eParticipation and Participatory Design

4,667 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
2 Comments
10 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • thANK YOU
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Very good stuff and a good presenter.
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
No Downloads
Views
Total views
4,667
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
60
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
109
Comments
2
Likes
10
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

eParticipation and Participatory Design

  1. 1. Participation in Web2.0 and e-Participation in Government: Toward a “Third Space” for Deliberation and Government Michael Muller IBM Research & IBM Center for Social Software Cambridge, MA, USA michael_muller@us.ibm.com
  2. 2. Agenda • Apology for modifying parts of the planned talk • Chapter 1. Surprising Experiences with Social Software and Participatory Web2.0 • Chapter 2. Participation in Government and Software Design • Chapter 3. Moving Forward • Conclusions • Our discussion
  3. 3. Apology • Themes – Participatory design and HCI – Engineering and practicality • Applicability to eParticipation
  4. 4. Agenda Chapter 1. Surprising Experiences with Social Software and Participatory Web2.0 – Examples of four software projects with surprising participatory outcomes – Summary – Planning to be surprised: Designing for appropriation – “Third space” / Hybridity Concepts • Chapter 2. Participation in Government and Software Design • Chapter 3. Moving Forward • Conclusions • Our discussion
  5. 5. The Coordinator • (Before “Social Software” was conceived) • Task-structured email, ca. 1988 – Searles’ theory of Speech Acts – Attractive abstraction of human communication processes • “We put it out in the hall, along with all the other trash” • Problems – Instrumental communications only – Like contracts – No opportunity for non-instrumental messages – People need sociality if they are going to work together The Coordinator was not social enough • Winograd, T., A Language/Action Perspective on the Design of Cooperative Work, Human-Computer Interaction 3:1 (1987-88), 3-30. Reprinted in Greif, I. (Ed.), Computer-Supported Cooperative Work: A Book of Readings, San Mateo, California: Morgan-Kaufmann, 1988, 623-653.
  6. 6. Dual Accounting in Workflows • Workflow systems as a problematic success story for CSCW – Inflexible, decontextualized, inhumane to workers – Necessary and beneficial to organizations to manage work & billing • Tensions with workflows at a printing shop – Workflow required each vs. Trusted customers could print job to be fully “print now and pay later” negotiated in advance – Workflow required each vs. Most employees managed employee to be assigned to several print jobs a single print job at-a-time simultaneously • Solution: Break the rules – Employees accepted and ran print jobs without a new contract – Employees created false userIDs to allow each human to manage multiple print jobs simultaneously through their false userIDs, and to allow humans to share responsibility for a single job Staff invented new ways to do the job collaborative and to give an honest accounting of the work done for each customer • Dourish, P., Process descriptions as organisational accounting devices: The dual use of workflow technologies. Proc GROUP 2001.
  7. 7. ActivityExplorer • Conceived as a “niche” solution, between – Very informal, two-person interactions (quick but messy) – <ActivityExplorer> – Formal group processes (slow but disciplined) • Use Case for ActivityExplorer – Small number of users – A few heterogeneous data objects – A brief period of time • Summer 2003 interns assigned to do one step of their projects using ActivityExplorer – Interns took over! – Lunch dates (very informal, two-person…) – “Intern tips and tricks” (formal group processes…) – Interns made AE more broadly social than intended Interns’ appropriation led to product success • Muller, M.J., Geyer, W., Brownholtz, B., Wilcox, E., and Millen, D.R. (2004). One-hundred days in an activity-centric collaboration environment based on shared objects. Proceedings of CHI 2004.
  8. 8. Activity Threads Also “lunch dates” and community-wide threads
  9. 9. ActivityExplorer • Conceived as a “niche” solution, between – Very informal, two-person interactions (quick but messy) – ActivityExplorer – Formal group processes (slow but disciplined) • Use Case for ActivityExplorer – Small number of users – A few data objects – A brief period of time • Summer 2003 interns assigned to do one step of their projects using ActivityExplorer – Interns took over! – Lunch dates (very informal, two-person…) – “Intern tips and tricks” (formal group processes…) – Interns made AE more broadly social than intended Interns’ appropriation led to product success • Muller, M.J., Minassian, S.O., Geyer, W., Millen, D.R., Brownholtz, E., and Wilcox, E. (2005). Studying appropriation in activity-centric collaboration. International Reports on Socio-Informatics 2(2), 50-58. http://www.iisi.de/fileadmin/IISI/upload/IRSI/IRSIv2i2complete.pdf.
