socinfo2011 - designing for motivation

Markus Rohde

Information Systems and New Media

Prof. Dr. Volker Wulf

SocInfo2011 – Session F5 Peer Production

Designing For Motivation

Focusing on Motivational Values in Two Case Studies


Siegen UniversityHölderlinstr 3, 57076 Siegen,

Germany

Markus Rohde

International Institute for Socio-Informatics (IISI) Bonn, Germany

Fahri Yetim, Torben Wiedenhöfer and

Markus Rohde




Markus Rohde




Understanding Social Informatics

,,the interdisciplinary study of the design, uses and consequences of information technologies that takes into account their interaction with institutional and cultural contexts“ (Kling 1999)

Socio-Informatics (Rohde/Wulf 2011): Socio-technical, dual nature of IT artifacts Design in interaction with social practices

Kling, Rob (1999): What is social informatics and why does it matter? D-Lib Mag 5(1).

Rohde, Markus and Wulf, Volker (2011): Sozio-Informatik. Informatik-Spektrum, Vol. 34, No. 2, 210-213

Markus Rohde




Markus Rohde




Research Questions

What motivates users in different use cases? Are there significant commonalities/ differences between the cases?

What mechanism/ design features may support motivational values and thus motivate people to annotate in these use cases?

Markus Rohde




Motivational Design

Design your App Usable Design your App Enjoyable Design your App for Visibility Design your App Sociable Design your App Valuable Design your App Explorable Design your App Flexible Design your App in a Participatory Way

Markus Rohde




Framework Value Sensitive Design

VSD approach (Friedman et al., 2006): considering human values throughout the design and deployment of information technologies

VSD as an iterative process that integrates conceptual, empirical, and technical investigations. Conceptual investigations in central value concepts and

issues Empirical investigations focus on the social context and on

the particular design Technical investigations aim at design to support values

analyzing current technical mechanisms

Friedman, B.; Kahn, P.; and Borning, A.: Value Sensitive Design and Information Systems. In P. Zhang & D. Galletta (eds.), Human-Computer Interaction and Management Information Systems: Foundations. M.E. Sharpe, New York, 2006, 348-372

Markus Rohde




Exampels/ Related Work

Batson et al. (2002) motivation for community involvement: Egoism (increase one’s own welfare), Altruism (increase the welfare of another individual or

individuals), Collectivism (increase the welfare of a group), Principlism (uphold one or more moral principle)

Kuznetsov (2006) motivations of Wikipedians: reputation, community, reciprocity, altruism and autonomy

Hars and Qu (2002) participation in open source projects: altruism and identification with a community

Markus Rohde




Reputation building: Individuals’ desire to establish their reputation and to gain approval from others in the field (Oreg/Nov 2008)

Self-development: The desire for self-development through learning from others in the field, receiving feedback, and enhancing one’s abilities and skills (Oreg/Nov 2008)

Autonomy: The freedom of independent decision making (Kuznetsov 2006)

Status and Recognition: The desire for social acceptance and appreciation (Fang/Neufeld 2009)

Sense of ownership and control: The desire for personal power, prosperity and control (Fang/Neufeld 2009)

Free software ideology: Altruistic structure of belief, public good attitude (Fang/Neufeld 2009)

Value Sensitive Design Criteria

Markus Rohde




Telco: Intranet Knowledge Management

Markus Rohde




Adfind: Web Services Portal

Markus Rohde




Research Method

Telco Corp: 11 semi-structured interviews (1 hr.) and a focus group workshop with 5 participants (2.5 hrs.)

Adfind: 8 semi-structured interviews (1 hr.) and a focus group workshop with 14 participants (2 hrs.)

Audio-/ Video-Recordings, Transcriptions, Ex-Post-Categorization

Design Recommendations Participatory Design Evaluation

Markus Rohde




Telco Findings (I)

Community support. Users emphasized the relevance of community for them. One stated that the internal network is very strong and people tend to help each other. They emphasized the usefulness of expert allocation support, to locate contact persons to access community knowledge more easily.

Reputation. Desire to gain recognition from others in their company. One was interested to build a reputation in a certain area.

Markus Rohde




Telco Findings (II)

Self development. Learning from the annotations of others was highly valued by several participants: importance of the usefulness of annotations. Annotation would allow to find information from other projects more easily to enhance personal knowledge. Another strived to track the expertise of people for his own area.

Self benefit. One stated that without personal benefit it’s as a “waste of time”. Another would only use the tools if annotating would be their main job.

Personal enjoyment. Having fun during annotating: “entertaining” side of the tools is very important

Markus Rohde




Adfind Findings (I)

Self-benefit. Highest importance for motivating participants in this case. All would annotate web services to reach a personal goal, even though their goals differ (commercial interest vs. open source services, personal consumers enhance their own web service retrieval processes, rewards like exclusive access to withhold information or functionalities).

Self development. Need for personal development and need for appropriate instruments that may be helpful for the personal development. Value of retrieving expertise from other developers.

Markus Rohde




Adfind Findings (II) Reputation. Web service developers need

professional reputation. One values the possibility to make his own web services more visible. Another pointed at changing status from “newcomer” to “experienced developer” would motivate.

Community. A community would foster motivation to actively contribute to semantic content creation. Users want to bring something back to a community they had profited from.

Personal enjoyment. Having fun during the annotation process is also emphasized by some participants.

Markus Rohde




Motivational Values Supportive Design Features/Mechanisms

Reputation(-building) Visibility to the community Multiple channelsBuilding reputable online identities (adfind)Points/money (telco) and status reward systems (adfind)

Self-benefit Feedback through rating of actions/choicesExplaining self-benefits (telco)

Self-development Rewarding through access to extra information (adfind)Incentivizing by tagging awareness (telco)

Community Promoting reciprocity Explaining community benefits (adfind)Informing about the beneficiaries of contributions (adfind)Incentivizing by goal-setting (telco)Rewarding cooperative behaviorSocial comparison through visualization of contributions

Personal Enjoyment Integrating fun featuresPackaging the task as a game

Markus Rohde




Limitations

Limited number of participants involved in both empirical studies – due to the method chosen.

Lacking generalization – due to case studies and context-based empirical design.

User communities can change, there may also be emerging values.

Design features need to be implemented and tested/ evaluated in both application contexts – this is ongoing work.

Markus Rohde




Markus Rohde

[email protected]

http://www.wineme.uni-siegen.de

http://www.iisi.de

Thank you for your attention!

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.wineme.uni-siegen.de/

http://www.iisi.de/

Markus Rohde




Example Video Annotation

socinfo2011 - designing for motivation

Business