Revolutionizing Workshops: Supporting Participants’ Creativity with Persuasive Technology 3658333111, 9783658333119

Citation preview

Max Jalowski

Revolutionizing Workshops Supporting Participants’ Creativity with Persuasive Technology

Markt- und Unternehmensentwicklung Markets and Organisations Series Editors Arnold Picot, Institut für Information, Organisation und Management, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, München, Germany Ralf Reichwald, HHL Leipzig Graduate School of Management, Leipzig, Sachsen, Germany Egon Franck, Universität Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland Kathrin M. Möslein, HHL Leipzig Graduate School of Management, FAU Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen-Nürnberg, Bayern, Germany

Change of institutions, technology and competition drives the interplay of markets and organisations. The scientific series ‘Markets and Organisations’ addresses a magnitude of related questions, presents theoretic and empirical findings and discusses related concepts and models. Professor Dr. Dres. h. c. Arnold Picot Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Deutschland Professor Dr. Egon Franck Universität Zürich, Schweiz

Professor Dr. Professor h. c. Dr. h. c. Ralf Reichwald HHL Leipzig Graduate School of Management Leipzig, Deutschland Professorin Dr. Kathrin M. Möslein Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg & HHL Leipzig, Deutschland

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/12561

Max Jalowski

Revolutionizing Workshops Supporting Participants’ Creativity with Persuasive Technology

Max Jalowski Nürnberg, Germany Dissertation Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, 2020

Markt- und Unternehmensentwicklung Markets and Organisations ISBN 978-3-658-33311-9 ISBN 978-3-658-33312-6 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-33312-6 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2021 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Responsible Editor: Anna Pietras This Springer Gabler imprint is published by the registered company Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH part of Springer Nature. The registered company address is: Abraham-Lincoln-Str. 46, 65189 Wiesbaden, Germany

Foreword

Workshops have become increasingly popular in research as well as in practice. They also play a role in innovation processes, in particular to design, develop or evolve products and services together with users, customers and other stakeholders. The creativity and behavior of the participants also comes into play here, especially their abilities, motivation and knowledge. While the ongoing digitization does not leave workshops unaffected, the use of technology there is still relatively uncommon. However, technologies offer great potential, for example to structure workshop tasks and co-creative processes, to provide assistance for workshop participants, to remind people of timelines and methods, or to provide examples. This is the starting point for Max Jalowski’s research. Specifically, he explores the use of persuasive technology, which is designed to positively influence the behavior of participants. In this book, Max Jalowski designs strategies for revolutionizing workshops by introducing persuasive technology. His research is guided by the question, how persuasive technology can be applied in participatory design workshops to support the individual and group creativity of participants. Max Jalowski chooses a pragmatic design science research approach to explore this topic. Creating artifacts as a research contribution as well as a contribution in the application domain is at the focus of his work. His results show that investigating the behavior of participants in design workshops offers various application potentials for persuasive technology. He presents scenarios how established persuasive technologies can be used in participatory design and how new technologies can be created. Furthermore, he designs four artifacts for the prototypical application in workshops which contribute to the generation of design knowledge. Finally, he derives design principles to support future applications and research.

v

vi

Foreword

With his design science research approach, Max Jalowski ensures relevance for the application domain on the one hand, but also the necessary rigor on the other. The presented methods and artifacts support the design of persuasive technologies or can be directly used to support participants in design workshops. This book has been accepted as a doctoral dissertation in 2020 by the School of Business, Economics and Society at the Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU). It is a valuable read for anyone who conducts workshops, designs technologies, and is interested in supporting participants’ creativity and design. The book deserves broad dissemination both in research and practice. Its novel approach, which considers the behavior of participants in workshops, offers new impulses for both researchers and practitioners, such as innovation managers, design workshop facilitators, and technology designers. I wish the book the broad attention it deserves and I wish you, Max, all the best for your future career! Prof. Dr. Kathrin M. Möslein

Preface

This book is the conclusion of one stage of my research journey. It highlights what I was able to explore during my years at the Chair of Information Systems, Innovation and Value Creation. First of all, I would like to start with the topic of this dissertation. With my strong technical background and interests, it has always been clear to me that I want to design and develop technologies. In 2016, I became aware of persuasive technology and was immediately interested in this interdisciplinary field of research, although at that time it was not clear to me how I could use it in my research. At that time I was more and more involved in workshops. In the course of this, I have noticed that participants are not always focused and motivated, or do not understand or use tools and methods properly. Furthermore, I have noticed that there is not much scientific foundation for workshops and especially not how they can be supported by technical tools. This is where we come back to persuasive technology—many of the problems identified have to do with participant behavior. So I thought: you should to do something about that. The result of this thought is this book. In order to make the topic as interesting as possible, I have chosen the title Revolutionizing Workshops—well knowing that this may raise high expectations on the part of the reader. Before we dig deeper into the topic and I also explain why I think it is a kind of revolution, I would like to thank some people who accompanied me over the last years. First, I would like to thank Prof. Dr. Kathrin M. Möslein. I have been working at her chair since 2014, initially still in parallel with my master’s studies. However, I was given a lot of trust and confidence right from the start. Above all, I would like to thank her for the trust, support and especially the many ideas that always come up when talking to her. This input and her encouragements to simply try out ideas made this book possible. Second, I would like to thank my family. My parents Andrea and Karl accompanied me, supported me and always

vii

viii

Preface

made everything possible for me. My brother Felix was always there for me, especially when it came to discussing wordings and exchanging opinions. Third, all (ex-)colleagues, most of whom have become friends. I think that we have really had a good time in the last years. In particular, I would like to thank Sascha, Martin, Stefan and Ben here. They are and have always been there when I needed support—not only in a work context. I would also like to acknowledge Albrecht and my students who supported this research. Finally, I would like to thank Laila. Thank you for being with me for over eight years and always supporting me in all aspects of life. Without you, this book would never have been possible. Max Jalowski

Abstract

Design workshops are a popular means of conducting creative processes in groups. There, individual and group-specific characteristics influencing creativity become apparent. A typical problem in these processes is the integration and motivation of external users to participate. The involved stakeholders are commonly non-professional designers, so motivation, ability and knowledge play an important role. For this purpose, a persuasive technology can be applied to support the participants. This dissertation answers the question of how persuasive technology can be applied in participatory design workshops to support the individual and group creativity of participants. It contains four studies: 1) a multiple-case study to explore the behavior of participants in creative processes; 2) a design science research study, including a literature review to create an artifact to present application scenarios and to facilitate the selection of suitable persuasive technology; 3) a theoretical-conceptual study deriving a reference model for creating persuasive technology for participatory design; and 4) a design science research study presenting four artifacts of persuasive technology for supporting participants in participatory design workshops. The results show that investigating the behavior of participants in design workshops offers various application potentials for persuasive technology. The PT Navigator shows scenarios how established persuasive technologies can be used in participatory design. The reference model supports the design of a persuasive technology for participatory design. Finally, the four artifacts contribute to the generation of design knowledge. Thus, both descriptive knowledge and prescriptive knowledge is produced. As a final result, design principles are derived to support future applications and research.

ix

Contents

1 Introduction: Motivation and Research Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 Motivation and Relevance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 Overall Research Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.1 Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.2 Research Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 Structure of the Dissertation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 1 4 4 6 10

2 Foundations: Conceptual Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 Objectives and Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Persuasive Technology and Behavior Change Support Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 Collaborative Design: Co-Creation, Co-Design and Participatory Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 Creativity in Individual and Group Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 Conclusion and Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15 15

20 23 24

3 Study 1: Supporting Participants in Creative Processes with Persuasive Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 Objectives and Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Theoretical Background: Relationships of Key Concepts . . . . . . . 3.3 Method and Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.1 Case Study Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.2 Research Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.3 Data Collection and Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.1 Participants’ Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.2 Types of Change in Creative Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

27 27 29 31 31 32 35 39 39 42

16

xi

xii

Contents

3.4.3 The Potential of Persuasive Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5.1 Theoretical Contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5.2 Practical Contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6 Conclusion and Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Study 2: Categorizing Persuasive Technology for Participatory Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 Objectives and Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 Theoretical Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.1 The Role of Technology in Persuasive Technology . . . . . . 4.2.2 Methods, Toolkits and Tools for Participatory Design . . . 4.2.3 Motivation of Participants and Other Success Factors . . . 4.3 Research Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.1 Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.2 Design and Evaluation of the Artifact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4 Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.1 Persuasive Technology Platforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.2 Artifact Description: Applications for Persuasive Technologies in Participatory Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.2.1 Application Scenarios for Making Tangible Things . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.2.2 Application Scenarios for Acting, Enacting and Playing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.2.3 Application Scenarios for Talking, Telling and Explaining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.2.4 Application Scenarios to Address General Challenges and Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.3 Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5.1 Theoretical Contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5.2 Practical Contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6 Conclusion and Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Study 3: Modelling and Creating Persuasive Technology for Participatory Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 Objectives and Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 Theoretical Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.1 Toolkits and Canvases for Designing Technology . . . . . . . 5.2.2 Reference Modelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

44 47 47 49 50 53 53 55 56 57 58 59 60 62 63 63 65 66 66 70 73 76 80 81 83 84 89 89 91 92 92

Contents

5.2.3 Designing Persuasive Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 Combining the Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.1 Approaches towards a Reference Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.1.1 Approach 1: Eight-Step Design Process . . . . . . . 5.3.1.2 Approach 2: Persuasive System Design . . . . . . . 5.3.1.3 Approach 3: Participatory Design-oriented . . . . . 5.3.2 A Reference Model for Creating Persuasive Technology for Participatory Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.3 A Toolkit for Integrating Persuasive Technologies in Design Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.3.1 Canvases for Applying the Model . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.3.2 Technical Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.4 Application of the Reference Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4.1 Theoretical Contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4.2 Practical Contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5 Conclusion and Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Study 4: Implementing Persuasive Technology in Participatory Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1 Objectives and Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 Theoretical Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.1 Digital Innovation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.2 Creativity Support Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.3 Analyzing the Persuasion Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3 Research Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.1 Problem and Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.2 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.3 Design and Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.4 Demonstration and Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.5 Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4 Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4.1 Artifact Description: Prototypes for Supporting Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4.1.1 Workshop Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4.1.2 Artifact 1: Tablet-based Participant Support . . . . 6.4.1.3 Artifact 2: Bluetooth Beacons for Location-based Triggers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4.1.4 Artifact 3: QR Codes for Additional Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xiii

93 94 95 95 98 101 102 104 105 107 110 111 111 114 115 119 119 121 122 123 124 125 126 126 127 127 128 129 129 129 129 133 136

xiv

Contents

6.4.1.5 Artifact 4: Humanoid Robot Assistant . . . . . . . . . 6.4.2 Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4.2.1 Eval1: Identify Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4.2.2 Eval2: Design of the Artifacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4.2.3 Eval3: Validate Artifact Prototypes . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4.2.4 Eval4: Apply the Artifacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5.1 Theoretical Contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5.2 Practical Contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6 Conclusion and Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

140 143 144 145 146 150 152 152 154 155

7 Summarizing Findings and Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1 Objectives and Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2 Summary of Chapters 1–6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2.1 Summary of Chapter 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2.2 Summary of Chapter 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2.3 Summary of Chapter 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2.4 Summary of Chapter 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2.5 Summary of Chapter 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2.6 Summary of Chapter 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3 Combining the Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3.1 Overall Discussion and Implications of the Results of Studies 1–4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3.2 Design Principles for Persuasive Technology in Participatory Design Workshops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4 Limitations and Future Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5 Concluding Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

159 159 159 159 161 162 163 164 164 165

A Author’s Work Relevant to this Dissertation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

175

B Code Structure of Study 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

177

C Screenshots of the Online Implementation of the PT Navigator . . . . .

179

D Canvases for Creating Persuasive Technology for Participatory Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

183

E Schema and Examples on the Configuration of Artifacts 1–4 . . . . . . . .

195

F Screenshots of the Artifact for Eval4-Workshop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

201

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

205

165 168 170 173

Abbreviations

2-D 3-D A AI app AR BCSS cf. CSV DSR DSRM e.g. et al. Eval i.e. ICT IoT IT LED JSON O p. pp. PD PDA PT

Two-dimensional Three-dimensional Artifact Artificial intelligence Application Augmented reality Behavior change support systems confer (lat.); compare with Comma-separated values; a file and data format Design science research Design science research methodology exempli gratia (lat.); for example et alii (lat.); and others Evaluation following Sonnenberg and vom Brocke (2012b) id est (lat.); that is Information and communication technology Internet of things Information technology Light-emitting diode JavaScript object notation Objective page pages Participatory design Personal digital assistant Persuasive technology, also as plural: PTs (persuasive technologies)

xv

xvi

Q&A QR REST RFID RQ SME SMS URL VR

Abbreviations

Question and answer Quick response (code) Representational state transfer Radio-frequency identification Research question Small and medium-sized enterprises Short message service Uniform resource locator; i.e. address of a website Virtual reality

List of Figures

Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure

1.1 1.2 1.3 2.1 2.2 3.1 3.2

Figure 3.3 Figure 3.4 Figure 3.5 Figure 3.6 Figure 3.7 Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure

3.8 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 5.1 5.2 5.3

Introduction of Ronja and Fred . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Overview of the research approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Overall structure of this dissertation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Structure of Chapter 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Insights from Chapter 2 for Ronja and Fred . . . . . . . . . . . . Structure of Chapter 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Theoretical foundations, key concepts and its relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Framework for coding and data analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Data analysis procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of findings regarding the behaviors of design workshop participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Overview of the three change types, adapted to creative processes within design workshops . . . . . . . . . . Potential uses of PT to support creative processes in design workshops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Insights from Chapter 3 for Ronja and Fred . . . . . . . . . . . . Structure of Chapter 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Research design of Study 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Overview of the underlying structure of the artifact . . . . . . Overview of the resulting PT Navigator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Evaluation process of the PT Navigator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Insights from Chapter 4 for Ronja and Fred . . . . . . . . . . . . Structure of Chapter 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The eight-step design process following Fogg (2009b) . . . Overview of the adapted eight-step design process . . . . . . .

4 8 12 16 25 29 30 36 38 42 43 46 52 55 60 61 77 78 87 91 96 96

xvii

xviii

List of Figures

Figure 5.4

Figure 5.5 Figure 5.6 Figure 5.7 Figure 5.8 Figure 5.9 Figure 5.10

Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure

5.11 5.12 5.13 5.14 5.15 5.16 5.17 6.1 6.2 6.3

Figure 6.4 Figure 6.5 Figure 6.6 Figure 6.7 Figure 6.8 Figure 6.9 Figure 6.10 Figure 6.11

The persuasive systems design process following Oinas-Kukkonen (2013), Oinas-Kukkonen and Harjuma (2009) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Overview of the adapted persuasive system design process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Overview of the design-oriented approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Left side (preconditions) of the resulting reference model, combining the approaches 1 to 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Right side (system features) of the resulting reference model, combining the approaches 1 to 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Preview of the precondition canvas and the system features canvas for creating PT for PD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Preview of one inspiration (left) and one technology (right) card, based on the application scenarios of the PT Navigator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Screenshot of the toolkits’ main page . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Screenshot of step 2 of approach 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Screenshot of step 2 of approach 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Screenshot of step 1 of approach 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Exemplary output of the toolkit with approach 1 . . . . . . . . Links between the results of the Chapters 3, 4 and 5 . . . . . Insights from Chapter 5 for Ronja and Fred . . . . . . . . . . . . Structure of Chapter 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Research design of Study 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Application of the reference model for Artifact 1 by using the canvases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Artifact 1: Tablet-based prototype . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Application of the reference model for Artifact 2 by using the canvases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Artifact 2: Bluetooth beacons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Application of the reference model for Artifact 3 by using the canvases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Artifact 3: Canvas with QR codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Application of the reference model for Artifact 4 by using the canvases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Artifact 4: Humanoid robot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Evaluation process of the four artifacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

98 99 101 104 105 106

107 108 109 109 111 112 116 117 121 125 131 132 134 136 138 139 141 143 144

List of Figures

Figure 6.12

Figure Figure Figure Figure

6.13 7.1 7.2 B.1

Figure C.1 Figure C.2 Figure C.3 Figure C.4 Figure D.1 Figure D.2 Figure D.3 Figure D.4 Figure D.5 Figure D.6 Figure D.7 Figure D.8 Figure D.9 Figure D.10 Figure D.11 Figure F.1

Figure F.2

xix

Screenshot of the workshop schedule with marking of the current agenda item and a timer in the upper right corner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Insights from Chapter 6 for Ronja and Fred . . . . . . . . . . . . Structure of Chapter 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Insights from this dissertation for Ronja and Fred . . . . . . . Code structure of Study 1 as described in Section 3.3.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Screenshot of the top section of the artifact . . . . . . . . . . . . . Screenshot of the technology information section . . . . . . . . Screenshot of the application scenario selection section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Screenshot of an exemplary selection of application scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The precondition canvas for creating persuasive technology for participatory design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The system features canvas for creating persuasive technology for participatory design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Inspiration cards for application scenarios for making tangible things . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Inspiration cards for application scenarios for talking, telling and explaining (1/2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Inspiration cards for application scenarios for talking, telling and explaining (2/2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Inspiration cards for application scenarios for acting, enacting and playing (1/2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Inspiration cards for application scenarios for acting, enacting and playing (2/2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Inspiration cards for application scenarios for general challenges (1/2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Inspiration cards for application scenarios for general challenges (2/2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Technology cards with 17 PT platforms (1/2) . . . . . . . . . . . Technology cards with 17 PT platforms (2/2) . . . . . . . . . . . Screenshot of the workshop schedule with marking of the current agenda item and a timer in the upper right corner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Screenshot of the current task description . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

151 158 160 174 177 179 180 181 182 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194

201 202

xx

Figure F.3 Figure F.4 Figure F.5

List of Figures

Screenshot of a trigger that reminds the user of the remaining time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Screenshot of a trigger, which reminds the user of concepts of the workshop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Screenshot of an explanation of the current task (link behind a QR code) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

202 202 203

List of Tables

Table 2.1 Table 2.2 Table 2.3 Table 3.1 Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table

3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 4.1 4.2 4.3

Table 4.4 Table 4.5 Table 4.6 Table 4.7 Table 4.8

Persuasive design principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The different forms of outcome and change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The three factors and its components of the Fogg behavior model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Observed workshops: topics, participants and design elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Overview of interviewees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Coding Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Potentials for PT on the individual level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Potentials for PT on group level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Potentials for PT on a general process level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Overview of identified technology platforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Overview of PT platforms for making tangible things . . . . . . Overview of PT platforms for acting, enacting and playing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Overview of PT platforms for talking, telling and explaining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Overview of PT platforms to address general challenges and opportunities in creative and collaborative settings . . . . . . Overview of interviewees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Integration of the results provided by the PT Navigator with application potentials for PT on individual level . . . . . . . Integration of the results provided by the PT Navigator with application potentials for PT on group level . . . . . . . . . .