  10. 10. ‘Heretical’ Uses of Social Bookmarking • Social bookmarking – Store your browser bookmarks in an online site • Describe each bookmark with one or more “tags” (user-specified descriptive text) • Good for people with multiple machines (access own tags anywhere) • Possible to find relevant bookmarks created by other users – Use Case: Refinding one’s own bookmarks + opportunistic finding of others’ bookmarks • Bookmarking for audiences – Some people use a single tag hundreds of times – Some people ignore tagging of podcasts in a streaming media service, and then tag those podcasts in the more popular bookmarking service (tagging across services) • Thom-Santelli, J., Muller, M.J., & Millen, D.R. (2008) Social tagging roles: Publishers, evangelists, leaders. Proc CHI 2008.
  11. 11. ‘Heretical’ Uses of Social Bookmarking • Tagging for audiences – Publishers – Using a reliable tag to lead their readers across services to their internal publication (podcast) – “Evangelists” – Using one or a few tags to lead thousands of employees to information on a topic of importance (“web2.0”, “attention-management”) – Community-organizers – Finding a tag that is likely to be used by other members of a community-of-practice – Team-leads – Finding a tag that is unlikely to be used by anyone outside of the team • Similar findings of Information Curators in an internal file-sharing service – collecting and describing files to be used by colleagues • New ideas, new patents, new features Employees appropriated the social bookmarking system to communicate with large numbers of fellow employees • Muller, M.J., Millen, D.R., & Feinberg, J. (2009). Information curators in an enterprise file-sharing service. Proc. ECSCW 2009, Vienna, Austria, September 2009.
  12. 12. Summary (1): Benefits of Surprises • Review The Coordinator was not social enough Staff invented new ways to do the job collaboratively and honestly Interns’ appropriation of AE led to product success Employees appropriated the social bookmarking system to communicate with large numbers of fellow employees • Successful technology transfer, good products, happy people • Users… – Want to engage in social activities with others – Give high priority to helping one another, and to helping clients – Will find a way to do this! – Often are trying to do the right thing for themselves, others, and their organizations and communities
  13. 13. Summary (2): Plan to be Surprised • Designing for Appropriation – Flexibility, community, incremental changes, visibility, persistence – Articulation, demonstration – Deliberately do not complete the design complete the design through usage – Our experiences • Immediate value • Foreground the content • Support co-construction of objects and language to describe them • Provide user control over features that change in meaning • Dourish, P. (2003). The appropriation of interactive technologies: Some lessons from placeless documents. Journal of CSCW 12(4), 465- 490 (2003). • Muller, M.J., Minassian, S.O., Geyer, W., Millen, D.R., Brownholtz, E., and Wilcox, E. (2005). Studying appropriation in activity-centric collaboration. International Reports on Socio-Informatics 2(2), 50-58. http://www.iisi.de/fileadmin/IISI/upload/IRSI/IRSIv2i2complete.pdf. • Pipek, V. (2005). From tailoring to appropriation support: Negotiating groupware usage. PhD thesis, Oulu University. Available at http://herkules.oulu.fi/isbn9514276302/ . • Bell, G., Blythe, M., Sengers, P: Making by making strange: Defamiliarization and the design of domestic technologies. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 12(2),149-173 (2005) • Spinuzzi, C., Tracing genres through organizations: A sociocultural approach to information design. MIT Press, 2003.
