Your SlideShare is downloading. ×

Service Frames

1,115

Published on

My presentation from UX Australia 2011. …

My presentation from UX Australia 2011.

I discussed some recent research from the QUT Airports of the Future project's Human Systems team. I explored how to make better sense of people's actions and experience during service interactions using the concept of frames.

Published in: Design, Technology, Business
1 Comment
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,115
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
1
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • \n
  • Hi!\n\n\n
  • I work at the People and Systems Lab, at QUT in Brisbane. We do research at the intersection of Culture, Context, People and Activity. \n
  • My colleagues and I have backgrounds in industrial design, interaction design, architecture, computer science, sociology, psychology and, I kid you not, primatology.\n
  • We focus our research on design activites that happen before design has started and on finished artifacts. We teach our students about early stage design and design and development.\n
  • We focus our research in three areas. AotF research falls under our “Experience and expertise” banner, but also draws on research from “intuitive interaction” and “context of use”.\n
  • We have a usability lab, which we use for controlled experiments, but we also do a lot of research in the field. We use sophisticated software to aid our analysis of the data we collect. We often collect video data, but where that’s impossible we can take logging software with us on PDAs. We’ve also just purchased Tobii glasses.\n
  • In 2010 we were part of a successful ARC Linkage Grant application called “Airports of the Future”. We’re working with engineers, computer security experts, business-process modellers, risk analysts and mathematicians who work in the field of complex systems to look at some aspects of airports. We’re partnered with most of the major capital city airports in Australia, and most of the government stakeholders too.\n\nOur part is called “Human Systems”. We look at how passengers use and experience airports. Later, we’ll start to also look at the experience of staff in the airport.\n
  • Service design is the new new thing. There’s been a lot of effort put into how to design services. It's essential that designers understand their materials. As much as business processes and business goals, people and their actions are the materials of service design. \n\n\n
  • Service design is the new new thing. There’s been a lot of effort put into how to design services. It's essential that designers understand their materials. As much as business processes and business goals, people and their actions are the materials of service design. \n\n\n
  • Chinese char is “a frame, a stand, a rack. framework or scaffold.to lay on a frame; to put up”\n\nWhat ways are there to understand how people use and understand services? [ask for input? ethnography, observation, surveys, focus groups etc.] These are data collection methods. But what do you do with that data? You need a way to understand it. One way to understand how people act in the world is called a frame approach. There’s a lot of theory about what a frame approach actually means, but rather than bore you with theory, I’m going to explain some of our work at airport security.\n
  • Chinese char is “a frame, a stand, a rack. framework or scaffold.to lay on a frame; to put up”\n\nWhat ways are there to understand how people use and understand services? [ask for input? ethnography, observation, surveys, focus groups etc.] These are data collection methods. But what do you do with that data? You need a way to understand it. One way to understand how people act in the world is called a frame approach. There’s a lot of theory about what a frame approach actually means, but rather than bore you with theory, I’m going to explain some of our work at airport security.\n
  • First, I'll give a really quick overview of what we do; then I'll talk about what we found and finally I'll say something about what it all means.\n\n
  • First, I'll give a really quick overview of what we do; then I'll talk about what we found and finally I'll say something about what it all means.\n\n
  • First, we get in. Getting in to an airport with a kit of videocameras and tripods is a task in itself. But, basically, from the airport itself and from the individual stakeholders. When we're observing specific people, for example all the way from curbside to boarding, we have their permission too. When we observe a mass of people, we, and our ethics committee at QUT, have decided that an airport if effectively public space.\n\nAs I mentioned, we take video. Sometimes we get video from the airport's security system, but most of the time we take our own. \n\nSometimes we take video of specific passengers who've agreed to let us follow them. Sometimes we put cameras in one place and let them run for 30 minutes to an hour.\n\nWe use regular consumer-grade HD video cameras. The only thing we change about them is we spec them with the highest capacity battery we can get. Some of my colleagues have spent upwards of 5 hours in the airport following volunteer passengers, and they haven't run out of charge.\n\nFor every hour we spend taking video, we spend at least two hours, and often closer to 3 or 4, watching and re-watching it. We don't just watch it, we "code" it using Noldus Observer. If you've coded video in Morae or something like that, you're familiar with the process.\n
