Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Aalto stanford webinar-on collaborative working ennvironments 2013
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Aalto stanford webinar-on collaborative working ennvironments 2013


Published on

This is a material of Aalto-Stanford webinar on Collaborative Working Environment held on 4th and 5th February 2013

This is a material of Aalto-Stanford webinar on Collaborative Working Environment held on 4th and 5th February 2013

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

No notes for slide


  • 1. Aalto&Stanford,webinar,on, Collabora2ve,Working,Environments, February4thand5th2013 Collabora<onEnvironmentsforGlobalDistributed ProductProcesses(ColPro)2011D2013 hEp:// 2/19/2010,DigitalProductProcess
  • 2. Collaborative Working EnvironmentsWebinar 1: Collaboration needs and practices in global industrial environments: Cases and FindingsFebruary 4, 20138:30-10:20am PST / 18:30-20:30 EETChair: Dr. Renate Fruchter, Stanford UniversityChallenges and Enablers of Global Collaborative Working Environments - Matti Vartiainen andOlli Jahkola, Aalto University • ABB o Global product transfer knowledge Portal=> Finland / Shanghai - Eero Palomäki, Aalto University o Company comment - Kim Kaijasilta, AAC Global • Konecranes o Facilitating Ideation in Innovation Processes - Pekka Alahuhta, Aalto University o Company comment - Olli Kuismanen, KoneCranes • Metso / UPM o Need for collective co-operation - Petri Mannonen, Aalto University o Company comment - Jani Honga, MetsoWrap-up - Renate Fruchter, Stanford University o Corporate partners experiences o Lessons learned from companies after each case presentation o Cross-case DiscussionWebinar 2: Presence and Engagement in Emergent Collaboration EnvironmentsFebruary 5, 20138:30-10:20am PST / 18:30-20:30 EETChair: Dr. Renate Fruchter, Stanford University10 Key Characteristics for Next Generation Collaboration Environments - Renate Fruchter,Stanford UniversityIncreasing awareness and attention in collaboration - Seppo Valli, VTTDeploying cutting edge technologies: success stories and lessons learned o Tomorrow Delivered Today: Immersive Terf Real Customer Use Cases? - Ms. Julie LeMoine, CEO, 3D ICC o Eating Your Own Dog Food: How Microsoft Uses Its Own Collaboration Tools Both On Campus and Off - Dr. Randy Guthrie,PhD Microsoft, Microsoft Technology Evangelist, US-West o Collaboration Tool For Problem Solving in Field Service - Henry Palonen and Kari Niinimäki, Inno-WTEKES Scenario and Plans for the future - Kari Penttinen, TekesDiscussion and Closing Remarks
  • 3. Collaboration Environments for Global Distributed Product Processes (ColPro) 2011-2013 Webinar at Stanford University February 4th to 5th 2013 Prof. Matti Vartiainen & Olli Jahkola, Work Psychology and Leadership, Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Aalto University School of Science 2/19/2010Digital Product Process
  • 4. ColPro: Main goals•! To analyze and design new collaborative working environments (CWE) to develop global product processes,•! To synthesize the state-of-art practices of CWE for globally distributed teams and projects in corporate settings.•! To develop prototype mixed media environments, test them in learning and business settings in order to study the emergent team work processes and product quality improvements, and assess their transformative impacts.The overall results will be a “dashboard for collaboration technology”, (that is: synchronous and asynchronous tools for collaborating on global product data) and organizational practices of implementing, adapting and using it. 2
  • 5. ColPro: research partrners andapproachResearch partners:•! Aalto/TKK (, prof. Matti Vartiainen (coordinator) with his team (Pekka Alahuhta, Olli Jahkola, Emma Nordbäck and Eero Palomäki), & prof. Marko Nieminen and Petri Mannonen (project manager ( and Venlakaisa Hölttä•! Stanford, prof. Renate Fruchter with her team (•! VTT Media technologies, prof. Caj Södergård and Seppo Valli with their team ( AAC Global (Ismo Laukkanen), ABB (Jouni Ikäheimo), DNA (Mikko Knuuttila), Inno-W (Henry Palonen), Konecranes (Olli Kuismanen), Metso Automation (Jouni Pyötsiä), UPM (Heikki Ilvespää)Research approach: Company cases and quasi-experimental studies of interaction episodes collecting data by observations, interviews and questionnaires and by using secondary data 3
  • 6. Basic design settings 4
  • 7. Example of a global team under study
  • 8. Framework to study impacts, inhibitors and facilitators in global teams CONTEXTUAL COMPLEXITY ofA, B, C, D and E = Global Collaborative Working EnvironmentsIndividual life spheres LOCATION OUTCOMES Creativity - e.g. new ideas SOCIAL PHYSICAL RESOURCES RESOURCES Innovativeness - E.g. % of new product revenue, innovative climateTASK COMPLEXITY A B•! Complicatedness Effectiveness•! Interdependence Work-processes – Intra group processes Work processes intra-group processes – performance - E.g. planned vs.•! Ambiguity actual results Well-being - E.g. stress vs. flow INDIVIDUAL VIRTUAL RESOURCES RESOURCES Engagement - E.g. fluency TEMPORARINESS
  • 9. Collaboration practices of Finnish global companies: Data and methods•! The data was collected in eleven companies in e.g. telecommunications, electronics manufacturing, IT services, industrial manufacturing, and technical consulting•! First, a context analysis was made in each company by collecting documents and by interviewing company management.•! A total of 94 interviews were conducted between 2008 and 2011. The interviews lasted between 40-90 minutes and were conducted either face-to-face or via phone.•! The interview sessions, ranging from 45 minutes to 2 hours, were recorded and transcribed and then analyzed with Atlas/ti
  • 10. Findings 1: aggregated list of ICT tools usedin the 12 cases, with counts in parentheses Communication Information/ Coordination Co-operation Group TIME systems knowledge sharing systems systems maintenance systems systems E-mail (12), SMS (4), SharePoint / Intranet (9), Shared calendars (6), - No "Phonebook" with Message board (2) Separate Document Availability/status photos, titles and Asynchronous repository (7), Wiki (4), information (6), interests of team Social media tool (4), Shared task list (1), members (1) Newsletters/mailing lists Project management (3), Blogs (2) tool (1), Ticketing FTP (2), Network drive system (1), (2), SAP (2), CRM tool Miscellaneous tools (1) (3) Phone/VOIP (12), Document/screen/ - No - No Permanently Instant messaging application sharing for open Skype/ Synchoronous (11), web conferences (7) webcam link Teleconferences (8), between two sites Web conferences (1) (8), Dedicated videoconferencing rooms (8) From Jahkola, O. (2013) The role of ICT tools and contextual factors in global virtual teams- MA thesis, p. 30
