College 5: Designing and Evaluating Groupware

60
College 5: Designing and Evaluating Groupware Dr. Mari Carmen Puerta Melguizo

description

College 5: Designing and Evaluating Groupware. Dr. Mari Carmen Puerta Melguizo. Overview: A bit about…. CSCW Groupware systems Designing and evaluating Groupware. Remember. Distributed work & virtual groups - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Transcript of College 5: Designing and Evaluating Groupware

Page 1: College 5: Designing and Evaluating Groupware

College 5: Designing and Evaluating Groupware

Dr. Mari Carmen Puerta Melguizo

Page 2: College 5: Designing and Evaluating Groupware

21-04-2321-04-23

Overview: A bit about…

CSCW

Groupware systems

Designing and evaluating Groupware

Page 3: College 5: Designing and Evaluating Groupware

21-04-2321-04-23

Remember Distributed work & virtual

groups Because of the distributed

nature of their interaction they are more or less dependent on groupware systems

interpersonal communication more difficult : lack of non-verbal signals, unplanned encounters, context awareness…

difficulty in collaboration, coordination, developing trust, exchanging knowledge

ICT tools have to match with the type of group and its task and to support the group processes

Page 4: College 5: Designing and Evaluating Groupware

21-04-2321-04-23

Remember GroupWare

Technology that people use to work together Collaborative tasks supported

E-messages distributed Scheduling Voting Off-line discussion Distributing and storing electronic documents...

CSCW Study of how people work together as a group and how technology

supports/affects it Social issues

People bring in different perspectives and views to a collaboration environment

Goal of GroupWare is often to establish some common ground and to facilitate understanding and interaction

Page 5: College 5: Designing and Evaluating Groupware

21-04-2321-04-23

Designing Groupware More difficult than traditional software

E.g. Ease-of-use must be better for groupware than for single-user systems because the pace of use of an application is often driven by the pace of a conversation

Groupware design involves understanding

groups and how people behave in groups

E.g. million-person groups behave differently from 5-person groups

the performance parameters of the technologies to support different groups vary…

networking technology and how affects users

E.g. delays in synchronizing views The World Wide Web and its associated

tools and standards have had a major impact on the possibilities for GroupWare (Berners-Lee, 1999). These group tools require

Browser & plug-ins Also problems with security in

internet: development of middleware and Grid Technologies

Page 6: College 5: Designing and Evaluating Groupware

21-04-2321-04-23

Designing Groupware The design and introduction of GroupWare is more

successful if (Andriessen, 2003): The users (stakeholders) concerned are involved in the various

stages of the process E.g. User-centred design: exploring stakeholders reactions with

scenarios and prototypes E.g. participative design: involving stakeholders in the whole design

process. Users help develop the information system and their own workplace

The wider context is taken into account and tools and organizational context match

The organization is also adapted technical innovation cannot operate without organizational innovation

design and utilisation of GroupWare requires understanding from both technology & organisational change

Page 7: College 5: Designing and Evaluating Groupware

21-04-2321-04-23

Designing Groupware

understanding the co-operation technology related decisions are context

dependable & require understanding of the work process

methods & their utilisation takes time & resources requires training changes with the context of design & use

Page 8: College 5: Designing and Evaluating Groupware

21-04-2321-04-23

Activities Analysing the context of use

Current situation The future

Detail design Functionality Dialog Representation

Evaluation Usability, easy of use,

likeability…

Implementation

Iterative Process

Task Model 1

Task Model 2

Functionality

Dialog

Representation

maintainingconsistency

Evaluation

The design process

Implementation

Page 9: College 5: Designing and Evaluating Groupware

21-04-2321-04-23

work

organization/

practice

Client

users’

knowledge/

behavior/needs

Technology

Task Model 1

Task Model 2

Scenario

Simulation

Prototype

Functionality

Dialog

Representation

Implementation

usability

measuring

Contextual analysis

Mental models

Knowledge acquisition

problem

analysis/

specification

specification/

negotiation

constraints/

opportunitiesfeedback

specificationearly evaluation

early

evaluationUVM maintaining

consistency

Documents/

artifacts

validity analysis

Page 10: College 5: Designing and Evaluating Groupware

21-04-2321-04-23

Analysis of task, contexttechnology, stakeholders

Development of Future Usage Scenarios

Identification of Stakeholders’success factors

Choice of Evaluation approach

Iterative tests of prototypes

Designrequirements

Iterative design and implementation

Identification of technologicaland organisational options

Use, experience, adaptation of new system

ConceptEvaluation’

