2. Collaborative Working Environments
Webinar 1: Collaboration needs and practices in global industrial environments:
Cases and Findings
February 4, 2013
8:30-10:20am PST / 18:30-20:30 EET
Chair: Dr. Renate Fruchter, Stanford University
Challenges and Enablers of Global Collaborative Working Environments - Matti Vartiainen and
Olli 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, Metso
Wrap-up - Renate Fruchter, Stanford University
o Corporate partners' experiences
o Lessons learned from companies after each case presentation
o Cross-case Discussion
Webinar 2: Presence and Engagement in Emergent Collaboration Environments
February 5, 2013
8:30-10:20am PST / 18:30-20:30 EET
Chair: Dr. Renate Fruchter, Stanford University
10 Key Characteristics for Next Generation Collaboration Environments - Renate Fruchter,
Stanford University
Increasing awareness and attention in collaboration - Seppo Valli, VTT
Deploying 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-W
TEKES Scenario and Plans for the future - Kari Penttinen, Tekes
Discussion 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
2/19/2010
Digital 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 and
approach
Research partners:
•! Aalto/TKK (http://vmwork.tkk.fi), prof. Matti Vartiainen (coordinator) with his
team (Pekka Alahuhta, Olli Jahkola, Emma Nordbäck and Eero Palomäki),
& prof. Marko Nieminen and Petri Mannonen (project manager
(http://stratus.soberit.hut.fi/) and Venlakaisa Hölttä
•! Stanford, prof. Renate Fruchter with her team
(http://pbl.stanford.edu/fruchter_bio.htm)
•! VTT Media technologies, prof. Caj Södergård and Seppo Valli with their
team
(http://www.vtt.fi/research/area/media_technologies.jsp?lang=en)
Companies: 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
8. Framework to study impacts, inhibitors and
facilitators in global teams
CONTEXTUAL COMPLEXITY of
A, B, C, D and E = Global Collaborative Working Environments
Individual life spheres LOCATION
OUTCOMES
Creativity
- e.g. new ideas
SOCIAL PHYSICAL
RESOURCES RESOURCES
Innovativeness
- E.g. % of new product
revenue, innovative climate
TASK 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 used
in 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 tools
in 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.
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 questions
RQ 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 distributed
collaboration?
RQ 4: How to get project participants use the portal more and
better?
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 practices
The virtual team needs to
bridge differing organizational ABB Global
practices despite working Organization
under the shelf of one
organization.
For example differing ABB Amount of ABB
prioritizations, support Sending overlap Receiving
response times, norms, unit matters! unit
supplier lead times, and
regulations create challenges
for the virtual team leader and
members.
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 the
collaboration
•! 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 implementation
theory lense
This 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)
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 in
ideation
Case 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 protocol
Transcribed discussion analysis
Presentation Name / Author
19.2.2013
5
29. Artifacts, Facilitation and Transformative Interaction Experiences in
Distributed 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 Experiences
in Distributed Design Collaboration
Results
• 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-operation
Building Knowledge Intensive And Location
Dependent Problem Solving Services
Petri Mannonen
Strategic Usability Research Group
Aalto University School of Science
33. Current Organization: Industrial
Maintenance 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
Customer's Customer's
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
42. Capitalize on Global Corporate Competences
HOW DO YOU COMMUNICATE?
HOW DO YOU WORK TOGETHER?
HOW DO YOU SHARE IDEAS / FEEDBACK?
HOW DO YOU MAKE YOUR CONDITIONS VISIBLE?
HOW DO YOU CONNECT MOBILE KNOWLEDGE WORKERS?
HOW DO YOU CREATE, CAPTURE, SHARE, AND RE-USE KNOWLEDGE?
43. 10 Key Characteristics for
Next Generation Collaboration EcoSystems
1. Foster co-creation, inter-action, and co-action
2. Transform the way participants express ideas and solutions
3. Enrich formal and informal interaction experiences
4. Increase awareness, attention, participation, & engagement
5. Sustain persistent presence of content & models in context
6. Leverage knowledge in context and collective competences
7. Facilitate transparency
8. Maximize flexibility, remixing, & repurposing
9. Create emergent work practices, processes, & social dynamics
10. Create and manage choice
44. M3R
Remote 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 World
Sponsors & Partners: [Fruchter, Ivanov, Bharath, 2012]
46. Persistent Product Models & Content in Context
River2012: Digital and Virtual Presence in Collaborative Environment
With Rich Media Content and 3D BIM Building Model
Madison Stanford Stanford Germany Stanford Denmark
47.