  • 11. Findings 2: Challenges of using ICT toolsin the 12 cases Communication Information/ Coordination Co-operation Group systems knowledge sharing systems systems maintenance systems systems - E-mail: too many, -! Sharepoint et al.: -! Shared - Not - Group maintenance emotions and hard to find calenders and mentioned appeared to reactions aren’t information, status particularly be available, shortcomings in user- information: no associated with communication in a friendliness/ease of complaints informal foreign language is use, missing version communication, difficult. control. which mostly - Calls, Skype, -! Wikis: can crash and/ happened face-to- OCS, Sametime or be slow. face, via telephone/CHALLENGES etc.: accessibility VOIP, and via IM. and poor UI. - Face-to-face - IM tools: don’t interaction was automatically archive considered a discussions. necessary - Teleconferences: prerequisite, but not background noises. always possible. - Synchronous communication: stressful. - Dedicated videoconference: availability, technical expertise needed. From Jahkola, O. (2013) The role of ICT tools and contextual factors in global virtual teams- MA thesis, p. 35-46.
  • 12. Facilitating and inhibiting factors in global teamwork: an example•! All of the twelve cases were analyzed to identify facilitating and inhibiting factors in global teamwork.•! Facilitating and inhibiting factors were categorized according to the space (mental, physical, virtual, social and organizational) they originated.•! An example: High interdependence: a software development team in a Swedish telecom company called “Sweco” (name changed). Sweco outsourced some software testing to a consulting company “Itcon” (name changed) with employees in India. Swedish/ Indian team was formed and started its work in January 2007. The team consists of seven team members: three people in India and four in Sweden.
  • 13. Case company’s Organizational context “Sweco” team policies C u s t o m e r Social spaces Case company’s company’s Team spirit experience organizational context Trust Virtual spaces C u l t u r a l factors Physical spaces Infrastructure Language Incompatible O f f i c e t o o l s e t s Mental spaces environment Various barriers b e t w e e n N o n - downsides to C e r t a i n stakeholders collocation individual ICT Social competences and traits tools support Silent/conference rooms ICT toolset in general Certain current or potential tools or functionalities Trust and team building through face- Case company’s! "#$%&%#()*!+#$,- to-face and informal communication organizational culture! .)/%0%()*!+#$,-! 1%234!+#$,- From Jahkola, O. (2013) The role of ICT tools and contextual factors in global virtual teams- MA thesis, p. 89.
  • 14. Conclusions•! Companies use a variety of ICT tools in their global collaboration, mostly very basic ones such as e-mail and teleconferences•! Integrated toolsets in ge eral use are still ’on their way’•! Facilitating factors are found in all spaces (mental, physical, virtual and social)•! Inhibiting factors are mostly related to virtual spaces such as Incompatible toolsets between stakeholders and social spaces such as cultural issues•! Organizational policies concerning collaboration need to be developed and improved.
  • 15. Global product-transferknowledge portalFrom Finland to ShanghaiABBAAC Global
  • 16. Case: Two countries & four dimensions of collaboration and communication Usefulness:Finland China SharePoint •! Usage testing The image cannot be displayed. Your computer may not have enough memory to open the image, or the image may have been corrupted. Restart your computer, and then open the file again. If the red x still appears, you may have to delete the image and then insert it again. Portal is here •! Task suitability •! Offices • •! IT systems •! Meeting •! eCWEs • rooms • •! Distributed •! Context work •! Support Physical Virtual The image cannot be displayed. Your computer may not have enough memory to open the image, or the image may have been corrupted. Restart your computer, and then open the file again. If the red x still appears, you may have to delete the image and then insert it again. Mental Social Mirror organization •! Social support •! Mood during • •! Management the project • •! Culture •! Project climate •! People •! Institutions
  • 17. Research questionsRQ 1: What are the collaboration challenges in the case?RQ 2: What was the task suitability of the portal?RQ 3: How having two different cultures affected the distributedcollaboration?RQ 4: How to get project participants use the portal more andbetter?Data collection•! Main data: Interviews (n = 19) of different roles in Finland, Poland, Sweden, China
  • 18. RQ 1: Communication tools•! Company tools in use this project: Phone, email (Lotus Notes), Sametime, visiting face-to-face, portals (PDM, project portal)•! From which employees choose based on: –! Task priority –! Time of the day (time zones) –! Organizational unit (i.e. designers use PDM system to share documents) –! What communication tools were used before the transfer project –! Language skills (written vs. speech) –! Contact network, how familiar the contact is –! Free-time vs. work topic•! Challenges –! Time zones –! Shaky phone lines –! Understanding written vs. spoken English –! Language skills –! Role and personnel changes break contact networks
  • 19. RQ 1: Differing organizational practicesThe virtual team needs tobridge differing organizational ABB Globalpractices despite working Organizationunder the shelf of oneorganization.For example differing ABB Amount of ABBprioritizations, support Sending overlap Receivingresponse times, norms, unit matters! unitsupplier lead times, andregulations create challengesfor the virtual team leader andmembers.