  14. 14. Summary (3): Hybridity Theory • Third space (Bhabha, 1994) – Where two cultures meet, overlap, interact something new – From biology: The estuary where salt water meets fresh High fertility and biomass – From cultural critique: The inter-cultural regions along national borders New understandings and new cultures – An analytic lens to reduce power imbalances in inter-cultural spaces • Properties – (Re-)Negotiate identity of self and others – Challenge ideas, especially binary oppositions (either/or both/and) – New opportunities for self-expression, communication, and co-creation • Bhabha, H.K., Location of culture. London: Routledge, 1994. • Dingawaney, A., & Maier, C. (1994). Between languages and cultures: Translation and cross-cultural texts. University of Pittsburgh Press. • Krupat, A. 1992. Ethnocriticism: Ethnography, history, literature. Berkeley: University of California Press. • Alcoff, L. (1991). The problem of speaking for others. Cultural Critique, Winter 1991-1992, 5-32. • Roof, J., and R. Wiegman. 1995 (Eds.). Who can speak? Authority and critical identity. Urbana, IL, USA: University of Illinois Press • English, L., Third space: Contested space, identity, and international adult education. Paper at CASAE/ACEEA Conference, 2002. • Hannula.M., Third space: Merry-go-round of opportunity. Kiasma Magazine12(1,), http://www.kiasma.fi • Bachmann-Medick, D. (1996). Cultural misunderstanding in translation: Multicultural coexistence and multicultural conceptions of world literature. Erfurt Electronic Studies in English 7. http://webdoc.gwdg.de/edoc/ia/eese/artic96/bachmann/7_96.html • Grenfell, M. (1998). Border-crossing: Cultural hybridity and the rural and small schools practicum. Australian Association for Research in Education conference, 1998.
  15. 15. Summary (3): Hybridity Strategy • The need for dialogue among users and software professionals • Combine two (or more) domains into a single zone of overlap (break or remove the formal boundaries) – Software design – Actual usage • Users, developers, designers, managers as equal “co-navigators” in this new space • Make everything mutually strange • Promote and facilitate interaction, combination, dialogue new relationships and new ideas • Suchman, L., Located accountabilities in technology production. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems 14(2), 91-105, 2002. • Tscheligi, M., Houde, S., Marcus, A., Mullet, K., Muller, M.J., and Kolli, R Creative prototyping tools: What interaction designers really need to produce advanced user interface concepts. Proc CHI’95.. • Bretag, T., Developing ‘third space’ interculturality using computer-mediated communication. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 11(4). • Muller, M.J. Participatory design: The third space in HCI (revised). In J. Jacko and A. Sears (eds.), Handbook of HCI 2nd Edition. Mahway NJ USA: Erlbaum, 2007. • Muller, M.J. Ethnocritical heuristics for reflecting on work with users and other interested parties. In M. Kyng and L. Mathiessen (Eds.), Computers and design in context. Cambridge MA USA: MIT Press, 1997. • Holmström, J. The power of knowledge and the knowledge of power: On the systems designer as a translator of rationalities. Proc IRIS 1995. • Fowles, R.A.. Symmetry in design participation in the built environment: Experiences and insights from education and practice. Proc Co-Designing 2000. • Zurita, L., Rurul living labs: User involvement activities. Proc Conference on Concurrent Enterprising, 2008. • Driedger, S.M., Kothari, A., Morrison, J., Sawada, M., Crighton, E.J., &Grahahm, I.D., Using participatory design to develop (public) health decision support systems through GIS. Int. J. Health Geographics 6(53), 2007.
  16. 16. Appropriation through Hybridity • The Coordinator – No ability to create new (or familiar) social actions Failure • Dual accounting in workflows – Users changed identity representation to create new false users and to allow more efficient work and better service • ActivityExplorer – User experience was flexible enough – and new enough – to create uncertainty and the users’ need to redefine the space in their own way • Social bookmarking – Users redefined features for personal-refinding, into features for communication and mutual service • (Except for The Coordinator), outcomes were good for everyone
  17. 17. Agenda • Chapter 1. Surprising Experiences with Social Software and Participatory Web2.0 Chapter 2. Participation in Government and Software Design • Partcipatory Design perspectives on ‘participation’ • eParticipation Tools – Your ideas • Stages in eParticipation: Standard treatments and what is missing • Lifecycle for eParticipation Tools and Systems: Conventional models and what is missing – Your ideas • Chapter 3. Moving Forward • Conclusions • Our discussion
  18. 18. Participatory Design • Combination of motivations and efforts – Workplace democracy – Knowledge acquisition – Organizational effectiveness – Design initiatives – Market intelligence • Background – Labor theory – Architecture (!) – Design theory theories – Post-modernism and cultural critique – Translation theory – Small group phenomena – Question established power bases (but which ones are ‘established’?) • Bjerknes, G., Ehn, P., and Kyng, M. (eds.), Computers and democracy: A Scandinavian challenge. Brookfield VT USA: Gower, 1987. • Greenbaum, J., and Kyng, M. (eds.), Design at work: Cooperative design of computer systems. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum, 1991. • Schuler, D., and Namioka, A. (Eds.),Participatory design: Principles and practices. Hillsdale NJ USA: Erlbaum. • Bødker, K., Kensing, F., and Simonsen, J., Participatory IT design: Designing for business and workplace realities. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press, 2004.