  • First, we get in. Getting in to an airport with a kit of videocameras and tripods is a task in itself. But, basically, from the airport itself and from the individual stakeholders. When we're observing specific people, for example all the way from curbside to boarding, we have their permission too. When we observe a mass of people, we, and our ethics committee at QUT, have decided that an airport if effectively public space.\n\nAs I mentioned, we take video. Sometimes we get video from the airport's security system, but most of the time we take our own. \n\nSometimes we take video of specific passengers who've agreed to let us follow them. Sometimes we put cameras in one place and let them run for 30 minutes to an hour.\n\nWe use regular consumer-grade HD video cameras. The only thing we change about them is we spec them with the highest capacity battery we can get. Some of my colleagues have spent upwards of 5 hours in the airport following volunteer passengers, and they haven't run out of charge.\n\nFor every hour we spend taking video, we spend at least two hours, and often closer to 3 or 4, watching and re-watching it. We don't just watch it, we "code" it using Noldus Observer. If you've coded video in Morae or something like that, you're familiar with the process.\n
  • Here's an example of some video coding from Phil Kirk. There’s three people in this chart, and it represents about 2 hours of observed time in the Brisbane International airport from curbside to boarding. This coding exists at three levels. At the primary level, there's the basic distinction between processing time and discretionary time. Then there's the location of the passenger at check-in or security or in the shops or in the cafe. And then there's the passengers' activities.\n\nTo give you an idea of the scale of just Phil’s part of the project, he’s completed more than 50 observations. Each observation lasts as long as the volunteer is in the airport, which in some cases has been more than 5 hours. And then producing the sort of chart you see here takes at least twice as long as the observed time for each person.\n\nBut that's an end-to-end process. Today I'm just talking about security.\n
  • I'm not going to talk about how long things take at security. We’ve got papers about that. There are no bar-charts in this talk. Bar charts are boring. Here's some stories.\n\n
  • Rules - tetragram for “law or model”. Flux - tetragram for “change”.\n\nThe first thing about Airport Security is that, like the stock market, it’s largely stable and yet always in flux. Not only does the actual legislation get updated from time-to-time but the implementation of the legislation is left up to each airport (or security contractor). So you get the situation where, for example at Brisbane, iPads don't need to be removed from bags but at Rockhampton, they do. Same rules, different implementation.\n\n
  • Rules - tetragram for “law or model”. Flux - tetragram for “change”.\n\nThe first thing about Airport Security is that, like the stock market, it’s largely stable and yet always in flux. Not only does the actual legislation get updated from time-to-time but the implementation of the legislation is left up to each airport (or security contractor). So you get the situation where, for example at Brisbane, iPads don't need to be removed from bags but at Rockhampton, they do. Same rules, different implementation.\n\n
  • Complicating this further is that the rules are contextual and are sometimes based on things that are not apparent.\n\nThese differing rules leads to a lack of knowledge on behalf of passengers. Now, this lack of knowledge is hardly the passengers fault, but it leads to delays.\n\nOne of the main causes of delays is that passengers in line ask questions. In some of the earliest research we did, we saw that one of the main factors that causes a queue to form sooner than it might is passengers reaching the head of the queue and stopping to ask if their water bottle can be taken through security.\n
  • Complicating this further is that the rules are contextual and are sometimes based on things that are not apparent.\n\nThese differing rules leads to a lack of knowledge on behalf of passengers. Now, this lack of knowledge is hardly the passengers fault, but it leads to delays.\n\nOne of the main causes of delays is that passengers in line ask questions. In some of the earliest research we did, we saw that one of the main factors that causes a queue to form sooner than it might is passengers reaching the head of the queue and stopping to ask if their water bottle can be taken through security.\n
  • Lack of knowledge of the process doesn't just cause people to lose their water bottle, it can actually lead to them deciding to abandon the screening process altogether. [example]\n\nBut, when it's not busy. or when the passenger is sure that they have nothing that would prevent them getting through, they can persist with the process. [example]\n\n
  • Lack of knowledge of the process doesn't just cause people to lose their water bottle, it can actually lead to them deciding to abandon the screening process altogether. [example]\n\nBut, when it's not busy. or when the passenger is sure that they have nothing that would prevent them getting through, they can persist with the process. [example]\n\n
  • Lack of knowledge of the process doesn't just cause people to lose their water bottle, it can actually lead to them deciding to abandon the screening process altogether. [example]\n\nBut, when it's not busy. or when the passenger is sure that they have nothing that would prevent them getting through, they can persist with the process. [example]\n\n
  • For a lot of people, getting through security isn't their goal. Security is an imposition in their activity. This sort of thing is easiest to see with groups of people.\n\nGroups generally try to stay together and big groups will cluster. After discrete steps, like check-in or security or customs where they can be separated, groups will try to re-form. But, the airport space rarely supports this dynamic. Airports are generally designed, in their passenger-processing areas, to keep people moving. So what we see is people gathering ad-hoc and blocking passages or walkways.\n\nFamilies are especially fascinating to watch. In one example we recorded, which is representative of many, [example]. (Forward planning, management of the group etc)\n\n\n