  • 20. RQ 2: Task suitability of the portal•! Quality and implementation is good for sharing information!•! !but other tools and practices in place: Email perceived faster and simpler. Also other local portals used for sharing and communication.•! Good for collecting information and reporting hours. These purposes force people to visit regularly. But still the frequency of usage is low.•! Portal and project model are mainly tools for the project manager and the upper management. They are not so relevant for other team members. ”The main purpose for this portal is for the project manager. [!] For a project member, I just do my own work.”•! PMs edit files in the portal, and can find work hour reports in one place easily. The portal works here as expected.•! However, finding and organizing information has some challenges: Structure of the portal is based on the gate project model, but this model not quite related to daily work in the receiving end !structure of portal is confusing for them.
  • 21. RQ 3: Cultural differences framed thecollaboration•! Way of working (related to cultural differences) –! Some differences were detected in the way of working, but not many affecting daily work. Especially people who have worked in foreign companies adapt well to global team work.•! Language –! No major problems, writing down makes easier to understand –! Shyness, politeness and losing face affect more in communication situations•! Hierarchical boss-subordinate relationships –! Chinese work for their supervisor. A separate project organization might have problems to motivate people to work for the project. –! Your vision is quite restricted, everything comes from your boss. The bigger picture is lost. –! General manager should commit everyone to the extra project beforehand.•! Losing face –! Chinese are a little bit afraid to announce own mistakes. They fear losing their jobs. They take mistakes personally and want to avoid losing face•! Detailed instructions –! Chinese work a lot according to instructions, they will not question or challenge the instructions. In Finnish culture people apply more. –! With limited experience it is harder to make decisions with the fear of losing face. New products would need a detailed documentation as it is hard just to remember everything.
  • 22. RQ 4: Supporting participants use the portal more and better•! We need to improve the perceived usefulness –! Each participant needs to understand the benefits the portal brings to he/his department. (i.e. “Maybe for scheduling. Seeing schedules and status of others.”) –! Define the roles and purpose of each portal, many systems in use outside the project portal: “For engineering we use PDM system. It is used for document transfer from Helsinki. This is also a tool for the communication.”•! We need to improve the perceived ease of use –! “Should be more easier.” Now all documents are put to one basket, because people don’t understand the gate model. And the gate model is the structure of the portal. -> Increase training of the project model. –! Using the portal for sharing seems like extra trouble, when faster email available. –! Ensure good start and a good first impression -> Logins, access, and documents ready. Smooth and speedy operation of the portal to be ensured.•! We need to increase usage –! Attitudes and understanding of the meaning have increased along increased usage –! Project manager influence on usage is major. Portal used when asked, PM should ask more often! –! Portal usage has been made a measurable goal of a project, but how to make it the personal goal of project members?
  • 23. RQ 4: Case through implementationtheory lenseThis seems ok for knowledge Give time here sharing! (1-2 projects/user) You will get here Improve this (meaning, sharing experiences from peers, project model understanding)
  • 24. Facilitating Ideation inInnovation ProcessPekka Alahuhta4th Feb. 2013Pekka Alahuhta
  • 25. Preface•  Konecranes utilizes a global idea management system, to capture the ideas of the personnel.•  Room for improvement? –  Communication and mutual understanding –  Distributed decision-making •  Are radical ideas being dismissed due to errors in communication?•  How collaboration tools and communication patterns can support the innovation process? –  Usage of concurrent web-conferencing systems (MS Lync) –  Potential benefits of emerging collaboration technology (virtual worlds / Teleplace) –  Brainstorming embracing collective creativity?
  • 26. Research Setting: Different collaboration tools inideationCase studies-  10 MS Lync sessions -  Teams were collaborating around an idea. -  Task: Achieve common understanding about the idea => decision to move the idea further or request more information-  6 BrainMerge sessions -  A brainstorm tool and user manual were handed out to teams of Konecranes’ summer workers developing an idea to product. -  Task: Select a question or idea, around which brainstorming might be potentially useful. Pilot the tool.-  5 Teleplace sessions -  Teams collaborating and ideating in virtual world -  Task: Project meeting in virtual environment. Process some acute tasks / problems.
