CURTIS - USI-Novay Final Project Report - Sept 2009

Keeping Mobile Workers In Sync and In
Touch:: Big Challenges, Modest Solutions
JENNIFER CURTIS
User-System Interaction,
Eindhoven University of Technology
-
Novay
September, 2009
Keeping Mobile Workers In Sync and In Touch 2
Executive Summary
The two main goals of the current project include: (1) Identifying the consequences and challenges of mobile
work – particularly with respect one’s ability to stay up-to-date (i.e., in sync) and connected (i.e., in touch) with
his or her distant colleagues; and, (2) coming up with potential solutions to address these challenges.
Project Goal 1: Determine the role of in sync and in touch in mobile professionals’ lives
Interviews were initially undertaken with a group of mobile workers in order to determine how much they valued
staying in sync and in touch with their distant colleagues. Because all of those interviewed worked primarily in
distributed project teams, they all spoke of expending a great deal of effort in order to nurture a sense of
connectedness and stay up-to-date with their immediate, project-level colleagues. To that end, they generally
traveled in order to hold regular face-to-face meetings with their team members, or were in daily contact with
them by either phone or email (or both). So much effort was poured into activities that supported staying in sync
and in touch with their project level colleagues that all those interviewed expressed satisfaction with the outcome
of these efforts. In fact, staying in sync and in touch with one’s project team was so important that it came to be
considered a primary need of the mobile workers interviewed.
However, breakdowns occurred when they tried to use the same tools and practices for staying in sync and in
touch with their project teams, as with the colleagues in their departments or wider organizations. The main
problem arose when they used what one might consider traditional office tools – i.e., principally face-to-face
meetings, phone and email – to infiltrate this second, much more dispersed and loosely connected group of
individuals. Thus, these individuals came to be referred to as Traditionalists, namely because their choice of
communication tools most closely resembled that of traditional, co-located office workers. They were also much
more conservative in their approach to communication than a second group of highly connected networkers that
was interviewed. To an extent, staying in sync and in touch with one’s departmental or organizational level
colleagues was considered to be of value to the Traditionalists (although not to the same degree as interactions
with one’s project level peers); communications at this level were thus designated secondary needs.
The problems for the Traditionalists were found to have two distinct levels. First, breakdowns in their ability
nurture connections with their departmental/organizational level peers had dire consequences for the
relationships that they had with those individuals. Some Traditionalists expressed a sense of confusion over what
others in their department were currently working on; in extreme cases, the identities of some departmental peers
were not even known. So, not only were there potential direct implications of not being able to stay in sync and
in touch with one’s departmental peers, but there were found to be indirect implications that had potentially
detrimental repercussions for their project work, as well.
Project Goal 2: Come up with solutions to the problems faced by mobile professionals
As mentioned above, a second set of interviews was conducted with highly connected professionals. Findings
from these interviews were used as inspiration for coming up with solutions to address the problems of the
Traditionalists in keeping in sync and in touch with their departmental- and/or organizational-level colleagues.
These were: (1) integrating the use of information filters (e.g., RSS feeds) into any solution; and (2) supporting
one-to-many or many-to-many communication.
Next, a set of design six requirements (see the table below) was used to provide a foundation for some possible
concept solutions.
After a series of analyses, and a couple of iterative design cycles, three concepts were developed into short
illustrative movies; these were: Ping, Status Sharing tools, and Bulletin Board.
The next section covers the extent to which each of the three concepts met the design requirements, according to
findings from the evaluations.
Assessment of the validity of the concepts…
(1) With respect to the requirements

Concept
Ping Status Sharing Bulletin Board
Requirement Met? How Met? How Met? How
Could be used Integration with Outlook;
1 - Maintain tool set Yes without a Yes for use on Yes For use on computer/laptop
smartphone computer/laptop
Find out whether
Supports the automatic Content is principally shared in the
contacts are nearby
3 - Low effort to participate Yes Yes updating of one's own Unclear* form of very short, text-based
with a single
status messages
selection
A mobile phone Desktop application; Desktop or web-based application;
4 - Available on-the-go Yes Yes Yes
application Laptop Laptop
Share one's status with
Filter contacts by
5 - Uses filters Yes Yes only chosen Yes Filter by group or individual.
group
contacts/groups.
Option to Ping a Updates distributed to Messages and shared content

6 - One-to-many communication Yes Yes Yes
group of people one's contacts distributed to the wider organization
Comparison of the concepts to the requirements, including how those requirements were met (at least in part);
* = This item is starred because it was the tool that was perceived to require the most effort by all those who
took part in the final evaluation; however, results indicated that the degree of effort required was still
perceived to be low, on average.
As shown in the table above, it can be argued that – where applicable – all of the tools met all of the
requirements. It is important to note that – because the solutions presented were early-stage concepts – it would
be hard to concretely assess the effort involved in setting up each tool. Moreover, the evaluations were mainly
meant to tap the extent to which the users valued the concepts themselves (e.g., did they mind sharing
information regarding their activities and whereabouts, and similarly, did they also like to have access to this
information from their contacts?) Therefore, a second requirement dealing with the need for a low-effort set-up
of the system was left out of the table.
(2) With respect to staying in sync

Both those interviewed and those who filled out the online evaluation indicated that the Bulletin Board and
Status Sharing tools had the potential to help them stay up-to-date with their colleagues, to an equal degree. Ping
was also thought to be a useful in sync tool, albeit to a slightly lesser degree than the other two concepts.
(3) With respect to staying in touch

Although all of the concepts were considered to be adequate in touch tools, the Bulletin Board was considered to
be the tool that was best suited to this goal. Both those interviewed and those who took the online evaluation
noted its potential for sharing more personally-relevant information.
General reception of the concepts

According to the final evaluation, those interviewed appeared to prefer the Ping concept overall. With respect to
the online evaluation, both Ping and the Status Sharing tool came out on top. Although these tools were not
perceived to be the best tools – hands down – for staying either in sync or in touch, they were considered to be
the easiest to use; were thought to have the lowest cost-to-benefit ratios; and, would require the least amount of
time. Thus, it can be argued that requirement #3 (above) was given the most weight when assessing these
concepts1. Interestingly, the concept that was considered to have the most combined in sync and in touch
potential – that is, the Bulletin Board – was the least appreciated overall, across all evaluations.
Future directions
Based on findings from the evaluations, it is suggested that either the Ping or Status Sharing tool be considered
for further development. In the end, the problems faced by the Traditionalists can be thought of as large – but
given their preference for simple, low-effort tools it is concluded that only very modest solutions will be adopted
readily. The potential benefit in providing modest solutions, however, is that they might lower the threshold
sufficiently enough so that the Traditionalists can meet both primary and secondary needs effectively.
1
These findings reinforce conclusions made from the expert review and focus group sessions, as well.
Contents
Executive Summary ..............................................................................................................................2
Project Goal 1: Determine the role of in sync and in touch in mobile professionals’ lives ..............2
Project Goal 2: Come up with solutions to the problems faced by mobile professionals ...............2
General reception of the concepts ...................................................................................................3
Future directions ..............................................................................................................................3
1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................6
1.1 Project Goals.............................................................................................................................7
1.1.1 Defining the challenges: In sync and in touch ..................................................................7
2. Examining the role of in sync and in touch in the professional lives of mobile workers .................8
2.1 Exploratory Interviews .............................................................................................................8
2.1.2 Results ..............................................................................................................................9
2.1.3 Conclusions from the exploratory interviews ............................................................... 12
2.1.4 Project Goal 1: Summary of findings with respect to in sync and in touch ................... 14
3.1 Solution Focus............................................................................................................................ 14
3.2 Constraints ................................................................................................................................. 14
3.3 Useful directions for solutions: Interviews with Highly Connected professionals ................ 15
3.3.1 Method .......................................................................................................................... 15
3.3.2 Results ........................................................................................................................... 16
3.3.3 Useful directions for solutions: Conclusions....................................................................... 17
4. Requirements for a solution .......................................................................................................... 19
5 . Design solutions: Initial concepts .................................................................................................. 19
5.1 Results of the concept brainstorm ........................................................................................ 19
5.2 Expert feedback ..................................................................................................................... 20
6. Concept Evaluations 6.1 Focus Group Session........................................................................ 21
6.1.1 Method ............................................................................................................................. 21
6.1.2 Results .............................................................................................................................. 22
6.2 Redesign ................................................................................................................................... 27
6.3 One-on-one interviews ............................................................................................................ 31
6.3.1 Method .......................................................................................................................... 31
6.3.2 Results ................................................................................................................................ 32
6.4 Online Concept Evaluation ....................................................................................................... 36
6.4.1 Method ............................................................................................................................... 36
6.4.2 Results ................................................................................................................................ 37
7. Final conclusions ......................................................................................................................... 39

7.1 Project Goal 1: Determine the role of in sync and in touch in mobile professionals’ lives..... 39
7.2 Project Goal 2: Come up with solutions to the problems faced by mobile professionals ... 39
7.2.1 Assessment of the validity of the concepts ..................................................................... 40
7.3 General reception of the concepts ........................................................................................ 41
7.4 Future directions .................................................................................................................. 41
8. Some final reflections .................................................................................................................... 41
9. References ..................................................................................................................................... 43
A. APPENDICES............................................................................................................................... 45
A.1 Complete list of exploratory interview probes...................................................................... 45
A.2 Mind Map .............................................................................................................................. 48
A.3 Ping (Version 1.0) .................................................................................................................. 49
A.4 Bulletin Board (Version 1.0) .................................................................................................. 51
A.5 Daily Outlook (Version 1.0).................................................................................................... 52
A.6 Outlook-based Blogging Tool (Version 1.0) ........................................................................... 53
A.7 Free Five (Version 1.0) ........................................................................................................... 54
A.8 Hover Status Tool (Version 1.0) ............................................................................................. 56
A.10 Findings from the evaluation of preliminary concepts with experts .................................... 57
A.11 Focus Group Session Means and Standard Deviations for the Four Concepts by Item ........ 64
A.12 Evaluation Interview Means and Standard Deviations for the Three Concepts by Item ...... 65
A.13 Online Evaluation Means and Standard Deviations for the Three Concepts by Item ........... 66
1. Introduction
The incidence of geographically distributed project teams is on the rise. This increase is due in part to
the changing role of organizations and how they conduct business. Many corporations, for instance,
are embracing an open approach to innovation (e.g., Proctor & Gamble; Huston & Sakkab, 2006). This
new trend necessitates the creation of collaborative teams comprised of individuals who represent any
number of organizations and interests, and who are oftentimes based in different locations. Similarly,
many distributed teams are created when organizations hire outside consultants or temporary help – or,
likewise, when they must implement plans and procedures that will affect multiple locations within in
a large national or multinational framework.
Although most of the world’s workforce continues to work in traditional (i.e., co-located) settings
(WorldatWork, 2009), not only has the number of distributed teams increased in recent years, but the
very definition of distributed work has evolved. Distributed teams do not encompass only those who
must work at another location than their fellow team members occasionally, but also individuals who
work in entirely removed – or virtual – team settings (Nardi & Whittaker, 2002; Piccoli, Powell, &
Ives, 2004). In this latter, more extreme case, people who share a common project goal might never
meet face-to-face while working together. Rather, all of their interactions are pushed to the virtual
world of technologically-mediated communication (such as through the use of the phone, email,
instant messaging, and desktop sharing tools, for example)2. Thus, a second factor contributing to the
increase in the number of distributed teams is the high number of low-cost tools that are readily
available and capable of facilitating such work (Nardi, 2005). Moreover, as the prevalence of 3G
mobile and freely available wifi networks continues to expand – and the use of lightweight hardware
in the form of smartphones and netbooks continues to rise – it will become increasingly convenient to
work virtually “anytime, anywhere” and still stay connected with distant colleagues (Gartner, 2009).
As a consequence of these developments – that is, a change in the way that organizations conduct
business, and the technological advancements which make distance work possible – individuals
working within distributed teams must embrace the notion of mobility in order to adapt. Mobility,
according to Kakihara & Sorensen (2002), “is not just a matter of people traveling, but, far more
importantly, related to the [types of] interactions they perform.” In other words, working within a
geographically distributed team forces individuals – who are separated by distance, time, and context –
to find manageable ways to overcome a number of barriers in order to collaborate effectively. Cultural
differences, time zone discrepancies, and an inability to communicate with the same ease and
convenience as one does when interacting with another face-to-face are just few of the possible
barriers to effective collaboration over geographic distance. So, although there is a need for distributed
work – and there exist tools to support such work – psychologically, individuals who work in
distributed teams must learn to adapt to this new way of working. Thus, the purpose of this project is
to examine some of the psycho-social factors that affect those who engage in mobile work.
To that end, the two main goals of the current project include: (1) Identifying the consequences and
challenges of mobile work – particularly with respect one’s ability to stay up-to-date and connected
with his or her distant colleagues; and, (2) coming up with potential solutions to address these
challenges.
This report documents the steps that were undertaken to achieve these goals. In addressing the first
goal, I conducted one-on-one interviews with two distinct groups of professionals – one that was much
more conservative in their use of new tools and media than a second group, made up of highly active
networkers. The conclusions which were drawn from these interviews lead to a detailed exploration of
the challenges that some mobile workers face in interacting with their departmental-level colleagues.
Next, I used the findings from the first phase of the project to help meet the second project goal. This
2
Indeed, two of the individuals that I interviewed for this project shared some of the experiences they had while
working in such a context and relying solely on mediated communication to get the work done.
stage included coming up with several concepts meant to address the identified challenges, and testing
the utility of the concepts with experts and potential users.
A brief description of the project goals and their underlying motivation follows in the next section.
1.1 Project Goals
As mentioned in the previous section, examining the impact of mobile work on an individual’s ability
to stay up-to-date and connected with his or her distant colleagues was of primary interest to this
study. Some challenges for mobile workers have been identified by researchers at the nonprofit
institute, Novay, as part of a large internal initiative, the Future Workspaces project. These challenges
include: (1) Staying in sync; (2) staying in touch; (3) getting in flow; and (4) being in control (Slagter,
2008). For the purposes of this project, the first two challenges – staying in sync and in touch – can be
considered synonymous with staying up-to-date and feeling connected with one’s colleagues.
Therefore, the first goal of the current project was to validate the dual concepts of in sync and in
touch as they pertain to a highly mobile – or, in the extreme case, nomadic (i.e., those without any
"home" office base) – workforce.
1.1.1 Defining the challenges: In sync and in touch
Being in sync, when applied to the individual, means having an overview of what’s going on within
the context of either the team one is working with; the current project; or, task at hand (Slagter, 2008).
According to Slagter, keeping tabs on new developments that transpire within the context of these
settings enables one to nurture an understanding of the so-called “bigger picture”. In other words, that
individual is able to develop a schema of what the project or team has accomplished already; where it
is right now with respect to attaining its ultimate goals; and, where it’s going in the future. Finally –
and, perhaps most importantly – being in sync helps one to figure out where he or she as an individual
fits into this framework, at any given moment.
Being in touch, on the other hand, has to do with a feeling of connectedness that exists between
colleagues. It is fostered by both formal (e.g., scheduled meetings) and informal (e.g., those that occur
during coffee breaks) exchanges. Both establishing a connection and maintaining it can positively
affect the collaborative process. On the other hand, it has been shown that when individuals lack a
connection with their colleagues (both with regard to physical proximity and social interaction), it can
lead to professional isolation (e.g., Cooper & Kurland, 2002; Golden, 2006).
Although they are psychological constructs, it can be argued that being in sync and in touch are
necessary components to any discussion on how people will work effectively in the future. If being in
sync and in touch are, in fact, two requirements for job satisfaction, then being able to identify and
develop tools to hone these abilities in individual workers is a fruitful enterprise. Moreover, if the
adage, “a happy worker is a productive worker” holds, then a clear understanding of these concepts,
and the development of tools to enhance them benefits organizations, as well.
For the highly mobile or nomadic worker who either spends much time away from colleagues (or
spends the majority of his or her time working in distributed, ad hoc, or temporary teams), the ability
to stay both in sync and in touch is jeopardized – particularly because research has shown that face-to-
face contact is a critical factor in nurturing connectedness and opening the channels required for
successful knowledge exchange (e.g, Golden, Veiga, & Dino, 2008; Nardi & Whittaker, 2002). So, the
second goal of this project was to clearly focus on one or two obstacles that challenge the mobile
worker’s ability to stay in sync and/or in touch, and develop effective solutions to address those
problems.
The next section addresses the first goal of this project – that is, by taking a closer look at the
constructs of in sync and in touch and determining what these terms mean to mobile workers. This
section also explores how working in geographically distributed teams can affect one’s ability to stay
in sync and in touch with his or her colleagues.
2. Examining the role of in sync and in touch in the professional

