app’s SUS score, we inverted the for-
mulation and respective score of the even quantitative
questions to pose the questions in a way that respects
the SUS approach. Our SUS score was 77,3, which re-
flects in a B grade, meaning that we can still improve
our app in certain aspects.
In our qualitative questions, the feedback we got gave
us insight into where we could improve:
• The achievements icon is too small and isn’t al-
ways perceived.
• It’s not always possible to understand there are
three different options to make investments due to
not being intuitive that it’s possible to scroll.
Improved the accessibility of
the achievements button and
made it more visible.
Redesigned the appointments
page in order to make it more
appealing and easier to use.
11
• It is counterintuitive to scroll everything to the
bottom when you want to enter relax mode.
• The news feature in the investments section could
also be on top, near the knowledge center.
• The appointments section is confusing and unin-
tuitive -> A list would be better.
• It’s not perceivable that the first insurance option
is our current health insurance.
• On the health section, the search bar at the bot-
tom of the insurance screen is counterintuitive.
FINAL ITERATION
Based on the conducted testing, we iterated over the
Hi-Fi prototype and improved some specific features
and interface elements (images below).
• Made the achievements button more clear and
accessible.
• Redesigned the appointments page to make it
more visible and easy to use
• Made the relax mode button more clear and ac-
cessible
• Redesigned the make investment menu
Simplified the investments
screen and made the “wind
down” button more visible.
Added the “My appointments” label
to make the section more clear and
changed the search bar to make it
more cohesive with the rest of the app
Team 1
Team 1 12