PRE2020 3 Group3

Robots in Horeca

Group Members

Name	Student ID	Department	Email address
Marvin Thüne	student id	Applied physics	m.p.thune@student.tue.nl
Isidoros Kotinis	1286692	Applied physics	i.n.k.kotinis@student.tue.nl
Lotte van Megen	1453092	Psychology and Techonology	l.m.v.megen@student.tue.nl

Introduction

Everyone is missing the horeca during these corona times. All the hotels, restaurants, and bars have been closed for quite some time now. And of course, we are all missing it and would like to go back rather sooner than later. We would all like to enjoy the warm weather again while drinking a beer at an outdoor cafe.

So did we, and that is how we discovered Horeca robots. As everyone was trying to find solutions to open their restaurants safely again some people had tried using these robots. It seemed quite promising at first but it turned out that most robots weren’t developed enough for this work yet. Serving went quite slow and the whole system wasn’t very efficient yet. It turned out that there were still enough points that needed improvement before a restaurant could be run mostly by robots. Seeing the robots still had so many points of improvement we set this as our challenge: how can we improve these robots and most importantly their efficiency so they can properly work for a restaurant?

To discover the specific problems with these robots we had to find a stakeholder, someone who already worked and experimented with them. An interview with this stakeholder would give us more information about the different problems and how we could help to improve the robots. Our main stakeholder became Dadawan, after an interview with them about all the problems they had encountered we conducted an experiment that would help in solving some of their problems. Additional to the results of this experiment we will also give some further solutions and suggestions on how the robots could function better. Unfortunately, we didn't find a solution to open the horeca again, but who knows what will happen in the future. Maybe the next time we enjoy a beer on the terrace, it will be served by a horeca robot.

Problem statement and objective

At the beginning of this project we had different ideas on what we wanted to contribute to these existing horeca robots. The ideas below were our options after our state of the art research.

To analyze and plan the introduction of service robotics in horeca. We now have three options, after more research and interviews with the stakeholders, we will decide what will be the best route and which project has the most potential.

1. Design a specific situation where robots make it possible to open up Horeca that is hygienic enough to be able to open up during a pandemic. Robots will minimize the customer-staff proximity in the horeca.

2. Look at existing server robots in restaurants and try to improve their customer friendliness by improving their interaction with people and modifying their appearance. Mostly look at server robots, not the ones in the kitchen. Analyze which properties the robots should have.

3. Design a robot that helps people with a disability (or people that are forced to isolate due to medical reasons) to do work in a restaurant by letting them remotely control robots that walk around in the restaurant.

After some more research and an interview with stakeholders we have a better idea of how well the robots function and what needs more attention and what not. After that additional research we made a final decision to focus on improving the efficiency and pace of the robots. That is why, for this project we will look at the maximum speeds of the robot, and also conduct an experiment to see if the current speed could be improved. The objective is to let the robots go faster without causing more problems on other aspects like the emergency stop. Next to the speed improvement we also want to come up with additional suggestions and solutions on how to make the robots more efficient.

USE

• User

The main users are the staff of the restaurant, as the robots are mainly there to assist them. They can assist staff by taking over some load of bringing the meals and (hopefully) drinks to the tables. The staff will be relieved from some of the physical work and it will also allow them to spend more time interacting with the customers.

• Society

Implementing robots into horeca can have a great impact on society. They are already widely being used in several asian metropolises. The question is if this trend will also reach us and if it does, what it will mean for us. Of course it will have an impact on the jobs in the horeca, will the employees be replaced by robots or will they only get more assistance. It could also be possible that their normal tasks shift to new ones, the focus might shift from serving the food to customer interaction for example. There is currently a shortage of human employees in the horeca so the robots might also form a solution to that. . As mentioned before, the robots might also get developed enough so they can be the solution to any epidemic or pandemic equivalent of COVID-19.

