Abstract
This chapter touches on the perhaps most crucial and difficult part of HWID, of finding psychological needs from both an interaction design and a work analysis point of view. The chapter presents three sub-types of relation artefacts Type I: organizational problems, worker needs, and contextual personas. It further develops a terminology that acknowledges that computer algorithms (e.g., robots, work automation) are themselves socio-technical systems that embed designers, vendors, suppliers, and managers, even when their primary users and collaborators are workers. Finding human and non-human actors’ psychological needs is not a well-defined procedure, but an interpretative act that requires courage and will, and the chapter ends with a summary of how this is done.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The looseness towards what is the object of the project is the most similar attribute of the socio-technical HWID approach with so-called ‘sociomaterial’ design approaches, see for example (Bjørn & Østerlund, 2014).
- 2.
As illustrated by the focus on facilitating relations, HWID is somewhat similar to the social relativism paradigm of Hirschheim and Klein (1989) that focus on facilitating management-workers collaboration, while design thinking management may fall into their functionalistic paradigm, since design thinking management sees managers as experts (in UX) and focus on workers needs as instruments for managements goals.
- 3.
References
Baez, B. (2002). Confidentiality in qualitative research: Reflections on secrets, power and agency. Qualitative Research, 2(1), 35–58.
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2014). Job Demands–Resources Theory. In Wellbeing (pp. 1–28). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118539415.wbwell019.
Beyer, H., & Holtzblatt, K. (1999). Contextual design. Interactions, 6(1), 32–42.
Bjørn, P., & Østerlund, C. (2014). Sociomaterial-design: Bounding technologies in practice. Springer.
Cajander, Å., Larusdottir, M., Eriksson, E., & Nauwerck, G. (2015). Contextual personas as a method for understanding digital work environments. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, 468, 141–152. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27048-7_10.
Carroll, J. M., & Campbell, R. L. (1989). Artifacts as psychological theories: The case of human-computer interaction. Behaviour & Information Technology, 8(4), 247–256.
Clemmensen, T. (1998). Viden og kompetence i akademisk arbejde: En undersøgelse af ingeniøreres brug af faglig basal viden ved løsning af industrielle problemer. Psyke & Logos, 19(2), 559–574.
Clemmensen, T. (2004). Four approaches to user modelling—A qualitative research interview study of HCI professionals’ practice. Interacting with Computers, 16(4), 799–829. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2004.04.009.
Clemmensen, T., & Nørbjerg, J. (2019a). (not) Working (with) collaborative robots in a glass processing factory. Worst Case Practices Teaching Us the Bright Side.
Clemmensen, T., & Nørbjerg, J. (2019b). ‘Digital Peer-Tutoring’. Early results from a field evaluation of a ‘UX at work’enhancing learning format. In P. Abdelnour Nocera, J., Parmaxi, A., Winckler, M., Loizides, F., Ardito, C., Bhutkar, & G., Dannenmann (Eds.), Beyond interactions INTERACT 2019 IFIP TC 13 workshops, Paphos, Cyprus, September 2–6, 2019, Revised Selected Papers.
Clemmensen, T., Hertzum, M., & Nørbjerg, J. (2021). Job crafting in low-usability automation situations: a design case in manufacturing. Unpublished, in Preparation.
Cooper, A. (2004). The inmates are running the asylum: Why high-tech products drive us crazy and how to restore the sanity (Vol. 2). Sams Indianapolis.
Demerouti, E., Derks, D., Lieke, L., & Bakker, A. B. (2014). New ways of working: Impact on working conditions, work–family balance, and well-being. In The impact of ICT on quality of working life (pp. 123–141). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8854-0_8.
Djamasbi, S., Strong, D., Wilson, E. V., & Ruiz, C. (2016). Designing and testing user-centric systems with both user experience and design science research principles.
Djamasbi, S., Galletta, D. F., Nah, F. F.-H., Page, X., Robert Jr., L. P., & Wisniewski, P. J. (2018). Bridging a bridge: Bringing two HCI communities together. Extended Abstracts of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, W23:1–W23:8. https://doi.org/10.1145/3170427.3170612.
Fuchsberger, V., Murer, M., & Tscheligi, M. (2014). Human-computer non-interaction: the activity of non-use. In Proceedings of the 2014 companion publication on Designing interactive systems (pp. 57–60).
