Interdisciplinary Requirements Engineering for Deploying Social Robots in Public Library's

Social robots can enhance customer service of municipalities, but lacks a comprehensive ecosystem. Addressing this, the following paper explores an interdisciplinary approach to requirements engineering for deploying social robots in the real-world by combining user research with expert assessment of economic factors. We interviewed library regulars and developed personas focusing on user experience (UX). Afterwards, a collaborative workshop with experts from the fields of human-computer interaction (HCI) and business administration (BA) was conducted to determine factors of economical validity based on the use case of social robots for customer service in public libraries. First, experts evaluated user personas from a customer experience (CX) perspective. Then, experts were asked to put themselves in the role of one of two administrators to assess what requirements respective stakeholders would impose in order to agree on the use of a social robot. Results yield valuable insights to support and guide the design and deployment of social robots in public libraries with implications extending in relevance to other municipal institutions.


INTRODUCTION
Social robots in service generally take on tasks of informing, guiding or encouraging interaction or consumption [11].Given their versatile applicability for the public service domain, they are also of interest for municipal settings (e.g., city libraries), as use can relieve short-stafed institutions and ofer more personalized services (e.g.multiple languages) [25].Public libraries are of special interest in this context for Human-Robot interaction (HRI), as they are a widely researched feld for feld trialing social robots and exploring how they can augment services (e.g., [4,23]).However, libraries often lack in-house resources to leverage the robot's technical capabilities for developing and maintaining customized use cases, such as promoting reading competency [22].This results in long-term integration often failing due to missing infrastructures supporting sustainability [16].Simply reconciling technical feasibility of social robots with user centered design is not enough for long-term success in municipal settings, but as we argue requires a comprehensive and yet to be developed ecosystem sustaining its economic viability [19].As a frst step, we propose in agreement with [34] that an appropriate ecosystem should consider factors related to UX but also economic viability of the technology to be integrated.This implies that it has to be thought interdisciplinary, as the implementation of use cases has not only to be satisfactory for intended end-users [29], but also within fnancial means of administrators for sustaining technological solutions.Laying out a preliminary foundation for the development of an ecosystem, we propose an interdisciplinary qualitative mixed methods approach to requirements engineering, combining insights from user research with economic deliberations to deliver on a more holistic integration of social robots in municipalities.Considering public libraries, we frst interviewed library regulars to create user personas and then conducted an interdisciplinary expert workshop.In this workshop experts from the feld of HCI and BA collaborated to elucidate on signifcant economic factors regarding the integration of social service robots in public libraries.The frst part of the workshop focused on reviewing the personas from a CX perspective, while the second part asked experts to engage with roles of administrative decision-makers of public libraries to ascertain requirements for deploying social robots for customer service.Our proposed methodology aims at addressing following research questions: RQ1: How to enhance end-user personas through CX to derive requirements for the economic efciency of social robots in public libraries?RQ2: What requirements do diferent administrative roles within a public library impose for the deployment of social robots in their institution?RQ3: What implications does this pose for social robots in public libraries?
The contribution is the interdisciplinary integration of expectations and requirements of two key stakeholders, frst end-users in terms of library regulars, and second decision-makers in public libraries.This paper positions itself at the intersection of HRI, HCI, and BA, transcending disciplinary boundaries.In that way our methodology aims at bridging the gap between design thinking and ways of funding.

QUALITATIVE INTERVIEWS
We interviewed regulars of a city library to assess their UXs with the library.Results were used to create diferent personas representing a diverse user group to base the expert workshop on.

Sample, Methods and Procedure
Interviews (N = 10) were conducted in a city library by two interviewers.From participants one identifed as male, eight as female and one as diverse with an age range between 18 and 80 years and mostly with higher educational background (four A-level; three university degrees; one lower secondary school degree, one student and one refrained from answering).Seven participants were employed, one was a student, one was unemployed and one was retired.Participants were recruited via calls for study on social media channels of local libraries and administrative contacts.Interviews took about 20 minutes to complete and participants were reimbursed with 20 Euros each.All participants were briefed and provided informed consent prior inquiry.A semi-structured interview guideline based on three major categories was used to enable fexible surveys in light of project goals.First, participants were asked to outline their daily routine, assess their personal openness for technology and how long they have been using the library.Second, participants' emotions, experiences and wishes related to library services were queried in detail.Third, participants' social acceptance towards, expectations on, and what they imagine useful application of social robots in libraries to look like were probed.Finally, demographic variables were collected via post questionnaire.

Interview Results
Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed.A coding scheme was developed based on the predefned categories of the interview guideline reconciled with participants' answers (deductive and inductive data analysis [14] to evaluate the data.The fnal coding scheme contained three main (bold) and 15 sub-categories (italic).Participants stated their demographic background (1) including openness to new technologies, how daily routines relate to library use, needs to consider for an inclusive library and initiation of library use.They gave an account of their user experience with the library (2) describing their concerns for visiting the library, emotions they associate with the library, touchpoints with library personnel and other visitors, positives of library use, barriers of library use and suggestions for improving the library.At last, the expectations on social robots in public libraries (3) of participants were expressed by discussing their notion of social robots, worries about the use of social robots in libraries, requirements for social acceptance of library robots, desirable functions and features for social robots in libraries and projected advantages of social robots for library services.