• Enterprise

Right now the robots are mainly used as a marketing trick to attract guests. They are not very profitable yet. But maybe in the future when they are further developed they become more profitable and they can help to boost the efficiency of the horeca.

The needs and requirements of the stakeholder will be further discussed later in the report.

State-of-the-art

For this research, we were looking for different types of robots that already exist and work in the horeca. When looking for robots we discovered that they could be categorized into roughly two types. Firstly the server tray robots, these robots have a purely functional form, the interaction with humans demands a lot of action from the user. The second type looks more humanoid, these robots interact more with the users and look and act more like humans. We did some research on different types of robots and the way they work. They are stated below.

Server tray robots

LG CLOi ServeBot

Type/purpose

Serves drinks and small snacks

Moving vending machine

Very limited personal interaction with the customer

Pros

Large storage -> does not need to be refilled/pickup orders often

Quite robust

Relatively large wheelbase compared to the height

Cons

Needs big open space e.g. casinos, events, convention

A limited selection of products

A large amount of customer effort required

Coronavirus application Limits interaction between cashiers and customers. But bigger conventions are probably not realistic during a pandemic. Thus partly defeating the advantage of using this type of serving robot as a precautionary measure to limit the exposure of staff and customers.

Application after pandemic ends Convenient for some customers that happen to be thirsty or a bit hungry when they spot the bot moving about. Basically, a moving vending machine and might for this reason be economically viable.

LG CLOi ServBot

Type/purpose

Moving serving tray

Brings orders from the kitchen to customers at the table

Pros

Limit exposure of staff to customers

Customers can sit at the table and not wait in line with other customers

Some personal interaction with customer possible through the screen/speakers

Food is ready to be consumed right away

Cons

Needs flat unobstructed space to operate

Some customer effort required -> standing up and taking food from tray

Food is exposed -> losing heat

Potentially limiting the number of orders this type of robot can deliver in a single go without food getting cold

Food on plates limits the acceleration/deceleration potential before food might be displaced

Coronavirus application Useful to limit customer and staff interaction at a fastfood/large open restaurants. If combined with an app customers could go straight to the table to limit their exposure to other people.

Application after pandemic ends Reduces the amount of staff needed at a big-open/fastfood restaurant. Therefore potentially economically viable.

Starship

Type/purpose

Food delivery robot

Brings orders from a kitchen to customers at a specific location. (Table/home/park etc.)

Pros

Limit exposure of staff to customers

Customers can sit at table and not wait in line with other customers

Or stay at home/in the park etc

Food is insulated -> food stays warm for longer

Allowing for larger travel distances

Robust -> does not tip over easily

Low center of mass

Large wheelbase compared to height

High speed potential

Cons

Needs flat unobstructed space to operate

Some customer effort required

Standing up and taking food from inventory

Food in bag so not ready to eat right away

Low to the ground -> hard to spot

If operating outside, the environment is far less predictable

Potentially inconvenient to other users of the infrastructure

Coronavirus application Useful to limit customer and staff interaction at a fastfood/large open restaurants. If combined with an app customers could go straight to the table to limit their exposure to other people. Even staying at home which would be the ideal during a pandemic.

Application after pandemic ends Reduces the amount of staff needed at a big-open/fastfood restaurant. Therefore potentially economically viable. Could potentially replace the current food delivery system.

Bear

The bear robot belongs to the category of server tray robots. There are two different types, Servi and Mini-Servi. They both have 3 levels with plates which can carry different things like drinks and food. The Servi is meant for restaurants and the Mini-Servi is a better fit in bars and for serving drinks. They are easy to install and multiple robots can be used at once. The robot can be controlled with the attached touchscreen or with an external tablet. There is also the option to look at the analytics to monitor and improve the robot. Both robots weigh 33 kg and can carry 30 kg and their battery works for 8 up to 12 hours. The only big difference between them are the dimensions.