Prototype Evaluation

OperationalEvaluation

Analysis of potential impacts

Page 11: College 5: Designing and Evaluating Groupware

21-04-2321-04-23

work

organization/

practice

Client

users’

knowledge/

behavior/needs

Technology

Task Model 1

Task Model 2

Scenario

Simulation

Prototype

Functionality

Dialog

Representation

Implementation

usability

measuring

Contextual analysis

Mental models

Knowledge acquisition

problem

analysis/

specification

specification/

negotiation

constraints/

opportunitiesfeedback

specificationearly evaluation

early

evaluationUVM maintaining

consistency

Documents/

artifacts

validity analysis

Page 12: College 5: Designing and Evaluating Groupware

21-04-2321-04-23

When designing an innovative product, it is important to make sure the new product has some add value• Improving already existing possibilities• Providing new possibilities

designing taking into account the whole context of use

Modelling Current situation The future

1. Analysing the context of use

Page 13: College 5: Designing and Evaluating Groupware

21-04-2321-04-23

The context of use the users: identifying stakeholders and their requirements

Designers must have an understanding of the degree of homogeneity of users, of the possible roles people play in cooperative work and of who key decision-makers are and what influences them

The individual user’s needs and requirements mental models, knowledge, user acceptance, satisfaction, safety…

The groups, communities of practice and organizations that will be using the groupware system

Group communication, Identify power structures and roles…

the work The tasks and work practice

E.g. general info on how people work in many different settings (airports, hotels) Equipment: hardware, software and materials

the context of work or situation The physical environment The social environment: Organizational structure, Organizational culture and

routines…

Page 14: College 5: Designing and Evaluating Groupware

21-04-2321-04-23

Identifying the stakeholders and their requirements

Stakeholders Primary

people who actually use the system: end-users Buying your plane ticket online

Secondary People who receive output from the systemor provide input to it

Airline staff Tertiary

People directly affected by the success or failure of the system and are not primary or secondary

competitors Facilitating

People involved in the design, development and maintenance of the system

Design team

Conflicting goals and needs

Page 15: College 5: Designing and Evaluating Groupware

21-04-2321-04-23

Studying Work practices and group behaviour Not only formal routine work, but also informal

and local practices

Methodologies Semi-structured interviews Questionnaires Document analysis… Ethnography

Can’t ask workers about their work process (they can’t observe themselves). One can instead observe users (and participate) and then analyse

Contextual analysis Distributed Cognition

Page 16: College 5: Designing and Evaluating Groupware

21-04-2321-04-23

Contextual analysis Going to the real situation to explore the impact of the systems in the

organizations Organizational structure and routines analysis

Organizational culture and history group and national culture

E.g. In individualistic cultures (EU, USA) people prefer direct expression of opinions; In virtual groups they prefer synchronous communication, through telephone, video and chatIn collectivist cultures (Asia, Africa) people are sensitive to non-verbal signals and group relations. In virtual groups people prefer asynchronous communication, to be able to express themselves more carefully: e-mail

Socio-political analysis different groups of interests; how the implementation of the system change the

power relations in the organization

Analysis of work-related meanings, world thoughts/interpretations analysis different interpretations/meanings in relation with the system by managers, IT

and HCI people

Page 17: College 5: Designing and Evaluating Groupware

21-04-2321-04-23

Some personal examples

Manufacturing Company Zeta

Dutch Police Force

Assurance Company Y

Banks in different countries (The Netherlands and Romania)

Page 18: College 5: Designing and Evaluating Groupware

21-04-2321-04-23

Manufacturing Company Zeta Setting:

collaboration with the User Interface Design team

Problem: complains from different groups of end-users from different

organizations regarding the user interface

Findings: cultural issues at level of end-users: national and occupational

culture (related especially with the language/jargon) Interface Communication between different types of users was also affected

strategic issues at the level of organizations Permission and access to tools in the interface by different users