  19. 19. PD Ways of Working • Developing theory about participation in work and design • Testing theory in practical work • Respecting the work of the worker – Including the diverse work of researchers and practitioners in diverse disciplines – Unity of theory and practice • Compromising, compromising, compromising – The problem of “the” “representative user” – Designers giving up “designerly quality” – Scientists giving up “experimental control” • Activity theory as a frame • Ethnography as a method of inquiry • Grounded theory as a method of analysis – Effective participatory process means diffusing power into the group • Dynamic field – PD has no Kuhnian “normal science”
  20. 20. Problems with eParticipation Systems • Tensions regarding ownership and provision of services – Government, political parties, NGOs? • If built by government – Low government interest – “Political niche areas” – Often poor participation (exception: one-way provision of information) • If built outside of government – Can lead to difficulties experienced by government agencies or staff – Can replicate old power structures and inequalities • Evaluation issues – Single evaluation perspective – Single system in isolation – Limited range of evaluation reference points or purposes • Aicholzer, G., Towards an eparticiation profile of Austria. MCIS 2006 White papers. • Manbrey, G., From participation to e-participation: The German case. Proc ICEGOV 2008. • King, S.F., & Brown, P., Fix my street or else: Using the internet to voice local public service concerns. Proc ICEGOV 2007. • Wimmer, M.A., Ontology for an e-participation virtual resource center. Proc ICEGOV 2007. • Panopoulou, E., Tambouris, E., & Tarabanis, K., eParticipation initiatives: How is Europe progressing? Eu. J. ePractice 7, 2009. • Kavanaugh, A., Zin, T.T., Carroll, J.M., Schmitz, J., Pérez-Quiñones, M., & Isenhour, P., When opinion leaders blog: New forms of citizen interaction. Proc dg.o 2006 (International Conference on Digital Government)., • Martin, P.P., Putting e-participation research on the service of civil society. iGov Central, http://www.i- gov.org/index.php?article=4509&visual=1&id=114&subject=24 • Macintosh, A., & Whyte, A. , Towards an evaluation framework for eParticipation. Transforming Government: People, Process & Policy 2(2), 16-30, 2008. • Phang, C.W., & Kankanhalli, A., A framework of ICT exploitation for e-participation initiatives. Communications of the ACM 51(12), 128-132 (2008).
  21. 21. Obstacles to Participation Obstacle • Physical disability • Cognitive disability • Literacy • Language • Gender • Economics & class • Government poverty • Ethnic & class conflict • Taouflik, I., Kabaili, H., & Kettani, D., Designing an e-government portal accessible to illierate citizens. Proc ICEGOV 2007. • Balci, A., Kumas, E., Tasdelen, H., Süngü, E., Medeni, T., & Medeni, T.D., Development and implementation of e-government services in Turkey: Issues of standardization, inclusion, citizen and satisfaction. Proc ICEGOV 2008. • Musyoka, J., Social electronic governance: Re-Visiting the redistribution question through coordinating relations between electronic governance and social goals. Proc ICEGOV 2008. • Kas, R.K., Patra, M.R., Mahapatra, S.C., e-Grama: A tool for bridging the digital divice in rural India. Proc ICEGOV 2008. • Koumpis, A., Chatzidimitriou, M., Vontas, A., & Peristeras, V., The 100 Euro e-gov portal. Proc ICEGOV 2007. • Galpaya, H., Samarajiva, R., & Soysa, S., Taking e-government to the bottom of the pyramid: Dial-a-gov? Proc ICEGOV 2007. • Seshagiri, S., Sagar, A., Joshi, D., Connecting the ‘bottom of the pyramid’ – An exploratory case study of India’s rural communication environment. Proc WWW 2007. • Chen, D.-Y., & Lee, C.-P., To reinforce or to mobilize? Tracing the impact of internet use on civic engagement in Taiwan. Proc ICEGOV 2008. • Kim, B.J., Zheng, L., & Jacobson, D., A report on the 2007 iGov Research Institute: Overcoming four dimensions of language barriers. Proc dg.o 2008 (International Conference on Digital Government). • Kaliannan, M., Awang, H., & Raman, M., Technology adoption in the public sector: An exploratory study of e-government in Malaysia. Proc Int. Conf. Theory & Practice of Electronic Governance, 2007. • Kolko, B., Johnson, E., & Rose, E., Mobile social software for the developoing world. In Online Communities and Social Computing, Springer, 2007. • Martin, P.P., Putting e-participation research on the service of civil society. iGov Central, http://www.i- gov.org/index.php?article=4509&visual=1&id=114&subject=24 • Awotwi, J.E., & Owusu, G., Lack of equal access to ICTs by women: An e-governance issue. Proc ICEGOV 2008. • Subramanian, M., Theory and practice of e-governance in India: A gender perspective. Proc Int. Conf. Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance, 2007. • Millard, J., E-governance and e-participation: Lessons in promoting inclusion and empowerment. In E-Participation and E-Government: Understand the Present and Creating the Future. United Nations, 2006.