lives of mobile workers
One-on-one exploratory interviews were conducted with mobile workers in order to examine the role
of the dual constructs in sync and in touch in their professional lives. A detailed description of these
interviews and the subsequent findings follows next.
2.1 Exploratory Interviews
One major goal of the interviews was to identify “critical incidents” as they relate to the mobile
worker’s experience in staying in sync and in touch with his or her colleagues. The critical incident
technique is an interview (or observational) method used to pinpoint the situations and circumstances
that lead to either breakdowns or successful outcomes (thus making them "critical"; Urquhart, et al.,
2003; Flanagan, 1954). The resultant data can then be used to identify the behaviors that lead to those
outcomes. In the case of the current exploratory interviews, a series of questions was adapted from two
sources: (1) a user study that addressed the application of interface agents in email notifications
(Serenko, 2006); and, (2) an earlier study conducted within Future Workspaces on the causes and
effects of information overload (Janssen & de Poot, 2006). The motivation behind using a variant on
this technique in the current interviews was to discover common gaps or problems that mobile workers
experience when trying to keep in sync with their distant colleagues. To a lesser extent, open-ended
questions addressed how interviewees kept in touch with their colleagues, as well. (A complete list of
probes can be found in Appendix A.1).
Because the interviews were exploratory, it is important to note that not all of the probes were asked of
each individual. In other words, interviews were also used to get a sense of mobile workers' variable
experiences when staying in sync and in touch, and so the interview structure remained flexible. This
practice allowed each interviewee to describe his or her personal experiences and concerns in a manner
that more or less followed the format of a loosely directed discussion rather than a formal interview.
However, all participants were asked to share the following information:
1. What was needed in order to stay in sync3 with distant colleagues?

2. To describe in detail at least two experiences that were highly significant because they lead to either
a breakdown in staying in sync with their colleagues, or because the experience was particularly
positive.
3. How trust4 was established and maintained within the context of the distributed teams in which they
were currently working.
2.1.1 Method
Interviews were semi-structured (as described above) and each lasted approximately one hour. All
interviews were conducted by the same researcher. Sessions took place at each participant's workplace.
Interviews were not recorded; however, participants were given typed electronic copies of the
interview session notes for verification purposes.
3
Participants were specifically asked about staying "up-to-date" rather than staying "in sync" to avoid
confusion.
4
During the interviews the terms "trust" and "feeling a connection" were used to tap into participants’ views and
experiences with staying in touch with their colleagues. Again, this practice was used to avoid potentially
confusing terminology.
Participants
Interviews were conducted with 10 knowledge workers (four female) who were employed by eight
different companies. All but two of the participants worked for companies that employed between
1,000 and up to nearly 100,000 employees. Seven of the participants were engaged in some form of
consultancy work and the other three were project managers. All had at least a bachelor’s degree (or
equivalent).
Participants were recruited by electronically distributed flyers. Criteria for selection were broadly
defined as a practical matter meant to ease recruitment. The two major criteria for participation were:
1. Having a job role that required working extensively on at least one distributed project.
2. Working away from a main office at least 50% of the time.
All participants satisfied the first criterion. However, the second criterion was relaxed somewhat to
include one participant who traveled less extensively but was heavily involved in long-distance
distributed project work.
Two qualitative analytical procedures were used to process the interview results. First, affinity
diagramming was used to uncover emergent themes common across interviews. Due to the high
number of sticky notes used to create these diagrams (approximately 500), a mind map was created to
hierarchically organize categories and further refine the interview results.
The next section will cover the results of the affinity diagramming sessions.
2.1.2 Results
2.1.2.1 Affinity diagramming
Figure 2-1. A part of the resultant affinity diagram.

Affinity diagramming is a qualitative analytical method comparable to exploratory factor analysis. In

both techniques, common themes (or factors) emerge, suggesting relationships and identifying
linkages between data points. In this case, a team of two analyzed the majority of the results together
by first coming up with a set of sticky notes for each interview individually (usually around 25
“stickies” per interview, per researcher). The content of individual sticky notes generally encapsulated
a single idea or issue.
Some examples are listed below:
- "[The] second biggest issue when collaborating across distance is infrastructure"

- "Multitasks in order to achieve work-life balance"
- "Distance work is slow work"
- "Checks colleagues' availability on MS Communicator before calling"
- "To resolve conflict sometimes it is necessary to close computers and talk face-to-face"
- "Sometimes it is hard to know when to get others involved"
- "Lots of information is spread across too many systems within the organization"
In this way, each sticky note served as a data point. Sticky notes with similar or related content were
placed together on a large, plain white board. Approximately 500 sticky notes were used to analyze all
10 interviews (about 250 per researcher). From this process a number of major thematic
clusters emerged (the photo in Figure 2-1 documents part of this process), principally divided between
the two main concepts of in sync and in touch. These themes represented the primary category
divisions of:
1. Standard practices - "Practices" dealt mainly with those used for staying in sync, and typically
fell into one of two subcategories, formal and informal5. Formal practices included scheduled
meetings (either face-to-face or teleconferencing), for example. Informal practices included
unplanned emails or phone calls.
2. Strategies – This cluster encompassed strategies used to get to know fellow colleagues both
within their own project team and within the larger organization (e.g., “Uses quarterly
meetings to make new departmental contacts (e.g., followed up by informal lunch invites,
etc.)”.
3. Tools - Mostly described the benefits and drawbacks of tools used for mediated communication
(e.g., phone, email, Sharepoint, and twitter, among others).
4. Breakdowns/Gaps - Included unresolved issues in which neither tools nor strategies could
provide an adequate solution (e.g., "Energy levels differ in across-the-world communication"
or "The volume of email cannot be processed in a single day").
5. Coping strategies - Solutions to problems (e.g.,"Checks with team at end of day while
commuting in car", or "Uses agreed upon code in email subject line to determine information
priority").
6. Benefits - Mostly had to do with staying in touch; e.g., "Informal face-to-face exchanges build
trust and establish working relationships" could be considered benefits of staying in touch with
colleagues.
7. Needs - What is needed to accomplish project and daily work; e.g., "Must be able to remotely
access and maintain records"
5
The distinction between formal and informal communication is borrowed from (Kraut, Fish, Root, & Chalfonte,
1990)
8. Other - Included data points that didn't fit into the above categories.
Next, mind mapping was used to further classify, narrow, and define the major categories that emerged
during the affinity diagramming sessions. This mind map appears in the next section.
2.1.2.2 Mind map

Due to the large volume of data points (i.e., sticky notes) prepared during the affinity diagramming
sessions, a mind map was created in order to further organize the results. As shown in the close-up of
part of this mind map (Figure 2-2), four main branches – or categories – emerged: (1) needs; (2)
staying in sync; (3) staying in touch; and, (4) other. (Because of the large size of this mind map, please
refer to Appendix A.2 for a complete overview.)
Figure 2-2. Collapsed view of the mind map showing only the main four branches, with an
expanded view of Needs.
As shown in the mind map, needs were divided further into two subcategories, immediate and
secondary. From the interviews it was clear that most individuals were primarily concerned with
staying up-to-date (i.e., in sync) and in touch with their project team, and as a consequence were
satisfied with their ability to do so. Also, access to information from multiple locations or while on-
the-go was a necessary component of mobile work, for many reasons. For example, many talked of
checking email while traveling, or accessing relevant documents while at a project site – both activities
which illustrate their need to stay in sync while engaging in distance work.
Knowing what was going on within the context of the larger organization was a secondary concern for
all of those interviewed – but, it was still critical enough to be classified as a need. For the most part,
critical breakdowns occurred at this level. Lack of an effective system for information exchange was a
commonly cited problem. Generally, this breakdown was most noticeable at the departmental (or
group) level, but individuals also conveyed a sense of frustration over not knowing what was going on
within the company as a whole. Available information was either too spare and infrequently updated
(e.g., when in the form of monthly newsletters) or distributed over too many channels (e.g., internal
websites and databases). Likewise, many admitted to being personally unfamiliar with fellow
colleagues who they did not work with on projects – despite the fact that they were affiliated with the
same department, and oftentimes fulfilled similar roles for the organization. For the most part, such
findings are not surprising. Many of the individuals worked in departments or groups that consisted
almost wholly of mobile professionals, thus sharply reducing the amount of time that colleagues were
able to interact face-to-face at the corporate or home office base.
Two major branches were devoted to issues related to the concepts of in sync and in touch. However,
because it can be argued that the two concepts are highly related, it should not be assumed that these
categories are mutually exclusive. Also, because the focus of the interviews primarily dealt with
participants’ experiences while staying in sync with distant colleagues, this segment of the mind map
is more explicitly defined.
Close examination of the in sync branch reveals a reliance on traditional communication tools by
interview participants. For the most part, the mobile workers interviewed reported relying heavily on
periodic face-to-face meetings and email or phone when staying up-do-date with their fellow project
team members. The third most common form of mediated communication used by mobile workers was
teleconferencing. Communication via instant message (IM) was rarely used (two out of the 10
mentioned using it regularly), however, half of the participants talked about using someone’s IM status
to know whether the person would likely be available to receive a phone call. Similarly, the regular
adoption of other tools, such as the use of a web cam while having an online discussion was low
(again, only two individuals mentioned reporting the use of this technology with any regularity).
Finally, the other category was used to address the few remaining data points that were thought to
affect one’s ability to stay in sync and in touch, but did not specifically fit within the other three major
categories (e.g., “travel takes a physical toll”).
2.1.3 Conclusions from the exploratory interviews

The interviews revealed that individuals who are embedded in geographically distributed teams –
particularly those who work for large companies – are forced to adapt on two levels.
1. First, they must find a way to stay up-to-date (i.e., in sync) and connected (i.e., in touch) with
their occasionally geographically removed project-level colleagues.
o Based on interviews with a subset of mobile workers, it is possible to define this goal
as a primary need. Here are some illustrative examples and quotes lifted from the
interviews:
One interviewee said that she drove each Wednesday to work with her project
team in a distant city. Her reason for doing so was that she felt things did not
“go as well” when she failed to spend this time with her team, face-to-face.
Another interviewee said that each evening, on his way home he called his
team to get updates on end-of-the day activities and to see if any issues had
arisen since the last update. He was in phone contact with this geographically
distant team several times a day.
2. Secondly, they must find a way to stay up-to-date (i.e., in sync) and connected (i.e., in touch)
with their oftentimes geographically removed departmental or organizational-level colleagues.
o Based on interviews with mobile workers, it is possible to define this goal as a
secondary need. Some examples:
One mobile worker said that she “had no idea” what some of the people were
working on in her department.
She also said that one major problem was – despite the fact that her
department scheduled periodic (e.g., monthly or biweekly) meetings and
events to be held in the evenings, attendance was inconsistent because her
colleagues were working on projects in different areas of the country. For
many, this distance made it difficult to return to the home office at times.
It is possible to characterize those interviewed as "Traditionalists" because -- although they can be

classified as mobile workers – they were constrained in their attitudes and practices in such a way that
many of their interactions with distant colleagues arguably mimicked those of traditional, co-located
office workers. That is to say, most co-located colleagues prefer face-to-face and email methods of
interaction with their colleagues – and, as was borne out in the interviews – so did these individuals, as
well. Moreover, they were comparatively more conservative in their practices and attitudes towards
staying in sync and in touch with their professional contacts than a second group of knowledge
workers that was later interviewed.
2.1.3.1 Problem analysis