  • For a lot of people, getting through security isn't their goal. Security is an imposition in their activity. This sort of thing is easiest to see with groups of people.\n\nGroups generally try to stay together and big groups will cluster. After discrete steps, like check-in or security or customs where they can be separated, groups will try to re-form. But, the airport space rarely supports this dynamic. Airports are generally designed, in their passenger-processing areas, to keep people moving. So what we see is people gathering ad-hoc and blocking passages or walkways.\n\nFamilies are especially fascinating to watch. In one example we recorded, which is representative of many, [example]. (Forward planning, management of the group etc)\n\n\n
  • For a lot of people, getting through security isn't their goal. Security is an imposition in their activity. This sort of thing is easiest to see with groups of people.\n\nGroups generally try to stay together and big groups will cluster. After discrete steps, like check-in or security or customs where they can be separated, groups will try to re-form. But, the airport space rarely supports this dynamic. Airports are generally designed, in their passenger-processing areas, to keep people moving. So what we see is people gathering ad-hoc and blocking passages or walkways.\n\nFamilies are especially fascinating to watch. In one example we recorded, which is representative of many, [example]. (Forward planning, management of the group etc)\n\n\n
  • For a lot of people, getting through security isn't their goal. Security is an imposition in their activity. This sort of thing is easiest to see with groups of people.\n\nGroups generally try to stay together and big groups will cluster. After discrete steps, like check-in or security or customs where they can be separated, groups will try to re-form. But, the airport space rarely supports this dynamic. Airports are generally designed, in their passenger-processing areas, to keep people moving. So what we see is people gathering ad-hoc and blocking passages or walkways.\n\nFamilies are especially fascinating to watch. In one example we recorded, which is representative of many, [example]. (Forward planning, management of the group etc)\n\n\n
  • In general, what we see is there is great variance in how people use and understand services, even within the narrow bounds of what the service permits.\n\nSomething that we are increasingly seeing is that, from the servers POV, this variance is unexpected, or undesirable.\n
  • In general, what we see is there is great variance in how people use and understand services, even within the narrow bounds of what the service permits.\n\nSomething that we are increasingly seeing is that, from the servers POV, this variance is unexpected, or undesirable.\n
  • What does it mean? At the moment, I, and my colleages at the PAS Lab, don’t really know. We’re 18 months in to a 4 year project. But, having said that, there are some directions that we’re pursuing.\n
  • What does it mean? At the moment, I, and my colleages at the PAS Lab, don’t really know. We’re 18 months in to a 4 year project. But, having said that, there are some directions that we’re pursuing.\n
  • What does it mean? At the moment, I, and my colleages at the PAS Lab, don’t really know. We’re 18 months in to a 4 year project. But, having said that, there are some directions that we’re pursuing.\n
  • The over-arching concept that I use to tie my thinking together is “frames” which has some similarities with mental models, and especially Don Norman’s users-model/system model/designers model. The point about that is that a particular person’s understanding of a service isn’t necessarily congruent with the actual implementation of the service.\n\nThe frame concept is often referenced to the American Sociologist Erving Goffman, though it does date from before then. Goffman was interested in understanding how people experience everyday social interactions. Let me repeat: how people *experience* everyday social *interaction*. Another American sociologist, Todd Gitlin, said “Frames are principles of selection, emphasis and presentation composed of little tacit theories about what exists, what happens, and what matters”.\n\nAnd, finally, Wanda Orlikowski, who is Professor of Information Technologies and Organization Studies at MIT's Sloan School of Management, said, in a paper about how people understood Lotus Notes as it was introduced to an organisation she was studying, described “systematic approach to examining the underlying assumptions, expectations, and knowledge that people have about technology which shapes their action” which she called “technological frames”.\n\nI liked that so much that I’ve stolen the concept for understanding service.\n
  • The over-arching concept that I use to tie my thinking together is “frames” which has some similarities with mental models, and especially Don Norman’s users-model/system model/designers model. The point about that is that a particular person’s understanding of a service isn’t necessarily congruent with the actual implementation of the service.\n\nThe frame concept is often referenced to the American Sociologist Erving Goffman, though it does date from before then. Goffman was interested in understanding how people experience everyday social interactions. Let me repeat: how people *experience* everyday social *interaction*. Another American sociologist, Todd Gitlin, said “Frames are principles of selection, emphasis and presentation composed of little tacit theories about what exists, what happens, and what matters”.\n\nAnd, finally, Wanda Orlikowski, who is Professor of Information Technologies and Organization Studies at MIT's Sloan School of Management, said, in a paper about how people understood Lotus Notes as it was introduced to an organisation she was studying, described “systematic approach to examining the underlying assumptions, expectations, and knowledge that people have about technology which shapes their action” which she called “technological frames”.\n\nI liked that so much that I’ve stolen the concept for understanding service.\n
