IN
DEGREE PROJECT INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION
TECHNOLOGY,
SECOND CYCLE, 30 CREDITS ,
STOCKHOLM SWEDEN 2019
Use video to disseminate:
How to produce a video for a research project?
TIANZI WANG
KTH ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
ABSTRACT
Nowadays, scholars are encouraged to use video for research dissemination. In most of the EU
and national research projects, it is the hard requirement that the project results need to be
disseminated to the public in multiple channels, e.g. video, webpage, etc. Thus the general aim
of this master thesis research has arisen from this challenge faced by scholars, who normally
have limited experience in the media production workflow and collaborating with video
producers. To bridge the gap between researchers and media experts, better workflow guidance
on production management is needed. In this study, the literature on three conventional video
production management methods is reviewed and compared, aiming to identify the advantage
and disadvantage of the methods for the research project video production. Emerging from the
key findings, a novel management model is developed to meet the needs of researchers.
Meanwhile, a logic workflow is proposed accordingly. The proposed approach is implemented
and evaluated with a case study on a real video production project for a research centre at KTH.
The limitation of the study is discussed in the end, with the suggestion given on further research.
ABSTRAKT
Use video to disseminate:
How to produce a video for a research project?
Tianzi Wang
Media Management
KTH Royal Institute of Technology
tianziw@kth.se
ABSTRACT
Nowadays, scholars are encouraged to use video for research dissemination. In most of the EU and national research projects, it is the hard requirement that project results are disseminated to the public in multiple channels, e.g. video, webpage, etc. The general aim of this master thesis research has arisen from this challenge faced by scholars, who normally have limited experience in the media production workflow and collaborating with video producers. To bridge the gap between researchers and media experts, better workflow guidance on production management is needed. In this study, the literature on three conventional video production management methods is reviewed and compared, aiming to identify the advantage and disadvantage of the methods for the research project video production. Emerging from the key findings, a novel management model is developed to meet the needs of researchers. Meanwhile, a logic workflow is proposed accordingly. The proposed approach is implemented and evaluated with a case study on a real video production project for a research center at KTH. The limitation of the study is discussed in the end, with the suggestion given on further research.
Keywords
Research Dissemination, Video Production, Video Project Management, Video Project Workflow
1.INTRODUCTION
In the current emerging social media landscape, visualization and digitalization using moving images are new forms to disseminate information. Compared with pictures and slides, video has the potential of being dynamic and attention-getting due to its capability of displaying motion and sound in an easy to access format [1]. Video making and sharing technologies offer promising ways for disseminating research to reach wider audiences [2].
In response, scholars are encouraged to embrace the new technology and use video for research dissemination. Research and development projects are financed from three different sources: Base funding for the own institution, public funding for projects and cash for contract research. In order to acquire contract research projects and to persuade industrial partners to participate in a project, it is necessary to communicate the competences of a research and the
2.LITERATUREREVIEWON VIDEOPRODUCTION MANAGEMENT
A thorough literature review has been conducted focusing on the management and execution of video production projects. In the following, the previous research on this topic is summarized in three main categories, i.e. linear, agile, and lean approaches to video production management.
2.1 Conventional Approach – Linear Production Flow
Owens summarized the production flow of video production as shown in Figure 1 [4]. A video production project starts with an idea and objectives based on the goals. Then scheduling and production planning are delivered before or during production meeting with the supporting resources and staff. Then rehearsal and real video production are performed on site. Based on the post-production results the video production project is completed. It is a linear process which can be categorized into three phases, i.e. pre-production (planning and preparation), production and post-production [1], [4], [5]. This categorization is very clear to indicate the video production process. However, interaction and feedback between stages is limited, as different tasks are mainly processed one after another. Especially in the production project for research projects, the researchers require more interaction and involvement. The linear flow is not sufficient to guide video production as the researchers’ feedback is not considered as a major issue after the scheduling and planning are completed. Thus in recent years, different production methods were proposed, such as agile production approach [6] and lean production approach [11], to improve the production efficiency and quality.