In their characteristic use of communication tools and practices, the Traditionalists expressed
satisfaction in their ability to stay in sync and in touch with those in their project teams (i.e., the first
level, as described in the preceding section). However, they complained of an inability to stay in sync
and in touch with their departmental colleagues (i.e., a second level need).
Here is a detailed analysis of the problems faced by the Traditionalists:
1. First, in doing primarily off-site project work, the number of opportunities to interact face-
to-face with their departmental/organizational colleagues were few.
2. Secondly, their primary needs dealt principally with the activities that supported their
current project work and team – thus making anything that fell outside (including
interactions at the departmental or organizational level) of this narrow focus secondary.
3. The favored tools for staying in sync and in touch at the project level included the phone,
face-to-face meetings and email (and occasionally chat clients, which were primarily used
to check a contact’s availability).
4. Finally, breakdowns occurred when the preferred tools for staying in sync and in touch at
the project level were also used for interactions at the more highly-distributed
departmental level.
2.1.3.2 Problem implications
Stated differently, the problem for the Traditionalists occurs when they try to use the same tools and
practices for staying in sync and in touch with their project-level colleagues to stay in sync and in
touch with colleagues at the departmental level. The consequences which arise out of this problem
include:
- Direct implications. The direct effects of having a breakdown in one’s ability to stay
in sync and in touch with one’s departmental colleagues are:
A difficulty in making new contacts within the department or wider
organization.
Not knowing what departmental colleagues are either currently working on or
have worked on in the past.
• On the flip side, a lack of visibility to one’s departmental colleagues;
an example:
o All of the individuals interviewed said that they made a
pointed effort to work in the main office when they could.
They felt this approach was necessary to nurture relationships
with colleagues and maintain good rapport with support staff.
The problem with this tactic, however, was that departmental
colleagues were oftentimes away, working on their own
projects and so they could not count on particular individuals
to always be in on a given day.
It is noteworthy to mention that all of these above factors – or direct implications – are
symptomatic of professional isolation (e.g., Cooper & Kurland, 2002; Golden, 2006).
- Indirect implications. The indirect effects of having a breakdown in one’s ability to

stay in sync and in touch with one’s departmental colleagues are:
An increased risk of not receiving information – either in a timely manner or

at all – that has implications for one’s project work (e.g., pertinent
developments in related projects, the outcome of budget decisions, etc.); for
example:
• One man that I interviewed had tried to piece together a network of
individuals who would keep him informed of potentially pertinent
developments that might impact his main project. Oftentimes,
however, he found himself in situations in which he learned of an
issue only once it was “too late”. In these cases, he would track down
someone in the information loop and ask that individual to keep him
informed of any new developments in the future. He conceded that
this was not the most effective system, but the best strategy that he
could come up with, given the circumstances. He said there was no
system within the organization to widely distribute brief updates and
news flashes, and that information tended to pass from person-to-
person.
In short, breakdowns in one’s ability to stay in sync and in touch with one’s departmental colleagues
certainly have direct implications for the relationships that exist with those colleagues. In addition,
however, such breakdowns can also indirectly affect one’s project work detrimentally.
2.1.4 Project Goal 1: Summary of findings with respect to in sync and in touch
The first goal of this project was to closely examine the role of the dual constructs, in sync and in
touch, in mobile workers’ lives.
In sum, the interviews that were conducted with mobile workers lead to the realization that a subgroup
of individuals exists – the Traditionalists – who are quite capable of staying in sync and in touch with
their project teams while relying on “traditional” office tools (such as face-to-face meetings, the
phone, and email), but who experience difficulty when trying to use these same tools for staying in
sync and in touch with colleagues who fall outside that circle.
3. Examination of possible solutions

An analysis of the problems faced by Traditionalists lead to the following statement which identifies
explicitly the end goal of any possible solution(s) that might satisfactorily address these problems.
3.1 Solution Focus

Any design solution should address the following end-goal; that is to:
Support mobile workers in their ability to stay in sync and in touch with colleagues at the
departmental and organizational levels.
3.2 Constraints
In order to come up with solutions to adequately address the above-mentioned breakdowns that occur
for Traditionalists in their interactions with colleagues at the departmental level (or beyond), it is
important to also take into consideration the following constraints, which were also derived from the
interviews:
- New tool adoption tended to be low among the Traditionalists, for a number of
possible reasons:
Lack of organizational support (e.g., to provide employees with smartphones,
mobile broadband cards, VPN connectivity, etc.)
New tool adoption was low among their existing contacts
Tool fatigue; in other words, they felt as though they managed plenty of tools
already
Their current tool set adequately satisfied their primary, project level needs
- Willingness to learn new tools and/or maintain their use was limited; for example:
• One interviewee said that the use of Sharepoint was not widely
appreciated or updated among his departmental colleagues because it
was difficult to use.
• Several (6) interviewees said that the databases that had been
developed for the purposes of cataloging the various areas of
expertise within an organization were rarely updated by the
knowledge workers themselves.
- Any solution should support either directly – or indirectly (i.e., have the potential to
support) – primary needs in addition to secondary needs. In other words, a solution
should not adversely affect the user’s ability to complete work at the project level.
The first two constraints above – regarding tool adoption and use – arguably have a lot to do with
(although not entirely) attitudes; these attitudes have been shaped in part by a sense of adequate
satisfaction with their current tool sets, as well as a desire not to overburden themselves by adopting
new tools unnecessarily. The final constraint addresses issues related to meeting their higher-level
priorities.
The next section explores some potential directions for viable solutions to the Traditionalists’
problems. Namely, interviews with a second group of professionals, who are characteristically active
networkers (or, are highly connected), were used as a basis for these directions.
3.3 Useful directions for solutions: Interviews with Highly Connected

professionals
Highly Connected professionals tend to make extensive use of a variety of tools (such as blogging or
social media) in an effort to stay in sync and in touch with their networks. Some of the tactics that
highly connected professionals employ might be of use when crafting possible solutions to the
problems faced by less highly networked individuals, such as the Traditionalists. To that end, one-on-
one interviews were conducted with a few highly connected professionals in the hope that some of
their practices might inspire supportive solutions to the problems faced by the Traditionalists.
In addition, a reanalysis was done of interviews with three highly connected professionals. These
interviews had been conducted for prior research within Future Workspaces and covered the topic of
staying in sync.
3.3.1 Method
Participants
One-on-one interviews
The three professionals interviewed were “highly connected” insofar as they all identified with the
term; made active use of new technologies and media to make and maintain connections; and had
either a need or a desire to maintain a large and active network of individuals outside of their
immediate project teams and/or close collaborators.
One of the three individuals worked in a large international corporation; the other two were self-
employed.
Re-analysis of prior interviews

The previously interviewed professionals were all highly mobile in that they all spent a large
percentage of their working time traveling or away from their project teams. They were also highly
connected in the sense that they had large, active, and well established professional networks (e.g., one
interviewee had 500 contacts on twitter).
Again, one of the three individuals worked for a large corporation; the other two were self-employed.
Interview Set-up
The interviews lasted approximately 1 – 1.5 hours during which time the participants were asked the
following questions:
1. What does it mean for you to be up-to-date with your network?

2. What does it mean for you to be connected with your network?
3. With respect to questions 1 and 2 above, to what extent do face-to-face interactions play a role
(and to what extent are the interactions in your network “virtual”)?
4. What tools do you use to stay up-to-date and connected with your network?
5. What drives you to make and maintain connections?
One of the interviews was done in person, and the other two were held on Skype.
3.3.2 Results
Because of the small number of participants, interviews were analyzed by way of discussions within
the Future Workspaces team.
What follows are some notable exemplar responses and quotes of interest, by question. Responses are
drawn both from the one-on-one interviews (identified with the labels A – C) and the re-analysis
(labels 1 – 3).
What does it mean for you to be up-to-date?
- According to one interviewee (A), he depended on those in his network to stay on top
of important information. That is to say, the more often certain news was repeated
within his network, the more attention and weight he gave to that information. Both
(B) and (C) shared similar experiences.
- Another interviewee (2) said that within the information shared by his network, he
regularly would scan for newly developing patterns.
- According to another interviewee (B), it was having weekly teleconferencing meetings
with core members of his collaborative group. Because these members were spread all
over the world, having weekly meetings in which live discussion could occur was
critical for keeping all members up-to-date.
- One interviewee (A) said that he realized “around 2004 that he could tweak the web,
so that it could bring information to him” (as opposed to him always having to go out
and visit websites repeatedly in order to get the latest information, or ask for that
information himself). To that end, he became an enthusiastic user of RSS feeds as a
means of following information sources that were related to his work, and also
individuals whom he considered to be knowledgeable.
- Two interviewees said that they would modify their method of contact to suit the
individual who they were contacting. For example, one interviewee (A) said that when
contacting members of a professional organization, he always used email. His reason
for doing so was because members of this particular organization preferred email-only
correspondence. On the other hand, he would contact other professional peers through
twitter, or engage them through their blogs. Another interviewee said that – although
he did not prefer this particular method of communication himself – he engaged
members of his work group through an online forum, because he knew that would
bring him answers most efficiently.
What does it mean for you to be connected?
- Two of the interviewees that I spoke to said that they maintained distinct personal and
private personas online. For example, one man (A) said that he used twitter to stay on
top of new developments in his field, as well as have conversations with professional
peers – but that Facebook was something that he used to interact with friends. The
other individual (B) said that he used his blog as a “cold, marketing tool” and that any
conversations that arose from his posts strictly had to do with a product which he had
developed. For conversational interactions with professional peers, he preferred
twitter.
- All those interviewed underscored the importance – and value – of brief interactions.
(E.g., “Hey, I noticed you just got back into town – welcome back!” on twitter.)
- “Years ago I was at home on my PC and was disconnected. Now my laptop is the
central part of the infrastructure in [being connected]”. (2)
- Whether holding workshops, teaching or holding meetings online, (C) has made a
pointed effort to engage others more personally. She said that in the virtual world
there is a risk of interactions being all about work, and so it is important when only
dealing with others virtually to take the extra effort to make it “more human.”
What is the role of face-to-face interactions (versus those that are technologically-mediated)?
- Face-to-face interactions are “nice, but are beginning to disappear” according to

interviewee (1).
- (C) has faced some resistance from clients who are not used to only interacting
through mediated communication. So, she has tried to offer them a compromise when
possible. For example, she shared a recent experience in which a client asked her to
travel across the country for a two-day meeting. Instead, she suggested they hold the
meeting on Skype first – then, if it didn’t work out – she would fly out to hold the
meeting in person. In the end, she said that both she and the client were happy with the
experience, and a face-to-face meeting was unnecessary.
- For the majority (4 out of the 6 interviewed), they mentioned that face-to-face
interactions at conferences or occasional workshops provided enough of a basis for
supporting collaboration in the virtual world.
- “Previously [we] would sit for half an hour talking, but no longer. Now [we share]
small interactions. One sentence, one line email. But a lot of value for a small
investment of time.” (2)
What tools do you use to stay up-to-date and connected with your next work?
- Four out of the six were bloggers, and engaged others through this medium either by
authoring posts or commenting on the posts of others.
- Through conferences and workshops (5 out of 6).
- Four out of six used twitter or other social media tools (the other two might haved
used social media, but this was not explicitly mentioned in their interviews).
- Four out of six used RSS feed readers to stay on top of new events, information, and
certain contacts.
What drives you to make and maintain connections?
- Interviewee A felt that he needed to reach outside of his own company and make new
contacts in order to stay on top of the new developments in his field (and in related
fields).
- Now connections are made with individuals who offer value and insight to the
conversation, from the world over (C). Previously, such interactions were not possible.
- Not only has she sought out individuals, but by blogging, people have contacted (C) in
response to her posts and her website. She considered this, too, to be an added benefit
of actively sharing content with others.
3.3.3 Useful directions for solutions: Conclusions

The highly connected professionals that were interviewed actively maintained large and distributed
networks. As mentioned previously, some of the tools and practices used by highly connected
professionals were used to inspire useful solutions to the problems faced by the Traditionalists in their
ability to stay in sync and in touch with their geographically distributed departmental- and
organizational-level colleagues. What follows are some potentially useful “lessons learned” from the
highly connected professionals, which were used to inspire design solutions.
1. The use of filters. Filters help to cull information so that the most potentially important
information is readily assessable. There are two types of filters that highly connected
professionals make use of regularly:
i. Tacit (or emergent) filters – Tacit filters are driven by one’s social
connections. Tacit filters operate when one’s contacts help call attention to
information that might otherwise be overlooked.
ii. Explicit filters – For example, via the use of RSS or other information
aggregators (e.g., FriendFeed). The defining characteristic of an explicit filter
is that it funnels content on requested topics, individuals, or websites to the
user automatically.
2. The use of open communication. Highly connected individuals share status updates and
engage in brief conversations via the use of one-to-many (or many-to-many) methods of
communication (such as through LinkedIn, twitter, Facebook, or forums).
Table 3-1. Key Comparisons between the Traditionalists and Highly Connected
Professionals 6.
Why were these particular practices chosen as possible directions, and not others?
The highly connected professionals that I interviewed also displayed other noteworthy characteristics.
Here are just a few:
6
The use of instant messaging (IM) is starred in this case because the Traditionalists tended to use it
idiosyncratically; that is, they used it to check the current status of their contacts in order to decide if it was a
good time to call them or approach them in person – but generally not to use the application to chat.
- They were all bloggers – thus underscoring their willingness to share information,
their viewpoints, and engage in an open dialogue on topics of interest.
- They also showed an overt willingness to adapt to their contacts’preferred methods of
communication.
- Generally speaking, they all considered face-to-face communication to be clearly
beneficial – but not always absolutely necessary – not even for collaborative work.
It is important to address why other tools, practices, and strategies used by the highly connected
professionals are not included as design suggestions. The above examples underscore how the
communication practices of the highly connected professionals in this sample have been shaped by
their attitudes. Whereas designing a system that makes use of filters and/or open communication is
feasible, attempting to encourage the Traditionalists to rethink their deeply held views on the necessity
of face-to-face communication, for example, would be pose a formidable challenge.
4. Requirements for a solution