Humanoid robots

OriHime-D

Dadawan

One restaurant in the Netherlands seems to stand out the most when it comes to applying robots in their restaurant. This restaurant is named Dadawan and they already tested out three different robots. One for welcoming guests and two different types of robots for serving trays. They also did some experiments with the robots to see if they could make their restaurant coronaproof.

Guest are welcomed by a little robot named Jamie that will take their temperature, if their temperature is normal the people can follow the robots to their seats. They have to order their food online via an app and a bigger robot named Amy will then bring the trays with food to their table. Guests have to take the plates from the tray themselves. Not all the work is done by the robots, they mostly do the logistic work. There are still employees walking around, they can now focus on other work and help the guest with different requests. The last robot is Akatar, this robot helps with cleaning everything up. The employees have to place the trays on the robot and the robot will then take everything to the kitchen.

Both the people from Dadawan and their guests keep emphasizing that the robots really enhance the experience of eating out. The owner of the restaurant, Danny Deng, keeps emphasizing that the robots are not a replacement of his employees but are there to help them. The robots also help to increase customer friendliness according to him because his normal employees now have more time for the guests. Furthermore, they also help with saving time. The robots come with a standard software package but Danny Deng still has some programmers working for him to optimize the program and to implement the floor plan of the restaurant into the robot. Danny Deng also states he has bigger plans and wants to open a restaurant that is fully operated by robots.

Approach, milestones and deliverables

Our approach in helping to improve these robots is in the first place to extensively talk with an important stakeholder we found; the restaurant Dadawan. Unfortunately due to corona we are not able to visit their restaurant but they still offered their time to us for an interview. With the help of this interview we want to get to know what the different aspects of the robots are that still needs to be improved. After we have analyzed all the problems we will pick one and try to come up with solutions and suggestions. Our research could therefore be in the form of an experiment and/or a brainstorm to come up with new designs or little improvements to the robot or its environment. Our deliverable will be the solutions and suggestions we come up with during our research. We will also give more recommendations as to what the robots should be able to do in the future to make them work even better.

Stakeholder: Dadawan

To get to know more about the specific problems that come with implementing robots into a restaurant we held an interview with an important stakeholder. This stakeholder is Paul Seijben, he works for the restaurant Dadawan. Dadawan was one of the first restaurants that actively used robots in their restaurants, they are now one of the frontrunners in this field in the Netherlands. Dadawan imports the robots from a factory in China so they dont know all the technical details about the robots but they have worked and experimented with them for some time now.

Our goal for this interview was to discover if there were any big problems that they encountered while using these robots and if we could maybe come up with solutions or suggestions for them. The conducted interview is written out down below, the answers are not quotes but globally what he told us. The points that we got out of it will be discussed in the next section.

Interview with manager

Q: What made you decide to work with robots? What was your motive?

A: Danny (the owner) traveled to China a lot and discovered these robots. In China, way more restaurants use these robots already. He contacted the factory and imported a few robots straight away. The main reason why we wanted to implement these robots in the restaurants was to help our employees, they have to work with very heavy plates so using these robots could make carrying them easier.

Q: Does the robot meet your expectations?

A: It was harder than we initially thought to implement these robots in our restaurant. The suppliers always tell you the best points only of course. Especially the mapping and programming. We even hired a freelancer to help us with programming the robot. The robot Jamy also didn’t work for us, the whole process of bringing people to their tables and taking their temperature took way too long for when it is busy. Taking the temperature also didn’t work once there were people standing behind them.

Q: You now have two robots in use, Amy and Dexter, what are your experiences with them?

A: Amy looks more human and is more interesting to our guests. We see that this especially works well for marketing and on things like social media. Amy is less functional than Dexter but Dexter gets less attention from the guests. The efficiency could still improve for both of them, together with their navigation. They are still quite slow and walk around very rigidly, we would like to see them more flexible in the future. The biggest problem was that they are unable to communicate, so to avoid collisions we could only send out one robot at a time.

Q: How do you set up the robot? Is it all ready when it arrives?