18 19 19 32 34 37 51 51 51 64 67 68 71 74 78 85 86

xxi

xxii

List of Tables

Table 4.9

Table 5.1 Table Table Table Table

5.2 6.1 6.2 6.3

Table 6.4 Table 6.5 Table 7.1 Table 7.2

Integration of the results provided by the PT Navigator with application potentials for PT on a general process level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Overview of the 17 PT platforms identified in Section 4.4.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Persuasive design principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Criteria for the four artifacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Overview of experts and developers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Integration of application potentials for PT in the artifacts on individual level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Integration of application potentials for PT in the artifacts on group level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Integration of application potentials for PT in the artifacts on a general process level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of design principles for workshops with PT . . . . . . Summary of further research potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

86 97 100 146 147 156 157 157 170 172

1

Introduction: Motivation and Research Setting

1.1

Motivation and Relevance

This dissertation is titled Revolutionizing Workshops—but why? Workshops are very popular and widely used in many types of organizations. Public institutions use them, companies use them anyway, and universities also use them in their teaching. Workshops serve for example to develop new business models or to design new products and services. There is, however, not “the one” definition and/or method. All approaches have one thing in common: they bring together different participants in one room—either virtual or physical. There, they work together on one or more tasks. The participants are often diverse and come from different fields and have different skills. In science and practice there are various approaches to structure or organize workshops. Many focus on the design of things, such as Design Thinking1 which is a method for dealing with problems in various sectors (for example IT, business, education and medicine) (Dorst 2011). There are also other methods such as Design Sprints2 , Design Kits3 , more focused tools for specific purposes, such as the Business Model Canvas (cf. Osterwalder & Pigneur 2010), or entire workshop

1 Often described as a process consisting of different phases: inspiration, ideation, implemen-

tation (Brown 2008). process based on Design Thinking with five one-day phases, each supported by specific methodologies. At the end of a sprint, deliverables are created (Knapp, Zeratsky, & Kowitz 2016). 3 For example a collection of different methods and tools: https://www.designkit.org/methods. 2A

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2021 M. Jalowski, Revolutionizing Workshops, Markt- und Unternehmensentwicklung Markets and Organisations, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-33312-6_1

1

2

1

Introduction: Motivation and Research Setting

concepts based on canvas4 tools (cf. Satzger, Möslein, & Böhmann 2018). These are also available for designing digital innovations, such as the Digital Innovation Playbook 5 . Furthermore, there are also more verbal formats like World Cafés6 or Fishbowls7 . Methods like design thinking have a positive influence on creativity; the organizers of a workshop must also consider the participants and the composition of the group (Meinel, Eismann, Baccarella, Fixson, & Voigt 2020). From the perspective of creativity it depends on the individual, the group and also the organization around it (Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin 1993). Participatory design (PD) describes such an approach, which integrates participants from different domains with different expertises to participate in design (e.g. Kensing & Blomberg 1998; Sanders & Stappers 2008). There, as well, creativity plays an important role (Sanders & Stappers 2008). Hence, the subtitle of this dissertation—Supporting Participants’ Creativity with Persuasive Technology. Why do we speak of revolutionizing? This dissertation proposes the use of persuasive technology (PT) to support the participants. There are already several approaches to support creativity via technology, for example creativity support tools. Research on this topic has been intensified every few years for decades now (e.g. Cherry & Latulipe 2014; Elam & Mead 1990; Frich, MacDonald Vermeulen, Remy, Biskjaer, & Dalsgaard 2019; Gabriel, Monticolo, Camargo, & Bourgault 2016; Shneiderman 2000, 2002; Shneiderman et al. 2006). Research on computer supported cooperative work also considers similar topics, but often focuses on online collaboration. There are a few works that focus on design (Kensing & Blomberg 1998) or the combination of physical collaboration with digital tools (Hartmann, Ringel Morris, Benko, & Wilson 2010; Jensen, Thiel, Hoggan, & Bødker 2018; Wang, Cosley, & Fussell 2010). The behavior of users is also viewed from different perspectives, for example in virtual communities or enterprise social networks (Hacker & Bodendorf 2017; Reichwald & Piller 2009). The behavior of the participants in creative

4 In

the course of this dissertation a canvas is understood as a “tool” for structuring tasks, it consists of several boxes for different subtasks. It is often printed in large format on paper and is fixed to a wall in a workshop. See also Section 5.2.1. 5 Based on an Innovation Board with three phases: explore, create, evaluate: http://www. digital-innovation-playbook.de/templates/board. 6 An adaptable process or workshop method that supports collaborative dialogue, knowledge sharing and the development of new courses of action (Brown & Isaacs 2005). 7 Five or six participants are selected to take part in a discussion round. All other participants sit around in a circle and observe the discussion, take notes or continue the discussion (Gall & Gillett 1980).

1.1 Motivation and Relevance

3

processes—such as in workshops—is rarely or never considered. Here PTs8 can be suitable, which examine and influence the behavior of participants—without coercion and deception9 (Fogg 1997, 1998, 2003). The analysis of user behavior is of central importance for the development of a PT. Therefore, the Fogg behavior model states that users must be motivated, have the necessary ability, and be appropriately triggered to perform a behavior (Fogg 2009a). Other works on persuasive design examine the persuasion context, with planned intent, event and strategy and name common design principles (Oinas-Kukkonen & Harjumaa 2009). Up to now, PTs are mainly applied in the health sector (Orji & Moffatt 2018). The use for knowledge work and collaboration is seen as a potential field of application (Torning & Oinas-Kukkonen 2009), but has so far only been marginally researched (e.g. Stibe & Oinas-Kukkonen 2014a; Stibe, Oinas-Kukkonen, & Lehto 2013). How can PT be used in a workshop? The author’s experience shows that not every participant is equally motivated, focused and able to cope with the tools used. For example, there is a lack of understanding of the reason and purpose for using LEGO in a professional context10 . Other participants get lost in the group structure, have issues asking questions or getting involved in the methods used. There may also be reservations or problems in understanding design methods. At the same time, the world is becoming increasingly digital. Digital technologies are omnipresent and offer the potential for new digital innovations (Yoo, Boland, Lyytinen, & Majchrzak 2012). This can take the form of a new product, a platform or a service, but it can also refer to the support of an innovation process by means of digital technologies (Nambisan, Lyytinen, Majchrzak, & Song 2017). At this point, the circle is closed to the approaches to structure or organize workshops mentioned at the beginning. The digital technology—the PT—can support the design processes and design tools. This aspect has received limited attention so far, but there might be a potential for the revolution of workshops—technologies that consider the behavior of participants and support them in their ability and knowledge. This dissertation aims to explore the field in a structured manner and to show which behaviors of participants are suitable for the application of a PT; which PTs exist, how they can be designed and used; as well as what concrete implementations can look like. To make the dissertation and its contents more tangible, two examplary cases are presented, which are referred to repeatedly. Figure 1.1 introduces the cases of Ronja Researcher and Fred Facilitator. 8 In

the following, PTs is used for “persuasive technologies” as the plural of PT. to Section 2.2 for ethical issues in this context. 10 LEGO Serious Play is a method using LEGO bricks in innovation processes (https://www. lego.com/en-us/seriousplay). 9 Refer

4

1

Introduction: Motivation and Research Setting

Ronja

Fred

Ronja is a researcher and interested

Fred frequently plans and conducts de-

in analyzing the behavior of partici-

sign workshops. He often uses LEGO

pants in workshops and how the in-

Serious Play and various canvas tools.

dividual creativity of participants can

Especially when working with parti-

be improved. She came across PT as a

ciants who have never participated in

field of research and discovered that

design workshops before, he has no-

existing research has not yet dealt with

ticed that there are often problems of

this topic in depth. She would now like

understanding the tools used. He has

to take a closer look at how technolo-

also noticed that participants digress

gies can be designed to contribute to

when they have problems understand-

the scientific knowledge base as well as

ing. He wonders if there are no tech-

to support practitioners like Fred.

nical solutions to support him and his participants.

Figure 1.1 Introduction of Ronja and Fred

The following Section 1.2 presents the overall research design, including the research questions (cf. Section 1.2.1) and the research approach (cf. Section 1.2.2). The structure of the whole dissertation is explained in Section 1.3.

1.2

Overall Research Design

This section describes the overall research design of this dissertation including four studies. First, the research questions of the individual studies are derived. Then, the design-oriented research approach is described and the contributions and connections of the individual studies are explained.

1.2.1

Research Questions

The overall goal of this dissertation is to explore how persuasive technology can be applied in design workshops to support the individual and group creativity of parti-

1.2 Overall Research Design

5

cipants. To achieve this goal, a pragmatic design science research (DSR) approach is selected (cf. Section 1.2.2). It ensures rigor and relevance and contributes to the knowledge base as well as to the application domain by designing artifacts as research contribution (cf. Hevner 2007). The objective of the first study is to explore the behavior of participants in creative processes based on different theoretical concepts. PT and behavior change support systems (BCSS) research presents concepts to analyze and describe behavioral factors and types of change (Fogg 2009a; Oinas-Kukkonen 2013; Oinas-Kukkonen & Harjumaa 2009). Research on creativity describes relevant characteristics such as intrinsic motivation, cognitive abilities, personality and knowledge, as well as task and composition of the group (Woodman et al. 1993). To date, there is little research on creative behavior in design workshops that might indicate how participants can be supported by PT. As this knowledge would provide new insights for creativity, design and user behavior research, the first study addresses the following research question: RQ1: How can persuasive technology and behavior change support systems help to change the creative behavior of design workshop participants? Based on the findings of the first study, the second studies’ objective is to provide an overview of types of PT and to accumulate existing examples. Subsequently, application scenarios for PT in PD shall be derived and categorized. While research on PT has already produced numerous results, particularly in the area of healthcare applications and influence on social behavior, the application of PT to stimulate and propel the collaboration between different actors has so far received little attention. Knowledge work and collaboration was identified as a challenging field in 2009 (Torning & Oinas-Kukkonen 2009). Yet there are still only a few studies in this field (e.g. Stibe & Oinas-Kukkonen 2014a; Stibe et al. 2013). To propose an approach for PT in PD, the second study addresses the following research question: RQ2: How can persuasive technologies be applied to change behavior in participatory design processes? The objective of the third study is to collect and combine different approaches to create PT for PD. Existing works analyze the influence of ubiquitous computing on PD (Brereton & Buur 2008), important factors for virtual collaborative environments (de Vreede et al. 2013), or derive a model to describe knowledge sharing between producer and user, combining different collaborative concepts (Wellsandt & Thoben 2016). None of the above mentioned studies, however, developed a struc-

6

1

Introduction: Motivation and Research Setting

tured concept or method on how to create or integrate PT into PD. The research question of this study is therefore: RQ3: How can the creation of persuasive technologies for participatory design be modelled and thus support the design of such technologies? Based on the findings of the other three studies, the objective of the fourth study is to deliver four concrete artifacts of PT that can be applied in PD workshops. In many cases, participants in workshops are intrinsically motivated, which facilitates cooperation and overall user contribution to the design process (Adler & Chen 2011; Battistella & Nonino 2012). The use of technical tools to support creativity has been the subject of extensive research (Frich et al. 2019; Gabriel et al. 2016) as a central success factor for design, along with issues of distraction, motivation, and missing triggers. This opens up a new field of application for PTs that can change human behavior (Fogg 1998, 2009a). Research on creativity support tools does not consider persuasive features and is little or not at all targeted to offline workshops. Focusing on the development of prototypes for applying PT in PD workshops, the fourth study addresses the following research question: RQ4: How can persuasive technologies be implemented to support participants’ knowledge, abilities and motivation in participatory design workshops?

1.2.2

Research Approach

Having derived the research questions in the previous section, the research approach will be described hereafter. To achieve the objectives and answer the research questions, this dissertation applies a pragmatic design science approach. Researchers adopting a pragmatist view often ground their approach on works by John Dewey, C. S. Peirce and George Herbert Mead, focusing on recent problems and actions instead of preceding ones (Cherryholmes 1992; Creswell & Creswell 2017). In design science in information systems there are various philosophical approaches; frequently applied are positivism, interpretivism or critical realism (Carlsson 2005; Goldkuhl 2012a). Hevner (2007) states that design science is pragmatically oriented by nature in order to make a contribution in the application domain. Deng and Ji (2018) see pragmatism as an alternative to logical positivism. Various authors also arrange design science in two camps: design-theory camp and pragmatic-design camp (e.g. Deng & Ji 2018; Gregor & Hevner 2013). The former are mainly focused on design theories in information systems (e.g. Gregor & Hevner 2013; Gregor

1.2 Overall Research Design

7

& Jones 2007). The others concentrate on the development of artifacts as a result of a design science study (e.g. Hevner 2007; Hevner, March, Park, & Ram 2004; March & Smith 1995), these authors thus consider the practical implications (Hevner & Chatterjee 2010). Consuming and producing knowledge as well as knowledge contribution is important in DSR (Drechsler & Hevner 2018; Gregor & Hevner 2013; Hevner 2007; Hevner et al. 2004). From a pragmatism point of view, knowledge is not only focused on explanations or understanding, but is also prescriptive, normative and prospective (Goldkuhl 2012b). Pragmatism can also be combined with interpretivism, in comparison to this, pragmatism is particularly constructive knowledge oriented (Goldkuhl 2012b). Hevner (2007) clarifies however that practical utility is not solely responsible for good DSR, the synergy between the contributions of relevance and rigor is also important. Goldkuhl (2008, 2012a) distinguishes three kinds of pragmatism: functional pragmatism, referential pragmatism, and methodological pragmatism. This dissertation adopts methodological pragmatism, which fosters the interplay between build and evaluate, this implies knowledge is “developed through a continual interplay between action and reflection” (Goldkuhl 2012a, p. 92). From a pragmatism point of view, central aspects of DSR can be addressed, e.g. utility and usefulness of the artifact, contribution to practice, knowledge development, problem-centered approaches, or prescriptive knowledge (Goldkuhl 2012a; Gregor & Hevner 2013; Hevner et al. 2004; Peffers, Tuunanen, Rothenberger, & Chatterjee 2007). Building on the described perspectives, this dissertation is structured in a designoriented manner. Figure 1.2 provides an overview of the research approach. The overall approach follows the DSR cycles closely, as described by Hevner (2007), Hevner and Chatterjee (2010), Hevner et al. (2004): • The relevance cycle has the overarching goal to improve the environment. It considers the application context, including people, organizational and technical systems, as well as problem statements and opportunities. It serves the requirements and field testing. • The rigor cycle interacts with the knowledge base. It contains scientific theories, methods and existing artifacts from the application domain. The circle ensures that existing work is built on the knowledge base; and results from artifact development are transferred back into the knowledge base. • In the design cycle artifacts are built and evaluated based on the other cycles to ensure relevance and rigor of the research. It is the core of a DSR approach. Before results can be reflected back, the cycle is run through several times.

8

1

Introduction: Motivation and Research Setting

Overall Research Question How can persuasive technology be applied in participatory design workshops to support the individual and group creativity of participants? Paradigm Pragmatism

Design Science Research

Environment Application Domain 0011

0110

Chapter 3

Chapter 4

Design

Chapter 4

How can persuasive technologies be applied to change behavior in participatory design processes?