  • 27. Data collection•  Recording the session (+20 hrs)•  Questionnaire (50 answers in total) –  Engagement –  Physical and social space –  Expectations –  Global outcome judgements –  System usability scale (SUS) –  Relationships among the participants –  Overall performance of the group•  Corroborating data –  Contents of Idea Management system related to the selected ideas •  Explanation of the idea •  Comments •  Phase transitions of the idea –  Interviews and discussions with Konecranes’ Innovation experts Presentation Name / Author 19.2.2013 4
  • 28. Data analysis •  Transcriptions •  Video protocol analysis –  Coding –  Boundary objects •  Linkography Linkographic representations •  Survey analysis Diagrams of video protocolTranscribed discussion analysis Presentation Name / Author 19.2.2013 5
  • 29. Artifacts, Facilitation and Transformative Interaction Experiences inDistributed Design Collaboration•  Context: Design Thinking in distributed settings –  Design is viewed as an iterative process •  Starts from identifying the user’s need •  Widening and narrowing of problem space •  Testing + Empathy –  Increasingly global design teams•  Questions: –  How distributed design teams differ in their use of artifacts as boundary objects when communicating in traditional versus emerging collaborative working environments? –  What are the role and tasks of a facilitator and team members in traditional versus emerging collaboration environments?•  Comparing the manifestation of boundary objects and effective facilitation practices in both environments –  Boundary objects => Objects or artifacts, helping to overcome the knowledge barrier among individuals –  Facilitation = > Ways to improve team’s performance
  • 30. Artifacts, Facilitation and Transformative Interaction Experiencesin Distributed Design CollaborationResults•  Boundary objects –  Some boundary objects common for both collaboration environments •  Presentation (images, technical drawings, video clips…) •  Co-authoring (sketching, co-writing..) –  Boundary objects in virtual world •  Parallel processing of multiple boundary objects •  The environment itself can work as a boundary object –  Boundary objects in webconferencing system •  Rich epistemic obejcts / metaphors•  Facilitation –  Interventions classified as technical, process and content interventions –  Present in both collaboration tools ⇒  But different frequencies of interventions •  User experience and results –  Routinized usage of webconferencing system vs. new virtual world –  Similar performance => why?
  • 31. Conclusions-  Global collaboration in product development and innovation processes-  Tools contributing towards distributed ideation -  Collaboration environment supporting the interaction -  Different boundary objects manifest within different tools -  Different environments support different activities?-  Practices contributing towards distributed ideation -  Facilitation overcoming the barriers of distributed teamwork -  Technical facilitation helped the team to overcome usage barriers of a new system -  Process facilitation helped the team to overcome barriers of distributed setting
  • 32. Need For Collective Co-operationBuilding Knowledge Intensive And LocationDependent Problem Solving ServicesPetri MannonenStrategic Usability Research GroupAalto University School of Science
  • 33. Current Organization: IndustrialMaintenance and Support Operator Customer Maintenance man Technical Operator Specialist support Customer center Maintenance Operator man Customer
  • 34. Knowledge Intensive Distributed Services•! Development Trends –! Intelligent and networked equipment in factories –! Aim for higher and higher level of automation –! From situation awareness to true control of processes and equipment –! Maximizing efficiency of human resources•! Challenge –! Building, spreading and maintaining the new competence in the company
  • 35. Future vision: Global Network of Experts Networkd of experts Customer Operator Operator Customer Field Field worker worker Customers Customers Specialist Specialist Field R&D worker Support for collaboration tools and organizational learning
  • 36. Case: Emerging Service – Metso Loop Monitoring•! Proactive maintenance and optimization of the factory –! Automatic ‘component-level’ data collection and analysis to identify sub-optimal process areas and emerging problems –! High-level expertise to plan and execute changes in equipment or software and conduct precise maintenance•! Control Loop and Performance Monitoring aims –! Higher production –! Decrease in production and maintenance costs –! Increase in production quality –! Decrease in environmental emissions –! Improve in safety issues
  • 37. Collaboration and co-operation partners•! Customers with previous experience on the topic•! Customer – factory management•! Customer – engineer/specialist•! Customer – Factory operator•! Field experts (problem owner)•! Field experts with previous experience on the topic•! Global technical support centers•! Service R&D
  • 38. Collaboration and co-operation needs•! Focusing on the main task: problem solving –! Searching, sharing and structuring information –! Adjoined tasks: Learning, information sharing•! Straightforward and light-weight contacting –! Identifying and motivating best available experts•! Good control on information sharing and spreading –! Respecting non-disclosure agreements•! Organizational learning –! Building reusable and findable information
  • 39. Change requirements•! Organizational –! Support and motivation for shared problem solving –! Automatizing meta-tasks (e.g. billing related measurements) –! Capability to create data mining and analysis tools•! Personal –! New problem solving practices –! analog -> digital –! private -> public•! Technical/Tool-wise –! Social network tools –! Robust and flexible tools for information creation and sharing –! Robust and flexible collaboration tools –! New data mining and analysis tools
  • 40. Petri.Mannonen@aalto.fiStrategic Usability Research groupAalto University School of Science
  • 41. 10 Key Characteristics forNext Generation Collaboration Environments Dr. Renate Fruchter Founding Director Project Based Learning Laboratory (PBL Lab) © Stanford University
  • 43. 10 Key Characteristics forNext Generation Collaboration EcoSystems1. Foster co-creation, inter-action, and co-action2. Transform the way participants express ideas and solutions3. Enrich formal and informal interaction experiences4. Increase awareness, attention, participation, & engagement5. Sustain persistent presence of content & models in context6. Leverage knowledge in context and collective competences7. Facilitate transparency8. Maximize flexibility, remixing, & repurposing9. Create emergent work practices, processes, & social dynamics10. Create and manage choice
  • 44. M3RRemote Collaboration in Mixed Media Mixed Reality Fusion of Physical, Virtual, and Mobile Worlds iRoom 3Di Collaboration Team Space Physical World Virtual World Smart Phones Mobile WorldSponsors & Partners: [Fruchter, Ivanov, Bharath, 2012]
  • 45. Content-in-Context:Real Time Situation Status, Explore and Make Decisions iRoomPhysical World 3DiVirtual World
  • 46. Persistent Product Models & Content in ContextRiver2012: Digital and Virtual Presence in Collaborative Environment With Rich Media Content and 3D BIM Building ModelMadison Stanford Stanford Germany Stanford Denmark
  • 47. From Stacks of Content to Spreads of Content in ContextApplication Sharing (e.g. GoToMeeting) Immersive Virtual World (e.g. 3DICC) 3D Team NeighborhoodCognition Cognition•Attention ~3 docs •Attention•Memory # Shared •Memory•Correlation Documents •Correlation•Capacity •Capacity•Multitasking •No Multitasking # Shared Documents
  • 48. Attention and Awareness Distribution Web conferencing Application Sharing 3D Team Neighborhood • Meetings held in the 3D Team Neighborhood kept participants’ attention 24% more time on the task, more often and longer time - than in meetings held with Web conferencing - application sharing. • Multitasking during meetings: - 3D Team Neighborhood NONE or MINIMAL - Web conferencing application sharing TYPICAL BEHAVIOR[Fruchter and Cavallin, 2011]
  • 49.