A: We expected it to be easier to set up the robot but it turns out that the mapping of the restaurant is quite hard still and we still had to program a lot of things ourselves. It would also be easier to implement them into a restaurant that was designed for robots, we now had some extra challenges because of this. Asking the supplier about our problems was also quite hard because of the language barrier.

Q: What would you like to see improved about the robots, what are the points of improvement? A: It would be nice to see them improve on navigation as I said before. We also contacted the factory because we would like to have the option to control the robots from something like an apple watch. Right now our servers have to walk to the robot or the kitchen to give it its orders. It would be nice if we could do this without having to walk back every time. Because we have these heavy plates it would be great if these robots would follow us with the plates. This way we don’t have to walk back to the kitchen 4 times if we have an order for 8 people, we could just take all these plates to the table at once. It would also be nice if the implementation of the rootings would be made easier, right now we had to hire a programmer to do this for us.

Q: What is the main point of added value these robots bring you?

A: Amy works well for marketing especially. Right now they only cost us money and our employees don’t really trust them yet and are hesitant to work with them. But we want to keep working with them and keep improving their efficiency.

Q: Would you see options to use these robots during the pandemic?

A: we did some experiments with them and they worked quite well, the only downside was that our hospitality goes down if guests’ only interaction is with robots. We think people would agree to this during the pandemic but it has no further future after that for us.

Q: How did your employees find working with these robots?

A: At first they were really hesitant. Most horeca employees aren’t really technical, they just want to work with people. This bumped a bit at the beginning but we think that once our employees trust the robot more than the collaboration will improve a lot. Our employees should be able to trust the robot to do its tasks and do them well.

Q: What is the reaction of the guests when they see your robots?

A: They mostly find it interesting to see how it works. Right now we don’t see these robots as replacements for our employees they just add something interesting to the restaurant. The reactions online can sometimes be negative, people say this is absurd and that our hospitality suffers from these robots.

Q: What is your ultimate goal with these robots?

A: I am a bit more skeptical than Danny. We just want to experiment with this product, but we also depend on the technical world. As long as these robots don’t really work like we would like them to it is hard for us to implement them into our restaurant of course. We can only keep trying and investing in them and hope for the best. in the end, we hope to have 3 robots per restaurant to help our employees. This would also require more trust in these robots from our employees.

Interview with programmer

Analysis of found problems with suggestions and solutions

While looking at the state of the art for robots one might be fascinated from the progress done the past years and at the possibilities offered to users, society and enterprise. All three have potential to benefit from this new technology. But as we have seen, not everything works perfectly yet. In the section below we are going to go through some issues that became clear from these interviews. It will give a short description of the four main problems that emerged from the interview.

Navigation

From the interview it was clear that the expectations of dadawan on the navigation and mapping of the robot were not met. The biggest problems were the mapping of the robot, this turned out to be too hard for them to do alone. And even the professional programmer faced some problems. The robot also has its limitations of where it can go and how much space it needs to move. This means that if the current layout of the restaurant is not optimal for the robot either the layout or the robot should change to solve this. The mapping of the robot is quite hard and labour intensive but once the robot knows its path it does its work well and arrives at his destination. Possible solutions would be to change the navigation system. Instead of using a programmed model of the environment they could use a system with lasers, QR codes on the ceiling or lines on the floor. This would work best if the layout of the restaurant took the limitations of the robot in account to make the paths more efficient. So for example place the kitchen in the middle to reduce pathlength and make the paths wider so the robot can fit. Also make sure the robot can reach the table, booths and round tables wouldn't work well for example.