Rigor

Relevance

How can persuasive technologies be applied to change behavior in participatory design processes?

0100

Chapter 6

How can persuasive technologies be implemented to support participants' knowledge, abilities and motivation in participatory design workshops?

How can persuasive technology and behavior change support systems help to change the creative behavior of design workshop participants?

0100

Knowledge Base

0101

Chapter 5

How can the creation of persuasive technologies for participatory design be modelled and thus support the design of such technologies?

Figure 1.2 Overview of the research approach following the three cycle view in DSR (cf. Hevner 2007; Hevner, March, Park, & Ram 2004)

Knowledge in DSR can be clustered in two types: descriptive knowledge (also named ) and prescriptive knowledge (also named ). Descriptive knowledge comprises of phenomena and sense-making and can be described as the what knowledge. Prescriptive knowledge comprises of constructs, models, methods, instantiations and design theory and can be described as the how knowledge (Drechsler & Hevner 2018; Gregor & Hevner 2013). The environment and the application domain are analyzed in Chapter 3. To answer RQ1 and in order to identify problems and opportunities, an abductive multiplecase study approach is applied (Dubois & Gadde 2002; Thomas 2010; Yin 2018). Different theoretical concepts (i.e. PT, BCSS, PD, individual and group creativity) are considered to enable theory development and to establish new links between existing concepts. This provides the basis to explore the behavior of participants in creative processes and how it can be supported by PT. The data for the case study is derived from six workshop observations and nine interviews with workshop moderators and participants. After importing the data into a software for qualitative data analysis, the data was evaluated following the suggestions of Yin (2018) and Mayring (2000) for qualitative content analysis. The results are initially based on the behavior model of Fogg (2009a) and reveal problems regarding motivation

1.2 Overall Research Design

9

and ability of the participants as well as organizational aspects and missing triggers. Subsequently, opportunities were identified and classified by change type (cf. Oinas-Kukkonen 2013) to address these problems. Finally, potentials for PT in creative processes within design workshops are derived. These are clustered regarding individual level, group level and the creative process with organizational aspects. This chapter contributes to the research on supporting participants in creative processes, by providing patterns of user behavior that can be supported by PTs, i.e. information systems that can address and improve the behavior of the participants. The results help to identify the problems in environment and application domain and thus support the relevance of the research and form a basis for the further chapters. Chapter 4 mainly contributes to the knowledge base and environment. To answer RQ2, the research approach first follows the recommendations of Webster and Watson (2002) to get an overview of existing technology platforms in the PT community. This chapter is based on 264 papers describing 449 different applications of PT. By categorizing and grouping of the PTs, 17 different technology platforms could be identified. This contributes to possible technologies in the application domain by providing an overview of types of PT. Furthermore a DSR approach (Gregor & Hevner 2013; Hevner & Chatterjee 2010; Hevner et al. 2004) is applied to derive and categorize application scenarios for PT in PD. The result is an artifact that is divided into four categories and brings together application scenarios based on existing examples. Besides a framework for the classification of tools, techniques and methods in PD (Sanders, Brandt, & Binder 2010), the categorization is based on the results of Chapter 3. In particular, the artifact facilitates technology selection, finding and imitating examples, as suggested by Fogg (2009b) in his eight-step design process for PT. For the remainder of the dissertation, this chapter provides the basis for designing PTs in a fairly new application domain, thus building a bridge between relevance and rigor. Chapter 5 is mainly conceptual (cf. Gilson & Goldberg 2015) and contributes to the knowledge base by aggregating existing design methods and frameworks. To answer RQ3 a reference model and toolkit are introduced to support the design of PT for PD and its integration in such a process. First, several methods and frameworks for creating or designing PT are reviewed and summarized. The resulting reference model (cf. Fettke & Loos 2004a) for designing PT is then aggregated with the results from Chapter 4. This reference model and the application scenarios form the PT Toolkit with three different approaches for designing and implementing PT in PD. This chapter combines different approaches for the creation of PT and connects them with the results of the previous chapters. The application of the toolkit is demonstrated by means of sample implementations. Furthermore, two canvases are presented that support the answering of critical questions and provide inspiration and

10

1

Introduction: Motivation and Research Setting

support for the implementation of the designed technology. This chapter therefore contributes substantially to the knowledge base by aggregating existing theories, frameworks and methods. For the further chapters of this dissertation, a structured approach to the development of artifacts is proposed, thus creating a connection between design and knowledge base. Chapter 6 is located in the design cycle. In order to answer RQ4 four artifacts are created to support participants’ knowledge, abilities and motivation in PD workshops. To create these artifacts, a DSR approach (Gregor & Hevner 2013; Hevner et al. 2004) is applied, following the DSR methodology by Peffers et al. (2007). This chapter builds on the contributions from the three other chapters to the environment, the problems and opportunities from the application domain as well as the knowledge base. Evaluation is a crucial chapter of a DSR process (Hevner et al. 2004), following the pragmatist view, artifacts should be evaluated regarding usefulness and utility (Goldkuhl 2012b; Iivari 2007). A criteria-based approach is used to evaluate the artifacts in various iterations to assess their theoretical efficacy (Cronholm & Goldkuhl 2003; Sonnenberg & vom Brocke 2012b; Venable, Pries-Heje, & Baskerville 2016). All artifacts are evaluated in terms of objective, implementation, application scenario, PD support, and persuasive design principles. The artifacts are implemented and evaluated in four evaluation iterations: first, artificial, and then in a real workshop setting. The results of this chapter—as well as the other chapters—contribute to the summarizing design principles in Chapter 7. The dissertation adopts the view from the pragmatic-design camp (e.g. Deng & Ji 2018; Gregor & Hevner 2013) thus creating artifacts as a research contribution as well as a contribution in the application domain (Hevner 2007). Nevertheless, the combination of the other chapters serves the achievement of synergy between the contributions of relevance and rigor (cf. Hevner 2007). Having presented the overall research approach in this chapter, the overall structure of this dissertation is described in the next chapter.

1.3

Structure of the Dissertation

This dissertation is structured in seven chapters. In this Chapter 1, the motivation for the research (cf. Section 1.1) and the research design (cf. Section 1.2) were explained. This chapter describes the structure of the entire dissertation. In Chapter 2 the conceptual background is described in detail. First, Section 2.1 outlines the objectives and structure of the chapter. Then, Section 2.2 presents various sub-areas of research on PT and BCSS. Section 2.3 describes different approaches to collaborative design and focuses on PD, which builds the basis for

1.3 Structure of the Dissertation

11

describing the workshops in this dissertation. In Section 2.4 creativity in individual and group levels is described as a lens for examining participants in workshops. The concluding Section 2.5 summarizes the conceptual foundations and describes the implications for the remainder of this dissertation. Chapter 3 contains Study 1, an abductive multiple-case study to explore the behavior of participants in creative processes. First, Section 3.1 outlines the objectives and structure of the chapter. Then, Section 3.2 draws important relationships between the key concepts for this study. Subsequently, Section 3.3 describes the research method and data. Afterwards, Section 3.4 explains the findings, potential uses of PT to support creative processes in design workshops. Section 3.5 discusses the results and derives theoretical and practical contributions. Chapter 3 closes with Section 3.6, which concludes the results and summarizes the implications of Chapter 3 for the remainder of this dissertation. Chapter 4 contains Study 2, a DSR study, including a literature review. First, Section 4.1 outlines the objectives and structure of the chapter. Then, Section 4.2 presents further theoretical background for this chapter. Subsequently, Section 4.3 describes the research design including the approach of reviewing existing literature on technology in PT as well as the DSR approach to create the application navigator artifact. Afterwards, Section 4.4 explains the findings, first the identified PT platforms, second the description of the artifact and finally the evaluation of the artifact. Section 4.5 discusses the results and derives theoretical and practical contributions. Chapter 4 closes with Section 4.6, which concludes the results and summarizes the implications of Chapter 4 for the remainder of this dissertation. Chapter 5 contains Study 3, a theoretical-conceptual study deriving a reference model for creating PT for PD. First, Section 5.1 outlines the objectives and structure of the chapter. Section 5.2 presents further theoretical background for this chapter. Subsequently, in Section 5.3 different approaches are combined: starting with the theoretical-conceptual research approach, followed by the resulting reference model. Afterwards, the toolkit for integrating PT in design processes and exemplary an application of the reference model is presented. Section 5.4 discusses the results and derives theoretical and practical contributions. Chapter 5 closes with Section 5.5, which concludes the results and summarizes the implications of Chapter 5 for the remainder of this dissertation. Chapter 6 contains Study 4, a DSR study creating four artifacts for supporting participants in PD workshops. First, Section 6.1 outlines the objectives and structure of the chapter. Section 6.2 presents further theoretical background for this chapter. Subsequently, Section 6.3 describes the research design. Afterwards, Section 6.4 explains the findings, first the detailed descriptions of the four artifacts and then the evaluation of the artifacts. Section 6.5 discusses the results and derives theoretical

12

1 0001

Introduction: Motivation and Research Setting

Chapter 1 Introduction: Motivation and Research Setting Overall Research Question How can persuasive technology be applied in participatory design workshops to support the individual and group creativity of participants?

0010

Chapter 2 Foundations: Conceptual Background Persuasive Technology

Participatory Design

0011

Individual and Group Creativity

Chapter 3

Study 1: Supporting Participants in Creative Processes with Persuasive Technology Research Question How can persuasive technology and behavior change support systems help to change the creative behavior of design workshop participants?

Abductive multiple-case study Workshop observations and interviews with workshop moderators and participants

0100

Chapter 4 Study 2: Categorizing Persuasive Technology for Participatory Design Literature review and design science research study PT Navigator artifact describing persuasive technology and application scenarios

0101

Research Question How can persuasive technologies be applied to change behavior in participatory design processes?

Chapter 5

Study 3: Modelling and Creating Persuasive Technology for Participatory Design Research Question How can the creation of persuasive technologies for participatory design be modelled and thus support the design of such technologies?

Theoretical-conceptual study Reference model for creating persuasive technology for participatory design

0110

Chapter 6 Study 4: Implementing Persuasive Technology in Participatory Design Design science research study Four artifacts for supporting participants in participatory design workshops

0111

Research Question How can persuasive technologies be implemented to support participants' knowledge, abilities and motivation in participatory design workshops?

Chapter 7 Summarizing Findings and Implications Design principles for persuasive technology in participatory design workshops

Figure 1.3 Overall structure of this dissertation

1.3 Structure of the Dissertation

13

and practical contributions. Chapter 6 closes with Section 6.6, which concludes the results and summarizes the implications of Chapter 6 for this dissertation. This dissertation closes with Chapter 7, which concludes the results of the four studies and derives design principles. First, Section 7.1 outlines the objectives and structure of the chapter. Then, Section 7.2 summarizes Chapter 1 to Chapter 6 of this dissertation. Subsequently, Section 7.3 derives design principles for PT in PD workshops. Section 7.4 presents limitations of this dissertation and presents opportunities for future research activities. Chapter 7 closes with concluding remarks. Figure 1.3 summarizes the overall structure of this dissertation by presenting the key facts of the individual chapters. Now that the motivation, research setting and structure of the dissertation have been explained, the following chapter presents relevant foundations for the remainder of this dissertation.

2

Foundations: Conceptual Background

2.1

Objectives and Structure

This chapter presents the underlying theoretical concepts required to conduct the subsequent studies. The conceptual background, which is particularly relevant for the individual studies, is described separately in the respective chapters. This chapter focuses on understanding persuasive technology (PT), how it is defined, what its characteristics are and how behavioral change occurs from the perspective of research on PT. Furthermore, behavior change support systems (BCSS) are introduced as a subcategory of PT along with established change types and design principles. Also important are existing works on collaborative design, especially participatory design (PD) for the analysis and description of design workshops. The work by Woodman et al. (1993) on individual and group characteristics in creative processes serves as a theoretical lens for observing the behavior of participants in workshops. Chapter 2 of this dissertation is structured as follows (cf. Figure 2.1): Section 2.2 presents extant work on PT, BCSS and the Fogg behavior model. Subsequently, Section 2.3 describes different approaches to collaborative design and focuses on PD, which builds the basis for describing the workshops in this dissertation. Afterwards, Section 2.4 presents research on creativity in individual and group levels and collective creativity. This chapter closes with Section 2.5, which concludes the concepts and summarizes the implications of Chapter 2 for this dissertation.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2021 M. Jalowski, Revolutionizing Workshops, Markt- und Unternehmensentwicklung Markets and Organisations, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-33312-6_2

15

16 0001

2 Chapter p 1

Introduction: Motivation and Research Setting

0010

Chapter 2

Foundations: Conceptual Background

0011

Chapter 3 Study 1: Supporting Participants in Creative Processes with Persuasive T Technology

0100

Foundations: Conceptual Background 0101

Chapter 4

Study 2: Categorizing Persuasive Technology for T Participatory Design

Chapter 5 Study 3: Modelling and Creating Persuasive Technology for T Participatory Design

0110

Chapter 6

Study 4: Implementing Persuasive Technology in T Participatory Design

0111

Chapter p 7

Summarizing Findings and Implications

Objectives and Structure

Objectives

Structure

Persuasive Technology

Persuasive Technology

Behavior Change Support Systems

Fogg Behavior Model

Collaborative Design

Co-Design

Participatory Design

Tools, Techniques and Methods of Participatory Design

Creativity

Creativity in Individual and Group Levels

Collective Creativity

Conclusion and Implications

Conclusion

Implications for this Dissertation

Figure 2.1 Structure of Chapter 2

2.2

Persuasive Technology and Behavior Change Support Systems

The concept of PT was initially named persuasive computers. Fogg (1998) defines it as an “interactive technology that changes a person’s attitudes or behaviors” (Fogg 1998, p. 225). Such a system always requires a human actor who wants to influence a certain behavior (Fogg 1998). In this regard, Oinas-Kukkonen and Harjumaa (2009) state that IT is never neutral. Important in this context is that the attempt to change a behavior occurs without coercion or deception (Fogg 2003). When considering behavior influencing technologies, ethical issues also come to light. These

2.2 Persuasive Technology and Behavior Change Support Systems

17

are not the main focus of this dissertation, but should not be neglected. Ethical issues have been included since the beginning of the observation and research of PT. Berdichevsky and Neuenschwander (1999) have established ethical principles of persuasive design, including a golden rule of persuasion: “the creators of a persuasive technology should never seek to persuade a person or persons of something they themselves would not consent to be persuaded to do.” (Berdichevsky and Neuenschwander 1999, p. 52). Fogg (2003) also dedicates more attention to this point. Advancing digitalization has significantly changed the technical possibilities and thus also the ethical challenges (Royakkers, Timmer, Kool, & van Est 2018). Thus, a distinction must be made between intended and unintended effects and the designer’s responsibility for what happens to the technology in use (Borgefalk & de Leon 2019; Verbeek 2017). At the same time there are approaches to reflect ethical and moral influences (Yetim 2019) as well as the joint development of PT with stakeholders in order to consider this point directly in the conception (Borgefalk & de Leon 2019; Kight & Gram-Hansen 2019). Ultimately, ethical issues are the responsibility of the technology designer (Verbeek 2017). The research of ethical aspects is not in the core of this dissertation, however the PTs presented in the context of this work take the ethical principles into account and do not aim for side effects. A number of different approaches and principles exist to describe the persuasive component of a PT. A technology can persuade in three ways: (1) as a tool that enhances capability and guides through a process, simplifies a behavior, or motivates a user; (2) as a medium that provides experience, enables users to rehearse behaviors, or provides them with motivating experiences or present cause-and-effect relationships; and (3) as a social actor that creates relationships and gives positive feedback, models a target behavior, or provides social support (Fogg 2003). In the context of this dissertation, the view of technology persuading as a tool by Fogg (2003) is particularly relevant, he names seven principles and types of PT tools that: 1. reduce complex behavior into simple tasks (reduction), 2. guide through a process (tunneling), 3. tailor information to the users’ needs, interests or other individual factors (tailoring), 4. place cues at the right time (suggestion), 5. show the user’s performance and thus help the user to achieve the desired goal (self-monitoring), 6. observe a person’s behavior to achieve a change in behavior (surveillance), 7. use positive reinforcement to shape behavior (conditioning).

18

2

Foundations: Conceptual Background

Oinas-Kukkonen and Harjumaa (2008a, 2009) build on the work established by Fogg and also extend it with concrete implementation examples. They describe a total of 28 persuasive design principles in four categories (cf. Table 2.1): (1) primary task support: providing assistance in the execution of the actual task; (2) dialogue support: the system communicates with the user; (3) system credibility support: the system is designed to be credible and thus persuasive; and (4) social support: the system uses social influence to motivate users. These principles are relevant when designing and implementing PTs or BCSS.