  22. 22. Goals/”Methods” of eParticipation • Problems and Obstacles Need for citizen’s involvement in both – Solving a problem – Defining the problem • Do current approaches encourage widespread participation? • He, J., & King, W.R., The role of user participation in information systems development: Implications from a meta-analysis. J. Mgmt Info Sys 25(1), 2008. • Doll, W.J., & Deng, X., The collaborative use of information technology: End-user participation and systems success. Info. Resources Mgmt J. 14(2), 2001.
  23. 23. Participation Stages: Offline & Online Offline Online Newspaper, radio, TV, leaflet, poster, Websites, webcasts, podcasts, email Information brochure, report, mailing, telephone newsletter, online-registers and hotline, information centre indexes Questionnaires, surveys and polls, Online-questionnaires, eSurveys, telephone hotlines, fax, citizen’s Consultation panel, public hearings, public ePanels, ePolls, ePetitions, GIS and map-based tools, email, chatrooms meetings Focus groups, workshops, expert Online-forum, eConsultation systems, Involvement committees online surgeries Online-community, wiki, collaborative Cooperation Consensus conferences, mediation systems eReferenda, eVoting, collaborative Empowerment Referenda, voting, citizens’ juries systems Giving voice ? • Alchholzer, G., Buckner, K., Christiansen, E., Cruickshank, P., Davarinos, K., Eleftheriou, E., Gkarafli, M., Lippa, B., Panopoulou, E., Rose, J., Sæbø, Ø., Rallies, demonstrations, protests Tambouris, E., Tarabanis, K., Taylor-Smith, E., Westhold, H., & Winkler, R., DEMO-net D13.1 Development methods and support environments to build eParticipation tools. http://demonet.uni-koblenz.de/what-is-it-about/research-papers-reports-1/demo-netdeliverables/AichholzerEtAl2007a/ Action ?searchterm=demo , 2007. Boycott, sick-out, strike, work-to-rule • Macintosh, A., Charaterizing e-participation in policy-making. Proc HICSS 2004. ? • Chrysos, C., Kercic, D., Porquier, E., & Todorovski, L., Integating the drivers of e-participation at regional level in Europe. IDEAL-EU. http://www.google.at/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=2&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ideal-eu.net%2Fimages%2FDocuments%2FIDEAL_EU_D6.4_ • Brochure_and_Leaflet.pdf&ei=hjRNSqPkIpOysgbvya2tBA&usg=AFQjCNHOgcQzuFGX08NMFQrIelqcR7BsRQ&sig2=GvwO9Lq3XekjtscuebT-sA • Curtin, G.G., Global e-government/e-participation models, measurement andmethodology. UN workshop on E-Participation and E-Government, 2006. • Wimmer, M.A., Ontology for an e-participation virtual resource center. Proc ICEGOV 2007. • Ahmed, N., An anthology of e-participation models. In E-Participation and E-Government: Understand the Present and Creating the Future. United Nations, 2006.