Factoring in the aforementioned constraints and suggestions for directions for solutions, the following
is a list of design requirements to consider when coming up with viable solutions to help support
mobile workers in their ability to stay in sync and in touch with their departmental and/or
organizational level colleagues.
1. Maintain the integrity of the Traditionalist’s original tool set (i.e., mobile – but not necessarily
“smart” – phone, email, face-to-face communication, and instant messaging) by:
a. Not necessitating the addition of new tools (e.g., smartphones, netbooks, or other
mobile devices)
b. Integrating any solutions into the existing tool set (e.g., a solution that makes use of a
user’s email as an input/output device)
2. Should require zero-to-low effort in the initial set-up of the system
3. Participation in the system should require minimal effort (e.g., this could be done via the use
of automatically generated status updates)
4. System elements should be available to the user while he is on-the-go
5. Push relevant information to the user via the use of filters
6. Support one-to-many or many-to-many communication via the use of status updates and/or
information exchange
5. Design solutions: Initial concepts

After formulating the design requirements, the next step was to come up with several possible design
solutions, in rapid succession over the course of one week. Very brief descriptions of the six concepts
that came out of that process follow in the next section. Visualizations of the concepts and extended
explanations can be found in Appendices A.3 – A.8.
5.1 Results of the concept brainstorm

1. Ping (Appendix A.3) – This concept is an extension of an application that was prototyped and
tested within Novay. It can be used to quickly find out which colleagues are nearby. The main
idea behind Ping is that, after finding out if a colleague is nearby, the user can then contact
that person for an unplanned face-to-face meeting. The application would not require the use
of a smartphone. Localization information would be provided by mobile carriers.
2. Bulletin Board (Appendix A.4) - A means of sharing status updates, short messages, and
multimedia that is filterable by group (e.g., "Project Team", "Department", or "Organization").
The application would act as a sort of dynamically updating desktop wallpaper.
3. Daily Outlook (Appendix A.5) - An add-on for Outlook that configures the Outlook Today
page and is meant to support the sharing of: (1) Status updates; (2) News Flashes; (3)
Document sharing (via the use of links); and (4) a Q&A section (basically, a bare bones
forum).
4. Outlook-based Blogging Tool (Appendix A.6) - An add-on for Outlook that makes it easy to
post to blogs as well as track, read and share blog posts from within Outlook (all without
having to open a web browser).
5. Free 5 (Appendix A.7) - Personnel within a company are matched based on mutual
professional interests. Individuals can make available "five minutes" (or more) of free time to
meet with previously unknown colleagues, thus earning points. Earned points can be traded in
a type of bartering system that allows participants to "buy" time slots from one another. The
basic idea is to foster the making of new connections within large, decentralized organizations;
help find experts; and, open new opportunities for collaboration.
6. Hover Status Tool (Appendix A.8) - By hovering over the name of a colleague – for example,
when composing a new email message – a small pop-up appears that displays that contact's
latest status update (e.g., as fed from their calendar). This information can be used to help one
decide which method is best for contacting an individual at that moment – be it email, phone,
or face-to-face communication.
5.2 Expert feedback

In order to narrow down the number of possible solutions, an evaluation session was held with three
in-house experts from within Novay. All three were researchers who focus on new ways of working,
and in particular mobile work. I walked them through basic visualizations of each concept idea, and
then asked them to give feedback on their impressions.
While they were evaluating the concepts, participants were asked to keep in mind the six design
requirements (see Section 4). As a reminder of those requirements, I printed off some A4-sized cards
listing them, and gave one to each participant. That way they could easily refer to the requirements --
and assess the extent to which each concept idea addressed them -- as they gave their feedback.
For each concept, participants were asked to give three pros, three cons, and three improvements for
furthering the design. This feedback was used as the basis for a second design iteration (for a complete
list of their responses, see Appendix A.9). Then, I had them rank order each concept. Each first place
ranking was given a score of six points, a second place ranking was given a score of five, and so on. In
general, the simpler concepts were preferred over the concepts that would require more effort on the
part of the user.
The outcome of the rank ordering is as follows:

1. Ping - 20 points
2. Hover Status - 18 points
3. Daily Outlook - 16 points
4. Bulletin Board - 14 points
5. Outlook Blogging Tool - 11 points
6. Free Five - 6 points
Next, the feedback and rank orderings were used to modify the top four concepts. The following week
I held a focus group with potential users. There I presented the Ping and Hover Status concepts, along
with a new concept (which also came out of the expert assessment) – a status updater that sits on the
computer’s desktop (the Easy Status Updater; see Appendix A.10 for a visualization of this concept).
The Bulletin Board and Daily Outlook concepts were rolled into a single idea because of their obvious
similarities – both act as information portals. In the case of the Bulletin Board, the main types of
information transmitted are short messages and updates, but in the case of the Daily Outlook, the
content is more diverse. The main question in combining the two concepts became whether users
preferred the more information spare (Bulletin Board) or rich (Daily Outlook) version. Please see
Table 6-1 – which overviews all of the changes made for each subsequent iterative design cycle – for a
list of the changes made to the concepts after this assessment.
6. Concept Evaluations
6.1 Focus Group Session

6.1.1 Method
Participants
In total, four Novay business developers showed up for the session (out of the six that replied two were
no-shows). All were male.
The business developers shared some key characteristics with the Traditionalists who were initially
interviewed. Both groups are characteristically out-of-office, spending a large portion of their working
days crisscrossing the country to engage in meetings.
But there are also some important differences too. The Traditionalists devoted a sizeable percentage of
their professional lives to project work. In focusing primarily on project work, it became critical for
them to manage their communication channels in such a way as to support their ability to collaborate
within their project teams effectively.
Business Developers, on the other hand, work more independently. Their main task is hunting down
"leads". Certainly open communication with their intra-organizational peers is a benefit to this kind of
work (e.g., it's important to know who is hunting down what lead and the outcome of that effort) – but,
it does not require a need to collaborate at the same level of intensity that project work does. Instead, it
could be argued that it requires business developers to coordinate more often with their colleagues.
This difference is important because it has some important implications for the results of the focus
group session.
Focus group set-up

During the focus group, both a moderator and assistant moderator were present. The assistant
moderator acted as a note taker.
The main ideas behind the four concepts (Ping, Hover Status, a combination of the Bulletin Board and
the Daily Outlook concepts, and a new concept, the Desktop Updater) were shown using a series of
sketches and mini-scenarios7.
A4-sized cue cards with the terms “up-to-date” and “connected” were used to remind the participants
of these criteria when assessing the concepts. So, the basis of the discussion for each concept revolved
around the basic questions: Would it help you stay up-to-date with your colleagues? And, would it help
you stay connected to them?
Following the presentation of each of the four concepts participants were asked to fill in a brief 10-
item questionnaire.
Questionnaire Items
The questionnaire items were meant to gauge each participant's reactions to various aspects of each of
the four concepts.
All participants were presented with the same 10 questions – and asked to rate their answers on a 5-
7
The slides that were shown during this presentation can be found in the following blog post:
http://jennifersprojectspace.blogspot.com/2009/07/recipe-for-focus-group-part-i.html
point Likert scale – for all four concepts (i.e., Ping, the Bulletin Board, an Easy Desktop Status
Updater, and Hover Status). Using the same questions for each concept allowed for direct comparisons
across concepts.
Questions were adapted from a questionnaire used during a prior Future Workspaces assessment
(Janssen, 2009). Here is a list of the questions used:
1. I would use this tool frequently and actively.

2. I think this tool looks easy to use.
3. This tool would help me to exchange information with my colleagues.
4. This tool would help others keep up-to-date with what's going on with me.8
5. This tool would help me keep up-to-date with what's going on with others.9
6. This tool would help me to get to know my colleagues more personally.10
7. This tool would take up too much of my valuable time.
8. Using this tool, I would be in control of what others can learn about me.
9. This tool could provide benefits to my work.
10. The benefits appear to outweigh the costs of using this tool.
Responses were coded as follows:
• Strongly agree = +2 points

• Agree = +1
• Neither agree nor disagree = 0
• Disagree = -1
• Strongly disagree = -2
6.1.2 Results
6.1.2.1 Discussion results (by concept)

I presented each of the four concept ideas (Ping, Bulletin Board, an Easy Desktop Status Updater, and
Hover Status) in turn.
While presenting the concepts, I prodded the participants to engage in discussion by asking the
following questions:
- Do you think this [concept] would benefit your ability to stay up-to-date with your distant
colleagues? Why or why not?
- Do you think this [concept] would benefit your ability to stay connected with your distant
colleagues? Why or why not?
- More generally, would it be useful to you? Why or why not?
This discussion was meant to supplement information provided by the questionnaires.
Some select comments made by the participants with regards to each of the four concepts are listed
below, as well as some general trends.
Ping
- I would try it around noon, to see who is [around].
- It would be more useful for times when [one] is out-of-the-office.
8
This question has to do with staying in sync.
9
Another question which dealt with staying in sync.
10
This question has to do with staying in touch.
- It seems to be more beneficial for people who work outside of the organization. Like for instance,
when I am in the Hague. It would be useful to stay connected with main stakeholders when I am in that
area of the country.
- As to staying connected or up-to-date, the application itself doesn't tell you much. These are things
you would learn in person, after having used the application to meet up.
- By show of hands, all said they would use it.
- As to how frequently it would be used, this result was more mixed because they said its use would be
contingent upon the situations that happened to arise. [This point illustrates the opportunistic nature of
the application.]
- Would like the ability to Ping groups of people, not just individuals.
- Would prefer a mobile web-based application (rather than have the operation of the application be
contingent upon SMS)11.
Bulletin Board
- Only one of the group said that he uses an application in which he regularly updates his status (in this
case, twitter).
- Everyone else found the act of status updating dubious (i.e., it is all about people talking about the
sandwiches they are eating; there is no useful information being shared, etc). Important note: These
individuals did not actually have first-hand experience using such applications (e.g., twitter).
More specific quotes:
- I would update my status, but only if it was done automatically, from my calendar.
- As a sender, I am not sure that I would want to update my status all of the time.
- I am not interested in what other people are doing.
- It should be a mobile application, too – but one that does not rely solely on SMS.
- There is too much information coming to me already – I would need a filter.
- I do not want to know about the status of 100 different people, but for some specific people, yes. For
instance, for a colleague that has been having personal difficulty lately, it is good to know if he is okay
when I don't see him. But this would mean the application would need have some kind of a filter to get
just his specific information only.
- For the more information-rich version of the Bulletin Board: If the idea could be adapted so I (and
the people in my group) just send short messages for updates rather than spend three hours/week
writing reports, I would use it because it would save me time. I don't like giving status updates, but if it
helps reduce the work time by replacing all of this report writing, then I would do it.
- One of the participants said he would use the more information rich version (i.e., the one quoted
directly above); for the basic version, it would need to include automatic updates as an input method to
be more acceptable.
Easy Desktop Status Updater

- Questions regarding to where the status would be channeled (e.g., twitter, Bulletin Board, LinkedIn,
&etc?)
- One person was very keen on using it only to have his status automatically updated.
- Three out of the four people said they would use it.
- Wants to be able to filter who gets what status information (by, for example, sending some status
updates only to his closest work group and not the entire organization).
- Again would prefer a mobile web application (does not like the use of SMS to update one's status),
because he said that it would be more convenient for when people are on-the-go.
Hover Status
- All said that such information, in the form presented, would be useful to them.
- Given some feedback from the earlier expert evaluation, they were also asked whether the
11
It is important to note that one of the design constraints was explicitly not to build an application usable
only by individuals who own smartphones (i.e., design restriction #1)
presentation of the information might prove "irritating"; they all said that they did not perceive that to
be a problem.
- Also would like to get location-based information on their contacts which would be included in the
hover stats.
- One said he likes the idea of "pulling information" to himself.
6.1.2.2 Overall impressions of the concepts
At the end of the focus group session, each participant was asked to give their overall impression of
the concepts by distributing five bonus points (green stickers) and five penalty points (red stickers)
among the four concepts. They could distribute the points however they wished.
Figure 6-1. Focus group participants were asked to distribute “bonus” and “penalty” points
across the four concepts.
Here is a summary of that exercise:
Figure 6-2. Overall distribution of bonus and penalty points for the focus group session, across
the four concepts.
As is evident, the Hover Status tool was the most enthusiastically endorsed. Ping and the Easy Desktop
Status Updater received neutral-to-moderately positive ratings. Overwhelmingly, the Bulletin Board
was given a poor rating by everyone.
It's important to keep in mind that these ratings aren't nuanced – in other words they're gross-level
endorsements or dismissals of the concepts as a whole.
What follows are some reflections on the best and worst ratings:
Bulletin Board
With respect to the Bulletin Board, two things should be kept in mind. First, the business developers
tend to coordinate in their work – rather than collaborate with their colleagues. Moreover, much of
their work (e.g., hunting down leads) is done independently. This might explain why there was a
general lack of interest in knowing what their colleagues were up to.
However, all of the other mobile workers that I interviewed worked in project teams and engaged
heavily in collaborative work. For this reason, there might be more of an interest in a tool that provides
them with information about their distant colleagues. Also, aspects of the tool that were found to be
disagreeable to the business developers were explicitly asked for by some of the Traditionalists that
were interviewed (e.g., a "News Flashes" feature).
Secondly, I asked them to react to the information-rich version only; it is possible they might have
been more positive about the basic version (which included only status updates). However, because of
their group-level dismissal of the practice and use of status updates, it seems doubtful.
Hover Status
This tool was rated the highest, and for good reason. As was pointed out by participants during the
focus group session, it is lightweight and useful – especially in those moments when one must decide
what strategy is best for contacting another person.
6.1.2.3 Questionnaire Results

