An archiving system for work teams. Completed for the Master of Graphic Design program at NC State.

1. research framework visualization
our:chive
an archiving
system for
work teams
Final Project
April 30, 2012
Rebecca Knowe
Master of Graphic Design candidate
NC State University
committee:
Martha Scotford, Chair
Kermit Bailey
Denise Gonzales-Crisp

2. research framework visualization
research
question
how can an archiving system represent
the diversity of opinion and debate
in the decision-making process
of a work team?

3. research framework visualization
research
question
how can an archiving system represent
the diversity of opinion and debate
in the decision-making process
of a work team?
How can the system guide team members to:
1. curate meeting notes that capture both diversity of
opinion and group decisions?
2. retrace previous debates in a decision’s history?
3. revisit the group’s initial work in order to stay on track
when making later stage decisions?

4. research framework visualization
research
question
how can an archiving system represent archiving system:
digital repository of group artifacts
the diversity of opinion and debate decision making:
major decisions
in the decision-making process
generative project-oriented process
work team:
of a work team?
flatly-structured group
professionals from diverse expertise areas
How can the system guide team members to:
1. curate meeting notes that capture both diversity of
opinion and group decisions?
2. retrace previous debates in a decision’s history?
3. revisit the group’s initial work in order to stay on track
when making later stage decisions?

5. research framework visualization
research
question
how can an archiving system represent archiving system:
digital repository of group artifacts
the diversity of opinion and debate decision making:
major decisions
in the decision-making process
generative project-oriented process
work team:
of a work team?
flatly-structured group
professionals from diverse expertise areas
How can the system guide team members to:
1. curate meeting notes that capture both diversity of How is the archive created?
opinion and group decisions?
2. retrace previous debates in a decision’s history? How might a new member use the system?
3. revisit the group’s initial work in order to stay on track How might the system help revise decisions?
when making later stage decisions?

6. research framework visualization
research
evaluation of current technologies
collaboration software (selected)
Generally focus on in-the-moment collaboration
spigit memtable
User-generated Records voice and
tags support interaction
easier search
google meeting archive
docs browsing
Supports Meeting history visualized
detailed through multiple
notetaking data inputs
Access records
through
browsing
document files