  24. 24. Participation Stages: Offline & Online Offline Online Newspaper, radio, TV, leaflet, poster, Websites, webcasts, podcasts, email Information brochure, report, mailing, telephone newsletter, online-registers and hotline, information centre indexes Questionnaires, surveys and polls, Online-questionnaires, eSurveys, telephone hotlines, fax, citizen’s Consultation panel, public hearings, public ePanels, ePolls, ePetition systems, GIS and map-based tools, email meetings Focus groups, workshops, expert Involvement committees Online-forum, eConsultation systems Online-community, wiki, collaborative Cooperation Consensus conferences, mediation systems eReferenda, eVoting, collaborative Empowerment Referenda, voting, citizens’ juries systems Giving voice Rallies, demonstrations, protests ? Action Boycott, sick-out, strike, work-to-rule ?
  25. 25. Your Ideas Offline Online Information Newspaper, radio, TV, leaflet, poster… Websites, webcasts, podcasts, email... Consultation Questionnaires, surveys and polls… Online-questionnaires, eSurveys… Involvement Focus groups, workshops… Online-forum, eConsultation… Cooperation Consensus conferences, mediation… Online-community, wiki… Empowerment Referenda, voting, citizens’ juries… eReferenda, eVoting… Giving voice Rallies, demonstrations, protests ? Action Boycott, sick-out, strike, work-to-rule ? • Should these two cells be added for eParticipation? • What should go in those cells? • Should those online service and systems be provided by government, or by citizen organizations?
  26. 26. Your Ideas Offline Online Newspaper, radio, TV, leaflet, poster, Websites, webcasts, podcasts, email Information brochure, report, mailing, telephone newsletter, online-registers and hotline, information centre indexes Questionnaires, surveys and polls, Online-questionnaires, eSurveys, telephone hotlines, fax, citizen’s Consultation panel, public hearings, public ePanels, ePolls, ePetition systems, GIS and map-based tools, email meetings Focus groups, workshops, expert Involvement committees Online-forum, eConsultation systems Online-community, wiki, collaborative Cooperation Consensus conferences, mediation systems eReferenda, eVoting, collaborative Empowerment Referenda, voting, citizens’ juries systems Giving voice Rallies, demonstrations, protests ? Action Boycott, sick-out, strike, work-to-rule ? • Should these two cells be added for eParticipation? • What should go in those cells? • Should those online service and systems be provided by government, or by citizen organizations?
  27. 27. Development Approaches (1,2) Plan Waterfall Model Analyze Dennis, Wixom, & Tegarden, 2005 Design Implement eP Tool Where are the citizens? and other stakeholders? Plan Design Implement Analyze Design Design Implement Integrate Design Implement Parallel Model Dennis, Wixom, & Tegarden, 2005 eP Tool • Alchholzer, et al. DEMO-net D13.1 Development methods and support environments to build eParticipation tools. cited in full on “Participation Stages” slide..
  28. 28. Development Approaches (3) Unified Process - Dennis, Wixom, & Tegarden, 2005
  29. 29. Development Approaches (4) Analysis of current participation in policy-making Policy-making cycle processes process analysis Existing participation opportunities Existing communication channels Governance and participation re- Current technology support design process re-design Governance process changes New participation options Channel selection eParticipation tool/service design Tool selection Key design decisions system development Tool design and development Service design Programming Tool/service introduction Implementation & Roll-out & implementation change management Back-office reorganization Stakeholder education Citizen engagement Business process re-engineering – e.g., Davenport, 1995; Lenk & Traunmuller, 2000
  30. 30. Development Approaches (5) Design Research - Sanders, 2006
  31. 31. Evolutionary Cyclic • Mambrey, P., Mark, G., Pankokebabatz, U., User advocacy in participatory design: Designers’ expectations with a new communication channel. Computer Supported Cooperative Work 7(3-4), 291-313, 1998.
  32. 32. Participatory IT Design Focus Results - Decisions scope of design project: timetable, content, finances, project establishment Project charter + plan participants aligning the design project’s goals in-line analysis / and the company’s goal’s business Strategic alignment report and IT strategies strategic alignment work practices in selected work in-depth analysis / Analysis report + work practice domains descriptions ethnography Visions of IT systems and their relation to work organization and innovation / Design project report + mock-ups and prototypes qualifications vision development implementation project • Bødker, K., Kensing, F., & Simonsen, J., Participatory IT design. MIT , 2004. • Kensing, F., Simonsen, J., & Bødker, K., MUST – a method for participatory design. In Blomberg, J., & Kensing, F., & Dykstra-Erickson, E. (Eds.), Proc Participatory Design Conference, 1996.
