1 / 30

Participatory Design — Scandinavian tradition

Participatory Design — Scandinavian tradition. Tone Bratteteig, February 5. 2003 readings: Ehn Bansler Lyytinen & Iivari. User participation in systems sevelopment.

xenia
Download Presentation

Participatory Design — Scandinavian tradition

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Participatory Design — Scandinavian tradition • Tone Bratteteig, • February 5. 2003 readings: • Ehn • Bansler • Lyytinen & Iivari

  2. User participation in systems sevelopment ”The Scandinavian approach”: users participate in many phases of the systems development, as co-designers Reasons for user participation: 1) to improve the knowledge upon which systems are built, 2) to enable people to develop realistic expectations, and reduce resistance to change, and 3) to increase workplace democracy by giving the members of an organization the right to participate in decisions that are likely to affect their work. Bjerknes & Bratteteig, 1991; Bjørn-Andersen & Hedberg, 1977

  3. Florence(1983-1987) • based on nursing as a profession and as work • SYDPOL (SYstem Development environment and Profession Oriented Languages) • aimed to build an information system • with nurses • as co-designers and decision makers • mutual learning • techniques for user participation in design • for nurses, based on their professional knowledge • focus: profession, work place & organization Bjerknes & Bratteteig, 1987

  4. The Work Sheet System(the Florence pilot system) 501-2 name diagnosis allergies ... 508 name diagnosis allergies ... 510 name diagnosis allergies ... 512-1 name diagnosis allergies ... 501-1 name diagnosis allergies ... team x y z ... tasks medicine xx yy ... 512-2 name diagnosis allergies ...

  5. Mutual learning: Nurses don't do what they say that they do • Observations vs. interviews • Work practice is personal and situated. Is practice more “correct” than standard routines? Bratteteig, 1997

  6. Mutual learning: Our nurses refused our prototype • Learning by experiencing mistakes (trial & error) • Mutual learning is based on a willingness to listen • but the ability to listen is in turn based on knowledge. Bratteteig, 1997; Bjerknes & Bratteteig 1987

  7. Mutual learning: Our nurses designed the pilot system • After “mutual learning” the nurses worked out a list of suggestions for computer system support in their work • We all agreed on their #1, then they made a design sketch • The learning provided them with technological fantasy • The design sketch was very well suited for communicating about the system and its functionality

  8. Mutual learning: Our nurses were responsible for the training • Sharing of rights and duties in the project • The nurses responsible for introducing the pilot system • including training their colleagues in using the system • The introduction was smooth and utilized characteristics of the work organization that we did not think of.

  9. Mutual learning – mutual respect: Nurses' acknowledgement of informaticians • Mutual respect goes both ways, the balance is difficult • The mutuality can be difficult to communicate if the differences between traditions and cultures are large Bratteteig, 1997

  10. Participatory design: Who are the designers? • Our nurses decided on the design • because we, the researchers in the project, gave them the power to do so • Giving away power to decide on the design was difficult for us as researchers and informaticians • Evaluation of computer systems: • simple and well-functioning systems that everybody can learn vs • technical brilliance or utilization of the latest technologies Bratteteig, 1997; Bjeknes & Bratteteig 1988

  11. Some Scandinavian research projectsin the Participatory Design ”school” • NJMF (1971-1973): Norsk Jern- og MetallarbeiderForbund • with Norwegian Computing Centre (Nygaard, Bergo) • results: data agreements (Viking Askim 1973), text books, vocational training ++ • Handel & Kontor, Kjemisk ... • DEMOS (1975-1979): DEMOkratiske Styringssystemer • Ehn & Sandberg, negotiations (”Företagsstyrning och löntagermakt”) • DUE (1977-1980): Demokrati, Udvikling og Edb • Kyng, Mathiassen: trade unions, education (DUE kursus) Ehn, 1991; Bjerknes & Bratteteig, 1995

  12. Some Scandinavian research projects II • UTOPIA (1981-1984): Utbildildning, Teknik, och Produkt I Arbetskvalitetsperspektiv • Ehn, Kyng, Sundblad, Bødker: trade unions (graphical workers), ”Grafitti” • the tool pespective • Florence (1983-1987):<nursing profession: Florence Nightingale> • Nygaard, Bjerknes, Bratteteig, Kaasbøll, Sannes, Sinding-Larsen: profession, work place (organization), use context • case for the SYDPOL programme (SYstem Development environment and Profession Oriented Languages: 1982-1988) • the application pespective Ehn, 1991; Bjerknes & Bratteteig 1984; 1995

  13. Some more research projects • MARS (1984-1987): Metodiske Arbejdsformer i Systemudvikling • Andersen, Kensing, Lassen, Lundin, Mathiassen, Munk-Madsen, Sørgaard: systems development practice & systems development work, professionalization of systems development: theory (independent of methodology) • FIRE (1992-1994): Functional Integration through REdesign • Bjerknes, Bratteteig, Braa, Kaasbøll, Smørdal, Øgrim: integration and continuous redesign, use & development contexts & organizations Bjerknes & Bratteteig, 1995

  14. Mapping the Scandinavian approach institution situation the LO/NAF Cooperation projects Integration and redesign (FIRE) organization as a whole florence NJMF DUE DEMOS Cooperative design UTOPIA special interest groups Bjerknes & Bratteteig, 1995

  15. Strategies for user participation levels of action: 1) work situation • NJMF, DUE, DEMOS, Florence, Cooperative design 2) work place • SocioTechnique, FIRE 3) inter-organizational relations • between org.: ex. EDI, user interest groups • between interest groups: ex. UTOPIA; Florence 4) work life • legislation; NJMF, DUE, DEMOS

