tone bratteteig “participatory design — scandinavian tradition” feb. 5 2003 -- in364 1...
TRANSCRIPT
Ton
e B
ratte
teig
“Par
ticip
ator
y de
sign
— S
cand
inav
ian
trad
ition
” F
eb.
5 20
03 -
- IN
364
1
Participatory Design —
Scandinavian tradition
Tone Bratteteig,
February 5. 2003
readings:
• Ehn
• Bansler
• Lyytinen & Iivari
Ton
e B
ratte
teig
“Par
ticip
ator
y de
sign
— S
cand
inav
ian
trad
ition
” F
eb.
5 20
03 -
- IN
364
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.
Bje
rkne
s &
Bra
ttet
eig,
199
1; B
jørn
-And
erse
n &
Hed
berg
, 19
77
Ton
e B
ratte
teig
“Par
ticip
ator
y de
sign
— S
cand
inav
ian
trad
ition
” F
eb.
5 20
03 -
- IN
364
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
Bje
rkn
es
& B
ratt
ete
ig, 1
987
Ton
e B
ratte
teig
“Par
ticip
ator
y de
sign
— S
cand
inav
ian
trad
ition
” F
eb.
5 20
03 -
- IN
364
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
...
512-2
name
diagnosis
allergies
...
team
x
y
z
...
tasks
medicine
xx
yy
...
Ton
e B
ratte
teig
“Par
ticip
ator
y de
sign
— S
cand
inav
ian
trad
ition
” F
eb.
5 20
03 -
- IN
364
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?
Bra
ttet
eig,
199
7
Ton
e B
ratte
teig
“Par
ticip
ator
y de
sign
— S
cand
inav
ian
trad
ition
” F
eb.
5 20
03 -
- IN
364
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.
Bra
ttet
eig,
199
7; B
jerk
nes
& B
ratt
ete
ig 1
987
Ton
e B
ratte
teig
“Par
ticip
ator
y de
sign
— S
cand
inav
ian
trad
ition
” F
eb.
5 20
03 -
- IN
364
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
Ton
e B
ratte
teig
“Par
ticip
ator
y de
sign
— S
cand
inav
ian
trad
ition
” F
eb.
5 20
03 -
- IN
364
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.
Ton
e B
ratte
teig
“Par
ticip
ator
y de
sign
— S
cand
inav
ian
trad
ition
” F
eb.
5 20
03 -
- IN
364
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
Bra
ttet
eig,
199
7
Ton
e B
ratte
teig
“Par
ticip
ator
y de
sign
— S
cand
inav
ian
trad
ition
” F
eb.
5 20
03 -
- IN
364
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 learnvs• technical brilliance or utilization of the latest
technologies
Bra
ttet
eig,
199
7; B
jekn
es &
Bra
tte
teig
198
8
Ton
e B
ratte
teig
“Par
ticip
ator
y de
sign
— S
cand
inav
ian
trad
ition
” F
eb.
5 20
03 -
- IN
364
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
, 199
1; B
jerk
nes
& B
ratt
etei
g, 1
995
Ton
e B
ratte
teig
“Par
ticip
ator
y de
sign
— S
cand
inav
ian
trad
ition
” F
eb.
5 20
03 -
- IN
364
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
, 199
1; B
jerk
nes
& B
ratt
etei
g 19
84;
199
5
Ton
e B
ratte
teig
“Par
ticip
ator
y de
sign
— S
cand
inav
ian
trad
ition
” F
eb.
5 20
03 -
- IN
364
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
Bje
rkne
s &
Bra
ttet
eig,
199
5
Ton
e B
ratte
teig
“Par
ticip
ator
y de
sign
— S
cand
inav
ian
trad
ition
” F
eb.
5 20
03 -
- IN
364
14
Mapping the Scandinavian approach
institution situation
organization as a whole
special interest groups
Bje
rkne
s &
Bra
ttet
eig,
199
5
the LO/NAF Cooperation projects
Integration and redesign (FIRE)
florence
Cooperative
designUTOPIA
NJMF
DUE
DEMOS
Ton
e B
ratte
teig
“Par
ticip
ator
y de
sign
— S
cand
inav
ian
trad
ition
” F
eb.