  33. 33. Development Approaches (1,2) Plan Waterfall Model Analyze Dennis, Wixom, & Tegarden, 2005 Design Implement eP Tool Where are the citizens? and other stakeholders? Plan Design Implement Analyze Design Design Implement Integrate Design Implement Parallel Model Dennis, Wixom, & Tegarden, 2005 eP Tool
  34. 34. Development Approaches (1,2) Plan Waterfall Model Analyze Dennis, Wixom, & Tegarden, 2005 Design Implement eP Tool
  35. 35. A Simple Model to Build On Plan Analyze Design Implement eP Tool
  36. 36. Add an explicit Evaluation Stage Plan Analyze Design Implement Evaluate eP Tool • Kensing, F., and Munk-Madsen, A., PD: Structure in the toolbox. Communications of the ACM 36(6), 78-85,1993. • Muller, M.J., Participatory design: The third space in HCI (revised). In Jacko, J. and Sears, A. (eds.), Handbook of HCI 2nd Edition. Mahway, NJ, USA: Erlbaum, 2007. • Muller, M.J., Hallewell Haslwanter, J.D., and Dayton, T. (1997). Participatory practices in the software lifecycle. In Helander, M., Landauer, T., & Prabhu, P. (eds.), Handbook of human-computer interaction. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1997.
  37. 37. Participatory Workshops Starting Conference Plan Future Workshop Analyze Scenario and Storyboard Workshops Strategic Design Workshops Design “Non-Functional Artifacts” Theatrical Workshops Workshops Implement Evaluate User Audits eP Tool
  38. 38. Participatory Narratives Plan Users’ Stories Community Stories Analyze Contextual Inquiry & Contextual Design Designers’ Stories Scenario-Based Design Scenario Lay PhotoDocumentaries Design Lay VideoDocumentaries Interface Theatre Implement Evaluate eP Tool
  39. 39. Games Plan Language Games What-If Games Carpentopoloy Analyze Specification Game CARD Layout Kit PICTIVE Organization Kit Icon Design Game User Game Design Landscape Game Technology Game Scenario Game Implement Evaluate eP Tool
  40. 40. Prototyping Plan What-If Games Analyze Board Games Cooperative Prototyping UTOPIA Evolutionary Prototyping and “Perpetual Beta” (“cardboard computers” Collage Design Design by Doing CARD PICTIVE Implement Carpentopoloy “Paper Prototypes” Specification Game Layout Kit Evaluate Organization Kit eP Tool
  41. 41. Your Ideas Plan Workshops Analyze • What broad topics Contextual Inquiry & Contextual Design are missing? Cooperative Prototyping Narratives Evolutionary Prototyping and “Perpetual Beta” • What specific types Scenario-Based Design Design of methods are Based Games missing? Implement • What other Prototyping lifecycle models should be Evaluate considered? eP Tool
  42. 42. PD Thrives on Hybridity • Diverse disciplines • Diverse perspectives – Workers – Technologists Co-Analysts Co-Designers – Professional designers – Managers • Creation of hybrid “third spaces” between conventional disciplines and project stages • Use hybridity as a means of connecting disconnect parties and processes • Muller, M.J., Participatory design: The third space in HCI (revised). In Jacko, J. and Sears, A. (eds.), Handbook of HCI 2nd Edition. Mahway NJ USA: Erlbaum, 2007.