Table 2.1 Persuasive design principles by Oinas-Kukkonen and Harjumaa (2008a, 2009) Primary Task Support

Dialogue Support

System Credibility Support

Social Support

Reduction Tunneling Tailoring Personalization Self-monitoring Simulation

Praise Rewards Reminders Suggestion Similarity Liking

Social learning Social comparison Normative influence Social facilitation Cooperation Competition

Rehearsal

Social role

Trustworthiness Expertise Surface credibility Real-world feel Authority Third-party endorsements Verifiability

Recognition

The research stream BCSS is a part of persuasive systems design, which is one approach to design a PT. It focuses on specifying the persuasion context via: (1) the intent (persuader, type of change); (2) the event (use context, user context, technology context); and (3) the strategy (message, route) (Torning & OinasKukkonen 2009). In this context, BCSS especially focus on the type of change. Oinas-Kukkonen (2013) defines a behavior change support system as a “sociotechnical information system with psychological and behavioral outcomes designed to form, alter or reinforce attitudes, behaviors or an act of complying without using coercion or deception” (Oinas-Kukkonen 2013, p. 1225). This field comprises various forms of outcome and change (cf. Table 2.2). The type of change is categorized regarding (1) an act of complying (C-Change); (2) a behavior change (B-Change); and (3) an attitude change (A-Change). The outcome is categorized regarding (1) forming outcome (F-Outcome); (2) altering outcome (A-Outcome); and (3) reinforcing outcome (R-Outcome) (Oinas-Kukkonen 2013). A forming outcome is used to generate a new procedure that has not been performed

2.2 Persuasive Technology and Behavior Change Support Systems

19

Table 2.2 The different forms of outcome and change (Oinas-Kukkonen 2013) F-Outcome A-Outcome R-Outcome

C-Change

B-Change

A-Change

Forming an act of complying (F/C) Altering an act of complying (A/C) Reinforcing an act of complying (R/C)

Forming a behavior (F/B) Altering a behavior (A/B) Reinforcing a behavior (R/B)

Forming an attitude (F/A) Altering an attitude (A/A) Reinforcing an attitude (R/A)

by the user before. An altering outcome adapts an existing procedure and tries to generate a different response than before. Reinforcing strengthens existing attitudes or behaviors. A C-Change ensures that the user performs actions desired by the system. This is usually achieved by triggers. In most cases these are one-time changes. This change can be used for example in case of a lack of motivation. A B-Change is more sustainable and therefore more difficult to achieve, since a real change in behavior should be provoked here. The A-Change leads to the fact that not only the behavior, but the whole attitude of a user is influenced (Oinas-Kukkonen 2013). For the research field PT, Fogg (2009a) has developed a behavior model to understand human behavior. It describes three factors—motivation, ability and trigger— that are needed to change behavior (cf. Table 2.3). A user of a technology must at the same time be motivated to perform a behavior, have the necessary ability and must be triggered to perform the behavior (Fogg 2009a).

Table 2.3 The three factors and its components of the behavior model by Fogg (2009a) Motivation

Ability

• Pleasure/Pain • Time • Hope/Fear • Money • Social acceptance/rejection • Physical effort • Brain cycles • Social deviance • Non-routine

Trigger • Spark as trigger • Facilitator as trigger • Signal as trigger

If a motivation-related behavior change is to be achieved, the necessary ability is usually present, but the user is not sufficiently motivated. Fogg (2009a) describes three core motivators: pleasure and pain are strong motivators, but not ideal for PT.

20

2

Foundations: Conceptual Background

Hope and fear are better suited; especially hope is described as a strong motivator. The component social acceptance and rejection works mainly in connection with social technologies (Fogg 2009a). Fogg (2009a) describes ability through the simplicity of a behavior. PTs are supposed to simplify behavior. In this context he describes six parts as a chain that must be fulfilled. Users must have sufficient time and, if necessary, money, the behavior must not require high physical effort, must not be difficult to think through (brain cycles) and must not go against existing social norms (social deviance). If a behavior requires a non-routine approach for the user, it is also no longer perceived as simple (Fogg 2009a). A trigger tells the user to perform a certain behavior. Fogg (2009a) distinguishes three forms of triggers: spark is suitable when the user lacks motivation; facilitators ease a behavior, i.e. they are suitable when motivation is present and ability is missing; and a signal acts as a reminder when the user has both motivation and ability and only needs a reminder to perform the desired behavior. Due to the widespread use of mobile technologies, Fogg (2009a) sees triggers as an important and powerful factor to achieve a behavior change. For the development of PT, Fogg (2009b) has presented an eight-step design process. It contains best practices for the development of technologies that are intended to achieve a change in behavior. The steps are not to be seen as strictly sequential and can also run in different iterations. The eight steps are as follows (Fogg 2009b): (1) choose a simple behavior to target, (2) choose a receptive audience, (3) find what prevents the target behavior, (4) choose a familiar technology channel, (5) find relevant examples of PT, (6) imitate successful examples, (7) test and iterate quickly, and (8) expand on success (Fogg 2009b). Chapter 5, especially Section 5.3.1.1 considers and describes the eight-step design process in detail.

2.3

Collaborative Design: Co-Creation, Co-Design and Participatory Design

The cooperation of (non-) professional designers and users is explored in different fields of research and from different perspectives. Design processes in the past have often been user-centered, i.e. have focused on an object and designed it for the users’ needs. This process is changing towards designing with users, i.e. actively involving them in the design process (Sanders 2002). The involvement of users is researched using various terminologies and characteristics: for example (lead) user integration (e.g. Reichwald & Piller 2009; von Hippel 2005); (customer) cocreation (e.g. O’Hern & Rindfleisch 2010; Piller, Ihl, & Vossen 2010); value co-

2.3 Collaborative Design: Co-Creation, Co-Design and Participatory Design

21

creation (e.g. Prahalad & Ramaswamy 2004; Ranjan & Read 2016); (customer) co-design (e.g. Lee 2008; Piller, Schubert, Koch, & Möslein 2005); or participatory design (e.g. Kensing & Blomberg 1998; Sanders 2013). The cooperation between companies and customers is described in various approaches in interactive value creation (Reichwald & Piller 2009). The integration of lead users in the innovation process (Lüthje & Herstatt 2004; von Hippel 2005) is one form of integration that contributes to the shift from user-centered to designing with users. Co-design and co-creation are sometimes considered synonymous (Sanders & Stappers 2008). Sanders and Stappers (2008) point out that many authors see cocreation as some form of collective creativity between two or more people. It is widely applied in various parts of the product and service development process (Sanders & Stappers 2008). Customer co-creation is a collaborative creative process between producers and customers (Piller et al. 2010). From the perspective of new product development, customers become active co-creators of the products, and O’Hern and Rindfleisch (2010) identify various co-creation types that are either customer- or company-led. In this context, co-designing is described as a fixed customer-led type (O’Hern & Rindfleisch 2010). Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004) describe the co-creation of value, where customers and companies work together to generate unique value. In contrast to co-creation, co-design is seen as a collective creativity throughout the entire design process, Sanders and Stappers (2008) define it as designers and nondesigners working together in one design process and as a special case of co-creation. When applied in a later phase of the design process1 , co-design is also explored from a mass customization perspective as customer co-design (Piller et al. 2005). Various authors focus on collective creativity as part of a design process, e.g. Le Masson, Hatchuel, and Weil (2009) analyze different collective creativity methods which have a slight reference to co-design2 . Sanders and Stappers (2008) refer to codesign as “creativity of designers and people not trained in design working together in the design development process” (Sanders & Stappers 2008, p. 6). Therefore, they name four levels of creativity a user can adopt in a co-design process: creating, making, adapting and doing. These are motivated by different points and serve different purposes. Creating is motivated by inspiration and serves the expression of one’s own creativity. Making is motivated by the application of one’s own abilities 1A

design process is not necessarily an ordered process, but can rather be seen as a “system of spaces” (Brown 2008, p. 88). Often one distinguishes between three spaces: inspiration, ideation and implementation (Brown 2008). 2 Section 2.4 describes more creativity-related works and theories.

22

2

Foundations: Conceptual Background

to create something. Adapting is motivated by the appropriation to make something by oneself. Doing is motivated by the productivity to get something done (Sanders & Stappers 2008). Co-design can be supported by different types of tools (Sanders & Stappers 2014; Steen, Manschot, & Koning 2011). The integration of non-designers in a co-design process is also described as PD. Non-designers in this case are external stakeholders, users or all people who are not originating from design disciplines (Sanders et al. 2010). PD is both a field of research and a design method (Kensing & Blomberg 1998), more practice-oriented research focuses in particular on activities and methods (Muller, Wildman, & White 1993), such as how stakeholders can be integrated (Vines, Clarke, Wright, McCarthy, & Olivier 2013), how motivation can be increased (van Rijn & Stappers 2008) or how certain modes of participation can be supported (Sanders 2013). PD also contributes to releasing the tacit knowledge of participants (Björgvinsson, Ehn, & Hillgren 2010). More research-oriented perspectives concentrate on rigor and accountability of PD (Frauenberger, Good, Fitzpatrick, & Iversen 2015). Common research fields are (1) political explorations of participation; (2) theoretical explorations of participation; and (3) tools, techniques, and methods (Kensing & Blomberg 1998). PD can involve different participants, e.g. in communities, inside companies and organizations, between companies and business partners, or between companies and their customers (Sanders 2013). For this dissertation, the focus is mainly on tools, techniques, and methods and on working with people and the design community, therefore the research is located between community participation and design participation (Lee 2008). Building on the foundations described above, this research adopts a PD perspective, specifically designing with users in workshop settings including introducing novel procedures beyond the participants’ habitual activities (Muller 2007). Different authors have created frameworks and categorizations using tools and techniques of PD. For example, categorized according to position in the development cycle and participation context (Muller et al. 1993); categorized according to the perspective of how participants express their ideas (Sanders 2002); collected practices (Muller 2007); or as a framework for practicing PD (Sanders 2013; Sanders et al. 2010). In the following, this dissertation focuses on the framework of Sanders et al. (2010) and Sanders (2013), which lists and classifies tools and techniques of PD. They name three different modes of participation: (1) making tangible things; (2) acting, enacting and playing; and (3) talking, telling and explaining. Sanders (2013) lists various tools, techniques and methods for these three modes, which can be applied in PD (cf. Section 4.2.2).

2.4 Creativity in Individual and Group Levels

2.4

23

Creativity in Individual and Group Levels

Since non-designers are involved in PD processes, they have to be involved and motivated if necessary (Algashami et al. 2017; Sanders et al. 2010). In this regard PT and BCSS can be supportive. PD is seen as the practice of collective creativity in design processes (Sanders & Stappers 2008). Therefore, the role of (intrinsic) motivation and skills is considered in creativity research (Amabile 1983). PT and BCSS are designed to change human behavior. As described in Section 2.2, motivation, ability and trigger play an important role in this context. Amabile (1983) also addresses these points in her framework of creativity using three components: domain-relevant skills, creativity-relevant skills and task motivation. Domain-relevant skills consist of the abilities of an individual to solve a problem or task including knowledge about the domain. In order to improve domain-relevant skills and also the creativity of an individual, the relevant information must be organized appropriately (Amabile 1983). Creativity-relevant skills require above all a cognitive style to structure complex relationships, implicit and explicit knowledge to generate new ideas and a suitable working style (Amabile 1983). The last point—task motivation— consists of two major elements: “the individual’s baseline attitude toward the task (the ‘trait’), and the individual’s perceptions of his reasons for undertaking the task in a given instance (the ‘state’)” (Amabile 1983, p. 76). In this context, external constraints also play a role, and how the individual’s ability can reduce their influence on task motivation (Amabile 1983). Building on this work, Woodman et al. (1993) have developed the theory of organizational creativity. They define organizational creativity as “the creation of a valuable, useful new product, service, idea, procedure, or process by individuals working together in a complex social system” (Woodman et al. 1993, p. 293). Following the definition of microfoundations as levels and their impact on organizations (Felin, Foss, Heimeriks, & Madsen 2012; Felin, Foss, & Ployhart 2015) and the influence of motivation in organizations (Gottschalg & Zollo 2006) and the role of individual performance on innovation (Grigoriou & Rothaermel 2014), this dissertation focuses especially on the individual characteristics and partially the group characteristics in the creative process (Woodman et al. 1993). For individual creativity, personality factors including antecedent conditions, cognitive abilities and style, intrinsic motivation and relevant knowledge play a key role. Individual creativity contributes to group creativity and is also influenced by social and contextual factors of the group (Woodman et al. 1993). For the group characteristics, the task, the composition of the group with the individual creative behavior and the interactions of the individuals in the group are important influencing factors. This also includes size and other characteristics of the group.

24

2

Foundations: Conceptual Background

Woodman et al. (1993) state that highly participative structures increase the creativity of groups. Cirella (2016) examined the influence of collective creativity on organisations. He emphasizes that a clear definition of tasks, necessary activities and role definitions play a central role. In addition, he concludes that structured processes and technological support can positively influence collective creativity and that collective creativity and individual creativity are related (Cirella 2016).

2.5

Conclusion and Implications

This chapter has introduced various concepts that are relevant for the further process. First of all, PT should be highlighted, which is defined as technology that changes attitudes or behaviors of persons (Fogg 1998). It is important that such a change of behavior happens without coercion or deception (Fogg 2003). BCSS as a subcategory formulate these change types in more detail and name design principles (Oinas-Kukkonen 2013; Oinas-Kukkonen & Harjumaa 2009). The Fogg behavior model describes in this context a model to understand human behavior (Fogg 2009a). These three topics in particular form the basis for the description and design of technologies that are intended to influence the behavior of participants in workshops. The presented research on collaborative design, especially PD, serves the understanding of the integration of users in design processes. There is already a great variety of preliminary work, e.g. for integrating lead users (cf. Reichwald & Piller 2009; von Hippel 2005). For the remainder of this work the focus will be on the integration of non-designers into a design process (Sanders et al. 2010). For this approach—called PD—a variety of tools, techniques and methods exist which can be used for the analysis and design of workshops (Sanders 2013). Finally, theoretical concepts on creativity were presented. In design processes the creativity of the participants takes a central role (Le Masson et al. 2009; Sanders & Stappers 2008). Based on the work of Amabile (1983) and Woodman et al. (1993), factors of participants’ creativity in workshops can be examined in more detail. The focus in the following studies is placed in particular on the individual and group factors (cf. Woodman et al. 1993). Chapter 2 has also provided insights for Ronja Researcher and Fred Facilitator (cf. Figure 2.2).

2.5 Conclusion and Implications

25

Ronja

Fred

Ronja now has a better overview of the

Fred has learned that academia has

presented concepts. In particular the in-

dealt a lot with the various relevant

teraction of ability, motivation and trig-

topics. In particular, he is able to link

ger to design PTs is new to her, but she

PD with his own experiences and sees

sees potential to use these points to ana-

new possibilities to design his work-

lyze participant behavior. She also sees

shops. However, the previous work is

parallels to the individual and group

too intangible for him and he needs eas-

characteristics from creativity research.

ily accessible concepts, which he can

She now wants to learn more about

apply in his workshops.

how these concepts can be used to observe and address the behavior of participants.

Figure 2.2 Insights from Chapter 2 for Ronja and Fred

Figure 3.2 in Chapter 3 draws further relationships between the presented key concepts. Building on extant work in these three core areas, the four studies of this dissertation can now be conducted by answering the following overarching research question: RQ: How can persuasive technology be applied in participatory design workshops to support the individual and group creativity of participants? The individual studies partly require further theoretical concepts based on those described in this chapter. These are detailed in the respective chapters. Now that the foundation has been set, the next chapter contains the first study on the support of participants in creative processes with PT.

Study 1: Supporting Participants in Creative Processes with Persuasive Technology

3.1

Objectives and Structure

The previous chapter presented the fundamental theoretical concepts for the remainder of this work. This chapter will analyze the potential of persuasive technology (PT) in creative processes to support participants. In this context, creative processes in participatory design (PD) workshops are examined. PD is a research field and design method that integrates professional and non-professional designers (who have domain knowledge but are not experts in design) in the design process (Kensing & Blomberg 1998; Sanders 2002; Sanders et al. 2010). PD involves creative processes and can be undertaken in workshops that bring different parties together (Muller 2007; Sanders & Stappers 2008). Many companies rely on the creativity of their employees, customers or other stakeholders and use workshops to develop or refine products, services or business models (e.g. Lüthje & Herstatt 2004; Reichwald & Piller 2009). While participants are often intrinsically motivated (e.g. Adler & Chen 2011; Battistella & Nonino 2012), motivation may change, or distractions may occur (Algashami et al. 2017; Jarvela and Jarvenoja 2011). The characteristics of creativity are well established (e.g. Amabile 1983; Woodman et al. 1993); these include individual characteristics such

Chapter 3 of this dissertation builds upon and extends conference contributions presented and discussed at the 20th European Academy of Management Conference (EURAM) 2020 in Dublin, Ireland and at the 41th International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS) 2020 in India. This earlier version is published as Jalowski, Schymanietz, and Möslein (2020).