  • 50. Increasing awareness and attention in collaboration VTT work in ColPro Aalto – Stanford webinar, 5th February 2013 Seppo Valli VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland 05/02/2013 2 Contents1. Some theory and lessons learned About terminology Why supporting awareness is important? Bill Buxton’s spaces for collaboration About classification of collaboration systems2. Increasing awareness and attention: VTT Hydra Main question and starting point Cocktail Party Effect Hydra by Buxton, Microsoft and VTT Findings What next?3. Short reflection 1
  • 51. 05/02/2013 3 Part 1: Some theory and lessons learned 05/02/2013 4 About terminology Collaboration = working together jointly, in interaction Attention = act of listening and looking sth/sb The process whereby a person concentrates on some features of the environment to the (relative) exclusion of others Awareness = [having knowledge on] agents + attentions + actions + artefacts 1) Awareness includes having knowledge on the context, i.e. indirect information of the [collaboration] situation The concept of deixis (in linguistic) is comparable to awareness (here in space!)1) “A for Awareness” (A4A), as formulated by S.Valli 2012 2
  • 52. 05/02/2013 5 Why supporting awareness is important? Awareness is particularly helpful for communication processes Collaboration requires intensive use of senses, i.e. human input and output interfaces Senses (human “front end”) are a scarce resource and a bottleneck in collaboration Awareness (incl. gaze awareness) reduces cognitive load in this [front end data] processing Awareness leaves more capacity to higher cognitive processes Cf. “Data-to-Wisdom continuum” (HoU) 05/02/2013 6 Data-to-Wisdom continuum, a.k.a. Hierarchy of Understanding (HoU)Figure: Data-to-Wisdom continuum (Gene Bellinger 2004; 3
  • 53. 05/02/2013 7 Bill Buxton’s “spaces of collaboration” Spaces (writer’s interpretation: “functionality categories”) needed in collaboration [Sellen1992]: Personal space, i.e. support for communication Task space, i.e. supporting tools for collaboration (sc. groupware for jointly refining data to information and knowledge) Reference space, i.e. support for referencing (awareness) between the two above The above division is a good example of high level classification for collaboration systems Buxton’s classification emphasises the importance of awareness, especially space (positions, directions, relations, etc.) as context Classification is generally a challenging task due to multiple factors (dimensions) affecting collaboration Cf. e.g. those by Andriessen2003 and Wolff2006 05/02/2013 8Part 2: Increasing awareness and attention: VTT Hydra 4
  • 54. 05/02/2013 9 Main question and starting pointWhat makes face-to-face collaboration “the gold standard” incollaboration [Nardi2002]?A good candidate for an answer is the gaze awareness in face-to-face meetingsA straightforward way to enable gaze awareness is the Hydrasystem reported by Buxton (e.g. 1997)Hydra was implemented and demonstrated by VTTVTT focus was in personal space (communication)Multi-party 3D viewing was implemented for groupware (cf. taskspace) 05/02/2013 10 The Cocktail Party Effect: Human ability to discuss with people in noisy environment How to exploit this ability in networked communication? 5
  • 55. 05/02/2013 11 Hydra and the Cocktail Party Effect Cocktail party effect refers to the human ability to follow discrete discussions in a “cocktail party” situation More generally, is not just a matter of auditory perception, but of audio-visual signal separation Hydra type of telepresence system aims to replicate the “cocktail party” communication protocol over network, for both video and audio This is achieved by supporting separate AV channels between each and every participant Visual cues (gaze, lip movements, gestures, etc.) are for big help even when the audio is monaural => better quality and awareness Little can be done if all the signal sources are bundled together already when being captured, as e.g. in conventional videoconferencing systems 05/02/2013 12 Hydra replicates the “Cocktail Party Protocol” over network VTT Hydra Full Mesh Geometry audio/visual space Directional audio and video with knowledge of their origin = source separationI cannot understand who I can see who is being looked at!is being addressed &looked at! Figure modified from eSoundTM ; 6
  • 56. 05/02/2013 13 A look is worth a thousand words!”Eye-contact (gaze awareness) intensifiescommunication and builds trust (cf. Andrew F.Monk and Caroline Gale, 2002).In conventional videoconferencing, gaze is notconveyed correctly due to parallax error (cf.image to the right)Technical means to support true gaze Figure: Displacement ofawareness between multiple remote users is the camera from theneeded display causes parallax error => eye-contact isGaze awareness in relation to commonly viewed disturbedobjects are needed 05/02/2013 14 Personal telepresence system “Hydra” (cf. Hydra by Buxton 1997)Straightforward way to convey gaze (facial direction)Each remote participant is represented by a terminal with display,camera and microphoneTerminal are connected by a full mesh (n2-n connections, where nis the number of sites; cf. Metcalf’s law) Full Mesh Geometry 7
  • 57. 05/02/2013 15MS Personal Telepresence Station (Zhang, 2009) MS Personal Telepresence Station ( us/news/features/personaltelepresencestation-030909.aspx) 05/02/2013 16Snapshots of three party collaboration with VTT Hydra (ColPro project demonstrations 2012) The local partner (“you”) is discussing with another party who is being looked at also by the third (right) The local partner (“you”) is an observer for the two other to discuss (left) 8