Interaction with the guests

Dadawan had no clear complaints about the interaction with the guests, the robots work well and Amy seems like a friendly robot to their guests. Because it is all new to them, the guests find the robots quite exciting so for now the robots work well for marketing especially. The decrease of hospitality is only caused by the fact that it is a machine and not a human that serves the guests, it is not caused by any specific behaviour of Amy. One exception to this is corona, people seem to find the decrease of hospitality less of a problem if that means they can go to restaurants again. The robots seemed to be a solution to open the restaurant without much person to person interaction. Dadawan did some tests to try and make their restaurant safe to open but the robots didn't work well enough yet. Jamy was too slow and taking the temperature didn't always work very smoothly. The robots also were not fast enough yet to run the restaurant on their own. Solutions to this problem would be to drastically improve the Jamy robot, especially the speed of taking the temperature and the displacement speed. To open the restaurant would also mean that a lot of robots are needed. They should also be able to communicate with each other, which is also not possible yet and means that only one robot at the time can do their job.

Interaction with employees

The employees had some trouble adjusting to the robots. They are not used to this kind of technology and would also rather not work with it. This is mostly caused by a lack of trust in the robot, they would rather do the work themselves and know for sure it gets done well. They don't see a reason to use robots for this. To solve this problem firstly the attitude of the employees towards the robots should change. They have to learn more about them and work more with them. See how well they do their job and also realise they will only keep improving. The robots definitely have some points of improvement, if they start to work better over time the trust of the employees will only grow. They just have to realise that the robot is able to do its work well. Some research could be done after how people react to robots and how we can make them trust the robots or at least willing to work with them.

Improve their efficiency

The robots are meant as a support for the employees. Dadawan would preferably see that the robots would go faster so they go more rounds per night but also so they can follow their employees to the table. This would happen if the servers have to carry too much at once (one stone bowl plate is already around 2 kg) so the robot can carry the heavy things. Dadawan would also like to be able to give the robots commands from different points instead of only on the robot itself. The robots should reduce the amount of times the servers should walk to the kitchen but right now the results are not as high as they hoped for. Dadawan would like to see the servings per minute the robot does increase so that their added value is more than just marketing. Solutions to this problem would be to solve the problem of lack of communication between the robots so more than one at the time can be out in the restaurant. The other options are changing the layout of the restaurant or improving the design and program of the robot itself. Make them go faster for example, while still making sure they can make their emergency stops. Designing a system that would give the robot its tasks in a more efficient way so it doesn't have to go back to the kitchen every time it finishes a task could also work.

The experiment

Experimental Setup

Figure 1: Accident scenario

Let’s have a look at how we can simulate the acceleration needed to stop the robot on time.

Assume we have a robot moving with speed [math]\displaystyle{ \vec{v} }[/math] inside our restaurant assisting our waiters in carrying the food and drinks. Suddenly a kid unexpectedly jumps in front of the robot; immediately the robot senses that movement through the sensors now it needs to decelerate in time.

Unfortunately is fully loaded, breaking with its maximum force will cause the food and drinks to spill, this will cause not only the spilling of food but also a lot of mess since the robot itself and the restaurant floors will need to be cleaned. As it has become clear this is something that we would like to avoid, so people can receive their orders on time and waiters can continue with serving the customers instead of cleaning.

To achieve this we want to test which accelerations different dishes allow us to break with. Knowing the acceleration and the range our sensors read at we can decide the maximum speeds the robots should use for different drinks and food. This way it will not be overprotective slow in cases the dishes can take a harsher stop.

The simulation

Our focus lays on what is happening to the trays and more specifically on them; Let’s have a look! Since the trays are attached to the robot they will uniformly move with the same speed [math]\displaystyle{ \vec{v} }[/math]

Method

Results

Conclusion

Discussion

Further recommendations

When the robot needs to make an emergency stop, the plates and glasses will experience a sudden force and may tilt or even fall down. In the experiment above we discussed what the maximum deceleration of this emergency stop should be where the tableware would still stand up and nothing would move too much or break.

In this experiment, the types of tableware varied. They were either empty or filled with water or food because the robot has to bring both filled glasses and plates to the table and take the empty ones back to the kitchen. The maximum decelerations where no tableware would fall or break were measured for each situation.