7. research framework visualization
group context
group process map
1. forming 2. conflict 3. negotiating goals and roles 4. task/activity orientation (performing) 5. termination
(Phases: Keyton p. 67) Types of conflict (p. 201)
personalized/affective
Conflict management
strategies (p. 210)
(norming) Decision making/problem solving functions (p. 153) (functional theory)
substantive integrative: thoroughly discuss problem propose a set of realistic alternative solutions
Bases of power (p. 205)
competitive collaboration examine criteria of acceptable solution assess positive aspects of each proposed solution
reward
cooperative distributive: (win-lose) before discussing specific solutions assess negative aspects of each proposed solution
coercive
cognitive competing
legitimate
procedural accommodating
referent • group may ignore
normative nonconfrontive:
expert processes, procedures
gender diversity
informational
avoiding
• myopic vision
work done wrongly
cultural diversity intermediate:
• introduce/continue (must re-explain or reassign)
compromising
feedback & observation
work done sufficiently decide next steps assign roles, tasks
determine recruit team form subteams clarify roles, meet to review work evaluate work bring parts of a work (a whole)
expertise needed tasks together and evaluate as sub-team finished project
• review accomplishments
explain/discuss work, tasks clarify, negotiate begin tasks meet to clarify issues misunderstanding • maintain positive group attributes Challenges to effective decision making (p. 177) • evaluate procedures
define problem terms • maintain processes information bias
impediment uneven participation
• resolve differences
• clarify purpose assign roles Feedback levels (pp. 268–272) Feedback types Procedural decision-making problems
(ambiguity) explain/negotiate meet to negotiate discussing info already known
• nonparticipation redefine problem priorities, changes
task descriptive (p. 157) majority influence
procedural evaluative (arising from lack of procedures) choose cautious solution rather than novel
(revise) • value differences considerations for relational prescriptive group has trouble staying focused on take inaccurate position
• individuals learn to lead, participate, support individual what it needs to accomplish
• learn to manage problems Formal roles (pp. 57–63) non-experts group group has difficulty sticking to meeting
solution does not satisfy criteria
(appointed, elected, groupthink
• coalitions around issues agenda
emerge) disagreement is absent
• stabilize group: review charter, review group performs superficial rather than
leader Group feedback topics extraordinarily high sense of cohesiveness
performance, agree to management procedures, Types of tasks/activities (pp. 79–94) detailed analysis of alternatives
secretary/recorder goals languages used to detach from ethical considerations
see value of feedback & observation planning group’s members have little motivation
critical advisor (devil’s are members committed group artificially narrows what it considers acceptable solution
generating ideas for working on decision, or fall into rut members feel group is infallible
advocate) personal goals in alignment with group
making choices (decision making) group relies on perceived expert or per- members protect others from criticisms or new knowledge
roles
negotiating son who cares most about problem avoid by:
Informal roles roles & responsibilities clear to all
competing group considers one alternative, then adopting decision making procedures to encourage full participation
Task roles who providing leadership
performing Influences on tasks/activities drops it for discussion of next, without monitoring leadership behaviors
coordinator group responding well to leadership
deliberating degree of participation Meeting obstacles (258) comparing alternatives
elaborator other necessary roles covered
building relationships influence of time long meetings group goes straight to decision making Faulty decision making factors (p. 181)
energizer procedures & processes
providing social support pace unequal member involvement/ without problem solving members make assumptions about facts
evaluator/critic members communicating effectively
time flexibility (greater commitment group accepts first solution mentioned breakdown in group reasoning process
info giver decisionmaking procedures used appropriately
autonomy) formation of cliques group fails to think of a complex deci- jump to conclusions
info seeker is conflict managed
false consensus (high time different levels of communica- sion as series of smaller decisions use faulty logic
initiator/contributor Task/activity characteristics group spend time together effectively
pressure) tion skill group does not use time wisely pressure to make quick decision or please someone outside group
opinion giver task difficulty general
influence of diversity different communicator styles group makes choice without evaluating incomplete decision criteria
opinion seeker solution multiplicity strengths & weaknesses of group
cultural distance personal conflicts its merits members unable to persuade others that an alternative is better
orienter/clarifier intrinsic interest someone/something outside group hindering it
influence of technology use of ambiguous & vague language
procedural technician population familiarity
primary method of Procedures for decision making (pp.171, rigid adherence to role boundaries
recorder acceptance level (of decision)
communicating 159–170) failure to ask relevant/obvious questions
Group maintenance roles area of freedom (group’s autonomy)
flexibility in meeting standard agenda
compromiser social complexity
asynchronous work brainstorming Techniques to improve decision making (p. 184)
encourager ego involvement level
no competing for talking Evaluating decision implementation (p. 187) nominal group technique listening, observing to pinpoint problem
follower agreement
time whether group reached goal consensus critical advisor constructively criticizes ideas
gatekeeper/expediter how to proceed
reflect before responding whether output has utility/value voting assess skills you are contributing: (p. 148)
harmonizer what to accomplish
greater opportunity to staying within budget ranking task skills
observer/commentator participate supplies problem recognition & framing
standard setter/ego ideal interacting anonymously Decision making principles (p. 151)
personnel inference drawing
Individual roles Communication take time to learn about evolutionary process
time idea generation
(counterproductive; divert deficiencies (p. 101) mediated environment circular rather than linear process
money argument
attention away from group being intolerant of others’ better suited for long-term many influences
contributes to growth & personal well being of members relational skills
& activities) opinions groups groups constrained by external & inter-
aggressor reluctant to speak up/argue leadership—help reduce constraints:
complex task requires: Evaluating decision outcomes (p. 191) nal systems cognitive constraints
blocker a point in hopes of avoiding greater communication whether decision had intended effect affiliative constraints
dominator conflict more immediate feedback whether decision was responsible for observed effects egocentric constraints
evader/self-confessor not liking groups, not trusting cross boundaries: whether decision had unintended consequences/negative climate building
help seeker others to work to same standards functional
player being too shy conflict management
organizational procedural skills
recognition seeker being impatient with slow cultural
special interest pleader progress planning
tech makes communication process enactment
having difficulty organizing, difficult:
presenting ideas trouble conveying meaning
lacking leadership skills understanding when
having communication anxiety not understood
having trouble maintaining form relationships
focus, motivation organize themselves
dislikes being in groups
activity being examined
Communicating in Groups (Keyton, 2006)
Functional theory (Gouran & Hirokawa, 1983)
Transactive memory (Wegner, 1995)

8. research framework visualization
group context
Small Groups as Complex Systems theory
(Arrow et al, 2000)
contextual
dynamics
global
dynamics
local
dynamics temporal
patterns
emerge members
guide tasks tools
behavioral
global local activity patterns
variables
cognitive
patterns
physical organizational
adjust to & alter
cultural temporal
embedding Embedding contexts affect group
contexts
dynamics at all levels

9. research framework visualization
framework
architecture of work
scenario group process technology system
Subquestions Subquestions Flatly structured (vs. hierarchical) Within Google Docs Modes: during, after meetings
map to Work team (vs. crew, task force) Portal system aggregates docs Annotation, tagging: always
1 persona, allowed
1 visual study
Corrections: approved by all
Personas Designers Each at different points in Using iPads for travel portability Specificity setting: mid-range
Good intentions process or learning purposes level of input by users
Archive built by All in same meeting System also accessible by Vs. “auto” level of archiving (no
community computer and smart phone user input)
Studies focus Vs. most detailed input (like
on individuals court recorder needs)
Visual Studies Main data from Major decisions All on iPads: access to cloud Affordances:
meetings Expect limited use for minor storage, range of interactions video
Access to decisions System transcribes live audio recording
supporting meetings, recognizes speakers voice recognition
documentation language processing
System “learns” over time,
semantic web
suggests tags based on tags of
transcription
similar content in past
Subquestion 1: Creating the archive, showing its structure
Persona 1: Designer, directing the work of other people
Subquestion 2: How new member of the team might access archival information
Persona 2: Design intern, not familiar with everything in the archive
Subquestion 3: How seasoned member of team might access archival information
Persona 3: Designer, in process a while, has contextual clues for guidance