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2021 M. Jalowski, Revolutionizing Workshops, Markt- und Unternehmensentwicklung Markets and Organisations, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-33312-6_3

27

3

28

Study 1: Supporting Participants in Creative Processes with Persuasive Technology

as intrinsic motivation, cognitive abilities, personality and knowledge, as well as task and composition of the group (Woodman et al. 1993). Research examining the use of technology and creative processes in workshops has explored the influence of software on creativity (Elam & Mead 1990) and creativity support tools (e.g. Frich et al. 2019; Gabriel et al. 2016), including user interfaces and software designed to enhance innovation and productivity at both individual and group levels (Shneiderman 2007; Shneiderman et al. 2006). The research on collective creativity (e.g. Cirella 2016; Frich, Mose Biskjaer, & Dalsgaard 2018) also examines participants’ behavior. To date, there is little research on creative behavior in design workshops that might indicate how participants can be supported by PT. As this knowledge would provide new insights for creativity, design and user behavior research, the present study addresses the following research question: RQ1: How can persuasive technology and behavior change support systems help to change the creative behavior of design workshop participants? The objective of this chapter is to explore the behavior of participants in creative processes based on different theoretical concepts (i.e. PT, BCSS, PD, individual and group characteristics in creative processes). For this purpose an abductive embedded multiple-case study will be conducted. Problems regarding motivation and ability of the participants as well as organizational aspects and missing triggers are identified. Then opportunities and potentials for PT in creative processes within design workshops will be derived. This chapter helps to identify problems in the environment and application domain. It thus supports the relevance of the research and forms a basis for the further chapters (cf. Figure 1.2). Chapter 3 of this dissertation is structured as follows (cf. Figure 3.1): Section 3.2 presents further theoretical background by drawing relationships between the key concepts relevant to this chapter. Subsequently, Section 3.3 describes the research method and data including the case study approach, the setting for the case study as well as the process of data collection and analysis. Afterwards, Section 3.4 explains the findings. First, challenges related to ability, motivational and organizational issues and missing triggers; second, types of change in creative processes; and finally potentials of PT. Section 3.5 discusses the results and derives theoretical and practical contributions. This chapter closes with Section 3.6, which concludes the results and summarizes the implications of Chapter 3 for this dissertation.

3.2 Theoretical Background: Relationships of Key Concepts 0001 0001

Part Chapter p I 1

Introduction: Motivation and Research Setting

0010 0010

Part Chapter p II 2

Foundations: Conceptual Background

0011 0011

Chapter Part III 3 Study 1: Supporting Participants in Creative Processes with Persuasive Technology

Objectives and Structure

Motivation

Theoretical Background

Relationships of Key Concepts

Method and Data

Case Study Research

Findings

0100 0100

Part IV 4 Chapter

Study 2: Categorizing Persuasive Technology T for Participatory Design

0101 0101

Part V 5 Chapter Study 3: Modelling and Creating Persuasive Technology T for Participatory Design

29 0110 0110

Part VI 6 Chapter

Study 4: Implementing Persuasive Technology in T Participatory Design

0111 0111

Chapter Partp VII7

Summarizing Findings and Implications

Research Question

Structure

Research Setting

Data Collection and Analysis

Types of Change in Creative Processes

The Potential of Persuasive Technology

Discussion

Theoretical Contributions

Practical Contributions

Conclusion and Implications

Conclusion

Implications for this Dissertation

Figure 3.1 Structure of Chapter 3

3.2

Theoretical Background: Relationships of Key Concepts

Chapter 2 has already laid out basic foundations for the whole dissertation. This section therefore draws relationships between the different concepts.

30

Study 1: Supporting Participants in Creative Processes with Persuasive Technology

In this study, to better analyze the behavior of participants in creative processes and to provide appropriate technological support, a combination of different theoretical perspectives is proposed. The first perspective is PT research. Especially relevant in this study is the Fogg behavior model and persuasive system design. The Fogg behavior model describes a behavior change as a combination of three factors: motivation, ability and trigger (Fogg 2009a). Design principles for persuasive systems inform strategies for supporting users of those systems (Oinas-Kukkonen & Harjumaa 2009). Research on behavior change support systems (BCSS) facilitates the analysis of change types and outcomes using an outcome/change-matrix (OinasKukkonen 2013). Drawing on the Fogg behavior model (Fogg 2009a), this study assumes that PTs can help to augment the creativity of design workshop participants. The second perspective is research on creativity. According to Amabile (1983) and Woodman et al. (1993), creativity relevant factors include cognitive abilities, domain- and creativity-related skills and knowledge, task and time constraints and group composition. For this study it is assumed that these factors can be supported

Persuasive Technology Persuasive System Design

Fogg Behavior Model (c)

Persuasive Design Principles (a) Primary task support Dialogue support System credibility support Social support

Ability

Motivation

Triggers

Cognitive abilities

Knowledge

Intrinsic motivation

Behavior Change Support Systems (b) Act of complying, Behavior change, Attitude change Forming outcome, Altering outcome, Reinforcing outcome

Tools and Techniques of Participatory Design Making tangible things, Acting, enacting and playing, Talking, telling and explaining

Collective creativity throughout the entire design process Integration of non-designers in a codesign process

Participatory Design (e)

Group composition

Task and time constraints

Creativity (d)

Figure 3.2 Theoretical foundations, key concepts and its relationships. (a): Oinas-Kukkonen and Harjumaa (2009); (b): Oinas-Kukkonen (2013); (c): Fogg (2009a); (d): Amabile (1983), Woodman, Sawyer, and Griffin (1993); (e): Sanders (2013), Sanders and Stappers (2008)

3.3 Method and Data

31

by PT to influence the creativity of participants to improve the outcome of a design workshop. So the creativity-related elements can be linked to the elements from the Fogg behavior model. The third perspective is research on PD. PD is the format to host a creative process in the context of this study. It offers a broad range of tools, techniques and methods, can be seen as collective creativity throughout the entire design process and integrates non-designers in a co-design process (Sanders 2013; Sanders & Stappers 2008). Figure 3.2 summarizes the relationships between these key concepts. This framework is used to analyze the data collected in the case study. PD serves to analyze and describe elements of workshops. The individual and group factors relevant for creativity, together with the Fogg behavior model, are used to examine the behavior of participants. Persuasive design principles and BCSS are applied to identify change types as well as to derive application potential for PTs.

3.3

Method and Data

This study applies an abductive multiple-case study research design to investigate how PTs and BCSS can help to facilitate creative behavior in design workshops. After briefly outlining the case study research method, the research setting and the approach to data collection and analysis is described.

3.3.1

Case Study Research

The case study approach is especially suitable when investigating new or previously unexplored phenomena (Eisenhardt 1989; Yin 2018). According to Yin (2018), a case study is “an empirical method that investigates a contemporary phenomenon (the ‘case’) in depth and within its real-word context, especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context may not be clearly evident” (Yin 2018, p. 15). Case studies are suitable for how and why questions, drawing on diverse data sources and methods that include documents, archive records, interviews and artifacts, and direct and participatory observation (Yin 2018). Data may be qualitative, quantitative or mixed (Eisenhardt 1989; Yin 2018). Qualitative case studies help to illuminate contextual factors (Benbasat, Goldstein, & Mead 1987), and multiple sources of evidence enable triangulation (Patton & Appelbaum 2003; Yin 2018). A general distinction can be drawn between single- and multiple-case studies. Single-case studies are useful in critical, unusual, common, revelatory or longitudinal cases (Yin 2018). While this approach can sometimes facilitate theory generation

32

Study 1: Supporting Participants in Creative Processes with Persuasive Technology

and testing (Benbasat et al. 1987), multiple-case studies may be more useful in this regard, as they provide more convincing evidence (Benbasat et al. 1987; Yin 2018). The approach may be inductive, deductive or abductive. Abductive case studys are based on systematic combining and focus rather on theory development than theory generation (Dubois & Gadde 2002). A distinction can also be drawn between holistic and embedded case designs. While holistic case studies involve only one unit of analysis, embedded case studies include multiple units of analysis; both variants may address single or multiple cases (Yin 2018). In the present study, an abductive embedded multiple-case study approach is applied to explore workshop participants’ creative processes and how these can be supported by PTs. By combining different theoretical concepts (as described above) with empirical data including workshop observations and semi-structured interviews, the study contributes to theory development by establishing new links between existing concepts (Dubois & Gadde 2002; Thomas 2010).

3.3.2

Research Setting

The setting of the multiple-case study consists of two perspectives: observation of design workshops and interviews with moderators and participants of design workshops. For the selection of workshops for the case study, a theoretical sampling approach—focusing on theoretically useful cases—was chosen (Eisenhardt 1989). Table 3.1 Observed workshops: topics, participants and design elements. DT = design thinking, BM = business model design with paper-based tools, LE = workshop with LEGO ID

Workshop Topic

#

Participants

DT

WS#1 Design a business idea WS#2 Build current and future challenges and possible solutions WS#3 Design a business idea and a business model WS#4 Design AI solutions for industrial production WS#5 Design components of an ecosystem and a business model WS#6 Design business models for AI and build an ecosystem

11 39

Students Researchers, professionals

X

15

Doctoral students Researchers, professionals Researchers

X

19 7

18

Researchers, professionals

BM

LE X

X

X X

X

X

X

3.3 Method and Data

33

All of the design workshops included at least one element of relevance to PD. Design thinking (cf. Bjögvinsson, Ehn, & Hillgren 2012) was used in four of the workshops. Paper-based tools (cf. Sanders 2013) were used to develop business models in three workshops, and in two workshops, LEGO (cf. Sanders et al. 2010) was used to visualize ideas and concepts. Table 3.1 summarizes the workshop topics, participants and methods. For the purposes of triangulation and to increase validity, multiple sources of evidence were used (Patton & Appelbaum 2003; Yin 2018), including photo and video documentation and a workshop report based on the observations and interviews with moderators and participants. Workshop WS#1 was conducted as part of a course for bachelor students. The students had to develop a business idea, implement it prototypically and present it. The participants were divided into three groups, which then completed a design thinking process with the aim of developing and presenting a first idea. The moderator and coaches were available for each group to answer questions. Each group therefore had at least one contact person. Eleven people actively participated in the workshop. Sticky notes and canvases were available as material for the students. In addition, material for paper-based prototyping was available. Workshop WS#2 was held as part of the closing event of a research project together with 12 other research projects. These consisted of both research and industry partners. A total of 39 participants took part in the workshop. The participants were divided into six groups. In the groups, each participant should first build the highlights of their project with the help of LEGO. The participants were then asked to combine their models at a group table and derive future research needs or framework conditions. Two moderators were available to answer the participants’ questions. A selection of LEGO bricks was available as material for the participants. Workshop WS#3 was conducted with doctoral students and researchers. In groups, methods of design thinking were used to develop a business idea. Subsequently, a business model for the idea was to be designed with the help of business model development tools. The sessions were professionally moderated. The material used was mainly sticky notes and canvases, but also material for paper-based prototyping. Workshop WS#4 had the goal to connect producing SMEs and start-ups as well as to develop joint business ideas for artificial intelligence for industrial production. The 19 participants were divided into three groups, each with at least one SME and one start-up. A moderator guided the participants through the tasks. The participants underwent a six-stage design thinking process in order to develop a joint project or cooperation idea. Sticky notes and canvases were available as material. The canvases contained small persuasive elements in the form of QR codes, which led to assistance for the particular task.

34

Study 1: Supporting Participants in Creative Processes with Persuasive Technology

Workshop WS#5 was a workshop to identify and cluster stakeholders of an ecosystem and to develop value propositions and other components of a business model for the ecosystem. The workshop with seven participants was conducted in one group. Sticky notes and canvases were available to the participants. Workshop WS#6 was held with 18 participants from industry and research. In the first part, five tools were used to develop data-driven business models in four groups. Subsequently, feedback on the further refinement of the tools was recorded in a group discussion. In the second part, the participants were divided into three groups. There they were supposed to build their respective companies or institutions with LEGO and then combine them with the other participants in their group to form a small ecosystem. Finally, interactions and requirements for ecosystem services were to be built together. In the first part, sticky notes and canvases were used; in the second part, again a large selection of LEGO bricks. To incorporate the perspectives of workshop moderators and participants, nine semi-structured interviews (see Table 3.2) were conducted. For the selection of the interview partners, a mixture of theoretical sampling (Eisenhardt 1989) and purposive sampling (Anderson 2010) was chosen. Emphasis was placed on the interview

Table 3.2 Overview of interviewees ID

Interviewee

Field

Topic

I#1

Managing director of an innovation laboratory Project manager business acceleration Student and workshop participant in an IT-company Workshop moderator/participant in an IT-company Creativity researcher and design thinking coach Creativity researcher Student and frequent workshop participant Workshop participant in an IT-company Student, developer and workshop participant

Practice

Innovation/Design

Practice

Innovation/Design

Practice

Design/Technology

Practice

Design

Research

Creativity/Design

Research Student

Creativity/Design Innovation/Technology

Practice

Design/Technology

Student

Innovation/Technology

I#2 I#3 I#4 I#5 I#6 I#7 I#8 I#9

3.3 Method and Data

35

partners having expertise in the underlying theoretical concepts and originating from different fields. Thus, a management perspective, a company perspective, a creativity perspective and a pure participant perspective were chosen. All the interviewees were practitioners, researchers or students working in the areas of innovation, design or creativity, and all regularly led or participated in workshops or other creative activities. To begin, the emphasis was placed on the participants’ behaviors in the design workshops, focusing on any problems in understanding the task, distractions and time issues. Observations included the moderators’ behaviors and their reactions to any such difficulties. The interviews sought to capture the moderators’ experiences and observations of participants’ behaviors.

3.3.3

Data Collection and Analysis

Having described the research setting, this section describes the data collection and analysis. Workshop WS#1 lasted four hours; the results were documented in photos and a workshop report. Workshop WS#2 was a full-day workshop; results were documented in photos, videos and a workshop report. Workshop WS#3 lasted four days and was documented in a report. Workshop WS#4 was a full-day workshop; results were documented in photos and a report. Workshop WS#5 lasted five hours and was also documented in photos and a report. Finally, Workshop WS#6 was a full-day workshop and was documented in photos, videos, audio files and a report. To augment the observation data, nine semi-structured interviews were conducted with moderators and participants, all of whom worked as practitioners and/or researchers in the fields of creativity, design and innovation. All of the interviewees regularly planned, conducted and/or participated in workshops on a regular basis and were well versed in their respective fields. All interviews were conducted in German and were recorded. To orient the conversation, an interview guide was prepared, covering the most important topics. One area of interest related to the use of methods and tools in the workshops and the participants’ experience with these tools. A second part focused on problems in the workshop process and the participants’ behaviors, including how individual and group characteristics influenced the creative process. Issues included participants’ problems with methods and tools, comprehension difficulties, cognitive abilities, motivation and knowledge. Finally, the interviews addressed possible application scenarios for technologies in design workshops.

36

Study 1: Supporting Participants in Creative Processes with Persuasive Technology

Tools, techniques and methods of participatory design (a)

Making Cognitive abilities

Telling Individual and group characteristics in creative processes (d)

Enacting Motivation

Behavior model for persuasive design (b)

Knowledge Task

Ability Teamwork

Triggers

Behavior change support systems (c)

Intrinsic motivation

Forming

Act of complying

Altering

Behavior

Reinforcing

Attitude

General/ Organizational

Task Moderation Timekeeping

Figure 3.3 Framework for coding and data analysis. (a): Sanders (2013), (b): Fogg (2009a), (c): Oinas-Kukkonen (2013), (d): Woodman, Sawyer, and Griffin (1993)

In summary, documentation (in this case the filled out canvases, the photos and videos of the workshops), participant-observation (the reports of the workshops) and interviews (with workshop moderators and participants) were used as data sources. The audio recordings of the interviews were transcribed verbatim, the texts were transformed into High German to increase readability (Mayring 2014). These formats are described by Yin (2018, p. 113 ff.) as possible sources of evidence for case studies. Following Yin (2018, p. 194 ff.), the collected data were imported, organized and analyzed systematically using MAXQDA2018.2 software. Annex B shows the code structure in MAXQDA2018.2. In the qualitative content analysis (Mayring 2000, 2014), the coding procedure was done twice, and in two cycles. In the documented material and in the transcripts relevant sections were categorized and marked with a code (Creswell & Creswell 2017). In the first cycle the categories for coding the data were derived from the key concepts (cf. Section 3.2). Figure 3.3 presents the coding framework. The categories were informed by Fogg’s (2009a) subcomponents of the three key factors (motivation, ability and trigger). Any patterns in the reports and interview transcripts that related to the categories were assigned a code, as were the categories for PD. When the PD tools, techniques and methods (cf. Sanders 2013) used in the workshops or the participants’ behavior related to any of the categories, these were also coded accordingly. The third coding block is related to the role of individual and group characteristics in the creative process, with particular reference to participants’ cognitive abilities, intrinsic motivation and knowledge, as well as the creative task (Woodman et al. 1993). It became apparent that general factors also influence participants’ behavior, and the coding scheme was therefore extended to include tasks, teamwork, moderation and timekeeping.