  • So, where do people’s assumptions, expectations and knowledge about, in this case, airport security come from?\n\nThe way that people understand service is, has to be, based on prior experience. Whether that’s prior airport experience or experience from some other domain where people can map aspects of one service to understanding another.\n
  • So, where do people’s assumptions, expectations and knowledge about, in this case, airport security come from?\n\nThe way that people understand service is, has to be, based on prior experience. Whether that’s prior airport experience or experience from some other domain where people can map aspects of one service to understanding another.\n
  • So, where do people’s assumptions, expectations and knowledge about, in this case, airport security come from?\n\nThe way that people understand service is, has to be, based on prior experience. Whether that’s prior airport experience or experience from some other domain where people can map aspects of one service to understanding another.\n
  • But there’s a larger point to be made about service generally and that’s that services are co-created (as the economists Vargo and Lusch say). That is, server and customer work together to create the service, *every time* it's delivered.\n\nBut, as some people know more about the service than others, the amount of co-creation isn't the same for each interaction. Have you ever had the experience, as a customer, of knowing more about a service process than your server?\n\nSo this is the story about failing to get through or persisting in getting through. Cooperation of server and customer is what bridges the gaps in a customers understanding.\n
  • But there’s a larger point to be made about service generally and that’s that services are co-created (as the economists Vargo and Lusch say). That is, server and customer work together to create the service, *every time* it's delivered.\n\nBut, as some people know more about the service than others, the amount of co-creation isn't the same for each interaction. Have you ever had the experience, as a customer, of knowing more about a service process than your server?\n\nSo this is the story about failing to get through or persisting in getting through. Cooperation of server and customer is what bridges the gaps in a customers understanding.\n
  • To make an (even more) theoretical point, the service is not (only) ready-at-hand (which is a concept from Heidegger). A ready-at-hand tool “disappears in use”. If you’re a good carpenter, you’re not “using a hammer” you’re “driving nails”. But I think a service does not disappear in use. Both server and customer are always, and necessarily, aware of the service (at some level). The customer and server are "focally engaged" (a concept I’ve taken from PP Verbeek) -- they are aware of the performance of the service as well as the end goal.\n\nThat is, service is consciously *performed* by both the server and customer. And they both need to follow the same script.\n
  • To make an (even more) theoretical point, the service is not (only) ready-at-hand (which is a concept from Heidegger). A ready-at-hand tool “disappears in use”. If you’re a good carpenter, you’re not “using a hammer” you’re “driving nails”. But I think a service does not disappear in use. Both server and customer are always, and necessarily, aware of the service (at some level). The customer and server are "focally engaged" (a concept I’ve taken from PP Verbeek) -- they are aware of the performance of the service as well as the end goal.\n\nThat is, service is consciously *performed* by both the server and customer. And they both need to follow the same script.\n
  • To make an (even more) theoretical point, the service is not (only) ready-at-hand (which is a concept from Heidegger). A ready-at-hand tool “disappears in use”. If you’re a good carpenter, you’re not “using a hammer” you’re “driving nails”. But I think a service does not disappear in use. Both server and customer are always, and necessarily, aware of the service (at some level). The customer and server are "focally engaged" (a concept I’ve taken from PP Verbeek) -- they are aware of the performance of the service as well as the end goal.\n\nThat is, service is consciously *performed* by both the server and customer. And they both need to follow the same script.\n
  • What I’ve been working through is a way to understand HOW people do service interaction. Right now, I don’t know. But I think I’m getting there, especially with the concept of a “Service Frame” which is an approach to understanding people’s [advance]\n
  • What I’ve been working through is a way to understand HOW people do service interaction. Right now, I don’t know. But I think I’m getting there, especially with the concept of a “Service Frame” which is an approach to understanding people’s [advance]\n
  • What I’ve been working through is a way to understand HOW people do service interaction. Right now, I don’t know. But I think I’m getting there, especially with the concept of a “Service Frame” which is an approach to understanding people’s [advance]\n
  • Assumptions, expectations and knowledge about the service at hand.\n\nAnd, I’d argue, that one way to get access to these assumptions, expectations and knowledge is through close observation of people’s action.\n
  • Assumptions, expectations and knowledge about the service at hand.\n\nAnd, I’d argue, that one way to get access to these assumptions, expectations and knowledge is through close observation of people’s action.\n
  • Thanks for listening.\n\nQuestions?\n
  • Thanks for listening.\n\nQuestions?\n
  • Thanks for listening.\n\nQuestions?\n
  • Thanks for listening.\n\nQuestions?\n
  • Transcript

