STRUCTURING ENVISIONMENT: USING UNDERSTANDING OF CURRENT PRACTICES - - PDF document

Published in the Proceedings of OZCHI 2001

STRUCTURING ENVISIONMENT: USING UNDERSTANDING OF CURRENT PRACTICES TO DESIGN FOR FUTURE USE

Jennie Carroll1 and Steve Howard1

1Interaction Design Group, Department of Information Systems

The University of Melbourne, Australia 3010 email: jcarroll@staff.dis.unimelb.edu.au ABSTRACT

This paper proposes a process model that provides a structured and systematic way of using scenarios to design for future use. The process model assists designers in moving from understanding of current practices to envisioning future practices and situations of use; a by-product of the process is that the rationale for decisions is documented. Examples from an ongoing research project demonstrate the value of the approach.

KEYWORDS

Scenario based design

• 1. INTRODUCTION

One of the most intractable problems facing developers of interactive systems is designing artefacts for future practices and situations of use. Typically, efforts are made to understand current use that then provides the foundation for predicting or envisioning future use (Kensing and Munk-Madsen 1993). Methods such as interviews, observation or experiments are used to understand current use and designer introspection, future workshops or scenarios are used to envision future use. Currently this provides an idiosyncratic, ‘hit or miss’ approach to the design of artefacts. In this paper, we suggest a more systematic method for using scenarios to design for future technology use. A process model for iterative scenario- based design facilitates ‘stretching’ users’ current understanding in a structured and methodical way. An important by-product is that the rationale for design decisions is documented as an intrinsic part of the

• process. Examples from an ongoing research project into young people’s use of technology are used to

demonstrate the value of the approach. Designers face a number of problems when determining user needs. These include the inability of users to understand or express their current or future needs, the inevitable changes in needs as users learn more about a problem situation and their technological options, as well as the changes that arise in response to external changes (see Holtzblatt and Beyer 1993). Also, context is important: not just the physical and

• rganisational context but also the social or group context and the human or psychological factors that

may operate when users interact with technology. The difficulties in determining user needs are compounded by the fact that users adapt technologies (individual artefacts or systems) once they are delivered to the situations of use. The process of adapting or appropriating a technology for their needs brings new needs to light that may supercede or alter existing requirements (Howard et al. 2001). We have been conducting empirical research into the process of technology appropriation. In particular, young people’s appropriation of technology has been examined and theories induced from the data

• collected. It has been suggested that increased understanding of the process through which a new

technology is appropriated is important for improving the design process (Griffith 1999; Majchrzak et al. 2000). However, we faced the problem of how to use this understanding to improve design. Our focus is

• n understanding young people’s use of technology in their everyday lives and then identifying

breakdowns in current technology use and opportunities for technological innovation. Understanding of current practices or situations of use provides the starting point for envisionment rather than being an end

Published in the Proceedings of OZCHI 2001

in itself: it is important to generate creative ideas for innovation rather than focusing on the current situation which will soon be obsolete (Dahlbom and Ljungberg 1998). This involves trying to envision future users’ personal needs and desires and then designing appropriate technological artefacts rather than exploring technological innovations and then trying to design work or social spaces in which they might be used. Thus the focus is on technology in use not the inherent qualities of the technology itself (Bricklin 2001).

1.1 Scenarios

We have selected scenarios as the method for envisioning future practices and situations of use. Scenarios are narratives that describe typical and significant user activities (Carroll 1994). We sought a method that could provide access to the drivers of technology use (the need to complete tasks, achieve goals or participate in group, leisure or social activities), the barriers to use (such as cost, usability and social mores), the physical and social situations of use (organisational, social and leisure contexts) and the drivers of technology diffusion (including tacit individual and group priorities). Both designers and users need to conceptualise future uses of technology within context; we believe that scenarios fulfill this requirement as they “support reasoning about situations of use, even before those situations are actually created” (Carroll 1994:29). Scenarios enable designers to construct a series of ‘what ifs’ that are grounded in context, to move beyond the limitations of users’ existing experiences and knowledge to perceive some

• f the possibilities provided by technology. However, even with adept use of scenarios these perceptions
• f future possibilities can never be complete; the role of individuals and groups in shaping the technology

cannot be completely forecast. At best designers can use their understanding of users’ needs to design to facilitate future appropriation of new technologies.