3.3 Method and Data

37

Table 3.3 Coding Examples Coding

Quote

PT/Ability

“Group 1 does not work on the large canvas and goes through tool step by step without first getting an overview of all steps.” (WS#6) “Exactly, so as I said before, uh, the technologies with smartphone or laptop are rather difficult to implement with the older generation, because they still prefer to work with paper, because it is the easiest to handle.” (I#3) “Group 3 loses sight of the task at hand and discusses possible future funding proposals.” (WS#4) “Motivation is of course one thing, it’s always difficult, you can’t just do it, especially when you look at a Design Sprint process over the five days, you automatically have some uncertainties at the beginning, also some frustration, also maybe because it goes so fast that the motivation goes down for a while. But when the first results emerge, then it rises again.” (I#1) “No participants were familiar with the tools used.” (WS#5)

PT/Motivation

Creativity/ Knowledge

Creativity/Group

General/ Teamwork

Organizational/ Timekeeping

“If people come more from research or technology assessment, they sometimes know such or comparable models. If they come more from the medical field, then they know less about it. But that is relatively different. Even companies that are actually more advanced and should know such processes do not always approach them in a super-structured way and/or do not have a model that they can think through completely.” (I#2) “The composition of the group is important, different skills should be present.” (I#5) “So again in terms of design sprints, it’s an interdisciplinary format and you have to make sure that the team is set up to solve the problem. You have to have some idea in advance what it’s about.” (I#1) “In Group 6 nobody takes the lead, each participant works for themselves.” (WS#2) “I was thinking for the next workshop, if I could somehow encourage interaction between the participants. I come from computer science. So I could develop a little something there maybe.” (I#7) “The respective scheduled time for the tasks was communicated, no time tracking took place. The scheduled time was not kept to for each subtask.” (WS#4) “And in my opinion it is really the case that there is always a diminishing marginal utility. This strict timing is important because under pressure people are forced to be creative and finally step on the gas, get things done. What I noticed is that rarely did I have so many better ideas when it was still going on. There were more, but the quality was not necessarily better.” (I#1)

BCSS/Attitude

A-Change

Attitude change

B-Change

Behavoir change

3.4.2

Organizational/Timekeeping

Organizational/Task

Organizational/Teamwork

Creativity/Task

Creativity/Group

Creativity/Intrinsic motivation

Creativity/Knowledge

Creativity/Cognitive abilities

Documentation

C-Change

Time management

C-Change

Task structuring

C-/B-Change

Teamwork

C-/B-Change

Task

C-Change

Composition

C-/B-Change

Motivation

C-Change

Knowledge

Creative process

Figure 3.4 Data analysis procedure, showing the links between the codes and the findings in Sections 3.4.1, 3.4.2 and 3.4.3

BCSS/Reinforcing

BCSS/Altering

BCSS/Forming

C-Change

Complying change

3.4.1

Ability C-/B-Change

Group level

BCSS/Behavior

delivers the basis for the second coding cycle

Organizational issues

Missing triggers and potentials

Motivational issues

Ability issues

Derive potential for Persuasive Technology to improve characteristics of individual and group creativity

Individual level

BCSS/Act of complying

Organizational/Timekeeping

Organizational/Moderation

Organizational/Task

Organizational/Teamwork

PT/Triggers

PT/Motivation

PT/Ability

connects Sections 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 and supplements it with creativity related codes

3.4.3

38 Study 1: Supporting Participants in Creative Processes with Persuasive Technology

3.4 Findings

39

In a second coding cycle, the initial codes were supplemented to incorporate different forms of outcome and change (Oinas-Kukkonen 2013), acknowledging that an act of complying or a behavior or attitude can be formed, altered or reinforced. Table 3.3 shows coding examples with codes and respective sections from the reports and transcripts. In this table, and for the following sections, the quoted text passages have been translated from German into English. Figure 3.4 visualizes the data analysis and the links between the codes and findings. Section 3.4.1 builds especially on the codes that refer to the PT and organizational categories. These support the analysis of the participants’ behavior. Building on codes from the first coding cycle, Section 3.4.2 refers to the codes from the second coding cycle to identify possible change types for improving participants’ behavior. Based on these results, Section 3.4.3 supplements these findings with the individual and group creativity related codes to derive potentials for supporting participants with PT on the individual and group level as well as the creative process itself.

3.4

Findings

In describing the results of the multiple-case study, the empirical data is combined with the relevant theoretical concepts as previously described. To answer the research question, challenges related to ability, motivational and organizational issues and missing triggers are identified. After describing the matching forms of change, potential applications for PT in design workshops are derived.

3.4.1

Participants’ Behavior

For identifying challenges contained in the participants’ creative behavior, the following sections refer to the Fogg behavior model (Fogg 2009a) and the organizational issues identified during the analysis (e.g. teamwork, timekeeping, moderation). Ability Ability issues relate to the simplicity of the desired behavior and the problem of non-routine activities as a missing link in the chain. In Workshop WS#1, for example, some participants found the task and process unclear, and the moderators had to intervene by providing stronger guidance. In Workshop WS#2 and I#7 noted questions about using LEGO in a professional context, as participants were not familiar with this approach and were initially skeptical: “Participant WS#2_G1_4 does not understand the use of LEGO in a professional context and expresses disagreement

40

Study 1: Supporting Participants in Creative Processes with Persuasive Technology

about the task” (WS#2). Or as I#2 notes: “(…) when you come up with ‘toys’, it can trigger a defensive attitude in people who have never used them before, maybe that’s a bit exaggerated, but something like that, they’re just not completely open to it”. Additionally, many of the participants in workshops WS#4, WS#5 and WS#6 had not previously worked with the tools provided, and the desired behavior was not considered simple. I#3 also mentioned the use of smartphones for voting as an obstacle for some participants: “(…) some were right there and loved it. Others, I’d say, got out completely because it had something to do with smartphones (again), and it proved difficult for them to log in at all or enter the website (…)” (I#3). Sometimes the tools used in the workshops required participants to stand in front of a whiteboard, creative wall or canvas and to actively engage. In WS#4 and WS#6, however, some groups stayed seated, indicating an issue with physical effort. Some tasks also required deeper or new ways of thinking, and this was reflected in the participants’ behavior in workshops WS#2, WS#4 and WS#6. In WS#2, for example, some participants were unfamiliar with the use of LEGO in professional contexts. In WS#4 and WS#6, the participants were mostly engineers and were unfamiliar with more business oriented tools. In the underlying data, the ability codes generally appear with knowledge and task codes. The data show that participants sometimes lacked the necessary knowledge to perform the task, as for example in WS#3, WS#4, WS#5 and WS#6, where participants were at best only slightly familiar with the tools, or as mentioned by I#1, I#3 and in WS#1, where communication of the task was unclear or unduly complicated. Motivation Situations were identified in which participants had the necessary ability but seemed unmotivated, as well as cases in which both ability and motivation seemed lacking. In the former case, participants often had little knowledge of the tools or canvases used (e.g. WS#4, WS#5 and WS#6). In these workshops, there were many discussions, so participants were motivated to approach the topic but experienced difficulties in using the tools or following the process (e.g. the design thinking process (WS#4) or canvases in WS#3, WS#5 and WS#6). Exaggerating discussions are a frequent problem in workshops, as I#1 states: “(…) everyone has this problem with the endless discussions in the workshop, but also outside the workshop context”. When using LEGO in workshops, some participants exhibited limited understanding of the methodology and were poorly motivated. This was especially true in WS#2, where some participants left the room, started playing and texting on their phones or engaged in off-topic discussion. This experience has also been made by I#7: “Especially as I said, if it’s a larger group and you don’t feel addressed, then somehow the mobile phone comes out and then the scrolling starts and you

3.4 Findings

41

already lose the participants.” I#3 and I#4 referred to motivation problems when using online tools or accessing a tool on a smartphone. In this context, I#2 notes that “for some people it is quite common to take the smartphone or any app quickly, for others it is a hurdle.” Motivation deficits also seem to have impacted negatively on teamwork in two workshops (WS#1, WS#3) and also affected enacting (WS#2, WS#4, WS#6) and making (WS#4, WS#6). Trigger It became clear that some scenarios lacked an appropriate trigger, such as a simple reminder of the current task, and these situations were partially resolved by the workshop moderators. I#1, I#3 and I#4 mentioned that many discussions slowed the progress of the task. In WS#4, one group became visibly “stuck” in discussion mode. In several cases, certain individuals dominated the discussion at the expense of other participants in the group (I#4). Some groups were seen to lack appropriate triggers to activate cooperation (I#3, WS#2 and WS#6). In WS#4 and WS#6, one member in each group took the lead in processing while others remained relatively passive. Organizational Issues during the Workshops The identified organizational problems related mainly to group composition and cooperation. I#3 described several scenarios in which the moderator had to intervene to guide participants in the right direction. I#4 referred to problems caused by group composition. In this context, I#5 and I#6 mentioned the importance of appropriate group composition for creative processes. With regard to teamwork, scenarios in almost all of the observed workshops were identified where one person took the lead while others remained quite passive. I#3 also emphasized the importance of proper timekeeping: “I personally think that people have to adjust themselves to how much time they have left.” I#1 also referred to this issue, as well as the importance of a structured agenda or process, which became clear in workshops where the schedule was not followed (e.g. WS#4 and WS#6). Summary: Participants’ Behavior Figure 3.5 summarizes the findings of the participants’ behavior in design workshops. It shows the identified ability, motivational and organizational issues, missing triggers and potentials for implementing triggers.

42

Study 1: Supporting Participants in Creative Processes with Persuasive Technology

Ability issues Related to the simplicity of the desired behavior Non-routine Task and process unclear Unfamiliar with applied tools Understanding the workshop method Brain cycles Physical effort

Organizational issues Lack of knowledge to perform the task Group composition and cooperation within the group Unclear or complicated communication of the task No proper timekeeping Unstructured agenda and time planning

Motivational issues using the tools Lack of understanding the value of the methodology Playing and texting on phones Off-topic discussion Accessing tools on personal devices

Missing triggers and potentials Discussions slowing down the progress of the task No/little cooperation in the group Passive participants could be activated Improving structuring and equal distribution of tasks Reminding or facilitating ability, motivational and organizational issues

Figure 3.5 Summary of findings regarding the behaviors of design workshop participants

3.4.2

Types of Change in Creative Processes

In order to describe the identified possibilities for improving the creative behavior of participants, the following section is structured according to the types of change in BCSS (Oinas-Kukkonen 2013). Complying Change The aim of the complying change is to align the participant’s behavior to the desired behavior. The potential for this kind of change relates to forming—for example, by introducing participants in a structured way to unknown tools or procedures (as in WS#1, WS#5). This potential may also arise in combination with altering, where behavior requires a slight adjustment—for example, when participants in the LEGO workshops built individual objects but failed to interact with others in the group (WS#2, WS#6), or when participants worked at a table rather than on creative walls, flipcharts or whiteboards (WS#4, WS#6). Complying changes can also be used to address the management of discussions or timekeeping, especially because the benefits of lengthy discussions are diminishing, as I#1 also notes: “When I think

3.4 Findings

43

about it, when we had such open workshops, you got lost in discussions and you think ‘so what’, what was going on in the last hour. And you’re not better in the end.” In situations where a participant has the necessary motivation and ability, a complying change can also serve as a signal trigger that reminds the participant about the required behavior. Behavior Change A behavior change is more sustainable than a complying change but is also more difficult to implement. In a few of the application scenarios, I#3 and I#4 noted that certain persons in their company adopted similar behavior patterns in the workshops with regard to positions and discussions, indicating potential for altering or forming a behavior change. In addition, participants can be guided through behaviors that are new to them or need to be adapted—for example, the activation and execution of certain design tasks in a standing position. Attitude Change Based on the foundations (see Section 2.2 and Section 2.3) and the collected data, attitude changes do not appear to be easily implementable in this context. As this is a longer-term issue, participants would have to be followed over a longer period. Oinas-Kukkonen (2013) noted that an attitude change is both difficult to implement and essential for sustainable behavior change. The author sees difficulties for an attitude change in the chosen scenario—specifically: creative processes within design workshops. Summary: Types of Change in Creative Processes Figure 3.6 summarizes the three change types and their occurrence in the creative process. As noted above, there is little potential for attitude change in short-term

Complying change C-Change

Align the participant's behavior with the desired behavior Forming: introducing participants to unknown tools or procedures in a structured way Altering: physically activate participants; improve interaction Remind the participant of the required behavior

Behavior change B-Change

Altering or forming a more sustainable change Address reoccurring patterns when working with a group repeatedly Showing participants new behavioral patterns Attitude change A-Change

- does not appear to be easily implementable in creative processes such as workshops -

Figure 3.6 Overview of the three change types, according to Oinas-Kukkonen and Harjumaa (2009), adapted to creative processes within design workshops

44

Study 1: Supporting Participants in Creative Processes with Persuasive Technology

processes, such as workshops. Complying changes seem most applicable, as the goal is often to form or alter a desired pattern. Sustainable behavior change seems possible in recurring workshops or in relation to certain behavior patterns, such as excessive discussion or unbalanced speech time.

3.4.3

The Potential of Persuasive Technology

This section examines how PTs might be used to support organizational processes, based on the previously described findings and factors of individual and group creativity (Woodman et al. 1993). Improving Knowledge Participants’ knowledge is linked to their abilities but relates more to domainrelevant skills. This is differentiated from participants’ expertise and extended by knowledge about the tools used. In Section 3.4.1, various situations were identified where participants failed to understand the purpose of a design method or tool or to perform the desired task. To improve participants’ knowledge, a technology must provide facilitating triggers, including examples (as in WS#5), or explanation and support (as in WS#1, WS#6). In some workshops, participants needed substantial assistance from moderators to complete the task (e.g. I#3, WS#1, WS#3). Showing examples can also have a positive influence: “This of course has advantages and disadvantages to show examples, but a good example can of course be very convincing and help as well.” (I#2). There is potential, especially in larger workshops, to deploy technologies that address frequently asked questions (as also mentioned by I#1 and I#2)—for example, using speech assistants or tablets. Improving Abilities This again relates to the simplicity of the desired behavior; in essence, it should be made easier for participants to engage in non-routine behavior by reducing the associated physical and mental effort (cf. Section 2.2). In some workshops, participants’ limited prior knowledge of the methods made it difficult to perform what was for them a non-routine activity (e.g. WS#4, WS#5, WS#6). Complying changes are especially useful for structuring and simplifying a given process, and persuasive design principles of primary task support can contribute directly in this regard. Here again, triggers play a central role; where lack of ability diminishes motivation, sparks may prove useful as facilitating triggers. Sparks should emphasize the intended goal, indicating for example why voting tools are needed (I#3) or to clarify the goal of using LEGO in a workshop (WS#2). The facilitator’s role is to simplify the

3.4 Findings

45

task—for instance, by more clearly defining processes when working with the tool (WS#4, WS#5) or by providing concrete examples of what the outcome might look like (as in WS#3 and to some extent in WS#6). Improving Motivation Pleasure, hope and social acceptance are important factors in motivation (cf. Section 2.2). As in the case of ability and knowledge, an improvement in these factors may also help to improve motivation. I#4 described a situation in which participants were reluctant to express their ideas, possibly as a consequence of fear (cf. Section 2.2). This view is also supported by I#8: “Yes, some people simply do not dare for fear that their proposal will be so immediately criticized or attacked by the group.” (I#8). I#3 noted that interactive formats using tools such as smartphones can enhance motivation, especially among younger participants. I#1 suggested using technology to track workshop progress and previous sub-results. In addition, he notes that especially in a workshop lasting several days, the motivation fluctuates repeatedly: “(…) you automatically have some uncertainties at the beginning, also some frustration, also maybe because it goes so fast that the motivation goes down for a while. But when the first results emerge, then it rises again.” (I#1). According to I#4, a playful component and balanced groups can also have a positive impact. Especially moderately motivated participants could be picked up right at the beginning of the workshop by telling them “(…) what is it all about and what is the goal of the whole thing” (I#8). The workshop observations also show that thematic interest encourages participants (especially practitioners) to become more involved (WS#2, WS#4, WS#6). Playfulness and fun can also have a positive effect on participants who assume leadership of a group (WS#2, WS#6). Group Composition As noted in the interviews, group characteristics can also play an important role in creative behavior and ultimate success. For that reason, I#1, I#5 and I#6 suggested that creativity or personality tests should be conducted before assigning participants to groups. Here again, a technology such as a smartphone or tablet app for self-assessment can provide support. I#2 also sees connections for the acceptance of methods and tools depending on the acceptance of other participants, especially if there are hierarchies between the participants: “If a participant with great importance is less open-minded, I think this also influences the other participants.” (I#2). I#3, I#4 and I#8 reported previous negative experiences with unbalanced groups. I#1, I#3 and I#4 also saw potential for technologies that capture group behaviors such as lengthy discussion or passivity as a basis for intervening through triggers

46

Study 1: Supporting Participants in Creative Processes with Persuasive Technology

(I#4). According to I#1, passivity or a drop in activity levels could be addressed by introducing playful elements. Supporting Organizational Processes The role of organizational factors became clear in both the observations and the interviews. In particular, good time management plays an important role (I#1, I#3, I#9), and technologies already provide support in this regard (I#1, I#3). PTs can also support complying changes; in some workshops (WS#3, WS#4, WS#5), better task structure or design seem to have had a positive influence. When using a technology, however, “the affinity for the technology and the age of the participant [also plays

Individual level

Group level

Ability

Composition

C-/B-Change

C-Change

Make non-routine behavior more simple and reduce physical effort and brain cycles Structure and simplify the process Sparks or facilitators as triggers Present examples of what results might look like Knowledge

Composition of the group as a success factor Conduct self-tests before dividing into groups Task C-/B-Change

Support the task by improving knowledge and ability Better structuring or design of the task

C-Change

Increase knowledge about the tools used in the workshop Provide facilitating triggers, including examples, support and explanations

Teamwork C-/B-Change

Capture the behavior of the group, e.g. discussions or passive participants, intervene through triggers Increase involvement by supporting thematic interest Introduce playful components to activate passive participants

Motivation C-/B-Change

Introduce a playful component or modern technologies Track the progress of a workshop and show previous sub-results Increase thematic interest

Creative Process Time management

Task structuring

C-Change

C-Change

Support a clear time management Track speech times of participants

subtasks Guide through the task (tunneling)

Documentation Technology-supported documentation of the results during the process and in the follow-up

Figure 3.7 Potential uses of PT to support creative processes in design workshops

3.5 Discussion

47

a role]. For some people it is quite common to quickly use the smartphone or any app, for others it is a hurdle.” (I#2). I#4 identified strong moderator intervention as a negative factor. I#1 suggested that technology-supported documentation of results during implementation and follow-up can have a positive impact on the outcome of a creative process. The same applies also to the clear communication and support of the agenda and the task especially in larger groups, as it was also noted by I#5, I#6 and I#8. Summary: The Potential of Persuasive Technology Figure 3.7 summarizes the potential influence of PT on creative processes in design workshops under the headings outlined earlier. At the individual level, technological support can enhance participants’ ability, knowledge and motivation, typically through C-Changes. At group level, technologies can enhance group formation through testing as a basis for assigning individuals to groups. Technologies can also support task completion and group cooperation. The process can be improved by technology-supported time management and guidance throughout the process. Finally, technologies can also be used to document results and outcomes during and after the workshop to enhance understanding and perception of progress.

