21
Methods for Developing Functions for Dynamic Online Performance Support Systems: A New Methodology combining HPT, Sensemaking and Design Theory Steven Schatz Indiana University

Steven Schatz Indiana University

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Methods for Developing Functions for Dynamic Online Performance Support Systems: A New Methodology combining HPT, Sensemaking and Design Theory. Steven Schatz Indiana University. What’s the question?. Learning objects Tensions Size Control (designer or user) Tags (universal or unique) - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Citation preview

Page 1: Steven Schatz Indiana University

Methods for Developing Functions for Dynamic Online

Performance Support Systems: A New Methodology combining

HPT, Sensemaking and Design Theory

Steven SchatzIndiana University

Page 2: Steven Schatz Indiana University

What’s the question?

• Learning objects– Tensions

• Size

• Control (designer or user)

• Tags (universal or unique)

– Can learning or knowledge be objectified?

Page 3: Steven Schatz Indiana University

What’s the answer?

• Dynamic online performance Support System DOPSS– Objects

• Performance, information, learning, knowledge??• Unique tags• User control• Focus on “ad hoc” – so smaller objects• Communications tools• Push information• Customized for each person, based on unique tags

Page 4: Steven Schatz Indiana University
Page 5: Steven Schatz Indiana University
Page 6: Steven Schatz Indiana University

What’s the Process?

• Decide on functions

• Decide on tags

• Decide on initial objects

• Develop implementation strategy

• Help it grow and evolve

Page 7: Steven Schatz Indiana University
Page 8: Steven Schatz Indiana University

What’s the context?

• Navy

• Building a performance portal

• Existent portal focused on lots of information.– Pdfs of manuals– Links to other sites

Page 9: Steven Schatz Indiana University

What’s the study?

Can a combination of HPT, sensemaking

and design theory methods be used to

inform the development of the function

set for an online performance support

system?

Page 10: Steven Schatz Indiana University

What’s the method?

• HPT – Users in context – users, task and environment

• Weick– Sensemaking

– What’s my problem?

• Alexander– Object in use

– Piecemeal growth

Page 11: Steven Schatz Indiana University

What’s the method - 2?

Current – Focus on object and software to decide functions

Move to

1. Focus on the user and the environment (HPT)

2. Focus on the problem and reason for going to the site or using the tool. (Weick)

3. Focus on the site in use over time. (Alexander)

Page 12: Steven Schatz Indiana University

What did I do?

• Interviews – group and individual on site with end users.

• On site observation.

• Extended discussions with designers/ managers.

• Some interviews with second potential user group.

Page 13: Steven Schatz Indiana University

What did I do 2?

• Analysis with Weick –– Who am I?– What’s my problem?

• Analysis with Alexander and Gabriel– Piecemeal growth– Solution to a problem in context– Habitability

Page 14: Steven Schatz Indiana University

Weick

• How can I know what I think until I see what I say?

• Threshold of dissatisfaction causes a “shock”. Then action taken to resolve.

• Sensemaking is 1. Identity construction, 2.

Retrospective, 3. Enacts sensible environments 4. Social 5. Ongoing 6. Extracted Cues 7. Plausible over accurate.

Page 15: Steven Schatz Indiana University

Design Theory (Alexander and Gabriel)

• The life of a house is not given to it directly, by the shape of its buildings, or by the ornament and plan – it is given to them by the quality of the events and situations we encounter there. Always it is our situations which allow us to be what we are.

• The action and the space are indivisible. The action is supported by this kind of space. The space supports this kind of action. The two form a unit, a pattern of events in space.

• It is the pattern in their minds which cause them to behave the way that people do behave on sidewalks, not the purely spatial aspect of the concrete and the walls and curbs.

Page 16: Steven Schatz Indiana University

What did I find?

The need was communication.

Looking at problems, most were solved through unofficial communications.

When current leaders retire, that technique may be gone.

Needs include who is, where is, who can?

Little need for most of the work being done.

Page 17: Steven Schatz Indiana University

What did I find - 2?

• Importance of killer app.– A few easy functions would save 100s of hours.

• Importance of looking at each potential user group.

• Importance of piecemeal growth.• Importance of a gardener.

– Bring objects in as needed.

– Make connections.

Page 18: Steven Schatz Indiana University

What’s the big lesson?

• Talk to users.

• Use sensemaking to think about what answers they will seek.

• Function sets will be different for different apps… this WON’T be a tool in a box.

• Use Alexander for DOPSS in use.

Page 19: Steven Schatz Indiana University

What’s the future hold?

• Test the methods– NCREL

• Build tags

• Build communications tools

• Implementation

• Test the methods over a complete implementation.

Page 20: Steven Schatz Indiana University

What’s the difference?

• A new way of handling workplace learning.

• If this is used, can cut training and move from training to performance support.

• Applications – Research groups– Fast moving high end folks– Large scale geographically diverse groups.

• Caveat – these are not going to be cheap.

Page 21: Steven Schatz Indiana University

Thank you.

Steve Schatz

www.powerstart.com

[email protected]

Paper posted at www.powerstart.com/AERA