Below is a graphic capturing the reactions of the four focus group participants to the four concepts.
Ping
Bulletin Board
I would use the tool Easy Status Updater
frequently and actively.
Hover Status
2,00
The benefits appear to
I think this tool looks easy
outweigh the costs of using
1,00 to use.
this tool.
0,00
This tool would help me to
This tool could provide
exchange information with
benefits to my work. -1,00 my colleagues.
-2,00
Using this tool I would be in This tool would help others

control over what others keep up-to-date with what's
can learn about me. going on with me.
This tool would help me

This tool would take up too
keep up-to-date with what's
much of my valuable time.
going on with others.
get to know my colleagues
more personally.
Figure 6-3. Questionnaire results for the four concepts which were presented during the
focus group session.
Given the small number of data points statistical analyses would have been inappropriate in this case.
However, as the graphic clearly shows, the questionnaire was a useful tool for assessing participant
attitudes. (For a complete table of the results by question, see Appendix A.11).
It is noteworthy to mention that the tools rated the highest overall (see Fig. 6-2) were associated with
perceptions of having lower costs (i.e., Easy Status Updater and Hover Status). Not surprisingly, these
were also the tools that people said they would use more frequently (in addition to Ping).
On the flip side, the Bulletin Board was considered to be the only tool that could potentially take up
too much of a user’s time.
Two factors seem to have driven people's overall rating of the concepts – that is, time and the
perceived presence of additional benefits. Overwhelmingly, the most poorly rated tool was the Bulletin
Board. But, if one examines the questionnaire results more closely, this rating has nothing to do with
its potential for keeping colleagues up-to-date with one another. Pooling the results of the two up-to-
date questions, the Bulletin Board actually out-rated the Hover Status tool or Easy Status Updater.
Likewise, it also rated higher than any other tool when it came to potential for keeping colleagues
connected.
On every other measure, the Bulletin Board drew mostly neutral responses.
In the end, the consensus of the business developers was that they did not find status updates useful to
their work. Perhaps, as just mentioned, this is because – for the most part – they tend to work
independently rather than in teams.
Although both the Easy Status Updater and the Hover Status tools focus on status updates, the effort
expended in updating one's own or viewing another person's status is very low – one could argue,
sufficiently low enough to make the use of such tools more acceptable.
6.2 Redesign
After this focus group session, the Easy Status Updater and Hover Status were combined into one
concept, a Status Sharing tool. These two tools were combined because it became clear that they could
be easily integrated. The Ping concept was modified to include the notification of availability
information. Finally, it was decided that the simpler version of the Bulletin Board would be tested with
Traditionalists – because although the business developers did not care for this concept – it might
provide unique benefits to this particular group. For an overview of some of the ways in which the
concepts changed over the course of the project, please see Table 6-1 below.
Concept Version 1.0 Version 2.0 Version 3.0

Ping Pinging a contact returns It is now possible to Ping Status info added to Ping;
an SMS with info groups of people, in thus a Ping will return
regarding their location addition to individuals. whether the person is
(e.g., “at the office”). nearby and available. For
groups, only the names of
those both nearby and
free are returned by Ping
in SMS form.
Hover Status + Mousing over a contact’s The Desktop Updater is Location and time-based
Desktop Updater name or email address added to the concept. It is information are added to
(became the Status reveals his or her latestan application that always the Hover Status tool. The
Sharing tools once status update. sits on the desktop, only possibility to send
revealing the latest status updates to varying
combined in Version
updates that one shares services (e.g., twitter or
3.0) with his or her contacts. Facebook) and/or specific
There are both manual groups or contacts is
and automatic (e.g., included. The option to
pulled from one’s attach images or movies
calendar) options for is also added.
updating one’s status.
Bulletin Board Allows for short Two versions are shown Version 1.0 is expanded
messages and multimedia during the focus group: to include: a search
to be shared between essentially, Version 1.0 function; the option to
colleagues. It is possible and the Daily Outlook star (or save) particular
to filter by group, and, portal for additional types messages; and, threaded
conceivably, particular of information (such as a replies that appear in the
individuals. It is also Q&A), which serves as form of small “piles” of
possible to send a new the expanded version. sticky notes. It is also
message to the Bulletin The main question is if now possible to share
Board via SMS. users prefer the simpler movies and audio, in
version or a version that addition to images.
is more scaled down (as
in Version 1.0).
Table 6-1. An Overview of the Different Versions of the Main Concepts
In the table, Version 1.0 concepts were those that were initially shown to the expert group.
Modifications that led to Version 2.0 concepts were based on feedback from the experts; this version
of the concepts was then shown during the focus group session. After the focus group session, the
concepts were adapted further, into a third version. Version 3.0 concepts were used during the final
concept evaluation.
Three short movies were made to help illustrate the concepts. Because it was the underlying concepts
that were being evaluated and not the specific operations of the related applications per se, the look of
the movies was decidedly “sketchy”. It was thought that the roughness of the look of the movies would
help make clear to the participants that they were evaluating preliminary concepts and not functioning
applications. Sketches were drawn by hand and touched-up in Photoshop. The scenarios for Ping and
the Status Sharing tools were animated in Flash. Finally, the Bulletin Board movie was simply a
PowerPoint presentation that was captured using Camtasia screen recording software. Camtasia was
also used to record voiceovers and add background music to all three movies.
The movies were shown during one-on-one interviews and were also used in an online evaluation. All
three can be viewed on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/mevrouwcurtis. Screen shots from
these movies appear in the next few figures (Figures 6-4 to 6-7).
Figure 6-4. Sketches of Ping Version 3.0, showing how one might Ping
an individual (at top) or group (bottom).
Keeping Mobile Workers In Sync
S and In Touch 30
Figure 6-5. One of the changes to the Status Sharing tool that made its way into
in Version 3.0 was
the inclusion of a time and location stamp along with the Hover Stat us updates.
Figure 6-6. Other changes to the Status Sharing tool Version 3.0 included:
included : (1) the option to
select whom would receive a given update (e.g., one’s project team only); and (2) the option to
add multimedia to updates, in the form of attachments.
S and In Touch 31
Figure 6-7. A visualization of the Bulletin Board Version 3.0.

3.0
6.3 One-on-one
one interviews
6.3.1 Method
Participants
Six individuals (two female) were interviewed. Five of these individuals participated in the initial
exploratory
loratory interviews. The other individual had not been interviewed previously, but was a colleague
of one of the prior interview participants,
participants, and fulfilled the same job role. All were mobile
mobil workers,
spending at minimum one-to-two two days per week traveling. At maximum, onee of the interviewees
traveled five days per week for work.
Unlike the participants of the focus group, these individuals all spent a sizable number of their working
hours engaged in project-based
based work. All worked within the context of distributed teams. And, as
mentioned previously, the individuals interviewed could be classified as Traditionalists.
Traditionalists
Interview set-up
al interviews were conducted at each participant’s workplace12. Participants were asked to
Individual
12
However, one of the interviews was conducted at an outdoor café and another in the participant’s home. For
both, these locations were considered to be workplaces.
evaluate the concepts after watching three movies, one for each concept. Each movie lasted
approximately 3 – 5 minutes and was meant to explain the concepts by way of illustrative scenarios.
The movies were shown on a laptop, with audio streaming through headphones.
After watching each concept movie, they were asked to fill out a questionnaire. These questionnaires
were identical to the ones used during the earlier focus group.
The questionnaire was then used as a starting point for discussion. In particular, each participant was
asked to further explain his or her responses to questions regarding staying in sync (i.e., “up-to-date”)
and staying in touch (i.e., “connected”) with colleagues. At this point, participants were asked to
clarify any neutral (i.e., “neither agree nor disagree”) responses they might have given. They were also
asked to give more general feedback regarding their opinion of the concepts and their perceived
usefulness.
Finally, after having evaluated all three concepts in turn, participants were asked to give their overall
impressions of the concepts by engaging in an exercise identical to one from the focus group session.
Each participant was given five bonus points (green stickers) and five penalty points (red stickers) and
then asked to distribute these among the three concepts. Again, as in the earlier exercise, they were
encouraged to distribute these points in any way they saw fit.
6.3.2 Results
6.3.2.1 Questionnaire items

Ping
Bulletin Board
I would use the tool
Status Sharing
The benefits appear to 2,00
I think this tool looks easy to
1,00 use.
this tool.
0,00
-2,00
Using this tool I would be in This tool would help others

control over what others keep up-to-date with what's
can learn about me. going on with me.
This tool would NOT take up This tool would help me

too much of my valuable keep up-to-date with what's
time. going on with others.
more personally.
Figure 6-8. Questionnaire results for the three concepts which were presented during the
evaluation interviews.
As shown in the graphic above, responses tended not to vary widely from question to question, or
across concepts. Examination of the data indicated that some standard deviations from the mean scores
were relatively high (up to 1.5 points in some cases); however, given the small set of scores this
finding is not surprising. (For a complete table of the results by question, see Appendix A.12).
In the questionnaire, a score of zero indicated a neutral response, with negative scores indicating
disagreement and positive scores indicating agreement. Generally speaking, all tools were rated
moderately positively (with an average score of around 1.0), on all items.
Of particular interest was how participants rated the tools with respect to staying in sync and in touch.
For the two questions regarding in sync (i.e., those that had to do with being “up-to-date”) responses
were virtually identical; that is, all concepts were rated moderately positively (Ping M = .67, and for
both the Bulletin Board and Status Sharing tools M = 1.00). It might be the case that Ping was rated
slightly lower than the other concepts because of the following observation made by a few of the
participants. They noted that the tool helps colleagues meet face-to-face, at which point it would be
possible to get up-to-date. However, the tool itself does not explicitly help one get in sync with one’s
colleagues – rather, it enables personal encounters to take place during which “ the catching up” can
occur.
The item meant to tap participants’ views toward staying in touch was, “This tool would help me to get
to know my colleagues more personally.” The Bulletin Board ( M = 1.00) concept was rated the most
highly, followed by Ping (M = .67) and the Status Sharing tool (M = .13). One individual said of the
Status Sharing tool: “you can learn about your colleagues, but not in a personal way.” In other words,
it is a tool that is better used to know about the work-related activities of one’s colleagues, but this
information does not necessarily help in getting to know a person better. On the other hand, the
Bulletin Board was thought to be a tool that could potentially “mix the private and the personal”, if
people were willing to share information that was “not just related to business.”
Two other findings from the questionnaire results are noteworthy. First, Ping (M = 1.50) was
considered the least time consuming tool to use by a sizeable margin, followed by the Status Sharing
tool. The Bulletin Board (M = .50), on the other hand, was considered to be the tool that would be
most likely to take up “one’s valuable time”. This makes sense, because the act of sharing information
in the form of periodic posts would require more effort than the act of occasionally Pinging a
colleague. However, the average response to this question was still positive, indicating that although
using this tool would take up more time than either Ping or the Status Sharing tools, it was not enough
to not be considered burdensome.
Next, those interviewed were divided on the extent to which they viewed Ping as giving them adequate
control over the kind of information others could access about them, and this is probably why Ping
scored lowest on this item (M = -0.33). Three participants said they would like an option to “cheat the
system” so that others might not know their precise location during particular times of their choosing .
The other three participants said that having their colleagues know where they were located during
work hours was not a concern.
6.3.2.2 Overall impressions