3.5

Discussion

This section discusses the results of the abductive multiple-case study. First, the contribution to existing research is discussed. Subsequently, the practical applicability is described.

3.5.1

Theoretical Contributions

This study presents a novel approach of how PT and BCSS can be deployed to change the creative behavior of design workshop participants, offering new insights for the construction of information systems in this context. Among the few works to date to explore these possibilities (e.g. Frich et al. 2019), Shneiderman (2007) listed individual and group creativity support tools, but the focus is more often on online collaboration and software development tools rather than “offline” design workshops. In exploring supports for creative processes in design workshops, the focus was on the individual and to some extent on the group. The central aim was to improve the creative situation by using PT to support individual creativity

48

Study 1: Supporting Participants in Creative Processes with Persuasive Technology

(Woodman et al. 1993). To that end, first the challenges posed by the behavior of workshop participants were examined, following the Fogg behavior model (Fogg 2009a). To the best of the author’s knowledge, this model has not previously been used in this context. The results bear on all three factors of the model. In respect of ability, the main issues relate to non-routine and brain cycles and, to a lesser extent, social deviance and physical effort. As PD involves non-professional designers (Sanders & Stappers 2008), the tasks are often non-routine activities that demand new or deeper ways of thinking, and technologies can be used to provide more effective task structure or guidance. Following the design principles elaborated in Oinas-Kukkonen and Harjumaa (2009), reduction, tunneling and tailoring seem useful in the present context, along with principles for social support. Woodman et al. (1993) also identified cognitive abilities and style as a key individual characteristic for creative behavior. Fogg’s (2009a) definition differs mainly in relating ability to simplicity, which can be readily supported by PT. The data analysis shows that, in workshop settings, a behavior’s simplicity and cognitive ability are both important, so this study argues for a combined definition. Motivation is frequently mentioned as a factor in creativity, design and innovation. In this study’s data, participants from companies that show strong self-interest seem intrinsically motivated. Fogg (2009a) refers mainly to the combined effect of high ability and low motivation. However, as motivation is difficult to measure, the analysis was confined to visible factors such as participants leaving the room, playing and texting on their phones or initiating off-topic discussion. A state of low ability and low motivation was also identified— for instance, a lack of understanding of the methodology or task was associated with a lack of motivation. Pleasure, hope and social acceptance play some role in improving motivation (cf. Fogg 2009a), along with increased interactivity, playful components and innovative tools (cf. Algashami et al. 2017). Triggers, especially in the form of reminders, can help to alleviate organizational issues by improving time management and task structure. The results suggest that Fogg’s (2009a) three kinds of trigger (spark, facilitator, and signal) can also be used in creative contexts to improve domain-relevant skills as well as creativity-relevant skills if participants lack ability (Amabile 1983) or knowledge (Woodman et al. 1993). By providing examples, PT can remind participants of behavioral patterns (especially acts of complying) (Oinas-Kukkonen 2013), as well as supporting moderators and offering guidance. The composition of groups also plays a role in the creative process (Woodman et al. 1993). PTs can be used to manage group composition on the basis of self-tests or to control discussions by managing speaking time, and passive participants can be activated by small playful components. In designing a PT as a BCSS (OinasKukkonen 2013), complying changes can be used in combination with forming

3.5 Discussion

49

and altering. Workshops involving creative processes are often too short and too heterogeneous in terms of participants to facilitate longer-term behavior or attitude change, even when the situation requires it. However, building on the concept of microfoundations and their influence on the organization as a whole (Felin et al. 2012; Felin et al. 2015), as well as the individual’s role in innovation (Grigoriou & Rothaermel 2014), PTs can help to shape individual and group creative processes and so enhance the creative situation (Woodman et al. 1993). Following Cirella’s (2016) account of the positive influence of technology on collective creativity, the results have shown how PTs could enhance creativity in workshop settings, supporting and structuring both the task and the underlying processes. The present study also contributes more generally to PD research by demonstrating the as yet untapped potential for integrating PTs directly into PD (e.g. Hagen & Robertson 2009; Hanzl 2007; Vines et al. 2013). In addition, the results point to further novel applications for PTs in the fields of knowledge work and collaboration (Torning & Oinas-Kukkonen 2009). The findings of this study also contribute to information systems research by providing patterns of user behavior that can be targeted by PTs, i.e. information systems that can address and support user behavior. These results confirm the utility of the different theoretical perspectives in understanding the behavior of participants and how creative processes can be supported by introducing a PT.

3.5.2

Practical Contributions

The contribution of this study for practitioners is twofold. On the one hand, the practice was intensively examined by observing workshops and conducting interviews. On the other hand, it provides insights into common problems in creative processes and how these can be addressed through the appropriate use of technology. In the planning or conception of a workshop, the findings from Figure 3.5 can be particularly interesting. There, issues are detected that could be identified in the behavior of participants. In the planning phase, these points could already be considered in order to be prepared in the later workshop. The identified types of change in creative processes (cf. Figure 3.6) support mainly developers of PT. These provide possible change scenarios that can be considered by the developers or in the conception phase. The potentials for PT to support in design workshops (cf. Figure 3.7) are primarily intended for practitioners who are planning the actual use of a PT in a workshop. Divided into three categories and based on the preliminary results, use cases are described which can be addressed with the help of a technology. The results serve

50

Study 1: Supporting Participants in Creative Processes with Persuasive Technology

as a starting point for the planning and design of workshops, as well as the design and development of PTs for use in design workshops.

3.6

Conclusion and Implications

This chapter explored how PT and BCSS can be used to change the creative behavior of participants in design workshops. Observations of six workshops involving elements of PD and nine interviews with workshop moderators and participants enabled the identification of behavioral and organizational issues that can be addressed using PTs. To that end, a combination of models and theories advanced by OinasKukkonen (2013), Fogg (2009a), Amabile (1983) and Woodman et al. (1993) was proposed to identify potentials and application scenarios, focusing in particular on improving ability through task simplification, knowledge and motivation. PT often acts as a trigger for desired behaviors by providing reminders or task-specific examples and information to simplify processes, as well as supporting group formation and direction and tracking the progress of the creative process and documenting the results. This chapter mainly contributes to the environment and application domain of the overall research approach of this dissertation (cf. Figure 1.2). The results ensure the relevance of the research. It provides a basis for the following chapters by listing problems and opportunities in the environment and application domain. Combining an observer’s perspective and interviews with workshop moderators and participants, the present study highlights the need for more research on participants and their experiences. In particular, future studies should explore motivational aspects and should incorporate participants’ self-assessment of their own abilities and knowledge. These findings offer a concrete point of departure for the design and implementation of PTs for use in design workshops, and future studies should test and validate these results in other settings. Tables 3.4, 3.5 and 3.6 summarize the potentials for PT for the remainder of this dissertation. Ronja Researcher and Fred Facilitator also profit from the results from Chapter 3. Figure 3.8 presents their insights. The summarized results of this chapter form the basis for the following chapters, especially Chapter 4 and Chapter 6. The following chapter will take these results and present suitable application scenarios and PTs that address the potentials. The results also contribute to the derivation of design principles in Section 7.3. Limitations of this study and further research potentials are described in Section 7.4.

3.6 Conclusion and Implications

51

Table 3.4 Potentials for PT on the individual level Individual level

Potentials for PT

Ability

• Make non-routine behavior more simple and reduce physical effort and brain cycles • Structure and simplify the process • Sparks or facilitators as triggers • Present examples of what results might look like • Increase knowledge about the tools used in the workshop • Provide facilitating triggers, including examples, support and explanations • Introduce a playful component or modern technologies • Track the progress of a workshop and show previous sub-results • Increase thematic interest

Knowledge

Motivation

Table 3.5 Potentials for PT on group level Group level

Potentials for PT

Composition

• Composition of the group as a success factor • Conduct self-tests before dividing into groups • Support the task by improving knowledge and ability • Better structuring or design of the task • Capture the behavior of the group, e.g. discussions or passive participants, intervene through triggers • Increase involvement by supporting thematic interest • Introduce playful components to activate passive participants

Task Teamwork

Table 3.6 Potentials for PT on a general process level General

Potentials for PT

Time management

• Support a clear time management • Track speech times of participants • Simplification of the task and division into subtasks • Guide through the task (tunneling) • Technology-supported documentation of the results • Influence on the outcome of a creative process during the process and in the follow-up

Task structuring Documentation

52

Study 1: Supporting Participants in Creative Processes with Persuasive Technology

Fred

Ronja Ronja gained new insights on partici-

Fred is pleased with the list of common

pants’ behavior in workshops through

problems in design workshops. He had

the lens of PT, individual and group

similar experiences in his professional

creativity research. She now knows pat-

life to date and is delighted that the re-

terns of user behavior that can be tar-

search underpins them. In addition, he

geted by PT. The points identified help

can incorporate them directly into the

her to classify participant behavior in

planning of future workshops. At the

her own research. They also make it

same time it is now clearer to him how

easier for her to design PTs. However,

PT can concretely support the partici-

she would like to have more concrete

pants. Since he is not a developer, he

procedures. She knows that there are

needs an overview of possible technolo-

already approaches to the design of

gies and also how they can be designed

technologies in PT research, but these

so he can describe to a developer ex-

do not consider PD and workshops as

actly what he needs.

an application field.

Figure 3.8 Insights from Chapter 3 for Ronja and Fred

4

Study 2: Categorizing Persuasive Technology for Participatory Design

4.1

Objectives and Structure

The previous chapter has empirically analyzed the potential for persuasive technology (PT) in creative design processes within workshops. This chapter will take a closer look at how such a participatory design (PD) process is structured and how participants can be motivated and supported. Technologies such as PTs can play a role in this process. Co-creation and co-design workshops are popular means to integrate external knowledge into the innovation processes of an organization. Popular examples include workshops or hackathons. While technology is often the subject of such workshops, innovation processes in a workshop are usually driven solely by direct human interaction. Technology support, which is otherwise very common in collaborative innovation processes is often missing. At the same time, workshop activities with non-professional designers are often accompanied by problems regarding the motivation or distraction of the participants. Existing research determines challenges concerning the efficiency of collaboration (Jarvela & Jarvenoja 2011)

Chapter 4 of this dissertation builds upon and extends a conference contribution presented and discussed at the 14th International Conference on Persuasive Technology 2019 in Limassol, Cyprus. This earlier version is published as Jalowski, Fritzsche, and Möslein (2019a). Adapted by permission from Springer Nature Customer Service Centre GmbH: Jalowski M., Fritzsche A., Möslein K.M. (2019) Applications for Persuasive Technologies in Participatory Design Processes. In: Oinas-Kukkonen H., Win K., Karapanos E., Karppinen P., Kyza E. (eds) Persuasive Technology: Development of Persuasive and Behavior Change Support Systems. PERSUASIVE 2019. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 11433. Springer, Cham, © 2019.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2021 M. Jalowski, Revolutionizing Workshops, Markt- und Unternehmensentwicklung Markets and Organisations, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-33312-6_4

53

54

4

Study 2: Categorizing Persuasive Technology for Participatory Design

and identifies the need for concepts to motivate and support participants (Antikainen, Mäkipää, & Ahonen 2010; Goos, Galbraith, & Renshaw 2002). There are several works on integrating and motivating participants in open innovation processes (e.g. de Vreede et al. 2013; von Hippel 2005). Furthermore, persuasive strategies and design principles have already been developed to minimize negative side effects of digital motivation on teamwork (Algashami et al. 2017). While research on PT has already produced numerous results, particularly in the area of healthcare applications and influence on social behavior, the application of PT to stimulate and propel the collaboration between different actors has so far received little attention. Torning and Oinas-Kukkonen (2009) already identified knowledge work and collaboration as a challenging field in 2009. Yet there are still only a few studies in this field, for example Stibe and Oinas-Kukkonen (2014a), Stibe et al. (2013). This chapter will therefore focus on creating an application navigator showing different applicable PTs for PD processes to foster collaboration between participants. To propose an approach for PT in PD, this study addresses the following research question: RQ2: How can persuasive technologies be applied to change behavior in participatory design processes? The objective of this chapter is therefore first to provide an overview of types of PT and to accumulate existing examples. Subsequently, application scenarios for PT in PD shall be derived and categorized. This chapter mainly contributes to the knowledge base and environment (cf. Figure 1.2). Chapter 4 of this dissertation is structured as follows (cf. Figure 4.1): Section 4.2 presents further theoretical background for this chapter, especially focusing on the role of technology in PT, on method and tools for practicing PD as well as on motivating and supporting participants. Subsequently, Section 4.3 describes the research design including the approach of reviewing existing literature on technology in PT as well as the design science research (DSR) approach to create the application navigator artifact. Afterwards, Section 4.4 explains the findings, first the identified PT platforms, second the description of the artifact and finally the evaluation of the artifact. Section 4.5 discusses the results and derives theoretical and practical contributions. This chapter closes with Section 4.6, which concludes the results and summarizes the implications of Chapter 4 for this dissertation.

4.2 Theoretical Background Chapter Part I 1

Chapter Part II 2

Introduction: Motivation and Research Setting

Foundations: Conceptual Background

Chapter Part III 3 Study 1: Supporting Participants in Creative Processes with Persuasive Technology

55 Chapter Part IV 4 Study 2: Categorizing Persuasive Technology for Participatory Design

Chapter Part V 5 Study 3: Modelling and Creating Persuasive Technology for Participatory Design

Chapter Part VI 6

Chapter Part VII7

Study 4: Implementing Persuasive Technology in Participatory Design

Summarizing Findings and Implications

Objectives and Structure

Motivation

Research Question

Structure

Theoretical Background

The Role of Technology in Persuasive Technology

Methods, Toolkits and Tools for Participatory Design

Motivation of Participants and Other Success Factors

Research Design

Literature Review

Design Science Research: Producing Knowledge

Findings

Persuasive Technology Platforms

Artifact Description: Applications for Persuasive Technology

Discussion

Theoretical Contributions

Practical Contributions

Conclusion and Implications

Conclusion

Implications for this Dissertation

Evaluation

Figure 4.1 Structure of Chapter 4

4.2

Theoretical Background

Having described objectives and structure of this chapter in the previous section, this section presents further theoretical background. Chapter 2 has already laid out basic foundations for the whole dissertation. This section therefore provides supplementary theoretical background required for this chapter. It begins with the

56

4

Study 2: Categorizing Persuasive Technology for Participatory Design

role of technology in the research field PT, followed by methods, toolkits and tools for PD. The section closes with previous work on motivation of participants and other success factors in PD.