Glanville, R. (1999). Researching design and designing research. Design Issues, 15(2), 80–91.
Gross, T. (2013). Supporting effortless coordination: 25 years of awareness research. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 22(4), 425–474. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-013-9190-x.
Hackos, J. T., & Redish, J. (1998). User and task analysis for interface design (Vol. 1). New York: Wiley.
Hassenzahl, M., Diefenbach, S., & Göritz, A. (2010). Needs, affect, and interactive products—Facets of user experience. Interacting with Computers, 22(5), 353–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2010.04.002.
Hevner, A., & Chatterjee, S. (2010). Design science research in information systems. In Design research in information systems: theory and practice (pp. 9–22). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-5653-8_2.
Hirschheim, R., & Klein, H. K. (1989). Four paradigms of information systems development. Communications of the ACM, 32(10), 1199–1216.
Karasek, R., & Theorell, T. (1990). Healthy work: Stress, productivity, and the reconstruction of working life. New York: Basicbooks.
Kolko, J. (2015). Design thinking comes of age. Harvard Business Review.
Madsen, S., & Nielsen, L. (2009). Exploring persona-scenarios-using storytelling to create design ideas. In IFIP working conference on human work interaction design (pp. 57–66). Springer.
McKay, J., Marshall, P., & Hirschheim, R. (2016). The design construct in information systems design science. In L. P. Willcocks, C. Sauer, & M. C. Lacity (Eds.), Enacting research methods in information systems (Vol. 3, pp. 11–42). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29272-4_2.
Mekler, E. D., & Hornbæk, K. (2016). Momentary pleasure or lasting meaning?: Distinguishing eudaimonic and hedonic user experiences. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, 4509–4520. ACM.
Mekler, E. D., & Hornbæk, K. (2019). A framework for the experience of meaning in human-computer interaction. In CHI conference on human factors in computing systems proceedings (CHI 2019), May 4–9, 2019, Glasgow, Scotland UK. New York, NY: ACM, Paper no 225. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300455.
Nielsen, L., Hansen, K. S., Stage, J., & Billestrup, J. (2015). A template for design personas: Analysis of 47 persona descriptions from danish industries and organizations. International Journal of Sociotechnology and Knowledge Development (IJSKD), 7(1), 45–61.
Niessen, C., Weseler, D., & Kostova, P. (2016). When and why do individuals craft their jobs? The role of individual motivation and work characteristics for job crafting. Human Relations, 69(6), 1287–1313. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726715610642.
Oulasvirta, A., & Hornbæk, K. (2016). HCI Research as Problem-Solving. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems—CHI’16. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858283.
Patel, V. L., Kaufman, D. R., & Arocha, J. F. (2002). Emerging paradigms of cognition in medical decision-making. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 35(1), 52–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1532-0464(02)00009-6.
Pettersson, I., Lachner, F., Frison, A.-K., Riener, A., & Butz, A. (2018). A Bermuda Triangle?: A review of method application and triangulation in user experience evaluation. In: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 461:1–461:16). https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3174035.
Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169.
Salminen, J., Guan, K., Nielsen, L., Jung, S., & Jansen, B. J. (2020). A template for data-driven personas: Analyzing 31 quantitatively oriented persona profiles. In International conference on human-computer interaction (pp. 125–144). Springer.
Scott, W. H., Mumford, E., McGivering, ’I. C., & Kirby, J. M. (1963). Coal and conflict: A study of industrial relations at collieries. Liverpool University Press.
Sein, H., Purao, R., & Lindgren. (2011). Action design research. MIS Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.2307/23043488.
Sun, Y., & Sundar, S. S. (2016). Psychological importance of human agency: how self-assembly affects user experience of robots. In The eleventh ACM/IEEE international conference on human robot interaction (pp. 189–196). IEEE Press.
Von Alan, R. H., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 75–105.
Wang, Y., Tan, C. W., & Clemmensen, T. (2016). Do you get better user experiences when you customize your smartphone?: An experiment with object and behavior-based beliefs and attitudes. In 24th European conference on information systems, ECIS 2016.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Clemmensen, T. (2021). Relation Artefacts Type I. In: Human Work Interaction Design. Human–Computer Interaction Series. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-71796-4_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-71796-4_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-71795-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-71796-4
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)