Aalto stanford webinar-on collaborative working ennvironments 2013

Aalto&Stanford,webinar,on,Collabora2ve,Working,Environments,

2/19/2010,Digital'Product'Process'

February'4th'and'5th'2013''

Collabora<on'Environments'for'Global'Distributed''Product'Processes'(ColPro)'2011D2013'

hEp://www.hankegalleria.fi/tekes?so_id=27615'

Collaborative Working Environments Webinar 1: Collaboration needs and practices in global industrial environments:

Cases and Findings February 4, 2013 8:30-10:20am PST / 18:30-20:30 EET Chair: Dr. Renate Fruchter, Stanford University

Challenges and Enablers of Global Collaborative Working Environments - Matti Vartiainen and Olli Jahkola, Aalto University

• ABBo Global product transfer knowledge Portal=> Finland / Shanghai - Eero

Palomäki, Aalto University o Company comment - Kim Kaijasilta, AAC Global

• Konecranes o Facilitating Ideation in Innovation Processes - Pekka Alahuhta, Aalto

Universityo Company comment - Olli Kuismanen, KoneCranes

• Metso / UPM o Need for collective co-operation - Petri Mannonen, Aalto University o Company comment - Jani Honga, Metso

Wrap-up - Renate Fruchter, Stanford University o Corporate partners' experienceso Lessons learned from companies after each case presentation o Cross-case Discussion

Webinar 2: Presence and Engagement in Emergent Collaboration Environments February 5, 2013 8:30-10:20am PST / 18:30-20:30 EET Chair: Dr. Renate Fruchter, Stanford University

10 Key Characteristics for Next Generation Collaboration Environments - Renate Fruchter, Stanford University Increasing awareness and attention in collaboration - Seppo Valli, VTT Deploying cutting edge technologies: success stories and lessons learned

o Tomorrow Delivered Today: Immersive Terf Real Customer Use Cases? - Ms. Julie LeMoine, CEO, 3D ICC

o Eating Your Own Dog Food: How Microsoft Uses Its Own Collaboration Tools Both On Campus and Off - Dr. Randy Guthrie,PhD Microsoft, Microsoft Technology Evangelist, US-West

o Collaboration Tool For Problem Solving in Field Service - Henry Palonen and Kari Niinimäki, Inno-W

TEKES Scenario and Plans for the future - Kari Penttinen, Tekes Discussion and Closing Remarks

Collaboration Environments for Global Distributed Product

Processes (ColPro) 2011-2013

2/19/2010 Digital Product Process

Webinar at Stanford University February 4th to 5th 2013

Prof. Matti Vartiainen & Olli Jahkola, Work Psychology and Leadership,

Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Aalto University School of

Science

2

ColPro: Main goals •! To analyze and design new collaborative working environments

(CWE) to develop global product processes, •! To synthesize the state-of-art practices of CWE for globally

distributed teams and projects in corporate settings. •! To develop prototype mixed media environments, test them in

learning and business settings in order to study the emergent team work processes and product quality improvements, and assess their transformative impacts.

The overall results will be a “dashboard for collaboration

technology”, (that is: synchronous and asynchronous tools for collaborating on global product data) and organizational practices of implementing, adapting and using it.

3

ColPro: research partrners and approach Research partners: •! Aalto/TKK (http://vmwork.tkk.fi), prof. Matti Vartiainen (coordinator) with his

team (Pekka Alahuhta, Olli Jahkola, Emma Nordbäck and Eero Palomäki), & prof. Marko Nieminen and Petri Mannonen (project manager (http://stratus.soberit.hut.fi/) and Venlakaisa Hölttä

•! Stanford, prof. Renate Fruchter with her team (http://pbl.stanford.edu/fruchter_bio.htm)

•! VTT Media technologies, prof. Caj Södergård and Seppo Valli with their team (http://www.vtt.fi/research/area/media_technologies.jsp?lang=en)

Companies: AAC Global (Ismo Laukkanen), ABB (Jouni Ikäheimo), DNA (Mikko Knuuttila), Inno-W (Henry Palonen), Konecranes (Olli Kuismanen), Metso Automation (Jouni Pyötsiä), UPM (Heikki Ilvespää)

Research approach: Company cases and quasi-experimental studies of

interaction episodes collecting data by observations, interviews and questionnaires and by using secondary data

http://vmwork.tkk.fi

http://stratus.soberit.hut.fi/

http://pbl.stanford.edu/fruchter_bio.htm

http://www.vtt.fi/research/area/media_technologies.jsp?lang=en

Basic design settings

4

Example of a global team under study

Framework to study impacts, inhibitors and facilitators in global teams

Work processes Intra group processes

SOCIAL RESOURCES

INDIVIDUAL RESOURCES

TASK COMPLEXITY •! Complicatedness •! Interdependence •! Ambiguity

A B

PHYSICAL RESOURCES

VIRTUAL RESOURCES

Work-processes – intra-group processes – performance

CONTEXTUAL COMPLEXITY of Global Collaborative Working Environments

OUTCOMES Creativity - e.g. new ideas

Innovativeness - E.g. % of new product revenue, innovative climate Effectiveness - E.g. planned vs. actual results Well-being - E.g. stress vs. flow Engagement - E.g. fluency

A, B, C, D and E = Individual life spheres LOCATION

TEMPORARINESS

Work-processes – intra-group processes – performance Work-processes – intra-group processes – performance Work-processes – intra-group processes – performance Work-processes – intra-group processes – performance Work-processes – intra-group processes – performance Work-processes – intra-group processes – performance Work-processes – intra-group processes – performance Work-processes – intra-group processes – performance Work-processes – intra-group processes – performance Work-processes – intra-group processes – performance Work-processes – intra-group processes – performance Work-processes – intra-group processes – performance Work-processes – intra-group processes – performance Work-processes – intra-group processes – performance Work-processes – intra-group processes – performance Work-processes – intra-group processes – performance Work-processes – intra-group processes – performance Work-processes – intra-group processes – performance Work-processes – intra-group processes – performance Work-processes – intra-group processes – performance

Collaboration practices of Finnish global companies: Data and methods

•! The data was collected in eleven companies in e.g. telecommunications, electronics manufacturing, IT services, industrial manufacturing, and technical consulting

•! First, a context analysis was made in each company by collecting documents and by interviewing company management.