Page 19: College 5: Designing and Evaluating Groupware

21-04-2321-04-23

Dutch Police Force Setting:

collaboration with Usability specialists from Dutch Police Force

Problem: the design of a new integrated crime information system

Findings: national level:

different systems – problems in sharing knowledge and knowledge management

local level: culture of the regions impact on the use of the system : flexibility vs.

hierarchical occupational cultures impact on the use of the systems: officers vs.

detectives

Page 20: College 5: Designing and Evaluating Groupware

21-04-2321-04-23

Assurance Company Y Setting:

Collaboration with Marketing and ICT department

Problem: The low percentage use of the software of the company by the

assurance agents working in different organizations

Findings: The resistance to use the systems was not due to the usability of

the systems (which was high, measured with SUMI) but to the fact that systems do not support the work processes and

the goals of the agents as they should Using scenarios (personas) for the re-design of the software

Page 21: College 5: Designing and Evaluating Groupware

21-04-2321-04-23

The X Bank Setting:

Collaboration with ICT managers of the bank

Problem: user dis(satisfaction) with IT (bankshops)

Findings: system design-related factors

reliability, speed of the systems, navigation structure…

organizational-related factors lack of feedback, help-desk perception, ICT department perception,

managers’ attitude towards the technology, the issues of implementation of new systems, training, cultural factors…

Page 22: College 5: Designing and Evaluating Groupware

21-04-2321-04-23

work

organization/

practice

Client

users’

knowledge/

behavior/needs

Technology

Task Model 1

Task Model 2

Scenario

Simulation

Prototype

Functionality

Dialog

Representation

Implementation

usability

measuring

Contextual analysis

Mental models

Knowledge acquisition

problem

analysis/

specification

specification/

negotiation

constraints/

opportunitiesfeedback

specificationearly evaluation

early

evaluationUVM maintaining

consistency

Documents/

artifacts

validity analysis

Page 23: College 5: Designing and Evaluating Groupware

21-04-2321-04-23

Functionalityspecifying want the tool will do to the user; strongly related to the task

Dialoghow the user and the system will communicate; commands? menu?

Representationhow the system looks like

Maintaining consistency!!!

2. Detail Design

Page 24: College 5: Designing and Evaluating Groupware

21-04-2321-04-23

More designing issues

Formal vs. informal communication: awareness Socially vs. Technologically Mediated

Communication Customization and grounding Session control Floor control Privacy and anonymity Sharing Information, Identification, and

Accountability Avoiding abuse…

Page 25: College 5: Designing and Evaluating Groupware

21-04-2321-04-23

Designing for communication Formal and informal communication

formal communication is used to coordinate routine tasks

brief, informal communication such as spontaneous hallway conversations can help establish trust, promote social relationships and provide background information about the work environment

Groupware systems have to incorporate a way of having awareness!!!

Awareness of location and activity of other people

Page 26: College 5: Designing and Evaluating Groupware

21-04-2321-04-23

Awareness

Implicit communication helps to establish common ground coordinate activities avoid surprises…

indirect gestures What is happening?, Who is there (e.g. IM buddy list) information about people's environment (whether their

office door is open or closed) biographical information (what their job position is) letting them know what document you're working on, or how you're feeling at any given time…

Page 27: College 5: Designing and Evaluating Groupware

21-04-2321-04-23

Awareness e.g. flight progress strips in air traffic

control are on the focus for discussions and activities

and meaningful conversations themselves vocabulary and syntax of annotation and the

order of strips are a language that makes sense for experienced observers

Page 28: College 5: Designing and Evaluating Groupware

21-04-2321-04-23

Awareness Awareness information takes many

forms Synchronous awareness

Real-time audio-video systems (e.g. chat systems with buddy lists)

Videoconferencing: a wide-angle camera lens can provide a greater degree of environmental awareness