But apart from alternating the type of glassware, there are more ways to increase the maximum deceleration. The easiest way is to change the glassware to heavy glasses and plates with a low centre of gravity. Glasses like whiskey glasses for example would work well. This would also mean the restaurants are limited in their choice of glassware and even if the glasses won't tilt, the drinks inside might still spill out at high speeds. That is why some recommendations on how to improve the stability of the glassware on the trays will be given below. These suggestions are not tested as done in the experiment above but still seem quite promising in solving the problem. They are meant as an add on to the solutions given by the experiment. The first designs and ideas will be given below.

Suggestions to the serving tray

Top heavy support

Top heavy glasses are the hardest to transport as they have a higher chance of falling down. Plates on the other hand are way easier to transport because they dont have the same high moment of inertia as wine glasses. Examples of top heavy glasses are cocktail and wine glasses. To make sure they keep standing a different system may be designed to attach to the plates. This system supports the glasses on their stem. * tekening toevoegen * The system should be easily attachable to the backside of the plates and should be easy to remove.

Extra grip

The serving tray could also be tweaked to make it work more efficiently. Current trays used by the servers are already working well, especially with the grip on the top and bottom of the tray. But the trays that Amy uses are quite frictionless which means that the plates and glasses tend to slide more easily. Especially when she makes sudden moves that include acceleration, deceleration and making turns. It would be a small effort to change the current trays to trays that have more grip or even add more grip to the current trays. During the experiment above for example we chose to make the friction between the tableware and the tray quite high which meant it should be harder for the tableware to fall.

Cup holder

If the robot should really go fast and also transport mostly drinks then this solution could also be used. The tray could get certain molds, especially made to hold glasses. The system would work something like a cup holder. Some robots already exist that have this feature (see in state of the art). The only downside to this is that this tray can now only transport glasses. To solve this problem, the glasses tray and normal tray should have a system that allows them to be easily exchanged. Or the tray with molds should be easy to click on and off the normal tray. The second problem is that the glasses should always be able to fit into the molds. If the restaurant has multiple sizes of glasses this could become a problem. The tray could either have different sizes of molds, but this could make it less efficient. Or the restaurant should get glasses that are almost the same size so they all fit inside the molds.

Gyrometer

This solution is a bit more complicated. The robot should be changed for this to work, but it could work if it would be integrated in the next generation of server robots. The idea is to add an extra Gyroscope and accelerometer sensor to the robot. The gyroscoop can measure and maintain the orientation and angular velocity of an object. And the accelerometer tells us the acceleration of the robot and makes the motion sensing more accurate. They can also measure the tilt of an object. Most robots already use vibration gyros for balance control, they are also used for motion sensing. Vibration gyros are a type of gyro sensor that uses a double T-structure and a crystal element to sense the motions. A picture of the sensor is shown below. The goal of integrating a gyrometer in the robot is that the robot can now be programmed to tilt the tray when it is accelerating and decelerating, something servers already do automatically. If the robot knows how far it should tilt the tray for certain speeds and accelerations, the glasses will be less likely to fall. The tilt system should be programmed into the robot and the robot should know exactly when and how far to tilt the tray. If this program works well this means the maximum acceleration and deceleration increase.

Example of strategies of communication between kitchen, waiters and serving robots

The general communication model

The modes

The restaurants tables division in sections

The watch

Planning

Week	Planning
Week 1	Come up with different ideas
Week 2	Look up some research papers and try to find a specific topic to focus on
Carnival break	Come up with plan for this project
Week 3	Work out the plan and search for stakeholders
Week 4 1 - 7 March	Hold interview with stakeholder which will give more answers and show us what the greatest problems are
Week 5 8 - 14 March	Work on deliverable, do research and try to find ways to make it possible, look for ways to setup the experiment
Week 6 15 - 27 March	Do the experiment
Week 7 22 - 28 March	Work out the experiment and work on calculations
Week 8 29 March - 4 April	Work on the report, final presentation (video or online)

Logbook

Week 1

student	Task	Time spend
Together	Had lecture and tutorial, began to look for groups to join	3 h

