SocInfo2011 - Designing For Motivation

Designing For Motivation
Focusing on Motivational Values in Two Case Studies

Fahri Yetim, Torben Wiedenhöfer and
Markus Rohde

Information Systems and New Media International Institute for Socio-
Siegen University Informatics (IISI)
Hölderlinstr 3, 57076 Siegen, Bonn, Germany
Germany

Markus Rohde
Information Systems SocInfo2011 –
and New Media Session F5 Peer Production
Prof. Dr. Volker Wulf

Markus Rohde

Understanding Social Informatics

 ,,the interdisciplinary study of the design, uses
and consequences of information technologies
that takes into account their interaction with
institutional and cultural contexts“ (Kling 1999)

 Socio-Informatics (Rohde/Wulf 2011):
 Socio-technical, dual nature of IT artifacts
 Design in interaction with social practices

Kling, Rob (1999): What is social informatics and why does it matter? D-Lib Mag 5(1).
Rohde, Markus and Wulf, Volker (2011): Sozio-Informatik. Informatik-Spektrum, Vol. 34, No. 2, 210-213
Markus Rohde

Research Questions

 What motivates users in different use cases?
Are there significant commonalities/
differences between the cases?

 What mechanism/ design features may
support motivational values and thus motivate
people to annotate in these use cases?

Markus Rohde

Motivational Design

 Design your App Usable
 Design your App Enjoyable
 Design your App for Visibility
 Design your App Sociable
 Design your App Valuable
 Design your App Explorable
 Design your App Flexible
 Design your App in a Participatory Way

Markus Rohde

Framework Value Sensitive Design
 VSD approach (Friedman et al., 2006): considering
human values throughout the design and deployment
of information technologies
 VSD as an iterative process that integrates
conceptual, empirical, and technical investigations.
 Conceptual investigations in central value concepts and
issues
 Empirical investigations focus on the social context and on
the particular design
 Technical investigations aim at design to support values
analyzing current technical mechanisms
Friedman, B.; Kahn, P.; and Borning, A.: Value Sensitive Design and Information Systems. In P.
Zhang & D. Galletta (eds.), Human-Computer Interaction and Management Information
Systems: Foundations. M.E. Sharpe, New York, 2006, 348-372
Markus Rohde

Exampels/ Related Work

 Batson et al. (2002) motivation for community
involvement:
 Egoism (increase one’s own welfare),
 Altruism (increase the welfare of another individual or
individuals),
 Collectivism (increase the welfare of a group),
 Principlism (uphold one or more moral principle)
 Kuznetsov (2006) motivations of Wikipedians:
reputation, community, reciprocity, altruism and
autonomy
 Hars and Qu (2002) participation in open source
projects: altruism and identification with a community
Markus Rohde

Value Sensitive Design Criteria
 Reputation building: Individuals’ desire to establish their
reputation and to gain approval from others in the field
(Oreg/Nov 2008)
 Self-development: The desire for self-development through
learning from others in the field, receiving feedback, and
enhancing one’s abilities and skills (Oreg/Nov 2008)
 Autonomy: The freedom of independent decision making
(Kuznetsov 2006)
 Status and Recognition: The desire for social acceptance
and appreciation (Fang/Neufeld 2009)
 Sense of ownership and control: The desire for personal
power, prosperity and control (Fang/Neufeld 2009)
 Free software ideology: Altruistic structure of belief, public
good attitude (Fang/Neufeld 2009)
Markus Rohde

Telco: Intranet Knowledge Management

Markus Rohde

Adfind: Web Services Portal

Markus Rohde

Research Method

 Telco Corp: 11 semi-structured interviews
(1 hr.) and a focus group workshop with 5
participants (2.5 hrs.)
 Adfind: 8 semi-structured interviews (1 hr.) and a
focus group workshop with 14 participants (2 hrs.)
 Audio-/ Video-Recordings, Transcriptions,
Ex-Post-Categorization
 Design Recommendations
 Participatory Design
 Evaluation

Markus Rohde

Telco Findings (I)
 Community support. Users emphasized the
relevance of community for them. One stated that the
internal network is very strong and people tend to
help each other. They emphasized the usefulness of
expert allocation support, to locate contact persons to
access community knowledge more easily.
 Reputation. Desire to gain recognition from others in
their company. One was interested to build a
reputation in a certain area.

Markus Rohde

Telco Findings (II)
 Self development. Learning from the annotations of
others was highly valued by several participants:
importance of the usefulness of annotations.
Annotation would allow to find information from other
projects more easily to enhance personal knowledge.
Another strived to track the expertise of people for his
own area.
 Self benefit. One stated that without personal benefit
it’s as a “waste of time”. Another would only use the
tools if annotating would be their main job.
 Personal enjoyment. Having fun during annotating:
“entertaining” side of the tools is very important
Markus Rohde

Adfind Findings (I)

 Self-benefit. Highest importance for motivating
participants in this case. All would annotate web
services to reach a personal goal, even though their
goals differ (commercial interest vs. open source
services, personal consumers enhance their own
web service retrieval processes, rewards like
exclusive access to withhold information or
functionalities).
 Self development. Need for personal development
and need for appropriate instruments that may be
helpful for the personal development. Value of
retrieving expertise from other developers.
Markus Rohde

Adfind Findings (II)
 Reputation. Web service developers need
professional reputation. One values the possibility to
make his own web services more visible. Another
pointed at changing status from “newcomer” to
“experienced developer” would motivate.
 Community. A community would foster motivation to
actively contribute to semantic content creation.
Users want to bring something back to a community
they had profited from.
 Personal enjoyment. Having fun during the
annotation process is also emphasized by some
participants.

Markus Rohde

Motivational Values Supportive Design Features/Mechanisms

Reputation(-building) Visibility to the community
Multiple channels
Building reputable online identities (adfind)
Points/money (telco) and status reward systems (adfind)
Self-benefit Feedback through rating of actions/choices
Explaining self-benefits (telco)

Self-development Rewarding through access to extra information (adfind)
Incentivizing by tagging awareness (telco)

Community Promoting reciprocity
Explaining community benefits (adfind)
Informing about the beneficiaries of contributions (adfind)
Incentivizing by goal-setting (telco)
Rewarding cooperative behavior
Social comparison through visualization of contributions
Personal Enjoyment Integrating fun features
Packaging the task as a game
Markus Rohde

Limitations

 Limited number of participants involved in both
empirical studies – due to the method chosen.
 Lacking generalization – due to case studies and
context-based empirical design.
 User communities can change, there may also be
emerging values.
 Design features need to be implemented and tested/
evaluated in both application contexts – this is
ongoing work.

Markus Rohde

Thank you for your attention!

Markus Rohde
markus.rohde@uni-siegen.de
http://www.wineme.uni-siegen.de
http://www.iisi.de

Markus Rohde

Example Video Annotation

Markus Rohde

SocInfo2011 - Designing For Motivation

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (10)

Similar to SocInfo2011 - Designing For Motivation

Similar to SocInfo2011 - Designing For Motivation (20)

More from INSEMTIVES project

More from INSEMTIVES project (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

SocInfo2011 - Designing For Motivation