Figure 1. Conventional Video Production Flow (adapted from [4]
2.2 Agile Production Approach
In 2016 Whitley introduced the agile process in film/video production [6]. As a matter of fact, the agile method is also utilized in other production sectors like project management
[7], software [8] and product production [9]. In the agile approach, the conventional processes are broken down into minor tasks which are simultaneously processed in parallel. Compared with the linear production flow, the agile flow opens new possibilities to adapt to unexpected changes and new ideas. The feedback during the production can be synchronized in real time. However, it requires more communication efforts, e.g. meetings during the project. In that case, a central communicator is critically needed to guarantee that sufficient communications and meetings are organized smoothly. However, project management and operation heavily relies on the results of synchronization and the performance of the central communicator with high risks. In practice, the researcher is typically not familiar with the production process and the video production experts do not have the domain knowledge of research contents. Therefore, it is very difficult to identify a central communicator who is capable of bridging the gap between the research team and the video team. Moreover, the research video project normally requires high accuracy and firm delivery dates but the agile approach focuses more on the high flexibility and adaptability. Therefore, the agile approach might not be fully suitable to meet the researchers’ requirements.
Figure 2. Agile Production Approach (adapted from [6])
2.3 Lean Production Approach
improvements are normally reflected in future projects and products, while the challenges in the current production project are not directly resolved. Therefore, the lean production approach contributes more to a video production system management instead of independent video project management.
Figure 3. Lean media production flow (adapted from [11])
To recap, the production of a research video has high needs in the video industry but the research and approaches in this area are limited. The previous methods are not sufficient to fully meet the requirements of the researchers. Thus, this research project aims to identify the best practice to conduct a video for a research project. The main research question is identified as:
Research Question: What is the proper production process for a research project video production?
3.RESEARCHAPPROACH
To answer the research question, the research is carried out as the research methodology presented in Figure 4. To be specific, two main methods were used in this study, i.e. Design Based Research (DBR) and survey method. Learned from Hakkarainen’s research [13], this research is conducted as a DBR process, which in this study is understood as investigating, developing, and testing, as a
means to generate new knowledge. According to Wang and Hannafin [14], the goal of DBR is to generate pragmatic and generalizable design process. To be more specific, the DBR method was used to propose a modified video production process model with implementation and evaluation via a case study, while survey methods were used for the pre-study in order to find out the important influence factors of a research project video production. A thorough literature review was undertaken to investigate whether there is a proper approach to answer the research question already. Then the first model was designed based on the results of pre-study and literature review. The proposed approach was implemented and evaluated through a real-life case study: an actual video production project led by myself. Based on the lessons learnt from the case study, the model was improved and modified and then the final proposed approach is summarized.
3.1 Design of a feedback-centred video production process
Based on the literature studies and inspired by the control theory [15], the research project video production should be dependent on the feedback from the customer (researcher) during the process. However, a proper feedback mechanism was lacking in the conventional production management method as discussed in the previous sections. On the other hand, it is also necessary to study the important influence factor before developing the new model. Thus in this research work, a pre-study was firstly carried out and then a new video production process model was proposed to meet the needs of a research project video production. Further adopted from the three conventional management approaches, the design solution includes a feedback-centred video production method, together with a suggested logic flow for the new method. Lastly, a case study was implemented to evaluate the proposed model with discussions.
3.2 Design of identification survey in the pre-study
To identify the important factors for a research project video production, a survey as a pre-study was carried out among 10 researchers and 10 video production professionals. To get a bigger picture, the aimed researcher participants include research project manager, research project communicator, senior researchers and young researchers: while the aimed video production professional participants include experienced video producer, video production director, video
Idea Goals Scheduling Script/Production Plan Produciton Meetings Rehearsal Produciton Post-production Project Complete
Feedback Lean Goals
Figure 4. Research Methodology
production cameraman, video production project manager, video production project assistant, as well as media students. Inspired by Rensist Likert [16] and Reichheld [17], the survey was designed with 5 Likert scale questions and 12 Net Promoter Score (NPS) questions to measure both researchers’ and media professionals’ opinion and attitude towards factors related to a research project video production. In the survey, participants are required to answer how important the selected factor is for a research project video production. The candidate factors are borrowed and expended from Diver’s conclusion [18]. In practice, the survey was conducted via an online questionnaire, by sending to 18 people. In the end, 13 responses received while 10 results validated. Results were analysed by data comparison in different categories. A detailed presentation of the key findings is presented in the next section.
