Participatory Design Scandinavian tradition

1
Participatory Design Scandinavian
tradition

• Tone Bratteteig,
• February 5. 2003
• readings
• Ehn
• Bansler
• Lyytinen Iivari

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.

Bjerknes Bratteteig, 1991 Bjørn-Andersen
Hedberg, 1977
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

Bjerknes Bratteteig, 1987
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 ...
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?

Bratteteig, 1997
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.

Bratteteig, 1997 Bjerknes Bratteteig 1987
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

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.

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

Bratteteig, 1997
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 learn
• vs
• technical brilliance or utilization of the latest
  technologies

Bratteteig, 1997 Bjeknes Bratteteig 1988
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, 1991 Bjerknes Bratteteig, 1995
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)
  ltnursing
  profession Florence Nightingalegt
• 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, 1991 Bjerknes Bratteteig 1984 1995
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

Bjerknes Bratteteig, 1995
14
Mapping the Scandinavian approach
institution
situation
the LO/NAF Cooperation projects
Integration and redesign (FIRE)
organization as a whole
florence
Cooperative design
NJMF DUE DEMOS
UTOPIA
special interest groups
Bjerknes Bratteteig, 1995
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

16
ReadingsEhn 1993 design for democracy at
work

• DEMOS (1975-79) DEMOkratiske Styringssystemer
• interdisciplinary team, 4 enterprises
• UTOPIA (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

? design as a learning process ? design as
creation of language-games ?
system descript. for discussion ? design-by-doing
Ehn 1989
17
ReadingsBansler on SD research traditions

• 1) system theoretical
  engineering, cybernetics,
  technology optimism
  systems thinking
  
  Langefors (60s) infology? ISAC
• 2) sosio-technical
  human factors,
  psycho-social work environment,
  balance technicalsocial system
  
  systems thinking, analysis of
  variances
  Thorsrud (LO/NAF 60/70s), 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 (70s) social science methods /
  theories, techniques for SD as a social work
  process

Bansler, 1989
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

Iivari Lyytinen, 1998
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

20
Regrouping cont.theories

• Systems thinking Critical theory
  (dialectics)
• 1. infology
• 3. socio-technics
• 4. trade union-based
• 5. socio-cybernetics
• 6. language-action
• 7. professional work practice
• 9. activity theory
• 10. structuration theory

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

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)

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 ethics

• Boland 1998
• nature
• equality
• irony

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-determination
• nature
• control of the product vs. continuous change and
  learning
• situated knowledge, local action
• irony
• 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
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

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?

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 situationnot just a
  gadget, a thing
• open up for challenges of design ideas
• open up for accountability (not distant, general,
  abstract ...)

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

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. ...

30
some references

• Florence
• 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