• 2. THE STRUCTURED MODEL

We have adapted a process model for qualitative research (Carroll and Swatman 2000) to provide a structured and systematic way of using understanding of current practices to design for future use (see Figure 1).

Analyse Reflect Plan Topic of interest Literature Insights Prior research Present scenarios Visions of future practices & situations

• f use

Initial Conceptual Framework The Envisionment Cycle Series of Conceptual Frameworks

Figure 1: The structured model The structured model has three structural components: an initial conceptual framework which expresses current understanding of the area of interest, a pre-defined envisionment cycle (Plan, Present scenarios, Analyse and Reflect) whereby this understanding is used to plan and present scenarios to facilitate envisionment, and the resulting series of conceptual frameworks that documents the findings from each envisionment cycle. Although it cannot provide the creativity necessary to envision future practices, the structured model does represent a process through which understanding of the way that users shape

Published in the Proceedings of OZCHI 2001

technological artefacts to their needs can be incorporated into design. The structured model is described in detail in the following sections.

2.1 The initial conceptual framework

Understanding of current practices is the foundation upon which envisioning future practices and situations of use is built. An initial conceptual framework graphically represents the main concepts, facts

• r variables of our current understanding and the relationships between them (Miles and Huberman

1994:18). Typically, the conceptual framework is formed as the result of inputs from the topics of interest that will be investigated using scenarios, review of the literature, prior research and insights from practice (from designers or other experts in the area of interest). In our research project, understanding of the process through which young people appropriate technology is represented in the initial conceptual framework shown in Figure 2. This initial conceptual framework or model of technology appropriation (Carroll et al. 2002) formed the starting point for envisioning future situations of technology use that are expressed in scenarios.

Technology

• as-designed

Appropriation criteria:

• Social management
• Contact
• Leisure
• Safety/security
• Lifestyle organiser
• Critical mass

Attractors

• Convenience
• Control
• Usefulness
• Fashion
• Familiarity
• ‘Our stuff’

Technology

• in-use

Process of appropriation Non- appropriation

Disappropriation criteria

• Hidden cost
• Health
• Reception
• Usability
• Learnability

Reinforcers:

• Identity
• Power
• Fragmentation

Filter Disappropriation Appropriation

Figure 2: The initial conceptual model The model represents three stages in the appropriation of technology by young people; these stages are briefly described below (for a full description see Carroll et al. 2001 and 2002).

• The initial acquaintance with a new technology, such as might occur in a shop, involves the

young person examining the artefact and deciding whether to spend time and effort in evaluating

• it. A number of attractors and repellents will act as a filter to this decision (Carroll et al. 2002),

including its potential convenience and usefulness, its style or fashion appeal, the control the user has to configure or change the artefact and whether it is perceived to be young people’s technology (‘our stuff’). If the young person decides against a more thorough evaluation, non- appropriation is the outcome

• Deciding to evaluate the artefact in depth triggers the process of appropriation, whereby the

young person plays and experiments with the technology. Criteria influencing the outcome of this process include the artefact’s value in managing the young person’s social and lifestyle activities; assisting in maintaining contact with such groups as friends, family and employers; ensuring the user’s safety and security; and the extent to which it has been adopted by the user’s peer group. Negative perceptions of an artefact include hidden or unexpected costs; health implications; poor reception; and difficulties in learning and using the artefact. The process of appropriation may be brief or long lasting; eventually, the young person will integrate the artefact into their lives

Published in the Proceedings of OZCHI 2001

(appropriation) or reject it (disappropriation).

• Integrating a technology into their lives is not a one-off decision for young people; persistent use

must be reinforced over time or the young people may reassess their use of the technology and disappropriate it. Three higher-order drivers that reinforce persistent use of a technology are identity and a sense of belonging facilitated by the artefact (“I feel naked without my mobile phone”); the power it provides (“If I’m out drinking and don’t want to talk to my Mum, I just don’t answer it and then I SMS her”); and the ability to build cohesion in a fragmented world (dealing with diverse and geographically dispersed friends and family). Together, these stages describe the influences on young people’s decisions to adopt and shape technologies to their needs. The technology appropriation model was the outcome of our previous research and acts as the foundation for the first envisionment cycle.

2.2 The envisionment cycle

The envisionment cycle is conceptualised as having four elements; although the elements are described as discrete and self-contained, in practice they are fluid and allow much iteration. As a result, the path through the cycle is not linear or deterministic.