10. research framework visualization
situated scenario
institute for emerging issues
Interdisciplinary group making decisions
about technology
“Emerging Issues Commons” project
Interactive installation
To facilitate groups of visitors

11. research framework visualization
situated scenario
decision content map
katie
mark
sam

12. research framework visualization
situated scenario
system architecture
OUR:CHIVE
MY HUB GROUP HUB
my documents communication profile ticketing system documents scheduling
workflow
by project email feed checklists shared files meeting setup
tasks
by client chat personal info project manage- collaborative shared calendars
calendar
video ment creation tools
timeline
MEETING HUB
past meetings current meeting future meetings
TRANSCRIPT STATS FILES
auto text participants agenda
audio user tags documents
video keywords presentations

13. research framework visualization
study 1.
Subquestion 1. Curating meeting notes
sam, Senior designer
Industrial designer
Oversees team of industrial designers
Goal
Record meeting
Access agenda, files
Review / tag /annotate transcript

14. research framework visualization
navigates through Meeting Hub

15. research framework visualization
navigates through Meeting Hub
Setup of files
Reviewing agenda
Motivation through connection to group artifacts

16. research framework visualization
navigates through Meeting Hub
Setup of files
Reviewing agenda
Motivation through connection to group artifacts

17. research framework visualization
views meeting transcript
Transactive Memory: conversations essential to group memory
Archive supplements where transactive memory fails

18. research framework visualization
views meeting transcript
Transactive Memory: conversations essential to group memory
Archive supplements where transactive memory fails
tags meeting transcript
Structured tagging system supports decision making

19. research framework visualization
views meeting transcript
Transactive Memory: conversations essential to group memory
Archive supplements where transactive memory fails
tags meeting transcript
Structured tagging system supports decision making
Functional theory: Solution, Pro, Con
Captures debates, decisions

20. research framework visualization
annotates tagged transcript portion

21. research framework visualization
annotates tagged transcript portion
Layer of commentary on meetings
Connects transcript details to people, events, documents

22. research framework visualization
annotates tagged transcript portion
Layer of commentary on meetings
Connects transcript details to people, events, documents
Captures opinions, notes, reminders

23. research framework visualization
study 2.
Subquestion 2. Retracing previous debates
katie, Graphic design intern
Junior in graphic design program
New to project
Goal
Use system to understand IEI’s background
Contribute value to discussion
Find needed data

24. research framework visualization
searches by user tags
Why was this decision made?

25. research framework visualization
searches by user tags
Why was this decision made?

26. research framework visualization
searches by user tags
Why was this decision made?
Retrieves archival info: decision maps, map nodes, meetings
Retraces debate to learn about, contribute to group

27. research framework visualization
adds user tags to search

28. research framework visualization
adds user tags to search
Sees context for culture of group and decision making
Cues to understanding local, global, and contextual dynamics

29. research framework visualization
adds user tags to search
Sees context for culture of group and decision making
Cues to understanding local, global, and contextual dynamics
searches by a map node

30. research framework visualization
retraces annotations for answer

31. research framework visualization
retraces annotations for answer
Understand group’s process

32. research framework visualization
retraces annotations for answer
Understand group’s process
Reward of seeing her contribution

33. research framework visualization
study 3.
Subquestion 3. Reviewing group’s initial work to make decision
mark, User Experience designer
Interactive design background
Oversees team of interactive designers
Goal
Access past details of technology specifications
Review info to judge possible solutions to problem

34. research framework visualization
creates a decision map

35. research framework visualization
creates a decision map
Visualizes key issues in previous debate
Connection to archival material
Connection to group artifacts

36. research framework visualization
expands decision map
Visualizes debate

37. research framework visualization
expands decision map
Visualizes debate
views documents

38. research framework visualization
expands decision map
Visualizes debate
views documents
Revisiting initial work to inform decision
Quick access prevents backtracking

39. research framework visualization
offers a solution
Map visualizes group’s discussion as it is tagged

40. research framework visualization
offers a solution
Map visualizes group’s discussion as it is tagged
Functional theory: structures tagging and map

41. research framework visualization
offers a solution
Map visualizes group’s discussion as it is tagged
Functional theory: structures tagging and map
System prompts group to discuss positives, negatives

42. research framework visualization
offers a solution
Map visualizes group’s discussion as it is tagged
Functional theory: structures tagging and map
System prompts group to discuss positives, negatives
Diversity of opinion for well-informed decisions

43. research framework visualization
conclusion
professional direction
Information architecture
User experience
Researching people
personal take-away
Trust the process!
Thank you.