4.THECONDUCTEDSTUDY
The main research conducted in this study, along with its results, will be presented in three sections, i.e. key findings from the pre-study, the discussion on the proposed process model, and the implementation and evaluation of the case study.
4.1 Key findings from the pre-study
According to the survey results, researchers and media experts have different preferences on which factor is the most important for a research project video production. To focus on the key findings, only a comparison of top three important factors for researchers and media experts is illustrated in Figure 5 and will be discussed, since the results related to other factors are less central to the topic of this thesis. In the survey, content refers to any of the messages included in the video. The budget refers to the planned financial amount for the video production. Production refers to all activities which involve actual filming and cutting of audio-visual material. For the researchers participating in the survey, content was ranked the most important, i.e. that the information and knowledge is the key to a video, while the budget limit and production method are equally in the second place. However, from the video production experts’ perspective, the production process was ranked the most important factor, since it directly influences the project results, and budget decides what and how many resources can be utilized to conduct a video project and team. As the factors are variously prioritized by the researchers and video makers, it is necessary to conduct a suitable approach for research project video production.
Another key finding from the pre-study was to further enhance the importance of the content in the research project video production. Content accuracy was the most important factor for researchers in video production, since it is very important for researchers to deliver accurate and professional information to the audience, same as in academic texts. Media experts however believe that the utilization of new
methods and techniques are important to produce impressive video products with high artistic value. In addition, the researchers consider the on-time delivery is also important, as a research project normally has a hard deadline to publish and disseminate the video on certain occasions. From the media experts’ perspective, their leadership in production is also an important factor. They believe that the production team is the expert at coordinating the planning and actual production work, although the researcher’s involvement is also a critical requirement of the video production since the domain knowledge is usually difficult for the media experts to digest and present in a video. More details about the results can be found in the Appendix.
(a) (b)
Figure 5. Important factors of a video production project
To recap, it is obvious that the research team and the video production team has different priorities and expectations on a video production project. Considering the video as ordered and produced for the customer (research team), the researchers’ needs and requirements should be the top priority in this case. As a result of the survey, content is the most important factor for a research project video production. The content delivered in the final video product should be
accurate information, with high quality. It is the researchers’
responsibility to provide accurate content for the production project, while the media expertise contributes to helping information simplicity and visualization. Eventually, the production process needs to follow strict deadlines and the actors in the video are expected to better understand the contents and deliver the content in a proper way.
4.2 A feedback-centred video production method for research projects
As mentioned above, the video production projects for research have high priority on the contents and frequent communication and review/feedback. However, the conventional video production progress does not meet these requirements. Thus, a feedback-centered video production
method is proposed to improve the project management and production efficiency. Figure 6 presents the process of such a video production project. The production process is categorized into four major stages, i.e. Planning, Pre-Production, Pre-Production, and Post-Production. More details about those stages are given below.
Figure 6. Brief process of a video production project
It needs to be noted that at each stage the stakeholders are different. A research video project normally initiated by the researchers (customer) with objectives and rough plans and contents in the pre-planning phrase. Then the media experts are involved at the pre-production stage, in which the researchers and media experts are working together on the production-related decisions. In the next phase, the media experts lead the production task. Eventually the researchers are invited to participate in the post-production discussions and decisions. After the project completion, the overall evaluation and feedback will be collected for future projects and collaboration improvements. In addition, the stakeholder’s involvement at each stage is also highlighted in Figure 6. The collaborative production is mainly taken in the production stage 2 and 4.
Next, the details of the proposed production process method are presented in Figure 7. As identified in the previous research, the pre-production phase had the largest impact on the engagement of resulting videos [19]. Traditionally, pre-production refers to any of the activities that occur at the planning stage prior to any filming [20]. However, in the new proposed model, traditional pre-production phase had been divided into two parts: planning stage and pre-production stage. At the Pre-Planning stage, the project is initiated by the idea of producing a research video. Then researchers need to set a clearer goal to document the requirements. The goal is very important, since it sets the tone and valuable for the future work and communication. Then an internal schedule of the researchers needs to be worked out to define the rough production period and expected delivery date. Besides the objectives and schedule, the budget is also decided by the research team leader before contacting the media experts.