  • 58. 05/02/2013 17Associated groupware SW in Hydra: 3D viewing in browser environment [Siltanen2012] Video conferencing Instant messaging linked to the selected 3D model component Enables storing conversation history that is linked to the conversation context. Static information linked to 3D model (e.g. maintenance instructions) 05/02/2013 18 Scenario for Hydra: Mobility with tablets (iPads or alike) 9
  • 59. 05/02/2013 19 Remarks on VTT Hydra performance Awareness is improved the closer the surrogates are to the real physical setting (cf. next slide) The original Hydra system was implemented with very small terminals and displays => gaze awareness was not disturbed by the parallax difference between the camera and display Early experience from VTT’s Hydra system suggests that correcting the above mentioned parallax is necessary • Various means to correct eye-contact exist • A straightforward and rather good way is to interpolate the view using e.g. two cameras on opposite sides of the display • Requires ability to capture several cameras and enough processing power • Better accuracy with more complex methods, e.g. with 3D sensors 05/02/2013 20Three-way Distributed Collaboration (by Tang 2010)Figure: Social surrogates (“Hydra” terminals) in a natural physical setting[Tang2010] 10
  • 60. 05/02/2013 21 Future steps with Hydra Audio needs further consideration Video transmission implementation with WebRTC (is started) Browser based implementation for more flexibility, portability, and ease of further development Increasing the number of participants (>3) Improving and enhancing the groupware for 3D viewing User studies(!) True gaze awareness(!)Options, e.g.: Using tablets as display (and interaction) devices Integrating VTT’s multi-touch table for interaction Information visualisation functionalities in 3D, Mixed Reality, etc. 05/02/2013 22 Part 3: Short reflection 11
  • 61. 05/02/2013 23 Summary: Awareness in collaboration space Physical world is naturally organized in 3D, making good use of spatial relations (directions and distances, i.e. locations) In most videoconferencing, collaboration, and telepresence systems spatiality is not typically exploited Awareness = [knowledge on] agents + attentions + actions + artefacts Collaboration space = sum of virtual and physical spaces > physical space We need new solutions to support “Awareness in collaboration space” Slightly more specifically, we need: Communication and groupware solutions supporting multi-party interaction and awareness 05/02/2013 24 ReferencesAndriessen, J.H.Erik (2003). Working with the groupware. Understanding and evaluatingcollaboration technology. London: Springer.Buxton, W., Sellen, A. & Sheasby, M. (1997). Interfaces for multiparty videoconferencing. In K. Finn,A. Sellen & S. Wilber (Eds.). Video Mediated Communication. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, pp. 385-400.Hollan, J. and Stornetta, S. (1992). Beyond being there. In Proceedings of CHZ’92, ACM, N.Y., 1992,pp. 119-125.Andrew F. Monk and Caroline Gale (2002). A look is worth a thousand words: full gaze awareness invideo-mediated Conversation. Discourse Processes, 1532-6950, Volume 33, Issue 3, 2002, pages257 – 278.Bonnie A. Nardi, Steve Whittaker (2002), The Place of Face-to-Face Communication in DistributedWork, in “Distributed Work”, edited by Pamela Hinds and Sara Kiesler, MIT Press, 2002.Pekka Siltanen, Seppo Valli (2012), Web-based 3D Mediated Communication in ManufacturingIndustry, CE2012, 12 p.A.Tang, M.Pahud, K.Inkpen, H.Benko, J.C.Tang, B.Buxton (2010), Three’s Company: UnderstandingCommunication Channels in Three-way Distributed Collaboration, CSCW2010, pp. 271-280.Wolff, R., Roberts, D. J., Steed, A. & Otto, O. (2006), A Review of Tele-collaboration Technologieswith Respect to Closely Coupled Collaboration, International Journal of Computer Applications inTechnology (IJCAT), 29(1), pp.11-26. 12
  • 62. 05/02/2013 25 Contact: VTT - 70 years oftechnology for business and society 13
  • 63. Immersive Terf™ Real Customer Use CasesTerf™ Training/Meeting Center Layout by Jim Linehan Terf™ Construction Project Layout by LeMoine
  • 64. TopicsEnterprise Impact Harness Clinical Trials Training Game Global Coaching Global Transformation TeamTruthful Insights3D ICC & Terf™ Advances  Corporate Changes  Technology Roadmap
  • 65. Julie – Who? 25+ Years Innovation & Adv Tech Highlights Co-creator ARPANet protocols for IP router security now standard in all Internet routers (IETF Chair)Julie LeMoine Lead Security Architect for largest Intranet everCEO, 3D ICC built Security systems on Space Shuttle Early collaboration from chat to video Serial Entrepreneur – 5 companies 2004 Top 10 Woman to Watch in Technology in Ah, ha years! New England (MIT & Mass High Tech) First Entrepreneur in Residence at Simmons Post Grad, MBA program Founded & Ran Ctr For Adv. Collaboration for Fidelity Investments in Technology ThinkTank CEO & Founder at 3D ICC
  • 66. Brings…   They are / have…   members, customers, users, …    Via…   Natural, “like real” locations       3D ICC Confidential, not for reuse with Source: The Immersive Enterprise by LeMoineout written authorization from 3D ICC
  • 67. Enterprise Harness of Immersive Terf™ (In-World Snapshot)3D ICC confidential & proprietary ;no distributed with out written Source: The Immersivepermission from 3D ICC Enterprise by LeMoine
  • 68. © Immersive Terf Core Features in Action Tools  3D sound  Chat  Whiteboarding  Live Video  Streaming Video  Screen Share  Stickynotes  co-create : mouse and keyboard share Whiteboarding, PPT, Excel, Word…3D ICC confidential & proprietary ;  2D and 3D Creationno distributed with out writtenpermission from 3D ICC  Contextually Accurate Locations