48. From Stacks of Content to
Spreads of Content in Context
Application Sharing (e.g. GoToMeeting) Immersive Virtual World (e.g. 3DICC)
3D Team Neighborhood
Cognition Cognition
•Attention ~3 docs •Attention
•Memory # Shared •Memory
•Correlation Documents •Correlation
•Capacity •Capacity
•Multitasking •No
Multitasking
# Shared
Documents
49. 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]
51. 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
Contents
1. Some theory and lessons learned
About terminology
Why supporting awareness is important?
Bill Buxton’s spaces for collaboration
About classification of collaboration systems
2. 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
52. 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
53. 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;
http://www.systems-thinking.org/kmgmt/kmgmt.htm)
3
54. 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 8
Part 2: Increasing awareness and attention: VTT Hydra
4
55. 05/02/2013 9
Main question and starting point
What makes face-to-face collaboration “the gold standard” in
collaboration [Nardi2002]?
A good candidate for an answer is the gaze awareness in face-to-
face meetings
A straightforward way to enable gaze awareness is the Hydra
system reported by Buxton et.al. (e.g. 1997)
Hydra was implemented and demonstrated by VTT
VTT focus was in personal space (communication)
Multi-party 3D viewing was implemented for groupware (cf. task
space)
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
56. 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
separation
I cannot understand who I can see who is being looked at!
is being addressed &
looked at!
Figure modified from eSoundTM ; http://www.oki.com/en/esound/technology/positioning.html
6
57. 05/02/2013 13
A look is worth a thousand words!”
Eye-contact (gaze awareness) intensifies
communication and builds trust (cf. Andrew F.
Monk and Caroline Gale, 2002).
In conventional videoconferencing, gaze is not
conveyed correctly due to parallax error (cf.
image to the right)
Technical means to support true gaze Figure: Displacement of
awareness between multiple remote users is the camera from the
needed display causes parallax
error => eye-contact is
Gaze awareness in relation to commonly viewed disturbed
objects are needed
05/02/2013 14
Personal telepresence system “Hydra”
(cf. Hydra by Buxton et.al. 1997)
Straightforward way to convey gaze (facial direction)
Each remote participant is represented by a terminal with display,
camera and microphone
Terminal are connected by a full mesh (n2-n connections, where n
is the number of sites; cf. Metcalf’s law)
Full Mesh Geometry
7
58. 05/02/2013 15
MS Personal Telepresence Station (Zhang, et.al. 2009)
MS Personal Telepresence Station (http://research.microsoft.com/en-
us/news/features/personaltelepresencestation-030909.aspx)
05/02/2013 16
Snapshots 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
59. 05/02/2013 17
Associated 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
60. 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 20
Three-way Distributed Collaboration (by Tang et.al. 2010)
Figure: Social surrogates (“Hydra” terminals) in a natural physical setting
[Tang2010]
10
61. 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
62. 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
References
Andriessen, J.H.Erik (2003). Working with the groupware. Understanding and evaluating
collaboration 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 in
video-mediated Conversation. Discourse Processes, 1532-6950, Volume 33, Issue 3, 2002, pages
257 – 278.
Bonnie A. Nardi, Steve Whittaker (2002), The Place of Face-to-Face Communication in Distributed
Work, in “Distributed Work”, edited by Pamela Hinds and Sara Kiesler, MIT Press, 2002.
Pekka Siltanen, Seppo Valli (2012), Web-based 3D Mediated Communication in Manufacturing
Industry, CE2012, 12 p.
A.Tang, M.Pahud, K.Inkpen, H.Benko, J.C.Tang, B.Buxton (2010), Three’s Company: Understanding
Communication 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 Technologies
with Respect to Closely Coupled Collaboration, International Journal of Computer Applications in
Technology (IJCAT), 29(1), pp.11-26.