Asynchronous awareness Using e-mail, online calendars… to find out

when people are available Email: information about the time and date of

the message or the signature file of the sender

awareness can be at odds with privacy concerns important to give users control over how

much information about themselves is made available to others

Page 29: College 5: Designing and Evaluating Groupware

21-04-2321-04-23

Designing technologies to support greater awareness

Media spaces - “extend the world of desks, chairs, walls and ceilings” (Harrison et al, 1997) Examples: Clearboard, Portholes and Cruiser

Notification systems Users notify others as opposed to being constantly

monitored (cf Portholes) Provide information about shared objects and

progress of collaborative tasks Examples: Tickertape, Babble

Page 30: College 5: Designing and Evaluating Groupware

21-04-2321-04-23

Clearboard (Ishii et al, 1993)

ClearBoard - transparent board that shows other person’s facial expression on your

board as you draw

Page 31: College 5: Designing and Evaluating Groupware

21-04-2321-04-23

Portholes (Xerox PARC)

Regularly updated digitized images of people in their offices appeared on everyone’s

desktop machines throughout day and night

Page 32: College 5: Designing and Evaluating Groupware

21-04-2321-04-23

Tickertape (Segall and Arnold, 1997)

Tickertape is a scrolling one-line window, going from left to right

Group name, sender’s name and text message

Page 33: College 5: Designing and Evaluating Groupware

21-04-2321-04-23

Babble (IBM, Erickson et al, 1999)

Circle with marblesrepresents peopletaking part inconversation ina chatroom.

Those in the middleare doing the mostchatting.

Those towardsthe outside are less active in the conversation.

Page 34: College 5: Designing and Evaluating Groupware

21-04-2321-04-23

Socially vs. Technologically Mediated Communication If the type of communication structure of the group is known, systems

can take advantage of the structure to speed up communications and minimize error

Exceptions to the expected structure of communication are extremely common technologically-mediated communication may actually be an obstruction to

getting work done efficiently and may lead people to not use a groupware system or use it incorrectly

The designers need to anticipate the range of communication possibilities

Facilitation vs. Enforcement Take the common structure of communication to make tasks more

straightforward e.g. by providing a "quick send" button that routes a message to the appropriate

person But make sure any kind of message can be sent regardless

Thus, the communication is technologically-facilitated but not technologically-enforced

Page 35: College 5: Designing and Evaluating Groupware

21-04-2321-04-23

Customization and grounding When groups are working together with the same information, they may

individually desire customized views

The challenge of customized views is to support grounding: the establishment of a common ground or shared understanding of what information is known and shared between the different users.

E.g. a healthcare setting a physician talks to a lab technician about a patient and have access to the same patient

record each may want a view on their computer screen which selects and emphasizes different

pieces of information This may cause confusion when a given piece of information is readily available to one

person and not the other. Another concern is if one user chooses to display exceptional values in red and another chooses to display exceptional values in blue, different users may be confused

When working together on the same screen, this inconsistency can result in dangerous miscommunication.

In communication situations, it's important to make it very clear what information is private and what is shared

as much as possible, make it clear what information the other user is seeing (e.g. provide a miniature or summary view of the other person's screen)

In all cases, be sure to maintain consistency of the data. Users should never see spurious or irreconcilable differences.

Page 36: College 5: Designing and Evaluating Groupware

21-04-2321-04-23

Session control situation where a group of people are in a conversation together at a

given time (e.g. chat)

Metaphorically, session control is like a person standing at the door of a room checking IDs and deciding who gets to go in Session control issues include finding out what rooms are available,

determining who can enter and exit the room, and when and how

some suggested policies for session control: Decide what limits there are to who can join a session. Are there limits to

the number of people or to who is qualified to enter? Allow people to join and leave at any time. Provide a "polite" protocol for

doing so Avoid intrusive situations where users are able to invade privacy or impose

a session on others Provide a means for preventing interruptions Facilitate people getting together. Provide mechanisms for identifying

appropriate conversational partners. Provide a means for setting up side conferences

Page 37: College 5: Designing and Evaluating Groupware

21-04-2321-04-23

Floor control Once people have joined a conversational session, it must be decided

what kind of access each person has to shared artifacts, or conversational props E.g. in a shared whiteboard, everyone can draw on it at the same time

(simultaneous access), or only one person can access it at a time (by passing a token, or baton), is there a moderator who controls access, and is there a time limit for each person?