•! A total of 94 interviews were conducted between 2008 and 2011. The interviews lasted between 40-90 minutes and were conducted either face-to-face or via phone.

•! The interview sessions, ranging from 45 minutes to 2 hours, were recorded and transcribed and then analyzed with Atlas/ti

Findings 1: aggregated list of ICT tools used in the 12 cases, with counts in parentheses

TIM

E Communication systems

Information/ knowledge sharing systems

Coordination systems

Co-operation systems

Group maintenance systems

Asy

nchr

onou

s

E-mail (12), SMS (4), Message board (2)

SharePoint / Intranet (9), Separate Document repository (7), Wiki (4), Social media tool (4), Newsletters/mailing lists (3), Blogs (2) FTP (2), Network drive (2), SAP (2), CRM tool (1)

Shared calendars (6), Availability/status information (6), Shared task list (1), Project management tool (1), Ticketing system (1), Miscellaneous tools (3)

- No "Phonebook" with photos, titles and interests of team members (1)

Sync

horo

nous

Phone/VOIP (12), Instant messaging (11), Teleconferences (8), Web conferences (8), Dedicated videoconferencing rooms (8)

Document/screen/ application sharing for web conferences (7)

- No - No Permanently open Skype/webcam link between two sites (1)

From Jahkola, O. (2013) The role of ICT tools and contextual factors in global virtual teams- MA thesis, p. 30

Findings 2: Challenges of using ICT tools in the 12 cases

Communication systems

Information/ knowledge sharing systems

Coordination systems

Co-operation systems

Group maintenance systems

CH

ALL

ENG

ES

- E-mail: too many, emotions and reactions aren’t available, communication in a foreign language is difficult. - Calls, Skype, OCS, Sametime etc.: accessibility and poor UI. - IM tools: don’t automatically archive discussions. - Teleconferences: background noises. - Synchronous communication: stressful. - Dedicated videoconference: availability, technical expertise needed.

-! Sharepoint et al.: hard to find information, shortcomings in user-friendliness/ease of use, missing version control.

-! Wikis: can crash and/or be slow.

-! Shared calenders and status information: no complaints

- Not mentioned

- Group maintenance appeared to particularly be associated with informal communication, which mostly happened face-to-face, via telephone/VOIP, and via IM. - Face-to-face interaction was considered a necessary prerequisite, but not always possible.

From Jahkola, O. (2013) The role of ICT tools and contextual factors in global virtual teams- MA thesis, p. 35-46.

Facilitating and inhibiting factors in global teamwork: an example

•! All of the twelve cases were analyzed to identify facilitating and inhibiting factors in global teamwork.

•! Facilitating and inhibiting factors were categorized according to the space (mental, physical, virtual, social and organizational) they originated.

•! An example: High interdependence: a software development team in a Swedish telecom company called “Sweco” (name changed). Sweco outsourced some software testing to a consulting company “Itcon” (name changed) with employees in India. Swedish/Indian team was formed and started its work in January 2007. The team consists of seven team members: three people in India and four in Sweden.

From Jahkola, O. (2013) The role of ICT tools and contextual factors in global virtual teams- MA thesis, p. 89.

Physical spaces

Virtual spaces

Social spaces

Mental spaces Incompatible t o o l s e t s b e t w e e n stakeholders

Infrastructure

Organizational context

Various downsides to individual ICT tools

ICT toolset in general

Trust and team building through face-to-face and informal communication

C e r t a i n competences and traits

Trust

S o c i a l support

Team spirit

L a n g u a g e barriers

O f f i c e environment

N o n -collocation

Silent/conference rooms

Case company’s experience

Case company’s policies

Case company’s organizat ional culture

Certain current or potential tools or functionalities

C u l t u r a l factors

C u s t o m e r c o m p a n y ’ s organizat ional context

“Sweco” team

!! "#$%&%'#()*!+#$',- !! .)/%0%()*!+#$',- !! 1%234!+#$',-

Conclusions

•! Companies use a variety of ICT tools in their global collaboration, mostly very basic ones such as e-mail and teleconferences

•! Integrated toolsets in ge eral use are still ’on their way’ •! Facilitating factors are found in all spaces (mental,

physical, virtual and social) •! Inhibiting factors are mostly related to virtual spaces

such as Incompatible toolsets between stakeholders and social spaces such as cultural issues

•! Organizational policies concerning collaboration need to be developed and improved.

Global product-transfer knowledge portal From Finland to Shanghai ABB AAC Global

Case: Two countries & four dimensions of collaboration and communication

•! Social support •! Management •! Culture •! People •! Institutions

•! Mood during the project

•! Project climate

•! IT systems •! eCWEs •! Distributed

work

•! Offices •! Meeting

rooms •! Context •! Support

Physical

eCWEs• Distributed

work

Virtual

Social support • Management • Culture

Social

Mood during the project

Mental

••

Offices Meeting rooms Context Support

Meeting

Support

•

SharePoint Portal is here

Social Mental

The image cannot be displayed. Your computer may not have enough memory to open the image, or the image may have been corrupted. Restart your computer, and then open the file again. If the red x still appears, you may have to delete the image and then insert it again.