5 20
03 -
- IN
364
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
Ton
e B
ratte
teig
“Par
ticip
ator
y de
sign
— S
cand
inav
ian
trad
ition
” F
eb.
5 20
03 -
- IN
364
16
Readings:Ehn [1993]: design for democracy at work
DEMOS (1975-79): DEMOkratiske Styringssystemer
• interdisciplinary team, 4 enterprisesUTOPIA (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
Ehn
198
9
design as a learning process
design as creation of language-games
system descript. for discussion
design-by-doing
Ton
e B
ratte
teig
“Par
ticip
ator
y de
sign
— S
cand
inav
ian
trad
ition
” F
eb.
5 20
03 -
- IN
364
17
Readings:Bansler on SD research traditions:
1) system theoretical engineering, cybernetics, technology optimism: systems thinking Langefors (60’s): infology ISAC
2) sosio-technical human factors, psycho-social work environment, balance technical—social system: systems thinking, analysis of variances Thorsrud (LO/NAF; 60/70’s), UK: ETHICS, SSM
3) critical politically 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
Ban
sler
, 198
9
Ton
e B
ratte
teig
“Par
ticip
ator
y de
sign
— S
cand
inav
ian
trad
ition
” F
eb.
5 20
03 -
- IN
364
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 Iiva
ri &
Lyy
tine
n, 1
998
Ton
e B
ratte
teig
“Par
ticip
ator
y de
sign
— S
cand
inav
ian
trad
ition
” F
eb.
5 20
03 -
- IN
364
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
Ton
e B
ratte
teig
“Par
ticip
ator
y de
sign
— S
cand
inav
ian
trad
ition
” F
eb.
5 20
03 -
- IN
364
20
Regrouping cont.theories
Systems thinking Critical theory (dialectics)
1. infology
3. socio-technics 4. trade union-based
5. socio-cybernetics6. language-action
7. professional work practice
9. activity theory 10. structuration theory
Ton
e B
ratte
teig
“Par
ticip
ator
y de
sign
— S
cand
inav
ian
trad
ition
” F
eb.
5 20
03 -
- IN
364
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
Ton
e B
ratte
teig
“Par
ticip
ator
y de
sign
— S
cand
inav
ian
trad
ition
” F
eb.
5 20
03 -
- IN
364
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)
Ton
e B
ratte
teig
“Par
ticip
ator
y de
sign
— S
cand
inav
ian
trad
ition
” F
eb.
5 20
03 -
- IN
364
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 ethicsBoland [1998]:
• nature
• equality
• irony
Ton
e B
ratte
teig
“Par
ticip
ator
y de
sign
— S
cand
inav
ian
trad
ition
” F
eb.
5 20
03 -
- IN
364
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-determinationnature:• control of the product vs. continuous change and learning• situated knowledge, local actionirony:• 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”
Ton
e B
ratte
teig
“Par
ticip
ator
y de
sign
— S
cand
inav
ian
trad
ition
” F
eb.
5 20
03 -
- IN
364
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
Ton
e B
ratte
teig
“Par
ticip
ator
y de
sign
— S
cand
inav
ian
trad
ition
” F
eb.
5 20
03 -
- IN
364
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?
Ton
e B
ratte
teig
“Par
ticip
ator
y de
sign
— S
cand
inav
ian
trad
ition
” F
eb.
5 20
03 -
- IN
364
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 ...)
Ton
e B
ratte
teig
“Par
ticip
ator
y de
sign
— S
cand
inav
ian
trad
ition
” F
eb.
5 20
03 -
- IN
364
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
Ton
e B
ratte
teig
“Par
ticip
ator
y de
sign
— S
cand
inav
ian
trad
ition
” F
eb.
5 20
03 -
- IN
364
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. ...
Ton
e B
ratte
teig
“Par
ticip
ator
y de
sign
— S
cand
inav
ian
trad
ition
” F
eb.
5 20
03 -
- IN
364
30
some referencesFlorence:
• 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