Simultaneous access by everyone to everything is often preferred for the most fluid conversation, but it can be vulnerable (especially with a large number of people)

The advantages to providing some kind of mediated access include preventing mistakes, preventing unauthorized access, and avoiding people making conflicting changes.

some intermediate solutions are also possible E.g. there can be multiple whiteboards. Some may be personal and others

shared. Personal whiteboards may be visible to other users but non-editable by other users. This allows everyone to work simultaneously without interfering with the work of others.

Page 38: College 5: Designing and Evaluating Groupware

21-04-2321-04-23

Privacy and anonymity Whenever using groupware, some information needs to be

shared, and all other information remain private and secure even against aggressive attempts to obtain the information

In many situations, users choose to be anonymous or use a consistent pseudonym. Anonymity can be crucial in encouraging fair participation in discussions and is useful for providing protection from harassment

Negative: You don’t know who the person communicating with you is. Can

result in “flaming” and similar nuisances. Positive:

Reduce the effects of power hierarchies (you don’t care as much when you e-mail your boss as when you talk to him)

Helps people speak their minds. Electronic chat may be used for meetings to get honest opinions

Page 39: College 5: Designing and Evaluating Groupware

21-04-2321-04-23

Sharing Information and Identification

there is continuing pressure to share more information. The more information gets shared, the more easily common ground can be achieved

Sharing information about yourself enables many systems to provide more useful customization and matching to your interests

while anonymity can protect an individual, there are also quite legitimate reasons for identifying people for accountability, especially where security and the risk of abusive behaviour are involved

Page 40: College 5: Designing and Evaluating Groupware

21-04-2321-04-23

Sharing Information and Identification

Control and Reciprocity To resolve these conflicting needs, it's

important to give users as much control as possible over what information gets shared and what remains private

One example of privacy policy is the principle of reciprocity

if a user wants information about another user, then they must provide the equivalent information about themselves. Reciprocity isn't always the right policy, but serves as a useful starting point.

Page 41: College 5: Designing and Evaluating Groupware

21-04-2321-04-23

Avoiding abuse

Spamming with email Taking inappropriate advantage of

anonymity, sabotaging group work, or violating privacy…

Page 42: College 5: Designing and Evaluating Groupware

21-04-2321-04-23

work

organization/

practice

Client

users’

knowledge/

behavior/needs

Technology

Task Model 1

Task Model 2

Scenario

Simulation

Prototype

Functionality

Dialog

Representation

Implementation

usability

measuring

Contextual analysis

Mental models

Knowledge acquisition

problem

analysis/

specification

specification/

negotiation

constraints/

opportunitiesfeedback

specificationearly evaluation

early

evaluationUVM maintaining

consistency

Documents/

artifacts

validity analysis

Page 43: College 5: Designing and Evaluating Groupware

21-04-2321-04-23

Quite challenging Need more participants Logistically difficult Difficult to generalize from one situation to another

As soon as you start making decisions!!! a. Concept evaluation: e.g. scenarios b. Prototype evaluation: e.g. prototypes c. Operational assessment

Usability, easy of use, likeability, acceptance of use…

3. Evaluation

Page 44: College 5: Designing and Evaluating Groupware

21-04-2321-04-23

Evaluation methods1. Inspection methods

Heuristic Evaluation Cognitive walk-through

2. Laboratory studies Performance analysis (Human Reliability Analysis) Behaviour analysis (Diagnostic Recorder for Usability Measurement (DRUM) factors related to social settings or to activity are impossible to study in laboratories

3. Field studies and ethnography group processes evolve over time (days, weeks, even months)

4. Effort and satisfaction Measuring the Usability of Multi-Media Systems (MUMMS) MultiMedia Communication Questionnaire (MMCQ)

5. Network performance

6. System usage and interaction registration Automatic registration of the use of the system Coding schemes for communication content