Figure 7. Detailed process of the proposed production process
At the Pre-Production stage, the video project idea is
transferred to a media expert team. The media experts will
propose the draft production plan, based on the researcher’s pre-plan. Then, the draft production plan will be discussed with the researchers during several meetings. Here the First
Iteration of planning feedbacks aims to answer questions
What form should be utilised in the video?
How to develop the script and storyboard properly?
Who are the cast of the video?
What equipment should be used in production?
What location will be needed for the filming?
What graphic effects are expected in the video?
What is the audio content in the video?
Who is the crew of production?
These factors are generally proposed to cover all necessary steps. While the results of meetings will have direct impacts on the overall schedule and budget.
After the production plan is agreed by both parties, the project enters the Production stage and actual filming task is then taken. Based on the experience and facts during filming, the researchers will provide the Second Iteration of feedback and planning. If the production schedule needs to be modified, the budget might need to be updated as well due to the changed resource and time consumption. More meetings will be taken between the research team and media team if extra filming needed.
In the Post-Production stage, media experts will edit the video materials based on the plan. At this stage, the Third
Iteration of review and feedback occurs. The researchers
comment on the post-production results and changes will be made accordingly. If there are major changes, the overall scheduling and planning might be modified and the budget shifted accordingly. Eventually the final video results will be
delivered to complete the project after the researchers’
feedback and comments are received and updated.
To recap, the proposed video production method is centred by the feedbacks of the researcher as customers based on the requirements identified in the pre-study. Three iterations of feedback and re-planning are proposed to guarantee that the researchers are in the loop of decision and production, toward a satisfying result.
In addition, it is worth to note that a research project is normally lead by one organisation, and participated by multiple partners. As the video contents are relevant knowledge and intellectual property shared by multiple partners, the feedback iteration are commonly taken among multiple stakeholders, including universities, other research institutions and companies. The leading organisation is the representative of the whole consortium. Thus, the interaction and communication between media experts, leading organisation and the partners are complicated. That is partially why multiple iterations of feedbacks are essential to guarantee the video is produced in the proper manner.
4.3 Implementation and evaluation
To implement and evaluate the proposed approach, a real video production project was carried out in this thesis work. Held by a research center namely PMH Application Lab in KTH Royal Institute of Technology, the case study was about making a video production on the topic of
“Swedish-German testbed for smart production” for Hannover Messe Industrie (HMI) 2019 in Germany. The project initiated in 2017, and executed by a team from PMH Application Lab, together with a media agent and a filming production company.
Figure 8. Feedbacks by multiple customers
Following the model illustrated in Figure 6 and 7, the implementation is discussed based on the four highlighted issues during each phrase in the production process:
Budget in Pre-plan stage
The pre-plan is implemented step by step in the case study. The idea was initiated in late 2018, and then an internal production team was organized to develop the goal for the video, as well as to identify the audience and draft the schedule for the research project video production. After several rounds of internal discussions, the budget is determined by the research center manager. With a clear pre-plan, the research team began to contact the media experts. In this stage, everything was clear at the beginning but schedule and budget had been continuously changed many times due to the feedback from other stages. To discuss how it was changed and affected, budget is taken as an example for further discussion.
As identified in the section 4.1, budget is the second top priority in a video production as it has direct impact on how much resource and time that can be utilized in the video production project. The budget distribution of the project is presented in Figure 9. Following the above-mentioned process and workflow, there are many iterations of communications between the research team and video team. Eventually the filming (production) is taken twice due to the major comments from the researcher. 30% and 19% of the total budget is utilized in the two rounds of production respectively. Meanwhile, the post-production is also performed twice regarding the cutting and graphic effects. Eventually, 8% of the total budget is utilized during revisions. In practice, more communication and re-production resources are utilized to facilitate the feedback-centered management of video production, leading to the high quality of results. Meanwhile the total cost is within the budget, because extra expenses are predicted and reserved in the pre-planning for potential changes based on feedback.