12
63. 05/02/2013 25
Contact: seppo.valli@vtt.fi
www.vtt.fi/multimedia
VTT - 70 years of
technology for business and society
13
64. Immersive Terf™
Real Customer
Use Cases
Terf™ Training/Meeting Center Layout by Jim Linehan
Terf™ Construction Project Layout by LeMoine
65. Topics
Enterprise Impact Harness
Clinical Trials Training Game
Global Coaching
Global Transformation Team
Truthful Insights
3D ICC & Terf™ Advances
Corporate Changes
Technology Roadmap
66. 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 ever
CEO, 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
67. Brings…
They are / have…
members, customers, users, …
Via…
Natural, “like real” locations
3D ICC Confidential, not for reuse with Source: The Immersive Enterprise by LeMoine
out written authorization from 3D ICC
68. Enterprise Harness of Immersive Terf™
(In-World Snapshot)
3D ICC confidential & proprietary ;
no distributed with out written Source: The Immersive
permission from 3D ICC Enterprise by LeMoine
70. Impactful
Harness
Examples:
Clinical Trial Training Game
Global Coaching
Global Transformation
3D ICC confidential & proprietary ;
no distributed with out written
permission from 3D ICC Source: Social Insides by LeMoine/Rudkoswki
71. 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/Clients
3D ICC confidential & proprietary ;
no distributed with out written
permission from 3D ICC Source: Social Insides by LeMoine/Rudkoswki
72. Gaming Hard
Stuff
Problems that require Us
(not just computers)
3D ICC confidential & proprietary ;
no distributed with out written
permission from 3D ICC Source: Social Insides by LeMoine/Rudkoswki
74. - 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 Mgmt
3D ICC confidential & proprietary ;
no distributed with out written
permission from 3D ICC Source: The Immersive Enterprise by LeMoine
75. …So far
•80% Thumbs Up on Experience
•4 technical issues
•Almost 100% participation by
their Reps
3D ICC confidential & proprietary ;
no distributed with out written
permission from 3D ICC Source: The Immersive Enterprise by LeMoine
76. Impactful
Harness
Examples:
Clinical Trial Training Game
Global Coaching
Global Transformation
3D ICC confidential & proprietary ;
no distributed with out written
permission from 3D ICC Source: Social Insides by LeMoine/Rudkoswki
78. Impactful
Harness
Examples:
Clinical Trial Training Game
Global Coaching
Global Transformation
3D ICC confidential & proprietary ;
no distributed with out written
permission from 3D ICC Source: Social Insides by LeMoine/Rudkoswki
80. • 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 expert
3D ICC confidential & proprietary ;
no distributed with out written
permission from 3D ICC Source: Social Insides by LeMoine/Rudkoswki
81. 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
Tool
3D ICC confidential & proprietary ;
no distributed with out written
permission from 3D ICC Source: The Immersive Enterprise by LeMoine
82.
83. Brings…
They are / have…
learners, team members…
Via…
Natural, “like real” locations
3D ICC Confidential, not for reuse with Source: The Immersive Enterprise by LeMoine
out written authorization from 3D ICC
84. 1
Purchased all of Teleplace's 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 customers
3D ICC confidential & proprietary ; no distributed with out written permission from 3D ICC
86. Distributed Agile
Global Class Room
Construction Project Mgmt. &
Urban Planning
Conferences / Corporate Awards
3D ICC confidential & proprietary ; no distributed with out written permission from 3D
88. Agile Team Mantra
To be highly performant, co-location is a
must
3D ICC confidential & proprietary ;
no distributed with out written
permission from 3D ICC 25
89. LOCATION TRANSPARENCY?
NOPE…
We need a location where we
can all be,
regardless of where we all
…be…
3D ICC confidential & proprietary ;
no distributed with out written
permission from 3D ICC 26
90. persistent
+ visceral,
easy
+ large but
affordable Code
+ address
hybrid (groups &
individual remotes)
+
ecosystem
supportive
Global Agile Team Rooms
3D ICC confidential & proprietary ;
no distributed with out written
permission from 3D ICC 27