Portal is here

Usefulness: •! Usage testing •! Task suitability

Mirror organization

The image cannot be displayed. Your computer may not have enough memory to open the image, or the image may have been corrupted. Restart your computer, and then open the file again. If the red x still appears, you may have to delete the image and then insert it again.

Finland China

Research questions RQ 1: What are the collaboration challenges in the case? RQ 2: What was the task suitability of the portal? RQ 3: How having two different cultures affected the distributed collaboration? RQ 4: How to get project participants use the portal more and better?

Data collection •! Main data: Interviews (n = 19) of different roles in

Finland, Poland, Sweden, China

RQ 1: Communication tools

•! Company tools in use this project: Phone, email (Lotus Notes), Sametime, visiting face-to-face, portals (PDM, project portal)

•! From which employees choose based on: –! Task priority –! Time of the day (time zones) –! Organizational unit (i.e. designers use PDM system to share documents) –! What communication tools were used before the transfer project –! Language skills (written vs. speech) –! Contact network, how familiar the contact is –! Free-time vs. work topic

•! Challenges –! Time zones –! Shaky phone lines –! Understanding written vs. spoken English –! Language skills –! Role and personnel changes break contact networks

RQ 1: Differing organizational practices

Amount of overlap matters!

ABB Global Organization

ABB Sending unit

ABB Receiving unit

The virtual team needs to bridge differing organizational practices despite working under the shelf of one organization. For example differing prioritizations, support response times, norms, supplier lead times, and regulations create challenges for the virtual team leader and members.

RQ 2: Task suitability of the portal

•! Quality and implementation is good for sharing information! •! !but other tools and practices in place: Email perceived faster and

simpler. Also other local portals used for sharing and communication. •! Good for collecting information and reporting hours. These

purposes force people to visit regularly. But still the frequency of usage is low.

•! Portal and project model are mainly tools for the project manager and the upper management. They are not so relevant for other team members. ”The main purpose for this portal is for the project manager. [!] For a project member, I just do my own work.”

•! PMs edit files in the portal, and can find work hour reports in one place easily. The portal works here as expected.

•! However, finding and organizing information has some challenges: Structure of the portal is based on the gate project model, but this model not quite related to daily work in the receiving end !structure of portal is confusing for them.

RQ 3: Cultural differences framed the collaboration •! Way of working (related to cultural differences)

–! Some differences were detected in the way of working, but not many affecting daily work. Especially people who have worked in foreign companies adapt well to global team work.

•! Language –! No major problems, writing down makes easier to understand –! Shyness, politeness and losing face affect more in communication situations

•! Hierarchical boss-subordinate relationships –! Chinese work for their supervisor. A separate project organization might have problems to

motivate people to work for the project. –! Your vision is quite restricted, everything comes from your boss. The bigger picture is lost. –! General manager should commit everyone to the extra project beforehand.

•! Losing face –! Chinese are a little bit afraid to announce own mistakes. They fear losing their jobs. They

take mistakes personally and want to avoid losing face •! Detailed instructions

–! Chinese work a lot according to instructions, they will not question or challenge the instructions. In Finnish culture people apply more.

–! With limited experience it is harder to make decisions with the fear of losing face. New products would need a detailed documentation as it is hard just to remember everything.

RQ 4: Supporting participants use the portal more and better

•! We need to improve the perceived usefulness –! Each participant needs to understand the benefits the portal brings to he/his department.

(i.e. “Maybe for scheduling. Seeing schedules and status of others.”) –! Define the roles and purpose of each portal, many systems in use outside the project portal:

“For engineering we use PDM system. It is used for document transfer from Helsinki. This is also a tool for the communication.”

•! We need to improve the perceived ease of use –! “Should be more easier.” Now all documents are put to one basket, because people don’t

understand the gate model. And the gate model is the structure of the portal. -> Increase training of the project model.

–! Using the portal for sharing seems like extra trouble, when faster email available. –! Ensure good start and a good first impression -> Logins, access, and documents ready.

Smooth and speedy operation of the portal to be ensured.

•! We need to increase usage –! Attitudes and understanding of the meaning have increased along increased usage –! Project manager influence on usage is major. Portal used when asked, PM should ask

more often! –! Portal usage has been made a measurable goal of a project, but how to make it the

personal goal of project members?

RQ 4: Case through implementation theory lense

Improve this (meaning, sharing experiences from peers, project

model understanding)

Give time here (1-2 projects/user)

theory This seems ok for

knowledge sharing!

You will get here

Facilitating Ideation in Innovation Process Pekka Alahuhta 4th Feb. 2013

Pekka Alahuhta

Preface

•  Konecranes utilizes a global idea management system, to capture the ideas of the personnel.

•  Room for improvement? –  Communication and mutual understanding –  Distributed decision-making

•  Are radical ideas being dismissed due to errors in communication?

•  How collaboration tools and communication patterns can support the innovation process? –  Usage of concurrent web-conferencing systems (MS Lync) –  Potential benefits of emerging collaboration technology (virtual

worlds / Teleplace) –  Brainstorming embracing collective creativity?