Figure 9. Cost for PMH-HMI video production Storyboard in Pre-production stage
The pre-production stage is the most challenging part for implementation in the case study, because it was unexpected that multiple media experts involved in the case. As a result, the production plan, in particular for the storyboard was repeatedly developed at different levels.
The storyboard is the result of transforming a script into a project content containing two key components: audio and video [21]. In practice, the storyboard was firstly drafted by the internal production team, and then sent to the partners for feedback. After the partners’ feedback employed, the 2nd version draft was discussed with the communicator at university level for further improvement. With feedback from the communicator, the 3rd version of the storyboard was sent to the media agent, and then the 4th version to the media production admin team. The last round of the discussion lied
with the actual filming team.
Although the content was repeatedly confirmed by multi-stakeholders, it was still hard for the filming team fully understanding the academic content. As indicated in the Figure 10, the media experts still need feedback from the researchers on detailed guidance on the video content. Take
the truck scene in Figure 11 as an example, it is necessary to confirm which brand and which model could be used in the video.
Figure 10. Storyboard for PMH-HMI video production with comments from media experts
Interview in Production stage
Production refers to all activities, which involve the actual recording of audio-visual material. In comparison to the pre-production stage, this stage was relatively unproblematic[20]. As mentioned earlier, media experts did the most job in production stage rather than researchers in most cases, since filming is the key activity in this stage. However, it is observed that research team participated more than expected in the case study, as interviews were conducted.
Thanks to the proposed feedback-centered process, all interview related aspects have been well considered and planned in advance. This led the planned interview filming went smooth as expected. However, feedback regarding the interview persons was received during the filming. One partner proposed to interview one more very important
person to further improve the video influence. The research management team agreed with the proposal, so another interview needed to be arranged. This change not only related to the schedule and budget in the pre-plan stage, but also the production plan in the pre-production stage. As the feedback mechanism worked in the proposed model, new interview plan was easily fulfilled step by step. More detailed
Starting fee 4% Recording 1st 30% Recording 2nd 19% Cutting 12% Grade 3% Graphics 2% music Rights 4% Subtiltes 4% round2 cost 8% Reserve by communicator 4% Reserve by manager Budget Distribution
information about interview plan is illustrated in Figure 12. This flexibility was not available with conventional methods.
Figure 12. Interview plan for the PMH-HMI video production Comments in Post-production stage
Most of the work in the post-production period involved evaluating and editing the filmed material. The raw material were compiled into a master digital video draft using a editing software, such as Final Cut Pro, Adobe Premiere Pro, etc. [20]. Besides the expertise skill, one important task was included in the post-production stage, which is reviewing. In the case study, two rounds of review requests were proposed by the media experts (shown in Figure 13). Then the researchers reviewed the video draft and sent the feedback to the media experts.
First Round Second Round
Cutting; content & tempo
Graphics; placing & content
Music; feeling & pace
Grade; color and mood
Sound; sound and mixing
Possible VFX Figure 13. Review requests in Post-Production phrase
In the meantime, same conclusions in previous discussion were reached again through the example of feedbacks of the researchers presented in next figure (Figure 14) that most of the commons focus on the content of the video.
Figure 14. Example comments for PMH-HMI video production
As discussed earlier, the review process for a research project video production involved multi-stakeholders’ feedback. There was also one unusual comment received in the case study. After reviewing the draft video, one partner questioned the missing of another partner who quitted after pre-plan stage due to schedule reasons. In the sake of political reasons, it is suggested to get the missing partner on
board again. This means a new filming process is needed from adjusting the schedule and budget plan in the pre-plan stage. At that time, the deadline for the project is approaching. But thanks to the proposed model, every step was clearly instructed. So the new filming plan was accomplished based on the new feedback. Although the missing partner still decided not to participate, the new filming plan was not carried out. It is still a very good example in the case study for the implementation and evaluation for the proposed feedback-centered process.
