GAN – MVL User Survey

GAN – MVL User Survey

Markus Hodapp and Roberto Ranon

Conclusions

Markus Hodapp and Roberto Ranon - EuroTeV

• 610 invitations were sent, 149 users filled the survey

• 138 male, 11 female

• among the various categories of subjects, some professional categories were not adequately represented to draw significant conclusions

• only 2 accelerator users, 3 managers, 3 technicians

General Considerations


• Users seem to have good previous experiences with trust in the professional background of the participating colleagues

• a very important factor for the acceptance of MVL

• In some projects, responsibilities weren't clearly defined (Q10)

• potential need for assistance in project management

• e.g., possible integration of project management tools within MVL

Trust


• face-to-face and email communication are pervasively used and considered important

• some use of audio / video communication, particularly by accelerator operators and physicist

• synchronous text messaging (chat, instant messaging) practically not used

• in some cases, video / document /data sharing are used as forms of communication or to enhance communication

Communication


• users' opinions on previous experiences involving forms of remote collaboration are mixed

• however, remote troubleshooting of equipment has been already experienced by a considerable number of users

• remote access to equipment is perceived as needed for multi-institutions projects

• however, it is not clear which activities users perceived as more suited for support by off-site experts

• users seems to be willing to use a special communication tool for remote collaboration, both as as remote experts and as local users

• however, improving communication with respect to existing / used tools is perceived as very important

Prev. Remote Collab.


• it is unclear if users can imagine how activities like assembly of accelerator equipment or equipment maintenance can be supported by MVL

• users seem to perceive MVL as more useful/suited in accelerator troubleshooting, tuning and general routine operations, and less useful in design and testing of new equipment

• e.g. assembly of accelerator equipment should not be part of MVL activities for about 1/3 of users

MVL Activities (1)


• there is a slight preference towards considering MVL as a not too ambitious and reasonable project

• moreover, generally users seems to be willing to use MVL in their work

• in particular, physicists, designers, control experts

MVL Activities (2)


• In principle, remote cooperation between experts and control room operators with MVL is perceived as positive

• there are some concerns about problems with not speaking the same mother tongue.

• In addition, most users feel that there should be some face-to-face meetings on-site to get to know the accelerator and the staff there.

• observation of control room operators with cameras is perceived as problematic

• If this feature will be implemented, there should be a mechanism that allows observation only by permission of the observed operators

• There are also legal aspects in some countries that have to be considered

Remote Cooperation


• there is a preference towards a single tool integrating all or most needed elements, instead of combining existing solutions or tools

• in general, video, audio and mobility of the solution seem to be important.

• 3-D audio is perceived by many participants as not important

• many users seems to be interested in tools for synchronous collaboration. This may suggest that we should focus on usage scenarios of synchronous communication / collaboration.

• a well-designed and effective help functionality (either provided by the system or human experts) is perceived as an important aspect of the system.

MVL Elements


Additional Elements

access to infoaccess to db (2)access to documentationaccess to data

supporton-line expert (3)

info sharingdesktop sharingshared appsshared design (e.g., drawings)

communicationmeeting support (3)audio/im/chatvideoconfremote cameras control two way video comm with

video/non video areas

retrievable record of conversationsinformal communication support

log books

remote instrumentation

feedback on network status


• for users, safety requirements and regulations would not forbid remote control of accelerators

• in general, safety is perceived as an issue

• however, according to users, the project should point out clearly what MVL will do with respect to safety on the accelerator site

• simply allowing remote users to observe is not perceived as a good solution (too limiting?), but security / safety mechanisms are needed

Safety


• Wider availability of experts (and generally, wider participation) is perceived as the greatest benefit

• Another pointed out aspect is the social benefits of reduced traveling

• Moreover, sense of ownership of systems is also perceived as a possible benefit

• In general, most users trust that MVL will be able to give them these benefits

Benefits


• most reported suggestions:

• must be easy to use

• functionalities should be gradually added after evaluating testing with users

• start with a set of identified important and reasonable functionalities

• use standard technologies as much as possible

• design a toolkit, not an application (i.e. different projects should be able to adapt it for their own needs)

Suggestions


• possible issues to take into account:

• collaborations with more than two partners or sites

• WYSIWIS

• use of audio

• floor control

• focus on precisely defined usage scenarios

• how do we evaluate?

Off survey

Documents

GAN – MVL User Survey