The overall impressions of the concepts were quite different from those of the business developers
who attended the focus group session. As speculated earlier, this difference is probably due to a
difference in job roles for the two groups; whereas the business developers tend to work
independently, the mobile workers – like those initially interviewed – tend to work in teams.
S and In Touch 34
Figure 6-9. Overall distribution of bonus and penalty points for the evaluation interviews,
across the three concepts.
For those interviewed, no concept was the clear “winner”. As shown in the figure, all three concepts
fall along the midline, indicating that their overall impressions of the concepts were relatively neutral-
to-positive.. For this group the Ping concept, however,
however, could be considered the most well received
overall, because it received more bonus points (12) than penalty points (7),
(7), by the widest margin.
margin
Feedback by concept
For each of the three concepts, what follows are some exemplar quotes and indications of
o the opinions
of those interviewed. Participant numbers are identified parenthetically.
Ping
Many felt that the best time to use such an application would be for more informal get-
get
togethers, such as when meeting up for breaks or lunch (in fact, two scenarios that were
shown in the movie). A few mentioned the usefulness of such an application on those days
when they returned to the main office to work; on those days, they said, it could help them
find nearby colleagues – especially because most did not
no t have access to their
coworkers’calendars.. So, Ping had the potential to help them find their contacts more
effortlessly. Other comments follow below:
- Would like the option to put his own info into the system himself (instead of just letting the
informationon be pulled from his calendar) because he would like to have a “cheating function”.
(1; also, 4, 6)
- Would like to see distance from colleagues displayed in “minutes walking time” the colleague
is away (e.g., X is 5 minutes away)
away rather than actual meters. (1, 2, 3)
- Does not care to see a privacy function that would allow her to “hide” from her colleagues
because work “should not be about ‘hiding under your desk’”. (2)
- To help in getting to know others, it would be nice if the system was linked to online profiles
that “tell a bit more” about others job roles and activities. (2)
- Would probably only use this when he is back at the main office, because he does not have
direct access to his colleagues’ calendars. (3)
- Would be nice to use to get together,
together for instance, for lunch. In this way, it could help to get to
know one’s colleagues more personally. (3)
- Can see its value most in situations in which people work in a flexible office space. (4, 5, 6)
- Would rather have this as something to use with her friends – for that, it could be fun. (4, 6)
- Could be used in situations in which you have a meeting and people are late. You could then
“Ping” them as a reminder, or to see if they’re on their way already. (4)
- Would use it more when he has less pressing matters to discuss – or just for a break – because
face-to-face meetings aren’t always the most productive. (5)
- Likes that the messages are simple – two variables only (availability and nearby status) –
because it makes it clearer. (6)
- Would be nice if there was an online option, so that you could see your contacts on a map. (6)
Status Sharing
One individual had a negative opinion of the Status Sharing tool, but the others all were
enthusiastic about it. They liked the simplicity of it, and a couple said that it “fit with their
way of working”. Here are some other observations made by those interviewed:
- The desktop updater is nice because it helps to address the problem of forgetting to update
your status. (1)
- When he is writing an email message, he already knows how he will contact that person (i.e.,
by email), so being able to access information then is not useful. (1)
- Has had discipline issues updating her status in the past (on websites like Hyves), so the
application always being on the desktop might help. (2)
- Would like a mobile option to update one’s own status. (1, 2, 3, 4, 6)
- Useful because he is working all day with his laptop, anyway. (3)
- Worries about times when he is very busy and then the information could become out of date
quickly – and, what if he forgets to put the updates on automatic? In that case, the updates
could still become out of date. (3)
- The option to update one’s status automatically is the best feature. (4)
- Could be annoying if people don’t update their status – you would cease to trust the system, in
that case. (4)
- Anything that helps you see what others are up to before you contact them – like this, or MS
Communicator – is useful. (5)
Bulletin Board
Although some mentioned that the Bulletin Board had the potential to be fun, it could be
argued that this positive feedback was negated by a perception that the tool would require
some effort to update, as well as to consume at regular intervals the information posted to
the application. Other feedback included:
- Prefers it (as opposed to Status Sharing) as a connectedness tool (1).

- Wants to see something similar implemented in their use of Sharepoint (2).
- Looks like it could be fun; a bit more personal. (2)
- He is not enthusiastic about sharing his own information, but would like the opportunity to see
what others would share. (3)
- Might not know whether to put up work related information or personal information, so maybe
there would need to be guidelines. (3)
- The most time consuming concept of the three. (3)
- With these kinds of things, some might use it a lot, and some not at all, so content would not
be representative of everyone in the workplace. (4)
- With the filters, you can’t know if someone is always filtering you out (and so they don’t see
your messages). So, she would not use it for important information (for that, she would use
email). (4)
- Helpful in the context of the organization itself, but not for outside it (shouldn’t be linked to
Hyves or Facebook). (5)
- During busy periods, he would not use it – and these periods might be for days or weeks at a
time. (5)
- Would like to see a tagging option for topics – that could make any search function easier, or
the following of particular topics. (6)
- Likes the multimedia aspect of it. Anything in which you can share pictures or anything else
makes it more personal and interesting. (1, 6).
6.4 Online Concept Evaluation

In tandem with the interviews, a concept evaluation was placed online. The format of the online
evaluation was meant to mirror the one-on-one interviews as closely as possible.
6.4.1 Method
Participants
Participants were recruited through email flyers, twitter, Facebook, and word-of-mouth. In all, 10
individuals participated in the online evaluation. All worked remotely between 1 – 5 days per week
(with the majority working remotely two days per week). All except one were experienced mobile
workers (i.e., with at least 2 years experience; six individuals reported six or more years of
experience). All reported working in the context of team settings, and all reported spending at least
some of the time away from those teams. All but one said they spent at least some of the time working
away from departmental-level colleagues.
Evaluation set-up
The evaluation was made up of several parts: an introduction, which explained the purpose of this
project and the evaluation; an instructions section; a background questionnaire; the three concept
movies (the same shown during the one-on-one interviews); and three questionnaires identical to the
ones used during the interviews (with one questionnaire following each movie), including an optional
comments section; and, a section in which participants were asked to rank order the concepts
according to their preferences.
As of the writing of this report, the concept evaluation is still online – along with the three concept
movies – and may be viewed at the following website: http://concepteval.blogspot.com/
6.4.2 Results
6.4.2.1 Questionnaire items

Ping
Bulletin Board
I would use the tool
Status Sharing
The benefits appear to 2,00
I think this tool looks easy
1,00 to use.
this tool.
0,00
-2,00
Using this tool I would be This tool would help others

in control over what others keep up-to-date with
can learn about me. what's going on with me.
This tool would NOT take This tool would help me

up too much of my keep up-to-date with
valuable time. what's going on with…
more personally.
Figure 6-10. Questionnaire results for the three concepts which were presented during the
online evaluation.
Again, similar to the interview results, responses tended not to vary greatly from question to question,
nor across concepts. Examination of the data indicated that standard deviations tended to be lower. All
tools were rated moderately to highly positively, which indicates agreement with the statements made
in the questionnaire items. (For a complete table of the results, see Appendix A.13).
In sync
Although all three of the concepts were rated by participants as being helpful in sync tools, the Status
Sharing tools (M = 1.00 and M = 1.20 for the two questions) were rated the highest on this measure.
Four online respondents explicitly mentioned the potential for the tool to be connected to email (or,
Outlook) as being a positive feature. As an up-to-date tool, Ping (M = .50, M = .60) was rated the
lowest – but positively enough to still be considered a viable in sync tool. As with those interviewed,
there were two ways of interpreting Ping as an in sync tool. When answering this question, some
focused on the fact that it does not help one to get in sync with his or her colleagues directly; rather, as
an in sync tool it works indirectly (i.e., “by making it easier to meet up”).
In touch
Bulletin Board (M = .75) was the concept that was rated the highest on helping to get to know one’s
colleagues more personally. In their comments, comparisons of the Bulletin Board were made to other
social media tools such as Facebook, Hyves, or FriendFeed; however, participants mostly considered
this to be a tool that would be best be utilized internally, within an organization. Only one person
remarked that they would like to use the tool for both professional and personal life. The other two
concepts were rated more neutrally (Ping, M = .30; Status Sharing, M = .30).
The explanations given echo the responses of those who were interviewed. Ping was rated neutrally by
8 out of the 10 participants. Reasons mostly had to do with the perception that it helps people connect
indirectly (via face-to-face meetings). With the Status Sharing tools, remarks were made about how it
would be a good tool to know when to contact a colleague and by what medium (e.g., phone or email).
In other words, the majority of the participants (6) perceived the tool as an “indirect” in touch tool.
Like Ping, participants were focused on how it could be used as a tool for facilitating the process of
contacting another.
Other
Two other findings are worth mentioning. First, Ping was considered to be the easiest-looking tool to
use, by far. Furthermore, it was also considered to be the least time demanding. Thus, Ping could be
considered the tool that best fits the design requirements that have to do with the amount of effort
involved (specifically, #2 and #3). But – again it must be stressed – according to the questionnaire
results, all of the concepts were perceived to fulfill these requirements, to varying extents.
Secondly, the Bulletin Board tool was again rated to be the most potentially time demanding. Again,
this finding is not surprising and in line with the responses of those interviewed. It was also the tool
that was perceived to have the highest potential costs, and received the lowest mean score on the item
inquiring about “frequent and active” use.
6.4.2.2 Overall preferences

As an analog to the overall rating exercise that was used during both the focus group and the concept
evaluation interviews, participants were asked to choose their most and least favorite concepts.
Although there appears to be no obvious first choice among the participants, there was a clear least
favorite. The Bulletin Board concept was rated the least favorite four times, and only one individual
indicated the concept was his favorite. The comparison of the Ping and Status Sharing tools could be
considered virtually identical; most people preferred either one or the other of these two tools. The
designation of least favorite was almost evenly divided over the three concepts.
Tool Preferences
MostFav LeastFav
5
4 4
3 3
Figure 6-11. Overall tool preferences for the online evaluation, across the three concepts.
In the end, it is quite possible that participants viewed Ping and the Status Sharing tools similarly
because it can be argued that both fulfill similar functions. Namely, these tools help people make
decisions about when or how to best contact their colleagues. Moreover, both were considered to be
relatively easy to use and low cost tools in regards to the amount of effort involved to use them,
especially when compared to the Bulletin Board.
The Bulletin Board was considered by participants to be the concept that was most likely to nurture
connectedness. However, it was also perceived to be the tool with the highest associated costs.
Individuals hinted in their comments that these costs had to do with the time it would take to compose
messages regularly, and in the initial integration of the use of the tool into regular working practices.
7. Final conclusions
The success of this project could be judged by weighing the extent to which the project goals were
fulfilled. To this end, each of the project goals is examined in turn.
7.1 Project Goal 1: Determine the role of in sync and in touch in mobile
professionals’ lives
Interviews were initially undertaken with a group of mobile workers in order to determine how much
they valued staying in sync and in touch with their distant colleagues. Because all of those interviewed
worked primarily in distributed project teams, they all spoke of expending a great deal of effort in
order to nurture a sense of connectedness and stay up-to-date with their immediate, project-level
colleagues. To that end, they generally traveled in order to hold regular face-to-face meetings with
their team members, or were in daily contact with them by either phone or email (or both). So much
effort was poured into activities that supported staying in sync and in touch with their project level
colleagues that all those interviewed expressed satisfaction with the outcomes of these efforts. Staying
in sync and in touch with one’s project team was so important that it came to be considered a primary
need of the mobile workers interviewed.
However, breakdowns occurred when they tried to use the same tools and practices for staying in sync
and in touch with their project teams, as with the colleagues in their departments or wider
organizations. The main problem arose when they used what one might consider traditional office
tools – i.e., principally face-to-face meetings, phone and email – to infiltrate this second, much more
dispersed and loosely connected group of individuals. Thus, these individuals came to be referred to
as Traditionalists, namely because their choice of communication tools most closely resembled that of
traditional, co-located office workers. They were also much more conservative in their approach to
communication than a second group of highly connected networkers that was interviewed. To an
extent, staying in sync and in touch with one’s departmental- or organizational-level colleagues was
considered to be of value to the Traditionalists (although not to the same degree as interactions with
one’s project level peers); communications at this level were thus designated secondary needs.
The problems for the Traditionalists were found to have two distinct levels. First, breakdowns in their
ability nurture connections with their departmental/organizational level peers had dire consequences
for the relationships that they had with those individuals. Some Traditionalists expressed a sense of
confusion over what others in their department were currently working on; in extreme cases, the
identities of some departmental peers were not even known. Not only were there potential direct
implications of not being able to stay in sync and in touch with one’s departmental peers, but there
were found to be indirect implications that had potentially detrimental repercussions for their project
work, as well.
7.2 Project Goal 2: Come up with solutions to the problems faced by

mobile professionals
A second set of interviews was conducted with highly connected professionals. Findings from these
interviews were used as inspiration for coming up with solutions to address the problems of the
Traditionalists in keeping in sync and in touch with their departmental- and/or organizational-level
colleagues. These were: (1) integrating the use of information filters into any solution; and (2)
supporting one-to-many or many-to-many communication.
Next, a set of design six requirements (see the table below) was used to provide a foundation for some
possible concept solutions.
After a series of analyses, and a couple of iterative design cycles, three concepts were developed into
short illustrative movies; these were: Ping, Status Sharing tools, and Bulletin Board.
The next section covers the extent to which each of the three concepts met the design requirements,
according to findings from the evaluations.
7.2.1 Assessment of the validity of the concepts
7.2.1.1 With respect to the requirements

Concept
Requirement Met? How Met? How Met? How
Could be used Integration with Outlook;
1 - Maintain tool set Yes without a Yes for use on Yes For use on computer/laptop
smartphone computer/laptop
Find out whether
Supports the automatic Content is principally shared in the
contacts are nearby
3 - Low effort to participate Yes Yes updating of one's own Unclear* form of very short, text-based
with a single
status messages
selection
A mobile phone Desktop application; Desktop or web-based application;
4 - Available on-the-go Yes Yes Yes
application Laptop Laptop
Share one's status with
Filter contacts by
5 - Uses filters Yes Yes only chosen Yes Filter by group or individual.
group
contacts/groups.
Option to Ping a Updates distributed to Messages and shared content

6 - One-to-many communication Yes Yes Yes
group of people one's contacts distributed to the wider organization
Table 7-1. Comparison of the concepts to the requirements, including how those
requirements were met (at least in part); * = This item is starred because it was the tool that
was perceived to require the most effort by all those who took part in the final evaluation;
however, results indicated that the degree of effort required was still perceived to be low,
on average.
As shown in the table above, it can be argued that – where applicable – all of the tools met all of the
requirements. It is important to note that – because the solutions presented were early-stage concepts –
it would be hard to concretely assess the effort involved in setting up each tool. Moreover, the
evaluations were mainly meant to tap the extent to which the users valued the concepts themselves
(e.g., did they mind sharing information regarding their activities and whereabouts, and similarly, did
they also like to have access to this information from their contacts?) Therefore, a second requirement
dealing with the need for a low-effort set-up of the system was left out of the table.
7.2.1.2 With respect to staying in sync

Both those interviewed and those who filled out the online evaluation indicated that the Bulletin Board
and Status Sharing tools had the potential to help them stay up-to-date with their colleagues, to an
equal degree. Ping was also thought to be a useful in sync tool, albeit to a slightly lesser degree than
the other two concepts.
7.2.1.3 With respect to staying in touch