Research Setting: Different collaboration tools in ideation Case studies -  10 MS Lync sessions

-  Teams were collaborating around an idea. -  Task: Achieve common understanding about the idea => decision

to move the idea further or request more information -  6 BrainMerge sessions

-  A brainstorm tool and user manual were handed out to teams of Konecranes’ summer workers developing an idea to product.

-  Task: Select a question or idea, around which brainstorming might be potentially useful. Pilot the tool.

-  5 Teleplace sessions -  Teams collaborating and ideating in virtual world -  Task: Project meeting in virtual environment. Process some acute

tasks / problems.

Data collection

•  Recording the session (+20 hrs) •  Questionnaire (50 answers in total)

–  Engagement –  Physical and social space –  Expectations –  Global outcome judgements –  System usability scale (SUS) –  Relationships among the participants –  Overall performance of the group

•  Corroborating data –  Contents of Idea Management system related to the selected ideas

•  Explanation of the idea •  Comments •  Phase transitions of the idea

–  Interviews and discussions with Konecranes’ Innovation experts

19.2.2013 Presentation Name / Author

4

Data analysis •  Transcriptions •  Video protocol analysis

–  Coding –  Boundary objects

•  Linkography •  Survey analysis

19.2.2013 Presentation Name / Author

5

Transcribed discussion

Diagrams of video protocol analysis

Linkographic representations

Artifacts, Facilitation and Transformative Interaction Experiences in Distributed Design Collaboration

•  Context: Design Thinking in distributed settings –  Design is viewed as an iterative process

•  Starts from identifying the user’s need •  Widening and narrowing of problem space •  Testing + Empathy

–  Increasingly global design teams

•  Questions: –  How distributed design teams differ in their use of artifacts as boundary objects when

communicating in traditional versus emerging collaborative working environments? –  What are the role and tasks of a facilitator and team members in traditional versus emerging

collaboration environments?

•  Comparing the manifestation of boundary objects and effective facilitation practices in both environments

–  Boundary objects => Objects or artifacts, helping to overcome the knowledge barrier among individuals

–  Facilitation = > Ways to improve team’s performance

Artifacts, Facilitation and Transformative Interaction Experiences in Distributed Design Collaboration Results

•  Boundary objects –  Some boundary objects common for both collaboration environments

•  Presentation (images, technical drawings, video clips…) •  Co-authoring (sketching, co-writing..)

–  Boundary objects in virtual world •  Parallel processing of multiple boundary objects •  The environment itself can work as a boundary object

–  Boundary objects in webconferencing system •  Rich epistemic obejcts / metaphors

•  Facilitation –  Interventions classified as technical, process and content interventions –  Present in both collaboration tools

⇒  But different frequencies of interventions

•  User experience and results –  Routinized usage of webconferencing system vs. new virtual world –  Similar performance => why?

Conclusions

-  Global collaboration in product development and innovation processes

-  Tools contributing towards distributed ideation

-  Collaboration environment supporting the interaction -  Different boundary objects manifest within different tools -  Different environments support different activities?

-  Practices contributing towards distributed ideation -  Facilitation overcoming the barriers of distributed teamwork

-  Technical facilitation helped the team to overcome usage barriers of a new system

-  Process facilitation helped the team to overcome barriers of distributed setting

Need For Collective Co-operation Building Knowledge Intensive And Location Dependent Problem Solving Services Petri Mannonen Strategic Usability Research Group Aalto University School of Science

Current Organization: Industrial Maintenance and Support

Operator

Operator

Maintenance man

Technical support centerCustomer

Customer

Customer

Operator Maintenance man

Specialist

Knowledge Intensive Distributed Services

•! Development Trends –! Intelligent and networked equipment in factories –! Aim for higher and higher level of automation –! From situation awareness to true control of processes

and equipment –! Maximizing efficiency of human resources

•! Challenge –! Building, spreading and maintaining the new

competence in the company

Future vision: Global Network of Experts Networkd of experts

Field worker

Field worker

Operator

Customer's Specialist

Customer Operator Customer

R & D

Field worker

Customer's Specialist

Support for collaboration tools and organizational

learning

Case: Emerging Service – Metso Loop Monitoring

•! Proactive maintenance and optimization of the factory –! Automatic ‘component-level’ data collection and analysis to

identify sub-optimal process areas and emerging problems –! High-level expertise to plan and execute changes in equipment

or software and conduct precise maintenance

•! Control Loop and Performance Monitoring aims –! Higher production –! Decrease in production and maintenance costs –! Increase in production quality –! Decrease in environmental emissions –! Improve in safety issues

Collaboration and co-operation partners

•! Customers with previous experience on the topic •! Customer – factory management •! Customer – engineer/specialist •! Customer – Factory operator •! Field experts (problem owner) •! Field experts with previous experience on the topic •! Global technical support centers •! Service R&D

Collaboration and co-operation needs

•! Focusing on the main task: problem solving –! Searching, sharing and structuring information –! Adjoined tasks: Learning, information sharing

•! Straightforward and light-weight contacting –! Identifying and motivating best available experts

•! Good control on information sharing and spreading –! Respecting non-disclosure agreements

•! Organizational learning –! Building reusable and findable information

Change requirements•! Organizational

–! Support and motivation for shared problem solving–! Automatizing meta-tasks (e.g. billing related measurements)–! Capability to create data mining and analysis tools

•! Personal–! New problem solving practices

–! analog -> digital –! private -> public

•! Technical/Tool-wise–! Social network tools–! Robust and flexible tools for information creation and sharing–! Robust and flexible collaboration tools–! New data mining and analysis tools

[email protected] Strategic Usability Research group Aalto University School of Science

mailto:[email protected]

Dr. Renate Fruchter

Founding Director

Project Based Learning Laboratory (PBL Lab) http://pbl.stanford.edu

[email protected]

© Stanford University

10 Key Characteristics for

Next Generation Collaboration Environments

http://pbl.stanford.edu


Capitalize on Global Corporate Competences

HOW DO YOU COMMUNICATE?