INTERDISCIPLINARY EXPERT-WORKSHOP
Complementing our user research with economical considerations, we conducted an interdisciplinary workshop bringing together HCI and BA experts.Participants considered the integration of social robots in public libraries identifying the most relevant economic factors over two phases.Goal of the workshop was to derive economic requirements from the administrative perspective.

Sample, Methods and Procedure
Four HCI Experts were selected to introduce the UX perspective and two BA Experts likewise for the CX perspective for participation in the workshop.Due to time and resource constraints, we had no access to administrative stakeholders of libraries.Thus, we consider our procedure to be a feasibility study.The workshop was moderated by two researchers and held online via video call.A collaborative whiteboard was used to capture participants' inputs.The workshop entailed two phases.For both phases two interdisciplinary subgroups were formed.All subgroup activities occurred in break out sessions supported by guiding questions.In phase one, participants were presented the personas and asked how these can be enriched from a CX perspective to assess economic aspects on robotic integration.Participants were encouraged to deduce implications for the application of social robots for public libraries.After task completion, subgroups converged for presentation and general discussion of group results.For phase two, participants were introduced to following scenario framing the upcoming task."A public city library considers acquiring social robots to expand its services.For the purchase to come into fruition, the signatures of the library director and head of fnancial management must be obtained." Groups were then asked to put themselves in the role of one of the decision makers and to determine what requirements the respective stakeholder would want to impose for agreeing on the request.Upon completion, subgroup results were presented and discussed again.

Workshop Results
In reference to RQ1, BA experts proposed additions to user personas to assess criteria for social robots economic efciency in library settings more accurately.For example, by accounting for media usage, aspects such as preference for digital vs. analog media, adoption of digital services, media choice, topics of personal interest, motivating factors and specifc usage patterns of services were discussed.Regarding purchasing power, key question was the willingness and Table 1: Economic requirements on ofering a social robot for service applications.

Phase Economic Requirements
Ofer Phase (1) The social robot ofer (SRO) must set out the development costs for the implementation of the robot solution.
(3) SRO must adhere to clear budget limits.( 4) SRO should enable the potential savings of using robots compared to conventional processes to be determined.( 5) SRO should set out the potential savings of using robots compared to conventional processes.( 6) SRO can provide the ability to monitor the proftability of robot implementation by using contribution margin.( 7) SRO can ofer diferent fnancing options (leasing, rental and purchase options).( 8) SRO should make it possible to forecast the turnover associated with the use of robots.( 9) SRO must enable comprehensive risk management to be established.(10) SRO may ofer suitable insurance policies.(11) SRO should ofer the possibility of integrating robots into future projects.Deployment Phase (1) SRO can ofer ways to monitor the savings of using robots compared to traditional processes.
(2) SRO should make it possible to monitor the turnover associated with the use of robots.
( (1) SRO can ofer ways to monitor the savings of using robots compared to traditional processes.
(2) SRO can monitor targets and timeframes for return on investment.
(3) SRO should enable the monitoring of turnover associated with the use of robots.(4) SRO can provide forecasting and monitoring of turnover related to the use of robots.
(5) SRO shall assess the impact on human resource management and costs associated with the introduction of robots.(6) SRO can document the time savings for customers.(7) SRO can document the time savings for employees.level of spending on personalized services.Attitudes, values and lifestyles with which people identify were proposed as add-on, as they can have decisive infuence on modern consumer behavior.Cognitive and afective factors were highlighted in light of the tasks and objectives that users aim to complete and how processes are ideally aligned with individual capabilities and needs (e.g.fow concept).To derive requirements that administrators of a library hold for deploying social robots (RQ3), we frst transcribed gathered material from task two.Then the structuring technique within the qualitative content analysis framework by Mayring [13] was employed to extract specifc categories.Categories were established after initial review of the material.Following allocation of collected notes to respective categories, the category system was cross-validated and adjusted against the material.Subsequently, another pass through the material was conducted.This analysis resulted in 8 categories (Financial Aspects, Risk Management and Forecasts, Personnel Management, Customer-and Visitor-related Considerations, Technical Aspects and Training, Strategic Considerations, Time Aspects, and Employee-related Aspects).Based on the categorized analysis and corresponding subcategories, we used requirements templates [20] to derive requirements related to the ofering of a social service robot.The binding nature of the requirements is expressed using the modal verbs "must, can, should".Requirements were then organized into clusters relating to diferent phases, namely ofering, deployment and evaluation phase (Table 1).