  • 69. Impactful Harness Examples: Clinical Trial Training Game Global Coaching Global Transformation3D ICC confidential & proprietary ;no distributed with out writtenpermission from 3D ICC Source: Social Insides by LeMoine/Rudkoswki
  • 70. Professionals = Gamer Sweet Spot Games Selection 1. “Hard” problems • Better, Faster, Cheaper 2. Require no specialty training / skill 3. No overlap with associate’s main job 4. Limited level of effort to contribute 5. Elicit engagement e.g., “good citizenship” toward firm or Customers/Clients3D ICC confidential & proprietary ;no distributed with out writtenpermission from 3D ICC Source: Social Insides by LeMoine/Rudkoswki
  • 71. Gaming Hard Stuff Problems that require Us (not just computers)3D ICC confidential & proprietary ;no distributed with out writtenpermission from 3D ICC Source: Social Insides by LeMoine/Rudkoswki
  • 72. 3D ICC confidential & proprietary ;no distributed with out written Terf © Example Use Casespermission from 3D ICC
  • 73. - Goals - Review & - Concept Socialize - Outreach - Pilot Design - Updates - Update - MarCom & Content & Launch Kit - Learnings - Draft - Expanded Script Experience launch - Prepare -Deployment Org & Tracking Admin / Details Mgmt3D ICC confidential & proprietary ;no distributed with out writtenpermission from 3D ICC Source: The Immersive Enterprise by LeMoine
  • 74. …So far •80% Thumbs Up on Experience •4 technical issues •Almost 100% participation by their Reps3D ICC confidential & proprietary ;no distributed with out writtenpermission from 3D ICC Source: The Immersive Enterprise by LeMoine
  • 75. Impactful Harness Examples: Clinical Trial Training Game Global Coaching Global Transformation3D ICC confidential & proprietary ;no distributed with out writtenpermission from 3D ICC Source: Social Insides by LeMoine/Rudkoswki
  • 76. 3D ICC confidential & proprietary ;no distributed with out written Terf © Example Use Casespermission from 3D ICC
  • 77. Impactful Harness Examples: Clinical Trial Training Game Global Coaching Global Transformation3D ICC confidential & proprietary ;no distributed with out writtenpermission from 3D ICC Source: Social Insides by LeMoine/Rudkoswki
  • 78. 3D ICC confidential & proprietary ;no distributed with out written Terf © Example Use Casespermission from 3D ICC
  • 79. • Its “shiny new” • Not all “gamers” or tools are equal Familiarity, terminology, likes/dislikes, dexterity, features, security… • Gaming frivolity & right timing push-back • Console vs. Computer vs. Hollywood Expectations, Quality, Expenses • Impact content doesn’t create itself Creating content takes SMEs 3D is not Web Design • Everyone’s an expert3D ICC confidential & proprietary ;no distributed with out writtenpermission from 3D ICC Source: Social Insides by LeMoine/Rudkoswki
  • 80. Recreation Enterprise Tool User Motivation & Time Commitment •Recreation : Entertainment, play as much as possible •Enterprise: Work, not play, lowest level commitment possible for impact Recreation Value Proposition • Recreation: sell site/game itself, create following • Enterprise: Reduce costs, make $, solve problems, improve service, increase knowledge, innovate/create/brainstorm… Fun vs. Ease •Recreation: Challenge is part of the fun • Enterprise: Must be easy to do, looking for that “least amount of effort for impact” factor Tool3D ICC confidential & proprietary ;no distributed with out writtenpermission from 3D ICC Source: The Immersive Enterprise by LeMoine
  • 81. Brings…   They are / have…     learners, team members…  Via…   Natural, “like real” locations       3D ICC Confidential, not for reuse with Source: The Immersive Enterprise by LeMoineout written authorization from 3D ICC
  • 82. 1  Purchased all of Teleplaces IP  Owns OpenQwaq IP outright plus much more 2 Rebranded platform : Immersive Terf or Terf platform 3 Moved platform to 100% commercial ◦ Purchas of Teleplace & commercial license for H.264 use 4 Hired CEO: Serial Entrepreneur & Collaboration Expert ◦ Significant Growth in customer base ◦ Established standard pricing and reseller channel 5 Prelaunch of Corporate Website ◦ Improved support for prospects and customers3D ICC confidential & proprietary ; no distributed with out written permission from 3D ICC
  • 83. 3D ICC’s Terf™ Roadmap Summary Terf© Platform 2013 Roadmap Terf© Platform IE, Safari, FireFox, Chrome Current Vision Impaired- NVDA New Python Apps SIP Endpoint Support Performance Enh. Mobile: Slate/Smart Phone OpenQwaq Teleplace  + Vision Impaired (JAWS) Group mgmt. Server Cloud Provisioning RDP support Qwaq  IE Browser ClientCroquet  SSL Support Video sound sync & encoding enh. SAML 2.0 Auto-provisioning Update help & You Tube Videos And more…3D ICC confidential & proprietary ; no distributed with out written permission from 3D ICC
  • 84. Distributed Agile Global Class Room Construction Project Mgmt. & Urban Planning Conferences / Corporate Awards3D ICC confidential & proprietary ; no distributed with out written permission from 3D
  • 85. 3D ICC confidential & proprietary ;no distributed with out written Terf © Example Use Casespermission from 3D ICC
  • 86. Agile Team Mantra To be highly performant, co-location is a must3D ICC confidential & proprietary ;no distributed with out writtenpermission from 3D ICC 25
  • 87. LOCATION TRANSPARENCY? NOPE…We need a location where wecan all be,regardless of where we all …be…3D ICC confidential & proprietary ;no distributed with out writtenpermission from 3D ICC 26