Page 45: College 5: Designing and Evaluating Groupware

21-04-2321-04-23

Conducting user studies on system prototypes More difficult that with single-users systems

Organizing and scheduling for groups is more difficult than for individuals

Pre-established groups vary in interaction style, and the length of time they've been a group affects their communication patterns

Groups are dynamic and change, roles also change

Many studies need to be long-term, especially when studying asynchronous groupware

Modifying prototypes can be technically difficult because of the added complexity of groupware over single-user software

In software for large organizations, testing new prototypes can be difficult or impossible because of the disruption caused by introducing new versions into an organization

Page 46: College 5: Designing and Evaluating Groupware

21-04-2321-04-23

Evaluation issues (Andriessen, 2003)• Describe the tool characteristics:

• reliability, portability, maintainability, network performance, costs, infrastructural quality, security/privacy and evaluate whether this is adequate (ISO-9126)

• Describe the functionalities

• Analyse the task and evaluate whether the functionalities fit the task

• Analyse the users and evaluate whether the tool fits the users (usability)

• Analyse the group (structure, culture, setting) and evaluate whether the tool fits the group

• Evaluate whether the tool supports (or at least does not hinder) the group processes: communication, co-operation, co-ordination, learning, social interaction

• Evaluate whether the tool contributes to (or at least does not hinder) individual, group, organisational outcomes.

• Evaluate to which extend the tools can be adapted to learning and new uses

Page 47: College 5: Designing and Evaluating Groupware

21-04-2321-04-23

work

organization/

practice

Client

users’

knowledge/

behavior/needs

Technology

Task Model 1

Task Model 2

Scenario

Simulation

Prototype

Functionality

Dialog

Representation

Implementation

usability

measuring

Contextual analysis

Mental models

Knowledge acquisition

problem

analysis/

specification

specification/

negotiation

constraints/

opportunitiesfeedback

specificationearly evaluation

early

evaluationUVM maintaining

consistency

Documents/

artifacts

validity analysis

Page 48: College 5: Designing and Evaluating Groupware

21-04-2321-04-23

Often more complicated feedback and network delays architectures for groupware feedthrough and network traffic purchase, installation and maintenance of

multiple applications

4. Implementation

Page 49: College 5: Designing and Evaluating Groupware

21-04-2321-04-23

Feedback and network delays

At least 2 network messages + four context switches With protocols 4 or more network messages

screenfeedback

user types

localmachine

client

remotemachine

server

remoteapplication

12 3 4

579 8 6

network

Page 50: College 5: Designing and Evaluating Groupware

21-04-2321-04-23

should have the objectives of (Andriessen, 2003): developing a new system in line with the existing

organizational structure, culture and processes

learning to work with and to manage the new system: training and preparation

developing acceptance of the innovation, thereby preventing or reducing resistance to changes

The implementation process

Page 51: College 5: Designing and Evaluating Groupware

21-04-2321-04-23

Adoption and Acceptance Groupware systems cannot be successful unless a critical mass of

users chooses to use the system E.g. a videophone is useless if you're the only one who has one

most common reasons for failing to achieve critical lack of interoperability

In the 90s, AT&T and MCI both introduced videophones, but their two systems couldn't communicate with each other. This lack of interoperability/compatibility meant that anyone who wanted to buy a videophone had to make sure that everyone they wanted to talk to would buy the same system

Compatibility issues lead to general wariness among customers, who want to wait until a clear standard has emerged

lack of appropriate individual benefit Disparity individual/group benefit: discussed in game theory as the prisoner's

dilemma or the commons problem To solve this problem, some groups can apply social pressure to enforce

groupware use (as in having the boss insist that it's used), but otherwise it's a problem for the groupware designer who must find a way to make sure the application is perceived as useful for individuals even outside the context of full group adoption

Page 52: College 5: Designing and Evaluating Groupware

21-04-2321-04-23

If not… Failure of implementing an EES (Employee

Evaluation System supporting the personnel management function) at a Chemical Company

Differences between actual culture (real culture of the organization) presumed culture (the culture designers assumed the

organization have)

The design company went bankrupted because of this

Page 53: College 5: Designing and Evaluating Groupware

21-04-2321-04-23

Presumed culture

(designers)

1. innovation and action orientation in order to achieve maximal profitability

2. Risk taking encouraged

3. management is centralized and formal horizontal communication prevail.