HOW DO YOU WORK TOGETHER?

HOW DO YOU SHARE IDEAS / FEEDBACK?

HOW DO YOU MAKE YOUR CONDITIONS VISIBLE?

HOW DO YOU CONNECT MOBILE KNOWLEDGE WORKERS?

HOW DO YOU CREATE, CAPTURE, SHARE, AND RE-USE KNOWLEDGE?

10 Key Characteristics for Next Generation Collaboration EcoSystems

1. Foster co-creation, inter-action, and co-action

2. Transform the way participants express ideas and solutions

3. Enrich formal and informal interaction experiences

4. Increase awareness, attention, participation, & engagement

5. Sustain persistent presence of content & models in context

6. Leverage knowledge in context and collective competences

7. Facilitate transparency

8. Maximize flexibility, remixing, & repurposing

9. Create emergent work practices, processes, & social dynamics

10. Create and manage choice

M3RRemote Collaboration in Mixed Media Mixed Reality

Fusion of Physical, Virtual, and Mobile Worlds

3Di Collaboration Team Space

Virtual WorldiRoom

Physical World

[Fruchter, Ivanov, Bharath, 2012]Sponsors & Partners:

Smart Phones

Mobile World

iRoom

Physical World

3Di

Virtual World

Content-in-Context: Real Time Situation Status, Explore and Make Decisions

River2012: Digital and Virtual Presence in Collaborative Environment

With Rich Media Content and 3D BIM Building Model

Persistent Product Models & Content in Context

Madison Stanford Stanford Stanford DenmarkGermany

From Stacks of Content to

Spreads of Content in ContextApplication Sharing (e.g. GoToMeeting) Immersive Virtual World (e.g. 3DICC)

3D Team Neighborhood

Cognition

•Attention

•Memory

•Correlation

•Capacity

•Multitasking

# Shared

Documents

~3 docs

Cognition

•Attention

•Memory

•Correlation

•Capacity

•No

Multitasking

# Shared

Documents

Attention and Awareness DistributionWeb conferencing Application Sharing 3D Team Neighborhood

• Meetings held in the 3D Team Neighborhood kept participants’ attention 24% more time

on the task, more often and longer time - than in meetings held with Web conferencing - application sharing.

• Multitasking during meetings:

- 3D Team Neighborhood �� NONE or MINIMAL- Web conferencing application sharing �� TYPICAL BEHAVIOR

[Fruchter and Cavallin, 2011]


[email protected]



1

Increasing awareness and attention in collaboration

VTT work in ColProAalto – Stanford webinar, 5th February 2013

Seppo ValliVTT Technical Research Centre of Finland

205/02/2013

Contents

1. Some theory and lessons learnedAbout terminologyWhy supporting awareness is important?Bill Buxton’s spaces for collaborationAbout classification of collaboration systems

2. Increasing awareness and attention: VTT HydraMain question and starting pointCocktail Party EffectHydra by Buxton, Microsoft and VTTFindingsWhat next?

3. Short reflection

2

305/02/2013

Part 1: Some theory and lessons learned

405/02/2013

About terminology

Collaboration = working together jointly, in interaction

Attention = act of listening and looking sth/sbThe process whereby a person concentrates on some features of the environment to the (relative) exclusion of others

Awareness = [having knowledge on] agents + attentions + actions + artefacts 1)

Awareness includes having knowledge on the context, i.e. indirect information of the [collaboration] situationThe concept of deixis (in linguistic) is comparable to awareness (here in space!)

1) “A for Awareness” (A4A), as formulated by S.Valli 2012

3

505/02/2013

Why supporting awareness is important?

Awareness is particularly helpful for communication processesCollaboration requires intensive use of senses, i.e. human input and output interfaces

Senses (human “front end”) are a scarce resource and a bottleneck in collaboration

Awareness (incl. gaze awareness) reduces cognitive load in this [front end data] processing

Awareness leaves more capacity to higher cognitive processesCf. “Data-to-Wisdom continuum” (HoU)

605/02/2013

Data-to-Wisdom continuum,a.k.a. Hierarchy of Understanding (HoU)

Figure: Data-to-Wisdom continuum (Gene Bellinger 2004; http://www.systems-thinking.org/kmgmt/kmgmt.htm)

http://www.systems-thinking.org/kmgmt/kmgmt.htm

4

705/02/2013

Bill Buxton’s “spaces of collaboration”

Spaces (writer’s interpretation: “functionality categories”) needed in collaboration [Sellen1992]:

Personal space, i.e. support for communicationTask space, i.e. supporting tools for collaboration (sc. groupware for jointly refining data to information and knowledge)Reference space, i.e. support for referencing (awareness) between the two above

The above division is a good example of high level classification for collaboration systems

Buxton’s classification emphasises the importance of awareness, especially space (positions, directions, relations, etc.) as context

Classification is generally a challenging task due to multiple factors (dimensions) affecting collaboration

Cf. e.g. those by Andriessen2003 and Wolff2006

805/02/2013

Part 2: Increasing awareness and attention: VTT Hydra

5

905/02/2013

Main question and starting point

What makes face-to-face collaboration “the gold standard” in collaboration [Nardi2002]?