Although all of the concepts were considered to be adequate in touch tools, the Bulletin Board was
considered to be the tool that was best suited to this goal. Both those interviewed and those who took
the online evaluation noted its potential for sharing more personally-relevant information.
7.3 General reception of the concepts

According to the final evaluation, those interviewed appeared to prefer the Ping concept overall. With
respect to the online evaluation, both Ping and the Status Sharing tool came out on top. Although these
tools were not perceived to be the best tools – hands down – for staying either in sync or in touch, they
were considered to be the easiest to use; were thought to have the lowest cost-to-benefit ratios; and,
would require the least amount of time. Thus, it can be argued that requirement #3 (above) was given
the most weight when assessing these concepts13. Interestingly, the concept that was considered to
have the most combined in sync and in touch potential – that is, the Bulletin Board – was the least
appreciated overall, across all evaluations.
7.4 Future directions

Based on findings from the evaluations, it is suggested that either the Ping or Status Sharing tool be
considered for further development. In the end, the problems faced by the Traditionalists can be
thought of as large – but given their preference for simple, low-effort tools it is concluded that only
very modest solutions will be adopted readily. The potential benefit in providing modest solutions,
however, is that they might lower the threshold sufficiently enough so that the Traditionalists can meet
both primary and secondary needs effectively.
Some recommended changes to the Ping concept include expressing distance from colleagues in the
number of minutes it might take to reach that colleague. Also – although it was a design constraint to
not rely on the use of smartphones in coming up with a solution – the tool could be usefully expanded
as a mobile web-based application. This extension would make it possible to incorporate different
visualizations of one’s nearby colleagues, as in, for example, on a map14.
More work needs to be done in order to determine the extent to which mobile workers value their
privacy. Although some of those interviewed said they would value the opportunity to “hide” from
their colleagues at certain moments, others said that in a professional setting such controls should not
be necessary.
A useful modification to the Status Sharing tool might be to include “hover” updates in more diverse
locations, such as in a user’s mobile phone contact list. Also, the precise services that individuals
might want their updates to be funneled to would need to be more closely examined. For instance, if
they expressed a desire to use the Desktop Updater to update their Hyves status, then that might
indicate a desire to mix both personal and professional identities. User tests with a working prototype
would need to be done in order to assess whether users would feel overburdened by the need to
“constantly update” their status, or if instead they felt comfortable allowing the system to
automatically update their status for them (i.e., by pulling information from their calendars).
Finally, tests would need to be conducted with working prototypes to ascertain whether individuals in
practice use either tool to stay in sync and in touch with those at the departmental- and/or
organizational-levels – and, not simply with their immediate, project-level colleagues.
8. Some final reflections

Some of the findings from another project within Future Workspaces lend insight into the conclusions
of this project. In that project, it was found that new tool adoption among busy professionals was
driven by two requirements: (1) The tool itself either had to be clearly beneficial to use, and/or easy-
to-use; or, (2) it had to be fun to use.
13
These findings reinforce conclusions made from the expert review and focus group sessions, as well.
14
Currently available GPS-based mobile phone applications, such as Google Latitude, offer such functionality.
Of the tools proposed in this study, Ping and the Status Sharing tools fulfilled the first requirement
above, according to comments made by experts and potential users. Feedback indicated that some of
those who evaluated the concepts thought that the Bulletin Board might fun to use. Whether or not the
Bulletin Board also would be easy-to-use is a murkier question. Many who did the evaluation made
note of the potential effort involved in using the Bulletin Board, much more than would be required in
using either of the other two applications.
Ultimately, it is believed that Traditionalists are best served by extremely modest solutions to their
problems. In fact, the design requirements (as outlined in Section 4) underscore this point. For
example, in designing a solution, the initial exploratory interviews made it clear that workable
solutions should not force the use of new tools or require much effort to operate. To a certain extent,
these requirements dictate the design of an almost “invisible” solution – that is to say, one that
integrates seamlessly into currently used tools and practices to such an extent that it is almost invisible.
One could argue that the problems faced by mobile workers are very large – particularly for those who
could be categorized as Traditionalists. They characteristically rely upon tools best suited for one-to-
one communication to tap into new developments that occur at a highly distributed and diffuse level.
Their strategy is generally not one of prevention, but of intervention. For example, rather than make it
a priority to maintain large and active networks within their departments or in their larger professional
affiliations (as highly connected professionals do), some reported going back – for example, after they
had learned of a communication problem that detrimentally affected their immediate work – and
asking those in the information loop to alert them to new developments in the future. Of course, such a
strategy only helps to subvert future problems, but does nothing to lessen the detrimental impact of
having learned of relevant information too late, on some prior occasion already.
So, what makes the Traditionalists different from the Highly Connected professionals? It could have
something to do with the differential value that each group places on face-to-face communication. In
the opinion of the Traditionalists, all stated that the best method – and the method that they relied upon
most heavily for engaging in collaborative work – was to make it a priority to meet with their team
members face-to-face on a regular basis. Even if it meant traveling long distances multiple times each
week, the Traditionalists viewed these interactions as fundamental to the success of their project work.
On the other hand, two of the Highly Connected professionals that I interviewed reported having had
positive experiences working in entirely virtual work situations, in which they had to collaborate
closely on projects without ever having the benefit of meeting face-to-face. Furthermore, all of those
interviewed made reference to the notion that face-to-face meetings are clearly a bonus when
collaborating – but, that such interactions were not absolutely necessary. This variable view regarding
the role of face-to-face work is a major difference between the two groups. And, whereas the Highly
Connected professionals relied heavily on new tools and media to interact with their colleagues, it is
doubtful – given the strong preference for face-to-face communication that all of the Traditionalists
expressed – that they would adapt well to any solution that required such a large shift in principle
beliefs. To a large extent, that is why only very modest solutions were proposed to the problems faced
by the Traditionalists.
9. References
Cooper, C. D., & Kurland, N. B. (2002). Telecommuting, Professional Isolation, and Employee
Development in Public and Private Organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 23, 511-532.
Flanagan, J. C. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin , 51, 327–358.
Gartner. (2009, May 20). Gartner Says Worldwide Mobile Phone Sales Declined 8.6 Per Cent and
Smartphones Grew 12.7 Per Cent in First Quarter of 2009. Retrieved September 10, 2009, from
Gartner: http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=985912
Golden, T. D. (2006). The role of relationships in understanding telecommuter satisfaction. Journal of

Organizational Behavior (27), 319-340.
Golden, T. D., Veiga, J. F., & Dino, R. N. (2008). The impact of professional isolation on teleworker
job performance and turnover intentions: does time spent teleworking, interacting face-to-face, or
having access to communication-enhancing technology matter? Journal of Applied Psychology , 96,
1412-1421.
Huston, L., & Sakkab, N. (2006, March 20). P&G's New Innovation Model. Retrieved September 10,
2009, from Harvard Business School: http://hbswk.hbs.edu/archive/5258.html
Janssen, R., & de Poot, H. (2006). Information overload: why some people seem to suffer more than
others. Proceedings of the 4th Nordic conference on Human-computer interaction: changing roles (pp.
397 - 400). Oslo: Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction.
Kakihara, M., & Sorensen, C. (2002). Mobility: An extended perspective. Proceedings of the Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 1-10). Big Island, HI: IEEE.
Kraut, R. E., Fish, R. S., Root, R. W., & Chalfonte, B. L. (1990). Informal Communication in
Organizations: Form, Function, and Technology. In I. S. Oskamp, & S. Spacapan, Human Reactions to
Technology: The Claremont Symposium on Applied Social Psychology (pp. 1-53). Beverly Hills: Sage
Publications.
Nardi, B. A., & Whittaker, S. (2002). The Place of Face-to-Face Communication in Distributed Work.
In P. J. Hinds, & S. Kiesler, Distributed Work (pp. 83-113). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Nardi, B. (2005). Beyond bandwidth: Dimensions of connection in interpersonal interaction. Journal

of Computer-supported Cooperative Work , 14, 91-130.
Piccoli, G., Powell, A., & Ives, B. (2004). Virtual Teams: Team Control Structure, Internal Processes
and Team Effectiveness. Information Technology and People , 17 (4), 359-379.
Serenko, A. (2006). The use of interface agents for email notification in critical incidents. Internation
Journal of Human-Computer Studies , 64, 1084–1098.
Slagter, R. (2008, September 1). Challenges for the nomadic worker: Part 0: In Sync, In Touch, In
Flow. Retrieved September 10, 2009, from Future Workspaces:
http://www.futureworkspaces.nl/2008/09/01/challenges-for-the-nomadic-worker-part-0-in-sync-in-
touch-in-flow/
Urquhart, C., Light, A., Thomas, R., Barker, A., Yeoman, A., Cooper, J., et al. (2003). Critical incident
technique and explicitation interviewing. Library & Information Science Research , 25, 63-88.
WorldatWork. (2009). Telework Trendlines 2009. Scottsdale, AZ: The Dieringer Research Group Inc.
A. APPENDICES
A.1 Complete list of exploratory interview probes
Exploratory Interview - Checklist
NOTES
INTRODUCTION
What is your job role?
What are your responsibilities?
What activities are you involved in?
How much of your work requires that you coordinate

and/or collaborate with colleagues at another location?
GENERAL
What do you need to know in order to stay up-to-date

for your work?
Follow-up: For example?
Why is being up-to-date important to you?
What does it mean to you to stay up-to-date

successfully?
How does being away/working with distant colleagues

affected your ability to stay up-to-date?
Follow-up questions
A. What’s going on in the general organization or

department?
B. With what other team members are doing?
C. With what’s expected of you?
D. In what ways have challenges keeping up-to-

date impacted team social
cohesion/connections, from your experience?
(Optional).
E. In what ways have you managed/coped with

these issues?
CRITICAL INCIDENTS
Explanation/Expectations:
A. These questions cover the last most significant

positive and negative experiences that you had
when keeping up-to-date with colleagues who
could be described as being generally at
another location than yourself.
B. Positive experiences might be when you felt

completely up-to-date, or the experience was
otherwise effective, efficient, or enjoyable.
C. Negative experiences might be when you felt

hindered in your ability to stay up-to-date or
otherwise ineffective at staying up-to-date.
D. I will ask you to give 2 – 4 specific examples,

depending on time.
Critical Incident #1
Please think of a significant situation where staying up-

to-date was critical. Is it positive or negative?
Approximately when did it occur?
Description of the situation.
Follow context-related questions:
A. What were you doing at the time?
B. Under what circumstances?
What was the outcome (i.e., positive/negative)?
Why did you consider the experience critical?
Did you do anything to try to resolve the issue/contribute

to the outcome?
What were your feelings and perceptions of the

experience?
Did you change your behaviour after this experience?
Follow-up question
A. If yes, how so?
From your point-of-view, what could have been done to

make the situation ideal?
Follow-up questions
A. If a positive experience, what could you have

done to make it even better?
B. If a negative experience, what could you have

done to improve it?
What support would have been useful to you?

A.2 Mind Map

A.3 Ping (Version 1.0)

Pictured is a brief scenario which illustrates the use of Ping. The script of this scenario can be found on
the following page.
Participants of the expert session were walked through a brief scenario, using some of the
visualizations on that appear on the preceding page.
Here is a breakdown of that scenario:
1. You are interested in meeting with a colleague, Liz, for a coffee break. The problem is that
you are both oftentimes conducting business away from the office, so you can’t count on Liz
being around on any particular day or at any particular time. However, using your mobile
phone, you have the option to Ping her in order to see if she is nearby. This option is located
along with Liz’s contact information, in your mobile phone. So, in this case, you go ahead and
Ping her, to find out if she is currently at headquarters, too.
2. You don’t need a smartphone in order to use Ping. Location based information is culled from
your contacts’mobile phone carriers. In this case, it looks like Liz is in the vicinity.
3. You receive an SMS from Ping.
4. It tells you that Liz is indeed at the office. One feature of Ping is that you can reply directly to
Liz, from Ping’s SMS.
5. After replying to Ping’s message, you can directly compose your message to Liz, inviting her
to take a coffee break.
A.4 Bulletin Board (Version 1.0)

A.5 Daily Outlook (Version 1.0)

A.6 Outlook-based Blogging Tool (Version 1.0)

A.7 Free Five (Version 1.0)

There are two screen shots of the Free 5 application. In the first, below, is the main view that a user
would normally see after logging into the system. On the following page is a screen shot of the profile
of a suggested contact (Amy) for this user (Jennifer).
Free 5 - Screen shot 2.