  16. Readings:Ehn [1993]: design for democracy at work DEMOS (1975-79): DEMOkratiske Styringssystemer • interdisciplinary team, 4 enterprises UTOPIA (1981-84): Utbildn., Teknik, och Produkt I Arbetskval.perspektiv • graphical workers’ trade unions in Scandinavia • the tool perspective Philosophical foundation for skill-based participatory design • Dreyfus; Winograd & Flores (Heidegger and Gadamer) • language as action • Wittgenstein • language games • Polanyi • tacit knowledge  design as a learning process  design as creation of language-games  system descript. for discussion  design-by-doing Ehn 1989

  17. Readings:Bansler on SD research traditions: • 1) system theoreticalengineering, cybernetics, technology optimism: systems thinking Langefors (60’s): infology ISAC • 2) sosio-technicalhuman factors, psycho-social work environment, balance technical—social system: systems thinking, analysis of variances Thorsrud (LO/NAF; 60/70’s), UK: ETHICS,  SSM • 3) criticalpolitically based critique, alternative solutions, trade unions, technology as tool (autonomy & control): critical & political philosophy, studies of use (and development) Nygaard (70’s): social science methods / theories, techniques for SD as a social work process Bansler, 1989

  18. Readings: Iivari & Lyytinen [1998] 1. infological approach 2. formal approaches 3. socio-technical approach 4. trade unionist approach 5. socio-cybernetic approach 6. language action approach 7. professional work practice approach 8. object-oriented approaches 9. activity theory approach 10. structuration theory approach Iivari & Lyytinen, 1998

  19. Regrouping Iivari & Lyytinen Systems thinking Critical theory (dialectics) 1. infology 3. socio-technics 4. trade union-based 5. socio-cybernetics 7. professional work practice

  20. Regrouping cont.theories Systems thinking Critical theory (dialectics) 1. infology 3. socio-technics 4. trade union-based 5. socio-cybernetics 6. language-action 7. professional work practice 9. activity theory 10. structuration theory

  21. Regrouping cont.computing views Systems thinking Critical theory (dialectics) 1. infology 2. formal methods 3. socio-technics 4. trade union-based 5. socio-cybernetics 6. language-action 7. professional work practice 8. object-orientation 9. activity theory 10. structuration theory

  22. User participation and Participatory design Scandinavian approach to user participation in systems development • co-designers • SD as organizational, technical, human change process is different from • participatory design USA based • in software production • HCI (Human Computer Interaction) • participative design / development UK/ Australia • development of local communities (not technical)

  23. Scandinavian culture • rich social democracies, relatively small • use technology to a large extent, very fast diffusion • small and medium sized organizations • equity and equal rights very important • democratic work life (employees repr. in boards etc.) • high percentage of trade union membership (increasing) • protestant ethics Boland [1998]: • nature • equality • irony

  24. Participatory Design as a Scandinavian tradition equality: • respect for the user as an expert (on equal terms) • physical and social-psycological work environment important for health (well-being) and productivity • autonomy & co-determination nature: • control of the product vs. continuous change and learning • situated knowledge, local action irony: • question the taken-for-granted • conflict – harmony & politics – ethics • worries about • the quality of the system (the toolness) • uncertainties connected to use and implementation (introduction) ”happy pigs taste better”

  25. and some differences within the Scandinavian approaches • conflict – harmony as strategy for development • politics – ethics how do we regulate quality process and product • control of the product – continuous change and learning perspective on systems development implemented in methods and methodologies

  26. What is Participatory Design? • aims to make the users have control of their tools • and of the way they change (as the work change) • autonomy and responsibility in the work situation • at the work situation (and work place) level, systems development can contribute by emphasizing • functionality as result (use situation & use context) • designers’ responsibility for use (accountability) • at the organization and social level • individual, local action link to collective, global concerns through strategy, action, debate?

  27. Does it make a difference? at the work situation (and work place) level (Florence):  Functionality as result rather than starting point • the use situation & context as basis for design of the system • based on skilled performance of action (like work, balancing standardization/flexibility) • based on professional knowledge (durability, control)  Responsibility for the use situation (accountability) • designing a part of a use situation—not just a gadget, a thing • open up for challenges of design ideas • open up for accountability (not distant, general, abstract ...)

  28. User participation in systems development • is established as valuable (techniques/practices & politics) • theory differs from practice • degree of involvement varies Scandinavian characteristics: • democratic work life • respect for users’ expertice vary with respect to politics and interdisciplinarity  users participate in many phases of systems development, as co-designers

  29. Challengesto the Scandinavian tradition of PD • globalised work life • globalised work market • inter-organizational systems • global technology – local use • continuous change of IS • integration of generations ICT • intra / extra / internet • changing view on time & space • changing view on work (play, learn) • cultural changes (ex. individual vs collective) • etc. ...

  30. some references Florence: • Bjerknes m.fl. (1985): Gjensidig læring, Florence report no 1,IFI/UIO • Bjerknes & Bratteteig (1987): Å implementere en ide, Florence report no 3, IFI/UIO • Bjerknes & Bratteteig (1987): Florence in Wonderland. System Development with Nurses, in Bjerknes et al. (eds): Computers and Democracy. A Scandinavian Challenge, Avebury, Aldershot • Bjerknes & Bratteteig (1987): Perspectives on description tools and techniques in system development, in Docherty et al (eds): System Design for Human Development and Productivity: Participation and Beyond, North-Holland, Amsterdam • Bjerknes & Bratteteig (1988): Memoirs of two survivors, in Proceedings of CSCW, ACM • Bratteteig (1997): Mutual Learning. Enabling cooperation in systems design in Braa & Monteiro (eds): Proceedings of IRIS'20 Skandinavian tradition: • Bjerknes & Bratteteig (1995): User Participation and Democracy. A Discussion of Scandinavian Research on System Development, Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, vol 7 no 1, April 1995

More Related