DISCUSSION
This paper acknowledges that absence of an ecosystem integrating the mutually dependent relationship between UX and economic factors [34] impedes on the integration of social robots in public institutions.With our report we endeavor to guide future research, policy-makers, and industry practitioners towards the development of a framework balancing UX and economic thinking.In doing so, we proposed a methodological approach aspiring to contribute to the development of an ecosystem that supports the long-term application of social robots in municipalities.
With the new generation of services likely to be heralded by social robots [19], we interviewed regulars of a local city library to create personas describing potential end-users.Then, an interdisciplinary workshop was held aimed at enhancing delineated UXs economically to derive related requirements for the application of social robots.Reviewing user artifacts from a CX standpoint resulted in consideration of additional aspects relating to media usage, customer behaviour and lifestyle (RQ1).Discussion results implicated that social robots with an in-depth understanding of user specifc items may have a strong potential to improve on customer experience, service quality, and productivity [31] (RQ3).That way, service robots can enhance customers' lives in meaningful and positive ways, helping them overcome complexities of modern life and enrich their lifestyle with greater efciency and freedom [8].Social agents can ofer deep communication experience in service encounters to address personal, emotional and ambiguous services [19] and lessen the emotional burden put on employees confronted with complex problems of customers [19].As personalized recommender machines that leverage socially compatible interfaces and infuences [24] they may elicit afective and cognitive needs of users [34].These can help to optimize service delivery and add unique value that users may be willing to spend additional fnancial means on (e.g., recommendations tailored to specifc preferences) [34].The fow concept relates to the intensity of UX, with users being so immersed in interacting with a robot that it elicits positive emotions, exploratory behavior, and behavioral perceived control [7].Creating fow experiences depends on dynamic relations between user skills and ability to cope with task challenges.With learning processes and skills of users increasing, task challenge ofered by a social robot should be proportionally adjustable to uphold fow.Further, deploying social robots could mitigate the phenomenon of technological inequality, as a large portion of seniors is hesitant or incapable of using the latest technologies being denied their benefts [17,30].This could be addressed by social robots that are easy to use and communicate with end-users in a human-like way.That way, social robots can act as equalizers and simplifers of CX in a variety of contexts.Adapting personas cross disciplinary has its strengths and weaknesses.Diferent disciplines have diferent goals, so personas are stretched.Marketing and product development are interested in diferent persona attributes, sometimes even diferent target audiences.While marketing wants to know all about buyer behavior and customers; product development focuses on end-users' needs [21].Roughly speaking, whereas researchers are interested in measurable outcomes of robot's usability, entrepreneurs might be less concerned about efectiveness as long as target sales fgures are met [2].
The economic requirements derived from the workshop results (RQ2) implicate potential savings and cost factors as a central theme (RQ3).Savings can be a key driver for deploying social robots in service [32], as they potentially allow processing of customer queries more efciently compared to human employees [12].Nevertheless, as service environments are highly volatile, deploying robots entails fxed development costs to keep up with the state of the art [18].Institutions are advised to pay attention to legal policies (e.g., robot tax [26]) and ethical trends (e.g., robot rights [5]) that might afect the cost beneft analysis [9].Though, when adopting robotics to save on labor costs or compensate for shortages, one should consider not only routine maintenance costs but also costs of employee training and identity branding of the organization [19].Social robots require seamless incorporation into the service team, so the respective strengths of human and robot coworkers can be leveraged to outperform pure human teams [15,28].With management shown to be concerned with amortization and additional time commitment for introducing customers and staf to service robots [33], it is imperative to set out budgeting goals and projected turnover rates as well as to learn if there is potential to save on time later.When deciding on adopting social robots for service delivery, the theme of social acceptance of both employees and customers plays a decisive role (RQ3).Employee-robot collaboration is just as important as customer-robot interaction [32].The way that management introduces employees to robots can substantially infuence their acceptance and readiness to collaborate [10].Making employees feel like robots are manageable coworkers and useful for enhancing performance and professional development, can increase job satisfaction and readiness to collaborate [32,33].As for library's, social robots can contribute to a safer, more efcient work environment, all while facilitating workfows, increasing performance and putting collaboration at the forefront.But there is still a need for mediating reservations, such as robotic rationalization undermining human qualities [27].Regarding risk and insurance management practitioners might also be concerned for customers' acceptance towards robotic services.Customers need to be convinced that robots can act autonomously in complex environments and work in a safe and reliable way [1].Additional factors such as involvement, intensity, and intrusion can substantially infuence on customers acceptance of HRI [3].High involvement and intensity can help to smooth the interaction experience between customers and service robots, and facilitate acceptance [32].Hints at intrusion might however instill privacy concerns in customers decreasing intention to use and accept robots as service providers [6].
The main limitation of our research is the potential for biases in having experts intuiting roles that are not their own.Hence, for future research we aim to conduct similar workshops with real stakeholders from public libraries sharing frst hand insights into the institutional business to derive economic requirements more accurately.
) SRO can provide training for employees.(4) SRO may ofer special training certifcates.(5) SRO may provide additional paid services for customers.(6) SRO can ofer maintenance of the robotic system.(7) SRO can ofer a repair service.(8) SRO can employ measures to prevent employee frustration and promote a positive experience with robot technology.(9) SRO can monitor employee downtime.(10) SRO should survey employee acceptance.(11) SRO should monitor time savings for employees.(12) SRO should monitor time savings for customers.(13) SRO should contribute to increased awareness of the library in public.(14) SRO can monitor the public awareness of the library.(15) SRO can facilitate development of future projects.Evaluation Phase