2.2.1 Plan

Envisionment of future practices is planned using the conceptual framework as a starting point. The conceptual framework represents a range of concepts and relationships that may be explored; these become the themes of the scenarios that are constructed. Once the themes are selected then scenarios exploring future practices and possibilities are constructed. Designers may use analogy, or similarities with existing situations, or existing theories of activity, which instantiate known categories of human activity in the future context, to anticipate future use (Carroll 1994). The scenarios express the possibilities for these particular users with their needs and practices. They may be produced at different levels of abstraction (moving users’ understanding from the concrete and familiar to the more abstract and unfamiliar) or relating to multiple concepts in the conceptual framework (looking at the interrelationships between key factors and their relative importance to the participants). In our research, we are constructing the scenarios at present. We are selecting one or two appropriation criteria or reinforcers as the theme of each scenario. We are using observations of young people from our earlier research - of opportunities to insert technology or breakdowns in existing technology - to specify the motivation (why) for the scenarios. The contexts of the scenarios (where and when) are derived from our observations and contexts where young people use technology that have been described in the press and academic literature. The scenarios are being written in text and walked-through with designers and a stage director before being enacted by actors and young people. Thus, current use situations, those which will soon become obsolete, provide the springboard for envisioning future situations of use and provide a foundation for extending users’ understandings and desires. Also at this time, the methods of collecting and analysing data arising from the enactment of the scenarios are planned; the choice of analysis techniques depends on the type of data (qualitative or quantitative). This plan is tentative rather than prescriptive; unexpected responses or findings may lead to adaptation

• nce the envisionment cycle has started.

2.2.2 Present scenarios

The scenarios are then presented to the users. Presentation may range from a walkthrough to elicit users’ reactions, to enactment of the scenarios in actual situations of use using prototype technologies or even imaginary props where the participants shape the future technology around their social or work needs. The effectiveness of such enactment can be increased using actors (to reduce the cognitive burden of acting at the same time as enacting a scenario). In our research, we have arranged to use professional actors in the initial enactment, followed by several of the young people who participated in our earlier

• research. The authors and professional designers will observe these enactments. Presentation of the

scenarios as well as retrospective interviews will be recorded using audio-visual media; in addition, the

• bservers’ on-the-spot comments, insights and interpretations will be documented.

2.2.3 Analyse

The data collected during the presentation of the scenarios are then analysed. It should be noted that

Published in the Proceedings of OZCHI 2001

although presenting the scenarios and analysing the data are expressed as separate stages, in practice they will be closely interrelated. During presentation of the scenarios the designers are constantly examining the outcomes and new areas for exploration may arise. As a result, the scenarios will be adapted to respond to the opportunities that have emerged. Analysis will continue after the scenarios have been

• presented. The huge amounts of data are organised and reduced so that the outcomes of enacting the

scenarios, understanding of young people’s use of yet-to-be designed technologies within future situations of use, can be derived. This is an ongoing, iterative task that involves moving between the different sources of data collected from the scenarios at different times and possibly in different situations.

2.2.4 Reflect

Deep understanding of envisioned practices in future situations of use will arise from reflection on the implications of the outcomes for future technology needs. The outcomes of the scenarios are documented and evaluated. Effective scenarios are marked for further, detailed work or enactment by different groups (actors, young people) so that users’ understanding of future situations can be stretched beyond what is known and familiar to what is desirable and even further to what is possible. This documentation acts as design rationale for decisions that are made and also assists in the reporting of the findings. Formal reflection on the outcomes of the envisionment will also involve:

• reviewing the envisionment cycle and assessing the appropriateness of the scenarios, the

effectiveness of their presentation to the participants and the data collection and analysis techniques used. Questions such as ‘did the scenarios extend users’ understanding?’, ‘did they exercise the concepts in the conceptual framework?’ and ‘were they effective in adding to our knowledge of the use of technology in young people’s lives?’ can be used here.

• evaluating the outcomes of the data analysis: challenging current interpretations and seeking

disconfirming evidence for the conclusions drawn.

• examining the implications of the findings: examining ‘what does this mean for the analysis and

design of innovation?’ The designers need to look beyond the immediate outcomes and seek more general patterns and concepts relating to future practices and situations of use. Finally, the designers decide what understanding is to be brought forward from the envisionment cycle and what is to be left behind. The output of reflection is modification of the conceptual framework: the understanding built is incorporated into the conceptual framework, likely areas for innovation are highlighted, unsuccessful scenarios are noted and these decisions are documented. This involves multiple iterations between the data, the tentative findings and the conceptual framework. The updated conceptual framework now reflects current understanding: old understanding plus that accumulated during the envisionment cycle. It then forms the basis for a new envisionment cycle.