A good candidate for an answer is the gaze awareness in face-to-face meetingsA straightforward way to enable gaze awareness is the Hydra system reported by Buxton et.al. (e.g. 1997)

Hydra was implemented and demonstrated by VTTVTT focus was in personal space (communication)Multi-party 3D viewing was implemented for groupware (cf. task space)

1005/02/2013

The Cocktail Party Effect:Human ability to discuss with people in noisy environment

How to exploit this ability in networked communication?

6

1105/02/2013

Hydra and the Cocktail Party Effect

Cocktail party effect refers to the human ability to follow discrete discussions in a “cocktail party” situationMore generally, is not just a matter of auditory perception, but of audio-visual signal separationHydra type of telepresence system aims to replicate the “cocktail party” communication protocol over network, for both video and audio

This is achieved by supporting separate AV channels between each and every participantVisual cues (gaze, lip movements, gestures, etc.) are for big help even when the audio is monaural=> better quality and awareness

Little can be done if all the signal sources are bundled together already when being captured, as e.g. in conventional videoconferencing systems

1205/02/2013

Hydra replicates the “Cocktail Party Protocol” over network

Full Mesh GeometryVTT Hydra

audio/visualspace

I can see who is being looked at!I cannot understand who is being addressed & looked at!

Directional audio and video with knowledge of their origin = source separation

Figure modified from eSoundTM ; http://www.oki.com/en/esound/technology/positioning.html

http://www.oki.com/en/esound/technology/positioning.html

7

1305/02/2013

A look is worth a thousand words!”

Eye-contact (gaze awareness) intensifies communication and builds trust (cf. Andrew F. Monk and Caroline Gale, 2002).

In conventional videoconferencing, gaze is not conveyed correctly due to parallax error (cf. image to the right)

Technical means to support true gaze awareness between multiple remote users is needed

Gaze awareness in relation to commonly viewed objects are needed

Figure: Displacement of the camera from the display causes parallax error => eye-contact is disturbed

1405/02/2013

Personal telepresence system “Hydra”(cf. Hydra by Buxton et.al. 1997)

Straightforward way to convey gaze (facial direction)Each remote participant is represented by a terminal with display, camera and microphoneTerminal are connected by a full mesh (n2-n connections, where n is the number of sites; cf. Metcalf’s law) Full Mesh Geometry

8

1505/02/2013

MS Personal Telepresence Station (Zhang, et.al. 2009)

MS Personal Telepresence Station (http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/news/features/personaltelepresencestation-030909.aspx)

1605/02/2013

Snapshots of three party collaboration with VTT Hydra (ColPro project demonstrations 2012)

The local partner (“you”) is an observer for the two other to discuss (left)

The local partner (“you”) is discussing with another party who is being looked at also by the third (right)

http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/news/features/personaltelepresencestation-030909.aspx



9

1705/02/2013

Static information linked to 3D model (e.g. maintenance instructions)

Instant messaging linked to the selected 3D model componentEnables storing conversation history thatis linked to the conversation context.

Video conferencing

Associated groupware SW in Hydra: 3D viewing in browser environment [Siltanen2012]

1805/02/2013

Scenario for Hydra: Mobility with tablets (iPads or alike)

10

1905/02/2013

Remarks on VTT Hydra performance

Awareness is improved the closer the surrogates are to the real physical setting (cf. next slide)The original Hydra system was implemented with very small terminals and displays => gaze awareness was not disturbed by the parallax difference between the camera and displayEarly experience from VTT’s Hydra system suggests that correcting the above mentioned parallax is necessary

• Various means to correct eye-contact exist• A straightforward and rather good way is to

interpolate the view using e.g. two cameras on opposite sides of the display

• Requires ability to capture several cameras and enough processing power

• Better accuracy with more complex methods, e.g. with 3D sensors

2005/02/2013

Three-way Distributed Collaboration (by Tang et.al. 2010)

Figure: Social surrogates (“Hydra” terminals) in a natural physical setting [Tang2010]

11

2105/02/2013

Future steps with Hydra

Audio needs further considerationVideo transmission implementation with WebRTC (is started)

Browser based implementation for more flexibility, portability, and ease of further development

Increasing the number of participants (>3)Improving and enhancing the groupware for 3D viewingUser studies(!)True gaze awareness(!)

Options, e.g.:Using tablets as display (and interaction) devicesIntegrating VTT’s multi-touch table for interactionInformation visualisation functionalities in 3D, Mixed Reality, etc.

2205/02/2013

Part 3: Short reflection

12

2305/02/2013

Summary: Awareness in collaboration space

Physical world is naturally organized in 3D, making good use of spatial relations (directions and distances, i.e. locations)In most videoconferencing, collaboration, and telepresence systems spatiality is not typically exploited

Awareness = [knowledge on] agents + attentions + actions + artefactsCollaboration space = sum of virtual and physical spaces > physical space

We need new solutions to support “Awareness in collaboration space”

Slightly more specifically, we need: Communication and groupware solutions supporting multi-party interaction and awareness