Week 2

student	Task	Time spend
Together	Had a meeting with the group did a brainstorm, thought about interesting topics, had an introductory meeting with our tutor about topics we were interested in	1.5 h, 0.5 h

Carnival break

student	Task	Time spend
Isidoros	State of the art research and furthermore looking into how we could improve the existing robots in the HORECA field. Also had a look at what measures “koninklijk horeca nederland” think are necessary to reopen restaurants during the pandemic.	2h, 1.5h, 1h
Marvin
Lotte	Introduction research about the state of the art + researching specific topics like navigation systems, look at examples of Horeca robots, write work down in docs	3h, 2h, 1h
Together	Three meetings discussing the research we did about the state of the art, and trying to come up with plans. Write approach, problem statement and objectives together. Also working on the wiki.	0.5 h, 2.5 h, 1.5 h

Week 3

student	Task	Time spend
Isidoros	Looked up robots and specifications: Amy & DEXTER Prepared the meeting with the brand manager of DADAWAN, did some research on their current robots, and thought of some questions to ask about the technical aspects.	1h, 1.5h
Marvin	Worked on the questions for the interview
Lotte	Work on wiki put everything in a clear order, type out the results of the state of the art research that was found, send email to Dadawan (stakeholder), prepare for meeting with brand manager, did research after Dadawan	3h, 0,5 h, 0,5 h, 1h
Together	Meetings, tutor meeting	2h, 1h, 0.5 h

Week 4 1-7 March

student	Task	Time spend
Isidoros	From the interviews: organise the requirements and sectors that have problems and how they can be improved (possible solutions). Early version of the one solution.	1.5h
Marvin	Fill in log book, experiments and solutions for speed/efficiency vs dish/drink stability
Lotte	Put planning and logbook in wiki, type out the answers for the interview and put them in the wiki, worked on the preparation of the interview and on the results of it.	2h, 2h, 1h
Together	Meeting with stakeholder + two group meetings, meeting with tutor	2h, 1h, 1h, 0.5 h

Week 5 8 - 14 march

student	Task	Time spend
Isidoros	Work on what looks to be the solution to improve the efficiency of the robots: Looking at how we can simulate an accident in our own experimental setup.	2.5h
Marvin
Lotte	Search for good glasses to use and get things from the store for the experiment, update approach part in the wiki, think about the further recommendations	1h, 0.5 h, 1.5 h
Together	Meetings (online and offline), prepare for the experiment, mail stakeholder, update the planning, meeting with tutor	1 h, 0.5 h, 0.5 h, 4 h (per meeting), 0.5 h

Week 6 15 - 21 march

student	Task	Time spend
Isidoros	Work on the Experimental Setup and Example of display	4 h
Marvin
Lotte	write out all the suggestions and do research after them, prepare for the experiment, write analyzation of the Dadawan interview with current problems and our suggestions to solve them	2.5 h, 0.5 h, 2 h
Together	Conduct experiment, meeting where we discussed the results, meeting with tutor	5 h, 1.5 h, 0.5 h

Week 7 22 - 28 march

student	Task	Time spend
Isidoros	Organise the docs document. Finish Example of strategies of communication between kitchen and waiters. Make the video for the presentation.	0.5, 4h, 1h
Marvin
Lotte	make setup of presentation make a layout and make sure all things are included in a logical order, finish writing and researching further suggestions, write parts of the presentation, write experiment method and make sure it all fits with each other and there is no overlap, make sure the document layout is clear,	2 h, 1 h, 1 h, 2 h, 0.5 h
Together	Offline meeting where we analyzed our results and divided the work to do, also divided the presentation	4 h,

Week 8 29 march - 4 april

student	Task	Time spend
Isidoros
Marvin
Lotte
Together	Online meetings (5x, we worked on the final presentation & recorded ourselves giving the presentation we also worked on the report, final presentation,	2, 5, 0.5, 0.5, 3, 1

References

Appendix

.