Mega Collaboration Interface
-
Upload
guest8c177f -
Category
Technology
-
view
982 -
download
0
description
Transcript of Mega Collaboration Interface
THE MEGA-COLLABORATION
INTERFACE
Inspiration and Development
InspirationFrom Hurricane Katrina to Mega-Collaboration
Familiar Disaster Lessons
Large disasters like Hurricane Katrina offer familiar lessons.
Responders need to gather information from diverse and unexpected sources.
Responders also need to use the information effectively.
There is limited information access in the disaster zone.
But many of the important decisions are made elsewhere.
An agile, ad hoc response is needed. Modern technology must support this.
Emerging Social Phenomena
There is a rush to organize: Ephemeral groups (Farnham)
Hastily Formed Networks (Denning)
Grassroots Self-Organization A trade-off emerges between:
Command-and-Control Efficiency Creative Response to:
Unforeseen Problems Volunteered Resources
Mega-Collaboration happens: Thousands of people spontaneously collaborate over
the internet
Mega-Collaboration Requirements
There are several aspects to collaboration if enormous virtual teams are to be effective.
Participants must to come to agreement on: The problem definition Group norms Individuals’ roles
They must capture information and know how to pass it to those who need it.
They must make decisions by forming a consensus among massive numbers of participants
Collaboration Mechanisms
Teammates establish common ground by combining their individual mental models of the problem into a team model.
Convergent processes: Information Pooling Cognitive Consensus
Divergent processes: Specialization Transactive Memory
Transmission of Information to the Appropriate Expert
MCTThe Mega-Collaboration Tool
MCT Design Goals
This collaboration tool will go beyond existing social networking tools.
The basic functional unit will consist of two interfaces: The data entry interface will allow easy entry,
categorization, and visualization of large amounts of critical data.
The interaction interface will support the formation of ad-hoc teams and the engineering of collaboration protocols for negotiation of coordinated action.
These basic units will be coordinated with a third, agent-augmented mixed-initiative interface.
In this way, we hope to break any large problem into small pieces and solve it in a coordinated manner.
Advantages
This approach allows the combination of unstructured chat with structured knowledge-building.
It splits a team of unlimited size into unlimited sub-teams of limited size.
The communication and processing power of the Internet can then be used to coordinate both intra-group and inter-group interactions of these sub-teams.
Constraints
Users must have the ability to gain access to the MCT.
Users must be interested in joining a team and in helping each other.
Users must be able to learn the interface quickly and under stressful conditions.
Users must understand both the interface and the subject matter well enough to develop and negotiate data models and action plans.
DevelopmentThe Phases of MCT
Iterative Design Process1. Initial use cases
2. Conceptual Designa. Paper Prototype -> Focus Groups -> Specs
b. Working Prototype of the Sub-Team Interface
3. Phase 1 Prototype – Initial testing of the MCTa. Effects on team-building and decision-making
b. 23 participants -> 4 Test Teams, 4 Control Teams
c. Test team had full interface, control team only chat
d. Used pre/post surveys, analyzed chat/artifacts
4. Phase 2 Prototype – Redesign and Follow-Up Testinga. 10 participants for requirements gathering using previous
interface
b. 10 participants -> 5 using previous interface, 5 using new one
c. Tested five basic data entry and manipulation tasks
Current Use CasesType User
Motivating Goal for Use
Local Emergency Responders
District Fire Superintendent
Determination of Priorities
Volunteer Labor Organizations
Firefighters’ Union Coordinator
Resource Coordination
Non-Profit Aid Organizations
Red Cross Coordinator
Resource Coordination
Military Organizations
National Guard Coordinator
Response Activity Tracking
Federal Emergency Responders FEMA Coordinator
Jurisdiction Coordination
Concerned Common Citizens Store Manager
Resource Donation
Volunteer Workers Social Worker Resource Donation
Volunteer Experts Computer ExpertTechnology Donation
Affected Individuals RelativeRescue of Family Members
Interactions to be Supported
Stakeholders Formal Responders
Victims and Families
Volunteers
Types of Interaction Person to person
Group to group
Human to agent
Interaction RequirementsID Interaction ID Interaction1 Find Site 10 Develop Mental Models
2 Use Site 11 Negotiate Group Models
3 Find Area of Interest 12 Vote
4 Participate 13 Take Turns
5 Converse 14 Exchange Information and Resources
6 Create Team 15 Form Teams of Agents
7 Join Team 16 Agent-Mediated Playoffs
8 Leave Team 17 Inter-Group Negotiation
9 Disband Team 18 Provide Help
User Interface
Results from Testing Users wanted flexible categories.
