Monimos MindTrek 2010 -

480 views
404 views

Published on

0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
480
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Monimos MindTrek 2010 -

  1. 1. 1 Co-designing a social media service for civic participation - Critical issues and challenges MindTrek, Tampere Oct 6, 2010 Teemu Ropponen (Aalto University) Pirjo Näkki (VTT) Asta Bäck (VTT) Auli Harju (Uni. Of Tampere) Kari Hintikka (Uni. Of Jyväskylä)
  2. 2. Contents • 3 views to participation • Case Monimos & its co-design process • Findings: critical issues and challenges
  3. 3. Case Monimos • Can social media help immigrants in participating in the society and in collaboration with public sector? • Shared case study of two research projects – Somus: Social media for citizens and public sector collaboration – EPACE: Exchanging good practices for the promotion of an active citizenship in the EU, (Ministry of Justice) • ...in collaboration with the network of multicultural associations in Helsinki capital area (Moniheli)
  4. 4. Three views to participation • Goal: Civic participation – deliberative process (public discussion), open and accessible to the public – involving citizens in processes that deal with their everyday life and environment • Process: Participatory design – users participate actively as members of the design team – integrates the knowledge of different stakeholders in a common design space • Result: Social media – Process, not just tools, content, technology (Erkkola 2008) – Produsage: open participation, fluid hierarchy, unfinished artefacts, common property (Bruns 2008)
  5. 5. 5 Monimos design process • Community-driven participatory design • “Monimos team”: 10 immigrants, 2 Moniheli employees, EPACE and Somus researchers/developers • Working methods – 8 monthly workshops (face-to-face/online) – Open online collaboration: discussion + voting of service ideas, features, layout, service name
  6. 6. 6 The Monimos project Needs, problems, ideas Workshops Service concept Owela discussion, Moniheli workshop Service pilot Online test, further development 2009 2010 Design and development w/ Monimos team Workshops + Owela Public service Continuous development
  7. 7. Open co-design in http://owela.vtt.fi/immigrantmedia
  8. 8. www.monimos.fi 8
  9. 9. 9 Challenges • Defining goal and vision • Inclusion and motivation • Interaction and working methods • Decision-making
  10. 10. 10 Defining the goal and vision • Research goal vs. people's goal vs. organisation's goal alignment? • Crystallizing from scratch?! A lot of time from “open scope” to 18 ideas, to 3 ideas, to one • Despite vision being unclear, unstable and questioned – still people worried that too much time spent around this discussion • High expectations
  11. 11. 11 Goal and vision • Forming a plausible promise (Raymond 1999) (the outcome of goal and vision) was difficult in itself, and turned out to be: – “Monimos is a virtual meeting place for internationally minded people and associations in Finland to enjoy diversity and promote active citizenship” • Creating a plausible promise for the participants and important for the sake of communicating of the process and rationale as well as managing the expectations.
  12. 12. 12 Inclusion and motivation • Supporting heterogenous group • Understanding ranging motives: “job”, “association duty”, “personal reputation gain”, “fun”, “interest” – How much to expect people to participate? • New people joining, a critical moment! – …sometimes slows things down, but also energizes!
  13. 13. 13 Interaction and working methods • Participation high-spirited and intensive (possibly a multicultural “upside” ) • Methods in workshops - not always culturally suitable, or implemented in a different way (e.g. people preferred talking over PostIt’s) • Methods and tools are a form of power
  14. 14. 14 Interaction and working methods • Common vocabulary & conventions vary – E.g. does feature priority voting have to be “democratic” or is it “just” indicative • Abstract and open tasks were difficult to get a grasp on between the workshops – Social media –like participation “affordances” (think e.g. “like”) should be used more to get higher participation
  15. 15. 15 Decision-making process • Which roles of individuals are present in people’s decision-making? • Who owns the project? Researchers, participants, (funders)? • Democracy, or co-owning, can hinder visionary work • Decisions & design drivers need to be reminded often, to avoid repetitive discussions
  16. 16. 16 Conclusions • Open process needs A LOT of meta-level communication and crystallization, as well as clear decision-making guidelines • Social media- & produsage-like process – already starting from the design phase – needs to be taken into account in tool, method and process selection & design • Community-driven design is difficult FOR ALL PARTIES, agreement on open process necessary
  17. 17. 17 Thanks! • Questions? • Have a look at: – http://www.monimos.fi – http://somus.vtt.fi • Contact: – Teemu.Ropponen@tkk.fi , Pirjo.Nakki@vtt.fi
  18. 18. 18 References Bruns, A. (2008). Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and beyond: from production to produsage. Peter Lang Publishing: New York. Erkkola, J. (2008). Sosiaalisen median käsitteestä. Helsinki, University of Arts and Design. Medialab. Raymond, E. S. (1999). The Cathedral & the Bazaar. O'Reilly. ISBN 1-56592-724-9. http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedralbazaar/ cathedral-bazaar/.

×