2405/02/2013

References

Andriessen, J.H.Erik (2003). Working with the groupware. Understanding and evaluating collaboration technology. London: Springer.Buxton, W., Sellen, A. & Sheasby, M. (1997). Interfaces for multiparty videoconferencing. In K. Finn, A. Sellen & S. Wilber (Eds.). Video Mediated Communication. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, pp. 385-400.Hollan, J. and Stornetta, S. (1992). Beyond being there. In Proceedings of CHZ’92, ACM, N.Y., 1992, pp. 119-125.Andrew F. Monk and Caroline Gale (2002). A look is worth a thousand words: full gaze awareness in video-mediated Conversation. Discourse Processes, 1532-6950, Volume 33, Issue 3, 2002, pages 257 – 278.Bonnie A. Nardi, Steve Whittaker (2002), The Place of Face-to-Face Communication in Distributed Work, in “Distributed Work”, edited by Pamela Hinds and Sara Kiesler, MIT Press, 2002. Pekka Siltanen, Seppo Valli (2012), Web-based 3D Mediated Communication in Manufacturing Industry, CE2012, 12 p.A.Tang, M.Pahud, K.Inkpen, H.Benko, J.C.Tang, B.Buxton (2010), Three’s Company: Understanding Communication Channels in Three-way Distributed Collaboration, CSCW2010, pp. 271-280. Wolff, R., Roberts, D. J., Steed, A. & Otto, O. (2006), A Review of Tele-collaboration Technologies with Respect to Closely Coupled Collaboration, International Journal of Computer Applications in Technology (IJCAT), 29(1), pp.11-26.

13

2505/02/2013

Contact: [email protected]/multimedia

VTT - 70 years oftechnology for business and society


http://www.vtt.fi/multimedia

Immersive Terf™ Real Customer

Use CasesTerf™ Training/Meeting Center Layout by Jim Linehan

Terf™ Construction Project Layout by LeMoine

Topics

3D ICC & Terf™ Advances Corporate Changes Technology Roadmap

Enterprise Impact Harness Clinical Trials Training Game Global Coaching Global Transformation Team

Truthful Insights

25+ Years Innovation & Adv Tech

Highlights Co-creator ARPANet protocols for IP router security now standard in all Internet routers (IETF Chair)Lead Security Architect for largest Intranet ever built Security systems on Space Shuttle Early collaboration from chat to video Serial Entrepreneur – 5 companies 2004 Top 10 Woman to Watch in Technology in New England (MIT & Mass High Tech) First Entrepreneur in Residence at Simmons Post Grad, MBA program Founded & Ran Ctr For Adv. Collaboration for Fidelity Investments in Technology ThinkTank CEO & Founder at 3D ICC

Julie – Who?

Julie LeMoine CEO, 3D ICC

Ah, ha years!

They are / have…

Brings…

members, customers, users, …

Via…

Natural, “like real” locations

3D ICC Confidential, not for reuse with out written authorization from 3D ICC

Source: The Immersive Enterprise by LeMoine

Enterprise Harness of Immersive Terf™ (In-World Snapshot)


3D ICC confidential & proprietary ; no distributed with out written permission from 3D ICC

Immersive Terf Core Features in Action

©


Tools 3D sound Chat Whiteboarding Live Video Streaming Video Screen Share Stickynotes co-create : mouse and keyboard share Whiteboarding, PPT, Excel, Word… 2D and 3D Creation Contextually Accurate Locations

Impactful Harness

Examples: Clinical Trial Training Game Global Coaching Global Transformation

Source: Social Insides by LeMoine/Rudkoswki


Professionals = Gamer

Sweet Spot Games Selection

1. “Hard” problems • Better, Faster, Cheaper

2. Require no specialty training / skill 3. No overlap with associate’s main job 4. Limited level of effort to contribute 5. Elicit engagement e.g., “good citizenship”

toward firm or Customers/Clients



Problems that require Us (not just computers)

Hard Stuff

Gaming




Terf © Example Use Cases

- Goals - Concept

Design - Draft

Script

- Review & Socialize

- Update

Content & Experience

-Deployment

& Tracking Details

- Outreach

- MarCom & Launch Kit

- Prepare

Org Admin / Mgmt

- Pilot - Learnings

- Updates - Expanded

launch




…So far •80% Thumbs Up on Experience •4 technical issues •Almost 100% participation by their Reps


Impactful Harness






Impactful Harness






• Not all “gamers” or tools are equal Familiarity, terminology, likes/dislikes, dexterity, features, security…

• Gaming frivolity & right timing push-back

• Console vs. Computer vs. Hollywood Expectations, Quality, Expenses

• Everyone’s an expert

• Impact content doesn’t create itself Creating content takes SMEs 3D is not Web Design

• Its “shiny new”



User Motivation & Time Commitment

•Recreation : Entertainment, play as much as possible •Enterprise: Work, not play, lowest level commitment possible for impact

Value Proposition

• Recreation: sell site/game itself, create following

• Enterprise: Reduce costs, make $, solve problems, improve service, increase knowledge, innovate/create/brainstorm…

Fun vs. Ease

•Recreation: Challenge is part of the fun • Enterprise: Must be easy to do, looking for that “least amount of effort for impact” factor

Enterprise Tool Recreation

Recreation

Tool



They are / have…

Brings…

learners, team members…

Via…

Natural, “like real” locations

3D ICC Confidential, not for reuse with out written authorization from 3D ICC


Purchased all of Teleplace's IP Owns OpenQwaq IP outright plus much more

Rebranded platform : Immersive Terf or Terf

platform

Moved platform to 100% commercial ◦ Purchas of Teleplace & commercial license for H.264 use

Hired CEO: Serial Entrepreneur & Collaboration

Expert ◦ Significant Growth in customer base ◦ Established standard pricing and reseller channel

Prelaunch of Corporate Website ◦ Improved support for prospects and customers

Purchased all of Teleplace's IP Owns OpenQwaq IP outright plus much more


1

2

3

4

5

3D ICC’s Terf™ Roadmap Summary

SAML 2.0 Croquet

OpenQwaq Teleplace

Qwaq

Terf© Platform Current

SSL Support IE Browser Client Group mgmt. Vision Impaired (JAWS) Performance Enh. New Python Apps

+

Terf© Platform 2013 Roadmap

IE, Safari, FireFox, Chrome Vision Impaired- NVDA

Auto-provisioning

SIP Endpoint Support Mobile: Slate/Smart Phone Server Cloud Provisioning

Video sound sync & encoding enh.