Actual culture (company)

1. CC afford to act conservatively because of the favorable environment

EES resisted because was perceived as an innovative action.

2. CC could maintain success without risk taking; CC managers believed in “playing safely”

EES was resisted because was perceived as a danger to stable labor relations

3. CC had mainly informal communication and plant managers were semi-independent from the top management

EES was resisted because information sharing and EES formalities were not desired within the plants, nor did they foster communication within CC top management

Page 54: College 5: Designing and Evaluating Groupware

21-04-2321-04-23

Why groupware fails (Grudin) Organisational factors that influence the acceptance of

groupware

Disparity in work and benefit additional work may be required from individuals who do not perceive a

direct benefit

Critical mass and Prisoner’s dilemma problems groupware may not enlist a critical mass of users to be useful or it may not

be to any individual’s benefit to use

Disruption of social processes it may violate social taboos or threaten existing power structures

Exception handling it may not support the wide range of exception handling and improvisation

associated with group activity

Page 55: College 5: Designing and Evaluating Groupware

21-04-2321-04-23

Why groupware fails (Grudin) Unobtrusive accessibility

features that support group activity are usually used less frequently and need to be unobtrusively integrated with other features

Difficulty of evaluation difficulty of generalisation makes it hard to learn from experience

Failure of intuition intuition in product development is poor for multi-user applications

The adoption process groupware requires more careful introduction in the workplace

Page 56: College 5: Designing and Evaluating Groupware

21-04-2321-04-23

Some rules for success Groupware is part of a social system

Design not for a tool as such but for a new socio-technical setting Groupware changes organisational culture. Plan for it!

Design for several levels of interaction user friendly interaction, adequate interpersonal communication, group co-

operation and organisational functioning

Design in a participative way users and possibly other stakeholders should be part of the design process

from the beginning

Analyse carefully the situation of the users technology should match their skills and abilities, and also their attitudes,

otherwise resistance is inevitable

Analyse carefully the context The more a new setting deviates from the existing one the more time,

energy and other resources should be mobilised to make it a success

Page 57: College 5: Designing and Evaluating Groupware

21-04-2321-04-23

Some more rules for success Introduce the new system carefully

Apply proper project management Pick a pilot project rather than major rollout Pick a project with a group that is supportive of technology and

innovation Pick a project with visibility, and productivity or learning impact Pick groupware based on a specific problem that needs to be

solved Listen to the people involved in pilot project

Train and support end-users extensively

Measure success conditions and success criteria before, during and after the development process to cost-justify groupware implementation

Page 58: College 5: Designing and Evaluating Groupware

21-04-2321-04-23

Some more rules for success Plan for a long process of introduction, incorporation, evaluation and

adaptation

Groupware is not a quick fix – no single groupware product can do it all

Keep options open for new ways of working with the groupware, because this may result in creative and innovative processes Don't be afraid to make changes – learn as you go

Make sure software you pick fits with existing systems or doesn’t compromise them

You can’t change people overnight – be prepared for resistance, make it fun

While people take time to change, organisations take longer

Groupware can be very political – need to strive for a win/win outcome

Page 59: College 5: Designing and Evaluating Groupware

Werkcollege: assignment

Page 60: College 5: Designing and Evaluating Groupware

21-04-2321-04-23

Evaluating BSCW Your group

Print 2 copies of the questionnaire you created to evaluate BSCW

During the werkcollege: Pass the questionnaire to the members of another group

Each of them have to answer the questionnaire As a group: They have to assess the quality of your questionnaire

Does it cover all of the important issues? Are the questions properly done? Which ones are ambiguous? Compare with their on questionnaire

Your group Analyse the results of the 2 questionnaire in relation to BSCW

In the werkcollege Discussion of findings in relation to BSCW Discussion about quality of questionnaires, difficulties creating it, measures for

improvement… Groups interchange their assessment and ways to improve the tests

Participate in the discussion!!!!