4.4 Result Summary
To recap, the Powertrain Manufacturing for Heavy vehicles Application Lab’s Hannover Messe 2019 video production project is successfully completed based on the proposed feedback-centered approach. Both the research center and video production teams are satisfied with the results. The video production project is successfully completed within the given budget with high efficiency and quality in the key message delivery. As a positive result of the project, the video is presented at the Hannover Messe 2019 (Figure 15).
Figure 15. PMH-HMI video shown at HMI
5.DISCUSSION
The modern society requires high transparency and efficient knowledge sharing. In recent years, most of the research projects are funded by public funding with taxpayers support. So the research projects are obliged to publish the research knowledge in a general manner, to help the public understand the research idea and results. Eventually, the dissemination is also valuable for the research project to improve the social impacts and attracts more attention and future opportunities.
Important factors in a research video production
Feedback-centred Video production approach
To answer the key Research Question in this thesis project, a novel production approach is proposed which is centered around the three rounds of review iterations, to guarantee the video is produced in the right direction. Meanwhile, the lesson learned during the actual implementation also includes the review and agreement process itself. As mentioned above, a research project normally involves multiple universities, institutions and companies. That means every version of the video results needs to be reviewed and approved by all relevant partners. If there are any changes applied to the video, the result needs to be distributed to all relevant partners again asking for new approvals and confirmations. The multi-iteration review and approval process is also different compared with other industries. It leads to much time and resource consumption for review, communication and approval. The video production leader and communicator need to be fully prepared for the time management in the future.
Budget and Risk Management
Regarding the budget control and risk management, it is interesting that during the project execution, communication transparency is critically important. As a matter of fact, the research manager reserves 10% of the total budget for unexpected costs and risks. However, the communicator, who is communicating with the video company, is not informed about the reserve. Therefore, she reserved 4% of the total budget for unexpected costs. Eventually, 14% of the total budget is reserved which is much higher than needed. In a highly efficient project, the resource needs to be fully utilised based on the budget plan. If there are extra or unused resource, it should be distributed to other tasks, e.g. post-production and graphics effects to improve the video quality. In a production project, a smooth communication system is needed to improve communication transparency and information sharing.
Limitation and future research
In this study, the main limitation relates to the choice of the example case. Firstly, the findings are based on a single case only due to time and resource limits. Hence, the results might not be suitable for all video projects in the research domain, e.g. biological science and medical science. Other research disciplines might have other special requirements as well, for instance, confidentiality and ethical considerations. Meanwhile, video production is needed at different stages of a research project. For instance, some of the scientific publishers encourage the authors to upload a video explaining the new results in research. The multimedia materials are also very popular in education from bachelor to PhD student. In the future, more case studies of the dissemination video production in academia can be carried out in different disciplines at different stages. Then the results will contribute to further evaluation and improvement of the proposed feedback-centred model. It would also be
beneficial to conduct research from the perspective of video producers or media agencies in the media industry.
6.CONCLUSIONS
In this master thesis research, the main finding was that the research project video production has certain and specific requirements, which differ from other sectors and customers, especially the contents and approval of all stakeholders. In most cases, the media experts do not have the background knowledge about research, academia and their process of management and decision-making. Same for the researchers. Thus, there is a gap in the communication and management process between the research team and media production team when they work together towards a successful video production project. The conventional video production process is not sufficient to meet the requirement of the research video production. As a result of this thesis project, a modified production process is proposed which is centered by multiple iterations of feedbacks. It contributes to the theory of video production management and methods. The knowledge gap between research video production and normal video production is also discussed in the theoretical model presentation, which is implemented and evaluated during a real-life case study working with a research center at KTH.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This work was supported by the Powertrain Manufacturing for Heavy Vehicles (PMH) Application Lab at KTH. I would like to express my gratitude to Jannik Henser, my master thesis co-supervisor, and Thomas Lundholm from PMH for their continuous support through my thesis project. Also, I strongly thank Tove Guldbrand from KTH, Malin Mörk from Prime, Isa Bååth-Ardow and Emil Torneryd from Crisp film for sharing their experience in the research area. In addition, my special thanks go to all the respondents for the survey research. Finally, I would like to thank my supervisor, Ylva Fernaeus at KTH, for all the valuable feedback and discussions that guided me to make this paper better.