RDP support

Update help & You Tube Videos And more…


Distributed Agile Global Class Room Construction Project Mgmt. & Urban Planning Conferences / Corporate Awards




Agile Team Mantra

To be highly performant, co-location is a must

25


LOCATION TRANSPARENCY? NOPE…

We need a location where we can all be, regardless of where we all …be…

26


persistent

27

+ visceral, easy

+ large but affordable

+ address hybrid (groups & individual remotes)

Global Agile Team Rooms

+ ecosystem supportive

Code










• Text messaging

• Voice

• Lync Mobile

• E-Mail

Copyright © Tekes

Tekes' scenario and plans for the future ?

Kari Penttinen 5.2.2013

“NOT AN OFFICIAL TEKES SCENARIO – MORE MY THOUGTHS ABOUT IMPORTANT FACTORS AND ACTIONS

Copyright © Tekes

Contents:

1.  Where we come from 2.  Drivers and needs for collaboration 3.  Currect Tekes -activities

Copyright © Tekes

Background in agriculture, forests and lakes Only two generations ago !

We understand now completely that the high living standard comes from export, global markets and networks

Copyright © Tekes

Textile industry, Paper making, Electronics manufacturing New industries like Gaming industry, software industry in general are developing new skills in younger generations

Copyright © Tekes

How the world is changing from our point of view?

This change is even much faster in manufacturing and it has changed the businesses already a lot

Copyright © Tekes

This starting point is important to know when we think about our competencies as well as our weaknesses as a nation! Technology is usually easy for us but some other skills need to be developed?

Copyright © Tekes

"Ageing cannot be seen as a problem" In his first such address since taking office last spring, Niinistö referred to Finland’s rapidly-growing imbalance between pensioners and people of working age. “The public debate often emphasises the impact of demographic changes on the economy,” he said. “Yet we must not forget that ageing is a natural part of life. It cannot be seen as a problem.”

There’s a lot of discussion about the demographic change The President pointed out that the ageing of people is not a problem – it’s natural and can not be seen as a reason econimical problems Can Finland change the culture and working life fast enough to utilize foreign labour force from other countries and in general to collaborate with different cultures efficiently ????

Copyright © Tekes

A lof of studies and attention to our ICT cluster has been paid during the last few year – this study is one of them and still available at www.megasignals.com

http://www.megasignals.com

Copyright © Tekes

The importance of growing companies in SME –sector is clear

Copyright © Tekes

The way we do R&D and innovate has to change from traditional R&D to Include more new business and service innovations

Copyright © Tekes

Key-customer driven business

Part of international network

Independent global SME actors with their own product and service offering

Finnish Industry foresight – eBusiness

2002 2012 2022

Technology industry companies increased their foreign staff by seven per cent - domestic personnel figures grew only slightly.

Finnish SME companies are able ot penetrate international markets independently both in B2B and B2C

Finnish export sales growth depends mainly on the growth of large companies

BYOD=bring your own devices

Social media, Crowdsourcing, 3D printing

Cloud services for business applications IT Consumerization, focus on usability

SaaS services for business IT

Single Euro Payments Area (SEPA) RosettaNet, Databases, Data warehouses

SME’s have to focus on international business – have they realized the potential of eBusiness ?

Copyright © Tekes

Near future?

Source: http://www.informationweek.in/software/13-01-29/by_2016_50_percent_of_large_organizations_will_have_internal_facebook-like_social_networks_says_gartner.aspx?goback=%2Egde_3454994_member_210511913

However, Gartner, Inc. estimates that through 2015, 80 percent of social business efforts will not achieve the intended benefits due to inadequate leadership and an overemphasis on technology.

Like in all implementation of new technologies – the users are the biggest challenge This is what the management has to understand

http://www.informationweek.in/software/13-01-29/

Copyright © Tekes

UNDER THIS TITLE WE ACTIVATE COMPANIES TO DEVELOP THE WAY THE COLLABORATE WITH PARTNERS AND VENDORS MAYBE SPECIFIT PROGRAMM LEVEL ACTIVITIES ALSO COMING LATER

Copyright © Tekes

The ManufacturingNet pointed out this scary observation We are in the middle of ”race against the machines” !

Copyright © Tekes

Is this the way to go - ? A simple diagram from Tekes Liideri –program presentation

Copyright © Tekes

Other more technology focused program activities from Tekes: Learning Solutions – The objective of the programme is to develop internationally important learning solutions in cooperation with participants in the sector Skene – Games Refueled - By launching the Skene programme focusing on value networks in game development, Tekes aims to strengthen the Finnish game industry's position at the global top by creating an internationally significant game and entertainment cluster in Finland.

Copyright © Tekes

Thank you! There’s a real for good development project and high level research in order to get more understanding and knowledge in this area.

Kari Pen)nen Senior Adviser, M.Sc.(Eng.) Products, Produc:on Systems and Manufacturing Technologies Programme Manager, Digital Product Process -‐programme Tekes, Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innova:on P.O.Box 69 FI-‐00101 Helsinki, FINLAND tel. +358 1060 55916, mobile +358 50 5577916 kari.pen)[email protected]