  43. 43. PD Thrives on Hybridity • Diverse disciplines • Diverse perspectives Industry Model – Workers – Technologists Co-Analysts Co-Designers – Professional designers – Managers • Creation of hybrid “third spaces” between conventional disciplines and project stages • Use hybridity as a means of connecting disconnect parties and processes
  44. 44. PD Thrives on Hybridity • Diverse disciplines • Diverse perspectives Polyvocal Polity Model – Citizens – Citizens – Citizens… – NGOs Co-Analysts Co-Designers – Media… – Technologists – Professional designers – Managers • Creation of hybrid “third spaces” between conventional disciplines and project stages • Use hybridity as a means of connecting disconnect parties and processes
  45. 45. Agenda • Chapter 1. Surprising Experiences with Social Software and Participatory Web2.0 • Chapter 2. Concepts of Participation in Government and Software Design Chapter 3. Moving Forward – Proposed research topics • Conclusions • Our discussion
  46. 46. Moving Forward in eParticipation • We know how to make systems – Not perfectly – We don’t (yet) know how to make citizens’ systems • We know how to do participatory design – Too many choices among methods and tools? – We don’t (yet) know how to do participatory design in the large • There are a lot of questions! • Aichholzer, G., Towards an eparticiation profile of Austria. MCIS 2006 White papers. • Manbrey, G., From participation to e-participation: The German case. Proc ICEGOV 2008. • King, S.F., & Brown, P., Fix my street or else: Using the internet to voice local public service concerns. Proc ICEGOV 2007. • Panopoulou, E., Tambouris, E., & Tarabanis, K., eParticipation initiatives: How is Europe progressing? Eu. J. ePractice 7, 2009. • Kavanaugh, A., Zin, T.T., Carroll, J.M., Schmitz, J., Pérez-Quiñones, M., & Isenhour, P., When opinion leaders blog: New forms of citizen interaction. Proc dg.o 2006 (International Conference on Digital Government)., • Martin, P.P., Putting e-participation research on the service of civil society. iGov Central, http://www.i- gov.org/index.php?article=4509&visual=1&id=114&subject=24 • Macintosh, A., & Whyte, A. , Towards an evaluation framework for eParticipation. Transforming Government: People, Process & Policy 2(2), 16-30, 2008. • Zappen, J.P., Harrison, T.M., & Watson, D., A new paradigm for designing e-government: Web2.0 and experience design. Proc dg.o 2008 (International Conference on Digital Government). • Light, A., Notes on participatory evaluation and sustainability. http://www.futurelab.org/resources/publications-reports-articles/ opening- education-reports/Opening-Eduation-Report1128
  47. 47. Proposed Research Topics (1) • If eParticipation is provided via large systems – Participatory lifecycle models for citizens – The “simple” study of stakeholders and their needs will be informative – How can proven participatory methods be “scaled up” (for very large numbers of citizens)? – How can proven participatory methods be “flattened out” (for very diverse populations)? • Thought experiments – How would broad eParticipation be designed by “a large software company”? by a customer-care provider? by a telecommunications company? – How would broad eParticipation be designed by the UN? – How would broad eParticipatoin be designed by the parliamentary bodies of different countries?
  48. 48. Proposed Research Topics (2) • If eParticipation is provided via web services – How reliable must a system be for eDiscussion? eDeliberation? Contrast with eVoting? – Which citizenship activities benefit from identity-disclosure? from anonymity? How do these values relate to the obstacles discussed earlier? – What are the governmental and policy implications of “perpetual beta” • Thought experiments – How would Google provide citizens’ services? – How would Facebook (or Digg) provide citizens’ services? – How would Twitter provide citizens’ services? – How would a health service provide citizens’ services?
  49. 49. Proposed Research Topics (3) • What are the consequences of extending the methods of eParticipation? e.g., – One-way information provision – Two-way transactions – Effective impact on decisions – Citizens’ initiatives – Citizens’ actions (demonstrations, protests, marches, boycotts…) • For each stakeholder group, e.g., – “Ordinary” citizens (the “default” citizen) – Citizens with special needs – Government – Government staff workers – NGOs • And who should “own” the space where these activities occur?
  50. 50. Proposed Research Topics (4) • Is appropriation useful for citizens’ services? – If so, how can it be encouraged? – If not, how can it be prevented? – Who should “govern” appropriation? • Is hybridity a useful attribute of citizens’ services? – Do we need that much ambiguity and creativity? When? Why? – How can hybridity support the participation of all of the diverse members of the population? What kind of hybridity? – Who designs hybridity?
  51. 51. Conclusion • Appropriation and hybridity revealed through experiences with social software • Existing eParticipation systems and development models do not allow appropriation or hybridity • Participatory alternatives • Proposed research questions
  52. 52. Thank you! slides available on www.slideshare.com Contact me on twitter: michael_muller

×