    • 1. UXA ➔ Ben Kraal @bjkraal➔
    • 2. ➔ Service Frames Ben Kraal➔➔ People and Systems Lab, QUT Cafe
    • 3. context activityObject System Experience culture people
    • 4. • Prof Vesna Popovic • Mr Philip Kirk• Dr Alethea Blackler • Ms Ali Livingstone• Dr Marianella Chamorro • Ms Anna Harrison• Dr Ben Kraal • Mr Andrew CavePAS: Airports of the Future Team
    • 5. early design stagebefore design started finished artifact design and development
    • 6. Intuitive InteractionExperience and expertiseContext of useResearch FocusPeople and Systems (PAS) Lab | Faculty of Built Environment andEngineering | Queensland University of Technology
    • 7. •  Noldus Observer, Face Reader and Portable Observer•  Atlas.ti•  Touch screen modeling and evaluation softwareLaboratory and Software
    • 8. ➔ Airports of the Future
    • 9. ➔ Service Design➔ People & Action
    • 10. ➔➔ Frame Approach Airport Security
    • 11. ➔ What ➔ Did We Do?
    • 12. ➔ Get Access Take Video➔➔ Transform
    • 13. What➔ ➔ Did We Find?
    • 14. Rules➔➔ Flux
    • 15. ➔ Context Knowledge➔
    • 16. ➔ Success Failure ➔➔ Lots of Bags Wrong Item ➔
    • 17. ➔ Groups Cluster ➔ Re-form ➔ Unsupported ➔ Other Goals➔
    • 18. ➔ Variance➔ Not Expected
    • 19. What➔Does It Mean? ➔
    • 20. ➔ Frames Norman ➔ Goffman ➔ Orlikowski ➔
    • 21. ➔ Prior Experience➔ Airport Other Experience ➔
    • 22. ➔ Co-creation Co-operation➔
    • 23. ➔ Focal Engagement➔ Heidegger P.P. Verbeek ➔
    • 24. ➔ How ➔Service Interaction?
    • 25. ➔ Assumptions➔ Expectations➔ Knowledge
    • 26. ➔ Service Frames Ben Kraal➔ PAS Lab, QUT @bjkraal➔ Exit

    ×