Alternative hierarchies Temporal versus logical organizations
Users wanted capable data handling. Bulk input Cut and paste Free-form manipulation Chain manipulation
Users wanted flexible interaction sequencing. Emergent leadership helped and should be
supported. The merging of models increased data organization.
FuturePlans for What Comes Next
Powerful Data Manipulation
Rapid input and output of data Abstraction and Type Development
Move from a set of everything…
To many sets of specific types of things
Define the relationships between the sets
Requires cut and paste of entire structures
The Data Tree
Engineered Collaboration Protocols
Initial collaboration design in prototype:1. Each individual creates a data model.
2. Individuals look at each others models.
3. Individuals take turns building the team model.
4. Team elects a leader.
5. Leader develops action plan.
Possible alternative design using thinkLets1. Free Brainstorm
2. Fast Focus
3. Multi-Criteria
Ultimate Goal: The team dynamically designs the design
What is a ThinkLet?
A thinkLet is a facilitation intervention that creates a predictable, repeatable pattern of collaboration among people working together toward a goal.
It includes everything a designer needs to reproduce this pattern of collaboration.
It is the smallest unit of collaborative activity that the process designer can manipulate.
The ThinkLet Description Document
ThinkLet name – descriptive and/or metaphorical Choose this thinkLet… – list appropriate uses Do not choose this thinkLet… – list inappropriate uses Overview – give a brief narrative description Inputs – enumerate what is needed to start Outputs – enumerate what deliverables will result Setup – describe the necessary preparations Steps – describe each step of the procedure Insights – discuss how and why it works, tips, pitfalls Success stories – describe examples of successful field
use What’s in a name – explain how the thinkLet got its
name
Engineered Collaborations
The Problem
with Dynamic Design:
Extensive New Testing
Validation Considerations User testing to date has used static scenarios. But lives hang in the balance in a real disaster. The MCT must be tested in a safe environment that
effectively mimics real-world disaster conditions.
Disaster Simulation With the expansion of our research team we have
gained access to such a test bed. The NeoCITIES disaster simulator is
A computer-based scaled-world simulation Designed to mimic the situation assessment and resource
allocation tasks of distributed emergency crisis-management teams.
The NeoCITIES Disaster Simulator
The group activity consists of distributed individuals: Jointly gathering information about emergency events, Allocating the appropriate type and quantity of resources
to address these events Detecting emerging threats and patterns of activity from
an underlying scenario
This experimental approach provides a holistic assessment of distributed cognition by: Providing real-time challenges Allowing the tool to be used in addressing these
challenges Supporting intra and inter team communication measures
The Test Environment
Agent-Mediated Coordination
The autonomous software agents use data-mining techniques to compare the models of all the sub-teams.
Small-worlds networking principles are used to link the agents to each other.
Collaboration among the agents then leads to suggestions for collaboration among the sub-teams.
Representatives from each sub-team are sent to a “playoff” team.
Information from the playoff team then feeds back to each sub-team.
The Concept
The Concept
The Concept
The Development Team Chris Newlon
Graduate Student PhD Candidate Informatics, Indiana University, Indianapolis,
IN Anthony Faiola
Executive Associate Dean, IU School of Informatics Director, Media Informatics and Human-Computer
Interaction Ph.D. Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN (2005)
Karl MacDorman Associate Professor, IU School of Informatics Ph.D. Computer Science, University of Cambridge, UK
(1996)
Himalaya Patel Graduate Student M.S. Candidate HCI, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN
Mark Pfaff Assistant Professor, IU School of Informatics Ph.D. Information Sciences and Technology The Pennsylvania State University (2008)
Gert-Jan de Vreede, Kayser Distinguished Professor and Director, Center
for Collaboration Science, University of Nebraska at Omaha
PhD Organizational Change, Delft University of Technology
Questions?Discussion and Clarification