Crafting Infrastructures


Published on

Published in: Economy & Finance, Travel
  • 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

No notes for slide
  • Crafting Infrastructures

    1. 1. Crafting infrastructures. Requirements, scenarios and evaluation in the SPICE project Mobile IST Summit User Centricity Workshop Budapest, 5° July 2007 L.Galli-Neos
    2. 2. UCD challenges in R&D, collaborative, infrastructure projects UCD @ R&D stage Collaborative projects INFRASTRUCTURE
    3. 3. Infrastructure-orientation generates indirectness in evaluations “ Stuck in the middle?” Source: W.K. Edwards, V. Bellotti, A.K. Dey, M.W. Newman, Stuck in the Middle: the Challenges of User-Centered Design and Evaluation for Infrastructure, 2003
    4. 4. Can I have UCD – but XL? Source: E.Kurvinen et al., User-Centered Design in the Context of Large and Distributed Projects, 2006 abstraction critical mass* * NOT the one regarding bikes!  compartmentalization
    5. 5. SPICE overview <ul><li>SPICE (Service Platform for Innovative Communication Environment) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>IST-FP6 Integrated Project (part of Wireless World Initiative) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Duration: 01/2006 – 06/2008 (30 months); budget: 22 M€ </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Coordinator: France Telecom; Technical manager: Alcatel </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>23 partners (6 operators, 7 manufacturers, 7 Research Centers / Universities, 2 SMEs; 1 consultancy company) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Vision </li></ul><ul><ul><li>to design, develop, evaluate and prototype an extendable overlay architecture and framework that supports </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Easy and quick service creation of intelligent and ambient-aware services </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Cooperation of multiple heterogeneous execution environments </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Pan-European seamless delivery of services across operator domains, networks and terminals </li></ul></ul></ul>
    6. 6. SPICE scenarios The tourists’ potential interest in particular activities or items is inferred from their behaviour and is followed by a service push. So when they stop around for a couple of hours at a nice village in the countryside the system advances a proposal suitable to the moment of the day (“do you want suggestions for a light meal nearby?”). Depending on the user’s reply, additional audio/visual information is provided to get them on the suggested spot. Once they have enjoyed the break, they go back to their car … A multidisciplinary team of managerial, marketing and technical people associated with the promoting organization of “Sunrise Inc.” and its technology partners meet to evaluate all the possibilities offered by the SPICE PF components repository. Some services will be created by simply reusing existing elements (e.g. basic components, composite components), while others will be realized as an investment from the involved third parties. Ad hoc contractual and operational models are provided ….
    7. 7. Proposal Project lifetime 3 short textual narratives - I-Portal - e-Tourism - e-Emergency 4 rich textual & visual narratives scenarios - I-Portal - e-Tourism - e-Emergency - Service Creation (NEW!) 4 fully REVISED and slightly EXPANDED scenarios based on FOCUS GROUPS RESULTS & other inputs - I-Portal - e-Tourism - e-Emergency - Service Creation divergence convergence 1 newly revised COMMON SCENARIO, consistent set of characters & situations, unified view, re-ordered against SPICE main features Initial requirements Revised requirements Technical design and development (including architectural work and intermediate demos) 1° EVALUATION ROUND (focus groups) 2° EVALUATION ROUND Demos Final prototypes Kick-off Conclusion Exploitation Take-up Business modelling & legal issues Vision Objectives Workplan Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4
    8. 8. Focus groups <ul><li>Evaluation of all SPICE scenarios </li></ul><ul><ul><li>I-Portal, e-Tourism, e-Emergency and Service Creation (@ step 2) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Three countries perspective </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Poland, Spain, Italy </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Both end-users and professionals’ point of views </li></ul><ul><ul><li>8 focus groups with end-users </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>2 focus groups with professionals </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Analysis process </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Country reports for each scenario </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Key benefits </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Major disadvantages and dislikes </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Common results and variations </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Impact of country specificities </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Actionable recommendations (@ step 3) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Indirectness effect! </li></ul>
    9. 9. Key benefits <ul><li>End-users: everything related to convenience </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Personal navigation features </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Service international roaming </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Session transfer </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Possibility to swap devices while using the same service </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Personalization of public devices </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Including access to protected content </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Content adaptation to various terminals </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Professionals: design and development support </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Faster and more effective prototyping and service creation capabilities </li></ul></ul>
    10. 10. Disadvantages, dislikes, critical aspects <ul><li>Proactive context-aware recommendations acceptance </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Fears of possible misuse from companies, marketers and public organizations </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Tracking and profiles features perceived as even too powerful </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Organizational aspects to be considered </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Professionals remarked that prototyping and service development cycles are complex and distributed across several roles and organizations </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The service creation platform success will depend also on effective alignment between its functionalities and the organizational processes </li></ul></ul>
    11. 11. Recommendations <ul><li>Decrease to a few scenes the explicit reference to proactive mechanism altogether </li></ul><ul><li>• Link clearly the delivery of proactive suggestions to some user action or previous declaration </li></ul><ul><li>• Explain more about the Semantic Language </li></ul><ul><li>• Clarify what the emergency service is </li></ul><ul><li>• […] </li></ul>
    12. 12. Mapping users’ input into “scenes’ requirements”
    13. 13. Enhanced scenarios it is impossible that the service makes use of users’ sensitive information in a malicious way since the local SPICE Operator guarantees that user’s personal data (e.g. name, address, mail, telephone…) are never matched with his context information (e.g. position, mood, availability). Before the service can use sensitive information, the user’s consent must always be given.
    14. 14. Two more points (for discussion) <ul><li>Scenarios are not that bad - after all </li></ul><ul><ul><li>(Somewhat) unpredicted advantages in dealing with the infrastructure evaluations indirectness issue </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>But be preparared to iterate a lot , they work better as a very dynamic tool </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Including on scenarios & requirements matching </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>“ How” you do things (style, attitudes, behaviours vs. process) might matter more than the “what” </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Common willingness to go through a painstakingly collaborative effort </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Quite much a craft exercise </li></ul></ul>
    15. 15. Craft & “traditional methods”
    16. 16. Methodology should not be a fixed track to a fixed destination but a conversation about everything that could be made of happen J.C. Jones, Design Methods (1972-1990) Methodology as conversation
    17. 17. Q&A Thank you for your attention Luca Galli [email_address]