REFERENCES
[1] S. Cartwright, Pre-production planning for video,
film, and multimedia. Focal Press, 2012.
[2] J. Rokka, “USE VIDEO NOT JOURNALS TO DISSEMINATE RESEARCH,” Financial Times, 2012. [Online]. Available: https://www.ft.com/content/61d5a18a-9aab-11e1-83bf-00144feabdc0.
[3] E. Marín-González, D. Malmusi, L. Camprubí, and C. Borrell, 2017, “The role of dissemination as a fundamental part of a research project: lessons learned from SOPHIE,” Int. J. Heal. Serv., Vol. 47, No. 2, pp. 258–276.
[5] H. Nachtigall, 2017, “Live video production management: Best workflows and case examples.” [6] J. Whitley, “Project Management: Waterfall VS
Agile in Film Production,” 2016. .
[7] K. B. Hass, 2007, “The blending of traditional and agile project management,” PM world today, Vol. 9, No. 5, pp. 1–8.
[8] D. J. Anderson, Agile management for software
engineering: Applying the theory of constraints for business results. Prentice Hall Professional, 2003.
[9] W. B. Lee and H. C. W. Lau, 1999, “Factory on demand: the shaping of an agile production network,”
Int. J. Agil. Manag. Syst., Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 83–87.
[10] M. A. Hart, 2012, “The Lean Startup: How Today’s Entrepreneurs Use Continuous Innovation to Create Radically Successful Businesses Eric Ries. New York: Crown Business, 2011. 320 pages. US $26.00.,” J. Prod. Innov. Manag., Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 508–509.
[11] I. Lamont, “Lean Media: A New Framework for Media Production and Innovation,” 2016. .
[12] A. Rauchfuss, O. Reshe, and S. Joachim, “Lean Advantages in Media: Rethinking Operations and Building New Business Models.”
[13] P. Hakkarainen, 2009, “Designing and implementing a PBL course on educational digital video production: Lessons learned from a design-based research,”
Educ. Technol. Res. Dev., Vol. 57, No. 2, pp. 211–
228.
[14] F. Wang and M. J. Hannafin, 2005, “Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments,” Educ. Technol. Res. Dev., Vol. 53, No. 4, pp. 5–23.
[15] D. S. Callaway and I. A. Hiskens, 2011, “Achieving controllability of electric loads,” Proc. IEEE, Vol. 99, No. 1, pp. 184–199.
[16] R. Likert, 1974, “A method of constructing an attitude scale,” Scaling A Sourceb. Behav. Sci., pp. 233–243.
[17] F. F. Reichheld, 2003, “The one number you need to grow,” Harv. Bus. Rev., Vol. 81, No. 12, pp. 46–55. [18] D. Diver, “5 Factors that Make a Successful Video Production,” 3388films, 2016. [Online]. Available: http://www.3388films.com/5-factors-that-make-a-successful-video-production/.
[19] P. J. Guo, J. Kim, and R. Rubin, “How video production affects student engagement: An empirical study of MOOC videos,” in Proceedings
of the first ACM conference on Learning@ scale
conference, 2014, pp. 41–50.
[20] M. A. Corbally, 2005, “Considering video production? Lessons learned from the production of a blood pressure measurement video,” Nurse Educ.
Pract., Vol. 5, No. 6, pp. 375–379.
[21] S. E. Fleming, J. Reynolds, and B. Wallace, 2009, “Lights... camera... action! a guide for creating a DVD/video,” Nurse Educ., Vol. 34, No. 3, pp. 118– 121.
APPENDIX
Appendix 1. Important matters in contents
Appendix 2. Important issues regarding contents
24 31 39 40 24 39 35 45 36 36 36 37 38 39 45 47 0 10 20 30 40 50 mutiple reviews mutiple stakeholders Artistic Value New method Confidenciality Check Content in short video Content is important Accuracy
Important Issues in Contents
Researcher Video Company
37 40 35 36 38 39 43 44 0 50 Researcher's involvement Media company's leadership Actor One-time
Important Issues in Contents
www.kth.se