2.3 Series of conceptual frameworks

At the end of each envisionment cycle, the conceptual framework is modified. The resulting series of conceptual frameworks and their related scenarios form a set of transient structures, dynamic vessels of knowledge that allow experimentation and change (Lanzara 1999). Some of the scenarios express the designers’ knowledge to date, some their visions of what might be in the future and others the users’ articulations of future needs and desires. Many of the scenarios are temporary: some will be abandoned and others will be stepping stones to more permanent structures. Other scenarios will be retained and so become more stable with each cycle. Over time a ‘tree’ of scenarios exploring a particular theme may be constructed; this provides a rudimentary design rationale at a low-cost to the design team. Users’ interaction with the scenarios is a means of extending their understanding from what they know to what they can conceptualise about the future. Rarely can humans leap from current understanding to understanding of radical innovations as “what we understand is based on what we already know” (Winograd and Flores 1986:30). One role of scenarios in the envisionment cycle is to stretch users’ existing knowledge, to shift them step by step beyond what they have already experienced to what they can comfortably conceptualise (but have not experienced). In this way, designers’ visions of future practices and situations of technology use can be presented to participants who can then provide useful feedback, based on understanding developed through the scenarios, about these visions. If our understanding is based on what we already know, the role of the designers in the envisionment cycle is

Published in the Proceedings of OZCHI 2001

extend this knowledge a little, test it, extend it and test it, therefore shifting users’ understanding beyond the known in a planned and incremental rather than haphazard and random way. The outcome will be fragments of understanding of future practices and situations of use.

• 3. CONCLUSION

We have outlined a process model for incorporating designers’ understanding of current user practices into scenario-based envisionment. The aim is to design for future practices and situations of use, taking into account known influences on users’ appropriation of new technology. We propose using a model of technology appropriation induced from our research project as the basis for designing for the future. This enables us to construct and present a series of scenarios informed by our knowledge of technology appropriation and then to analyse and consciously reflect on the findings in order to extend users’ and designers’ visions of future practices and situations of use.

• 4. REFERENCES

Bricklin, D. (2001). Look to the past to envision the future. Communications of the ACM 44:3, 44. Carroll, J.M. (1994). Making use: a design representation. Communications of the ACM 37:12, 28-36. Carroll, Jennie, Howard, S., Vetere, F., Peck, J. and Murphy, J. (2001). Identity, power and fragmentation in cyberspace: technology appropriation by young people. Proceedings of the 12th Australasian Conference on Information Systems (ACIS 2001), December 2001 (forthcoming). Carroll, Jennie, Howard, S., Vetere, F., Peck, J. and Murphy, J. (2002). Just what do the youth of today want? Technology appropriation by young people. Proceedings of the 35th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-34), January 2002, Maui, Hawaii, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE) (forthcoming). Carroll, Jennie M. and Swatman, P. A. (2000). Structured-case: a methodological framework for building theory in information systems research European Journal of Information Systems 9:4, 235-242. Dahlbom, B. and Ljungberg, F. (1998). Mobile Informatics. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 10:1&2, 227-234. Griffith, T.L. (1999). Technology features as triggers for sensemaking. Academy of Management Review, 24:3, 472-488. Holtzblatt, K. and Beyer, H. (1993). Making customer-centred design work for teams. Communications of the ACM. 36:10, 93-103. Howard, S., Carroll, J., Vetere, F., Peck, J. and Murphy, J. (2001). Young People, Mobile Technology and the Task Artefact Cycle. Proceedings of OZCHI 2001, November 2001 (forthcoming). Kensing, F. and Munk-Madsen, A. (1993). PD: Structure in the toolbox. Communications of the ACM 36:4. Lanzara, G.F. (1999). Between transient constructs and persistent structures: designing systems in action. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems 8:4, 331-349. Majchrzak et al. (2000). Technology adaptation: the case of a computer-supported inter-organizational virtual team. MIS Quarterly, 24:4, 569-601. Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis. 2nd ed., Sage. Winograd, T. and Flores, F. (1986). Understanding computers and cognition: a new foundation for

• design. Ablex.