A.8 Hover Status Tool (Version 1.0)

A.9 Findings from the evaluation of preliminary concepts with experts

The numbers in parentheses are used to identify individuals.
CONCEPT FEEDBACK
A. Location Ping
Pros
- No unwanted disturbances/SPAM (because the user is in control) (1)

- Clear, intuitive (1)
- No bells and whistles – Do not put add too much functionality to it! (1)
- Simple and easy to use (2)
- Nice integration into an existing tool (2)
- Fits their current work practices (3)
- Uses their current tools (3)
- No effort to set-up, little effort to use (e.g., “answering” a ping is done automatically) (3)
- No push of information, people can control it themselves (4)
Cons
- Only checks for one person (1)

- No info about whether this is a good moment to disturb others (1)
- Location-based, though GSM may be rough to find someone (2)
- You have to initiate contact as a user, so might not get information about someone who is
nearby but who you hadn’t thought of (NB, this could also be a pro) (2)
- Still mostly one-to-one communication (3)
- Still relies on people to be “around”, so you need to come to the office (3)
- Only their current location – doesn’t tell you that Ann will be nearby in half an hour, for
example (3)
- Counterintuitive to look on phone to know who is around the office (Is mobile really the
tool of the office? Isn’t it usually a land line instead?) (4)
- What are the chances of you “pinging” a person somewhere and they just happen to be
near the office? (In other words, it could be unlikely this would oftentimes work). (4)
- Functionality might be hidden on a normal phone. For example, I never look further than
name + number information. (4)
Suggested Improvements
- Group “ping” or have option to “ping ” all contacts (1)

- No text message back, but directly on display add button “Send SMS” (1)
- You could have a list of people for whom you always want to receive “nearby
notifications”. Your phone could then regularly “ping” these contacts (2)
- Ping a group (3)
- Ping all contacts (3)
- “Virtual ping” – Use it to see who’s available/online (3)
- Give it an option to push Ping! of certain persons (4)
- Ping! with automatic SMS option; Ping! around for coffee OR meeting, e.g. (4)
B. Bulletin Board
Pros
- Being able to share text messages as well as pictures (1)

- Good filter: “All” versus “project” versus “department” (1)

- Filtering between different groups (2)
- Status updates okay; (Nearly) always visible, no need to go to a website/install an
application (3)
- Attractive visualization (could still be better) and easy way to input new messages (3)
- “Bulletin board” is a well-known term (3)
- Unobtrusive but there (4)
- Good “sneaky” packaging of twitter; people can more easily adapt it (4)
Cons
- Only works for a small amount of updates (screen gets full, doesn’t show everything) (1)
- Even in the background it would probably distract me (1)
- No option to reply (1)
- Separate tool: It would have to launch when the computer is started (2)
- May be too much of a burden to post messages. We saw a similar thing with
“Traditionalist” colleagues using twitter. Maybe if it’s always in the background this
would be less of a problem though (2)
- People already use their desktop (background picture; recently used files) (3)
- People need to develop the habit to send status updates (3)
- Is the division All/Project/Department so important that it should dominate the whole
concept? (3)
- Link beneath the messages invites one-to-one communication (so not open) (3)
- People don’t see their desktop that often (4)
- Shouldn’t require clicking around (see improvements, below) (4)
- Not usable on the go for reading all messages without a smartphone (4)
- Add a tab yourself (e.g., “Friends”) for people you would like to follow (1)
- Directly type your status update instead of putting it behind an icon (1)
- Show when an update was posted (1)
- Better connection to existing tools that they already use. For instance, let people reply by
email/phone (2)
- Updates: Old messages will shift down and be less accessible, so is there any good way to
deal with this more gracefully? (A bit like Buzzcuit?) (3)
- Give really small, unobtrusive notifications at times, so that people notice that something
has happened (4)
- Perhaps use column layout, like Tweetdeck (as opposed to tab layout) (4)
C. Daily Outlook
Pros
- Good integration with Outlook (email) and SMS (1)

- Multichannel sending of information and receiving responses (1)
- Integration with Outlook seems promising for “Traditionalists” (2)
- Nicely integrates various information streams into one screen (3)
- Multi-channeling: Choose best communication medium based on online status (But, also
see con below) (3)
- “Always visible” (But, also see con below) (3)
- Consistent use of mediums (can reply using the same medium) (4)
- Categorization is nice (4)
Cons
- Having to think in which category a message should be posted (1)

- Requires people to use “Outlook Today” screen – not many people like this screen (1)
- Hard to remember categories (e.g., the difference between “Status” and “News Flashes”)
and where you want to post or that you want to post when you’re on the move (2)
- “When I start Outlook, I directly to my Inbox” – this option conflicts with the necessary
use of the Today screen in this case (3)
- Answers to questions: Will they be open? (3)
- Multi-channeling: Answers are fragmented over various media (3)
- Only view once a day? (4)
- Adds more information streams (4)
- How to keep an overview of all information? (4)
- Fewer categories (1)

- Show responses so others can learn the answer to the question as well (thus building a
knowledge base) (1)
- See pictures of the people that have posted messages (2)
- “Outlook Today” is basically an HTML page; you could just as well integrate Yammer into
Outlook (3)
- Combine the best of this concept and the Desktop Bulletin Board (that one looked nicer)
(3)
- Add the use of notifications/filters for certain messages (4)
- Integrate more with other Outlook functions (4)
D. Outlook Blogging
Pros
- Integration with Outlook (1)

- Blog posting and reading in one tool (1)
- Nice way to get acquainted with blogging practices (2)
- Easy to use (2)
- Makes it easier to post to a blog (but see con below) (3)
- Tag field is nice (assuming it uses autosuggest and one is able to search for tags) (4)
- Nice integration (4)
Cons
- Blogging (sending as well as reading) may not fit the target audience (1)
- One-the-go requires Outlook access (1)
- Am not convinced that people will start blogging even if it is easy to use (2)
- Will people start blogging just because it’s easier now (3)
- Traditionalists need to learn to incorporate RSS into their work practices to use it (see
suggested improvement below) (3)
- Not mobile? (4)
- Set-up difficulty (4)
- Make reading part easy. Probably the Traditionalists will want to receive email (maybe
in a separate account or folder) (2)
- How could you make RSS-style reading easier, in a similar way? (It’s now a weird process
to subscribe to an RSS feed) (3)
- People comment on blog posts. How can you make that easier and more apparent to the
commenter and blog owner (3)
- Incorporate comments and such, in order to stimulate conversation (4)
- Make a “View on Web” button (4)
E. Free Five
Pros
- Showing people with similar interests (1)

- Rich address book – with views of schedule and means to communicate and link (1)
- Good tool for people who are new to an organization (2)
- I like the system of earning points (2)
- Proactive “LinkedIn”; might point you to people you know but who have dropped out-of-
sight; or, might point you to relevant peers you didn’t know yet (3)
- Nice combination of information (4)
Cons
- Pretty intrusive – I would be scared to use it (1)

- Point system does not work for me (1)
- When it is used within a company or department I don’t see the need for making
connections through interests or expertise. You could maybe see an overview of people
who have listed that they made free time, and match their time with yours. (2)
- “Points” – Because it’s not a game or dating competition, how do you avoid such
associations? (3)
- This seems like something people might only occasionally use, not frequently (3)
- “Yet another social networking site” (3)
- Extra tool (4)
- Unclear benefits (4)
- How to start meeting with no prior business? (4)
- How does it work? Can colleagues “tip” one another? (3)

- Could be a contact page in Outlook or something similar (4)
o For example, if you receive an email from a potentially interesting person, this
could be marked with an icon (4)
F. Hover Status
Pros
- Great integration with Outlook (1)

- Simple and elegant (1)
- Easy to get status info from twitter or instant messaging (1)
- Fits current practice to check online status using instant messaging, and is an
incremental improvement (3)
- Quick idea of what is happening (4)
Cons
- I don’t really see the need for this. You get confronted with information about people you
don’t need (2)
- Status information should not be available always (2)
- Status can go out-of-date; how do you avoid this? (3)

- Email is asynchronous anyway, so why bother to know the status? (4)
- Show when status was last updated (1)

- Introduce user-friendly reminder to update your status online (3)
o Maybe a window (always visible on the desktop) where you can see and change
your status (3)
- Push status by person or pull status from person? (4)
A.10 The Desktop Updater
The figure below shows the first conceptualization of the Desktop Updater concept.
A.11 Focus Group Session Means and Standard Deviations for the Four
Concepts by Item
Items Ping Bulletin Board Easy Updater Hover Status

mean std.dev. mean std.dev. mean std.dev. mean std.dev.
I would use the tool frequently and actively. 0,75 0,5 -0,50 1,0 0,75 1,3 0,50 2,1
I think this tool looks easy to use. 1,25 0,5 0,25 1,0 1,25 0,5 1,50 0,7
This tool would help me to exchange information with my colleagues. 0,00 1,2 0,25 1,0 1,25 0,5 1,00 0,0
This tool would help others keep up-to-date with what's going on with me. 0,25 1,0 0,75 0,5 1,25 0,5 1,00 0,0
This tool would help me keep up-to-date with what's going on with others. 0,25 1,0 0,75 0,5 0,50 1,3 0,00 1,4
This tool would help me to get to know my colleagues more personally. -1,00 0,0 0,00 1,2 -1,25 0,5 -1,00 0,0
This tool would take up too much of my valuable time. -0,50 1,3 1,25 0,5 -0,25 1,3 -0,50 2,1
Using this tool I would be in control over what others can learn about me. -0,50 1,3 0,25 1,0 0,75 1,5 1,00 1,4
This tool could provide benefits to my work. 1,00 0,0 0,00 0,8 1,25 0,5 1,00 0,0
The benefits appear to outweigh the costs of using this tool. -0,25 0,5 0,00 1,2 1,00 1,2 1,00 1,4
A.12 Evaluation Interview Means and Standard Deviations for the Three
Concepts by Item
Items Ping Bulletin Board Status Sharing

mean std.dev. mean std.dev. mean std.dev.
I would use the tool frequently and actively. 0,50 0,8 0,50 0,8 0,83 0,4
I think this tool looks easy to use. 1,50 0,5 1,17 0,4 1,50 0,8
This tool would help me to exchange information with my colleagues. 1,00 0,6 1,17 0,8 1,17 0,4
This tool would help others keep up-to-date with what's going on with me. 0,67 0,5 1,00 0,0 1,00 0,6
This tool would help me keep up-to-date with what's going on with others. 0,67 0,8 1,00 0,0 1,00 0,6
This tool would help me to get to know my colleagues more personally. 0,67 0,5 1,00 0,0 0,17 0,8
This tool would NOT take up too much of my valuable time. 1,50 0,5 0,50 0,5 0,83 0,4
Using this tool I would be in control over what others can learn about me. -0,33 0,5 1,00 0,6 1,33 0,5
This tool could provide benefits to my work. 1,00 0,6 0,83 0,8 1,00 0,0
The benefits appear to outweigh the costs of using this tool. 1,00 0,6 0,50 1,0 0,83 0,4
A.13 Online Evaluation Means and Standard Deviations for the Three
Concepts by Item
Items Ping Bulletin Board Status Sharing

mean std.dev. mean std.dev. mean std.dev.
I would use the tool frequently and actively. 0,60 0,7 0,13 0,8 0,70 0,9
I think this tool looks easy to use. 1,60 0,5 1,13 0,4 1,30 0,7
This tool would help me to exchange information with my colleagues. 0,50 0,7 1,13 0,4 1,20 0,8
This tool would help others keep up-to-date with what's going on with me. 0,60 0,7 0,75 0,5 1,20 0,6
This tool would help me keep up-to-date with what's going on with others. 0,50 0,7 0,88 0,4 1,00 0,7
This tool would help me to get to know my colleagues more personally. 0,30 0,7 0,75 0,5 0,20 0,9
This tool would NOT take up too much of my valuable time. 1,00 0,5 0,13 1,0 0,50 1,0
Using this tool I would be in control over what others can learn about me. 0,10 0,9 0,75 0,7 0,30 1,3
This tool could provide benefits to my work. 0,80 0,8 0,50 0,8 0,90 0,7
The benefits appear to outweigh the costs of using this tool. 0,70 0,8 0,00 0,8 0,40 1,1

CURTIS - USI-Novay Final Project Report - Sept 2009

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CURTIS - USI-Novay Final Project Report - Sept 2009

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Keeping Mobile Workers In Sync and In

Touch:: Big Challenges, Modest Solutions

Assessment of the validity of the concepts…

(1) With respect to the requirements

Option to Ping a Updates distributed to Messages and shared content

(2) With respect to staying in sync

(3) With respect to staying in touch

General reception of the concepts

7. Final conclusions ......................................................................................................................... 39

1.1 Project Goals

1.1.1 Defining the challenges: In sync and in touch

2. Examining the role of in sync and in touch in the professional

2.1 Exploratory Interviews

1. What was needed in order to stay in sync3 with distant colleagues?

2. Working away from a main office at least 50% of the time.

2.1.2.1 Affinity diagramming

Figure 2-1. A part of the resultant affinity diagram.

Affinity diagramming is a qualitative analytical method comparable to exploratory factor analysis. In

Some examples are listed below:

- "[The] second biggest issue when collaborating across distance is infrastructure"

2.1.2.2 Mind map

2.1.3 Conclusions from the exploratory interviews

It is possible to characterize those interviewed as "Traditionalists" because -- although they can be

2.1.3.1 Problem analysis

Here is a detailed analysis of the problems faced by the Traditionalists:

2.1.3.2 Problem implications

- Indirect implications. The indirect effects of having a breakdown in one’s ability to

An increased risk of not receiving information – either in a timely manner or

3. Examination of possible solutions

3.1 Solution Focus

3.3 Useful directions for solutions: Interviews with Highly Connected

Re-analysis of prior interviews

1. What does it mean for you to be up-to-date with your network?

What does it mean for you to be up-to-date?

What does it mean for you to be connected?

- Face-to-face interactions are “nice, but are beginning to disappear” according to

What drives you to make and maintain connections?

3.3.3 Useful directions for solutions: Conclusions

4. Requirements for a solution

5. Design solutions: Initial concepts

5.1 Results of the concept brainstorm

5.2 Expert feedback

The outcome of the rank ordering is as follows:

6.1 Focus Group Session

Focus group set-up

1. I would use this tool frequently and actively.

Responses were coded as follows:

• Strongly agree = +2 points

6.1.2.1 Discussion results (by concept)

This discussion was meant to supplement information provided by the questionnaires.

More specific quotes:

Easy Desktop Status Updater

6.1.2.2 Overall impressions of the concepts

Here is a summary of that exercise:

6.1.2.3 Questionnaire Results

Using this tool I would be in This tool would help others

This tool would help me

Concept Version 1.0 Version 2.0 Version 3.0

Figure 6-7. A visualization of the Bulletin Board Version 3.0.

6.3.2.1 Questionnaire items

Using this tool I would be in This tool would help others

This tool would NOT take up This tool would help me

6.3.2.2 Overall impressions

- Prefers it (as opposed to Status Sharing) as a connectedness tool (1).