  • 88. persistent + visceral, easy + large but affordable Code + address hybrid (groups & individual remotes) + ecosystem supportive Global Agile Team Rooms3D ICC confidential & proprietary ;no distributed with out writtenpermission from 3D ICC 27
  • 89. 3D ICC confidential & proprietary ;no distributed with out written Terf © Example Use Casespermission from 3D ICC
  • 90. 3D ICC confidential & proprietary ;no distributed with out written Terf © Example Use Casespermission from 3D ICC
  • 91. 3D ICC confidential & proprietary ;no distributed with out written Terf © Example Use Casespermission from 3D ICC
  • 92. 3D ICC confidential & proprietary ;no distributed with out written Terf © Example Use Casespermission from 3D ICC
  • 93. • Text messaging• Voice• Lync Mobile• E-Mail
  • 94. “NOT AN OFFICIAL TEKES SCENARIO – Tekes MY THOUGTHS ABOUT future ?MORE scenario and plans for theIMPORTANT FACTORS AND ACTIONS Kari Penttinen 5.2.2013 Copyright © Tekes
  • 95. Contents:1.  Where we come from2.  Drivers and needs for collaboration3.  Currect Tekes -activities Copyright © Tekes
  • 96. Background in agriculture, forests and lakesOnly two generations ago !We understand now completely that the high living standard comes fromexport, global markets and networks Copyright © Tekes
  • 97. Textile industry, Paper making, Electronics manufacturingNew industries like Gaming industry, software industry in general aredeveloping new skills in younger generations Copyright © Tekes
  • 98. How the world is changing from our point ofview? This change is even much faster in manufacturing and it has changed the businesses already a lot Copyright © Tekes
  • 99. This starting point is important to know when we think about ourcompetencies as well as our weaknesses as a nation!Technology is usually easy for us but some other skills need to bedeveloped? Copyright © Tekes
  • 100. "Ageing cannot be seen as a problem" In his first such address since taking office last spring, NiinistöThere’s a lot of discussion about the demographic change referred to Finland’s rapidly- growing imbalance betweenThe President pointed out that the ageing of people pensioners and people of is not a problem – it’snatural and can not be seen as a reason econimical working age. problems “The public debate often emphasises the impact ofCan Finland change the culture and working life fastdemographic changes on the enough to utilizeforeign labour force from other countries and in general to collaborate we economy,” he said. “Yetwith different cultures efficiently ???? must not forget that ageing is a natural part of life. It cannot be seen as a problem.” Copyright © Tekes
  • 101. A lof of studies and attention to our ICT cluster has been paid during thelast few year – this study is one of them and still available Copyright © Tekes
  • 102. The importance of growing companies in SME –sector is clear Copyright © Tekes
  • 103. The way we do R&D and innovate has to change from traditional R&D toInclude more new business and service innovations Copyright © Tekes
  • 104. Finnish Industry foresight – eBusiness Finnish SME companies are able ot penetrate international markets independently both in B2B and B2C Technology industry companies increased their foreign staff by seven per cent - domestic personnel figures grew only slightly. SME’s have to focus on international business – have they realized the Independent global SME Finnish exportof eBusiness ? potential sales actors with their own growth depends product and service mainly on the growth offering of large companies Part of international network BYOD=bring your own devices Cloud services for business applications Key-customer IT Consumerization, focus on usability driven business Social media, Crowdsourcing, 3D printing SaaS services for business IT Single Euro Payments Area (SEPA) RosettaNet, Databases, Data warehouses 2002 2012 2022 Copyright © Tekes
  • 105. Near future? Like in all implementation of new technologies – the users are the biggest challenge This is what the management has to understand However, Gartner, Inc. estimates that through 2015, 80 percent of social business efforts will not achieve the intended benefits due to inadequate leadership and an overemphasis on technology. Source: by_2016_50_percent_of_large_organizations_will_have_internal_facebook- like_social_networks_says_gartner.aspx?goback=%2Egde_3454994_member_210511913 Copyright © Tekes
  • 107. The ManufacturingNet pointed out this scary observationWe are in the middle of ”race against the machines” ! Copyright © Tekes
  • 108. Is this the way to go - ?A simple diagram from Tekes Liideri –program presentation Copyright © Tekes
  • 109. Other more technology focused program activities from Tekes:Learning Solutions – The objective of the programme is to developinternationally important learning solutions in cooperation withparticipants in the sectorSkene – Games Refueled - By launching the Skene programmefocusing on value networks in game development, Tekes aims tostrengthen the Finnish game industrys position at the global top bycreating an internationally significant game and entertainmentcluster in Finland. Copyright © Tekes
  • 110. Thank you!There’s a real for good developmentproject and high level research in order toget more understanding and knowledge inthis area.Kari  Pen)nen  Senior  Adviser,  M.Sc.(Eng.)  Products,  Produc:on  Systems  and  Manufacturing  Technologies  Programme  Manager,  Digital  Product  Process  -­‐programme  Tekes,  Finnish  Funding  Agency  for  Technology  and  Innova:on  P.O.Box  69  FI-­‐00101  Helsinki,  FINLAND  tel.  +358  1060  55916,  mobile  +358  50  5577916  kari.pen)   Copyright © Tekes