4.2.1

The Role of Technology in Persuasive Technology

Yoo et al. (2012) describe the role and traits of digital technology platforms for innovation to harness the ubiquitous presence of technology. Such a technology platform is modularized and can be used for various innovation activities (Gawer 2014; Yoo et al. 2012). In order to make the integration of PTs in PD flexible, the technologies should have characteristics of technology platforms (e.g. Gawer 2014). Building on Section 2.2, this section therefore describes the role of technology for PT. Initially Fogg (1997) used the term captology to describe computers as PT. Such a computer can adopt one of three functions: as tool or instrument, as medium and as social actor (Fogg 1998). According to Fogg (2003), examples for computer technologies that can be used as persuasive computer are: web sites, mobile phones, PDAs, video games, desktop software, chat bots, smart environments, virtual reality, exercise equipment, specialized devices and kiosks. These computer technologies have a major advantage over traditional media: interactivity. In addition, they also offer advantages over human persuaders: computers are more persistent than humans, offer higher anonymity, can manage large amounts of data, use many possibilities to influence, they scale more easily and can reach places that a human cannot reach (Fogg 2003, p. 7). Oinas-Kukkonen and Harjumaa (2009) extend the concept of PT to persuasive systems. These also consider the persuasion context with intent, event and strategy, as well as system features, that address technology on a software feature level. The technology itself is part of the event, described as technology context with technology-dependant features (Oinas-Kukkonen & Harjumaa 2009). This technology context can e.g. be clustered in desktop, OEM/custom, mobile and ubiquitous (Torning & Oinas-Kukkonen 2009). In a more recent study Orji and Moffatt (2018) reviewed 85 papers on PTs for health and wellness. One part of the study was a collection of the most frequently used PT platforms: mobile and handheld devices, games, web and social networks, desktop applications, sensors, wearable devices, ambient and public display, robots, virtual coaches, text messaging, and other more specialized devices, such as a digital story telling table or a digital pet plant (Orji & Moffatt 2018).

4.2 Theoretical Background

57

The eight-step design process by Fogg (2009b), which is a popular collection of best practices for creating PT (cf. Section 5.3.1.1), also addresses the role of technology. Step 4 covers the selection of a familiar (i.e. to the target group or in the use context) technology channel. Among other examples he mentions web, computer applications, texting and applications on mobile phones, social platforms, videos and games (Fogg 2009b). In the next step, it is relevant to search for examples of existing PTs and select the most suitable ones. Emphasis should be placed on finding comparable examples in order to collect different options and adapt them to one’s own context. Step 6 of the process also emphasizes the importance of the adaption and imitation. Since the field of PT has existed for over 20 years, existing successful examples should be imitated and adapted to increase the speed and reduce risks (Fogg 2009b). This section presented common PT platforms and strategies for selecting suitable technologies. The following section describes existing methods and tools for PD, which can be enriched and adapted using existing PT platforms.

4.2.2

Methods, Toolkits and Tools for Participatory Design

Tools, techniques, and methods are a common reasearch field of PD (Kensing & Blomberg 1998). This study follows the definition of Sanders et al. (2010), according to which tools are the individual components that can be combined in a toolkit. Techniques describe the usage of tools and toolkits. By methods they understand the combination of tools, toolkits and techniques (Sanders et al. 2010). Based on co-design, Sanders and Stappers (2008) describe four levels of creativity: creating, making, adapting and doing. Especially in the making level three approaches have emerged: probes, toolkits and prototypes (Sanders & Stappers 2014). Probes are intended to provoke reactions, for example by using workbooks, cameras with instructions or games. Toolkits can be used to build artifacts; they may contain for example pictures, buttons or wires. Prototypes serve the physical representation of concepts and consist for example of foam, simple digital and electronic elements (Sanders & Stappers 2014). Muller et al. (1993) categorize practices according to the position in the development cycle and participation context, they name for instance ethnographic methods, card games, storyboard, video, collaborative and low-tech prototyping. Stories, storytelling, games and making descriptive artifacts are mentioned as examples in a subsequent study (Muller 2007). In co-design as well as in PD, the tools can be classified in a framework, which categorizes the tools, techniques, and methods by form: make, tell, enact (Brandt, Binder, & Sanders 2012; Sanders 2013; Sanders et al. 2010; Sanders & Stappers 2014). Make, tell

58

4

Study 2: Categorizing Persuasive Technology for Participatory Design

and enact refer in this context to different possibilities of activity in participatory processes, which are related and can be combined with each other (Brandt et al. 2012). The framework of Sanders et al. (2010) classifies the tools and techniques by form: make, tell, enact; purpose: probing, priming, understanding participants and generation of ideas; and context: indiviudal, group, face-to-face, online. Sanders et al. (2010) and Sanders (2013) also list several examples of tools and techniques that are currently being used for PD: examples of making tangible things include collages, mock-ups and prototypes. Examples of acting, enacting and playing include games, role playing and enactment, e.g. by setting users in future situations. Examples of talking, telling and explaining are storyboards, also through blogs, wikis and photos, self observation and paper spaces. Having dealt with methods, toolkits and tools for PD in this section, the following section concentrates on the role of participants’ motivation and success factors in design processes.

4.2.3

Motivation of Participants and Other Success Factors

PD and creative processes in general require motivated and focused users. Chapter 3 already identified potentials for supporting participants with PT; one of these potentials is motivation. Amabile (1983) distinguishes different forms of motivation. One is the task motivation, which includes the participants’ motivation to perform a given task and the attitudes towards this task. Furthermore, she differentiates the extrinsic from the intrinsic motivation; the extrinsic can have a negative effect on the task, whereas the intrinsic has rather positive effects (Amabile 1983). Hennessey (2019) distinguishes intrinsic from extrinsic motivation in the sense that the intrinsic motivation is purely driven by one’s own interest in a task or a challenge. The extrinsic, on the other hand, through an external goal, incentives or rewards (Hennessey 2019). Relevant for motivation is also the context and the environment; good group composition and well set goals have an influence on creativity and motivation (Amabile 1997). Woodman et al. (1993) also describe intrinsic motivation as an important factor for creative processes. Battistella and Nonino (2012) observe the impact of different forms of motivation on collaboration and identify that intrinsic motivation is required in collaborative innovation, but is rarely used alone. Extrinsic elements in form of incentives or rewards can be used to increase motivation (Battistella & Nonino 2012). Besides motivation, the team climate also has an influence on creativity, and extrinsic motivation has a higher influence on creativity when the intrinsic mot-

4.3 Research Design

59

vation is lower (Zhu, Gardner, & Chen 2018). Social technologies are promising means for facilitating the participation of users, thereby motivation of the users is a key factor (Hagen & Robertson 2009). Successful interaction is driven by critical engagement with other ideas, furthermore the time of the intervention by supervisors should be chosen properly (Goos et al. 2002). Technology can be fruitful to establish a positive behavior change and to improve the digital motivation on teamwork (Algashami et al. 2017). Key factors for motivated users are entertainment, learning new things and cooperation in a community. Beyond that, support by supervisors and tools can also have a positive impact on collaboration output (Antikainen et al. 2010). Jarvela and Jarvenoja (2011) observed students in collaborative settings and categorized 14 challenge scenarios in five categories: (1) personal priorities, (2) work and communication, (3) teamwork, (4) collaboration and (5) external constraints. Further analysis of the collected data show six strategies to enhance the students’ interest for the given task: (1) task structuring, (2) social reinforcing, (3) efficacy management, (4) interest enhancement, (5) socially shared goal-oriented talk and (6) handicapping of group functioning (Jarvela & Jarvenoja 2011). The remainder of this chapter builds on the described positive effects of technology (Algashami et al. 2017; Hagen & Robertson 2009), existing research on motivation in creative processes (Amabile 1983, 1997; Woodman et al. 1993), addressing and avoiding the challenges and strategies identified by Jarvela and Jarvenoja (2011) and the results of Chapter 3.

4.3

Research Design

In order to answer the research question RQ2, this study applies a DSR approach, which generates insight into a problem by working on its solution (Hevner & Chatterjee 2010; Hevner et al. 2004; Peffers et al. 2007). The research approach first follows the recommendations of Webster and Watson (2002) for conducting a literature review to get an overview of existing technology platforms in the PT community. Afterwards the PT Navigator is created as an IT artifact to support the application of PT in PD. The navigator is focused on the integrability into Fogg’s eight-step design process, especially the steps 4–6: choice of familiar technology channel, identification of relevant examples and imitation of successful examples (Fogg 2009b). Figure 4.2 summarizes the research design of this chapter. The main goal of this study is to contribute to the knowledge base and include as well constraints of the environment (cf. Hevner 2007; Hevner et al. 2004). Therefore, a body of knowledge for PT in PD is built, since the combination of these fields is rather

60

4

Study 2: Categorizing Persuasive Technology for Participatory Design

Research Question How can persuasive technologies be applied to change behavior in participatory design processes?

Design Science Research

Environment Application Domain

Results from Chapter 4 .

Knowledge Base

Literature Review

Design Rigor

Relevance

Evaluated Artifact

Evaluation/Interviews . Design and Evaluation of the Artifact

Figure 4.2 Research design of Study 2, following the three cycle view in DSR (cf. Hevner 2007; Hevner, March, Park, & Ram 2004)

unexplored (cf. Section 4.1). For building the knowledge base of the artifact, this study starts with a literature review. It builds the basis for the artifact development, together with the results from Chapter 3. The results of the artifact development are evaluated to ensure the relevance. The artifact itself contributes via the rigor cycle to the knowledge base (Hevner & Chatterjee 2010).

4.3.1

Literature Review

Due to the relatively limited number of papers in journals and the small community, no classical systematic literature review was carried out, but as described below, the criteria of Webster and Watson (2002) were incorporated. PT is a small and highly interdisciplinary field of research, with researchers and practitioners coming from e.g. social psychology, human-computer interaction, computer science, engineering, industrial, game, or communication science (Persuasive Technology 2006, 2019). This results in a very broad range of possible leading journals, as it is suggested as starting point by Webster and Watson (2002). Therefore, another starting point was chosen. In a first step, all 384 long and short papers in the proceedings of the PERSUASIVE conferences starting with the very first one in 2006 until the 14th edition in 2019 were included in the review. For these papers, a title and abstract screening was conducted. If titles or abstracts indicate that a technology is being developed, enhanced or an existing technology is being used in a persuasive context, they were considered for a closer review. In the following step, papers that describe, use or create a PT were reviewed in detail, which covers a set of 264 papers. These papers were imported into a software for qualitative data analysis (i.e. MAXQDA2018.2). Two researchers reviewed, systematically analyzed and coded the 264 papers.

4.3 Research Design

61

Initially, the codes were based on the technology platforms of Orji and Moffatt (2018): (1) mobile and handheld devices, (2) games, (3) web and social networks, (4) desktop applications, (5) sensors, (6) wearable devices, (7) ambient and public display, (8) robots, (9) virtual coaches, (10) text messaging and (11) other devices. During the coding process, new codes were added or codes were adjusted to better meet the requirements and to better define the category other devices. This results in 17 codes that were grouped as technology platforms (cf. Section 4.4.1). Each section describing the development, components or application of a PT was coded with at least one fitting category. The mentioned adjustments and the codings were regularly discussed and compared between the researchers until a satisfactory degree of agreement was reached. This procedure results in 449 different applications of PT. By categorizing and grouping of the PTs, 17 different technology platforms could be identified. Afterwards a backward search, as suggested by Webster and Watson (2002), was conducted. In the papers reviewed, references were mainly made to similar preliminary work on the same technology platform, which did not result in the identification of new technology platforms. The data set also included review articles that were not included in the literature analysis but were used in other sections of this work (e.g. Section 2.2 and Section 4.2.1). The forward search does not seem to produce new results in the course of this study. Instead, in a second step, a database search in Scopus as well as a search in Google Scholar was conducted. The search string was

Talking, telling and explaining A framework for organizing the tools and techniques of participatory design (a) Making tangible things

Challenges and opportunities in creative and collaborative settings (b)

Acting, enacting and playing

General challenges, e.g. non-routine behavior, personal priorities, communication, teamwork, knowledge, external constraints

Figure 4.3 Overview of the underlying structure of the artifact; (a): Sanders (2013), Sanders, Brandt, and Binder (2010), (b): Jarvela and Jarvenoja (2011), Woodman, Sawyer, and Griffin (1993) and results of Chapter 3

62

4

Study 2: Categorizing Persuasive Technology for Participatory Design

composed as follows: “Persuasive Technology” AND “”. The search was conducted for each of the 17 technology platforms to find relevant papers and validate the technology platforms outside the PT community.

4.3.2

Design and Evaluation of the Artifact

The aim of this study is to contribute particularly to the knowledge base for PT in PD. Therefore an artifact is created with application scenarios for each of the 17 technology platforms to make the results easily accessible and applicable. As already described in Section 1.2, DSR distinguishes two types of knowledge: descriptive knowledge () and prescriptive knowledge () (cf. Drechsler & Hevner 2018; Gregor & Hevner 2013). The results from Chapter 3 together with the concepts from Section 4.2.3 build the initial  knowledge. The results of the literature review (cf. Section 4.3.1 and Section 4.4.1) and the methods, toolkits and tools for PD (cf. Section 4.2.2) form the initial  knowledge. By analyzing the papers, 449 applications of PT could be collected as existing application examples. The classification and further analysis of these examples was based on the framework shown in Figure 4.3. It consists of four categories, three of them are activities originating from Elizabeth Sanders’ framework for practicing PD: making, telling, enacting (Sanders 2013; Sanders et al. 2010). These activities contain existing tools, techniques and methods for PD processes. To address the results of Chapter 3 and other identified challenges in collaborative processes (cf. Section 4.2.3), a fourth category including, e.g. motivation, work, communication and external constraints, was added to the artifact. At least one of the four categories has been assigned to each of the examples if the example matches one of the properties of the category. Subsequently, the examples were considered separately by category, and application scenarios in PD were derived. References up to two sample implementations were assigned to each of the application scenarios, especially to cover steps 4–6 of the eight-step design process (Fogg 2009a). In addition, persuasive design principles (cf. Oinas-Kukkonen & Harjumaa 2009) were collected based on the example implementations, which emphasize the persuasive properties of the chosen technology. This results in 49 application scenarios with overall 84 examples, clustered in the four categories. The artifact is instantiated as a web-based tool that provides easy access to the results, separated either by technology platform or category.

4.4 Findings

63

To evaluate the artifact, a quick and simple1 evaluation strategy was chosen, since the design is with low social and technical risk (Venable et al. 2016). IT artifacts can be evaluated regarding e.g. functionality, completeness, consistency, accuracy and usability (Hevner et al. 2004). Coming from a pragmatist view, the usefulness and utility also were considered (Goldkuhl 2012b; Iivari 2007). First, an artificial evaluation2 strategy was selected (Sonnenberg & vom Brocke 2012a; Venable et al. 2016). Two artificial evaluation iterations were conducted: ex ante a criteria-based analysis to show the theoretical efficacy and ex post problem-centered interviews (Witzel & Reiter 2012) to validate the artifact with researchers and professionals working on PD or PT. Furthermore the contents and structure of the artifact were discussed at two scientific conferences with PT and design researchers. Afterwards a third evaluation round was undertaken. Evaluation in a real environment is an essential part of a DSR process (Sonnenberg & vom Brocke 2012a; Venable, Pries-Heje, & Baskerville 2012). Therefore, the artifact was evaluated with developers who were developing a PT for PD. Section 4.4.3 describes the evaluation approach in detail. The following section first describes the results of the literature review—the 17 PT platforms—and afterwards the resulting artifact after the evaluation iterations.

4.4

Findings

In the following sections an overview of the PTs identified in the analysis is given, followed by a description of the construction of the artifact PT Navigator, which classifies application scenarios for PT in PD. This section closes with an evaluation of the artifact.

4.4.1

Persuasive Technology Platforms

As described above, the 449 PTs from the selected literature were divided into 17 different PT platforms. Table 4.1 gives an overview about the platforms, a description or an example and the number of mentions. In addition, a distinction was made in the classification of technologies whether they are core technologies 1 Venable et al. (2016) suggest a quick and simple strategy if the design is with low social and

technical risk and if the evaluation should proceed quickly to a naturalistic evaluation (i.e. with real users in real settings). 2 An artificial evaluation is conducted in a non-real setting (Venable 2006), e.g. via experiments, simulations (Venable 2006), criteria-based analyses (Venable et al. 2016), demonstrations with prototypes or expert-interviews (Sonnenberg & vom Brocke 2012b).

64

4

Study 2: Categorizing Persuasive Technology for Participatory Design

Table 4.1 Overview of identified technology platforms A = Application level, T = Technology

A T A T

Technology Platform

Description/Example

Artificial Intelligence & Analytics Augmented & Virtual Reality Collaboration Software

Monitor participants, analyse behavior and recommend actions Augment physical settings or show 3-D mock-ups e.g. tools, video conferences, collaborative blogs, wikis Show information or interact with participants Serious games to reflect opinions or enable learning Devices with internet connection and sensors to improve activity Influence participant behavior with visual components Provide social components to increase interaction/activity (Text) messages to remind or influence people e.g. QR codes or RFID tags to enhance activity (Humanoid) robot assistant Collect stationary sensor data, e.g. regarding activity of participants Applications on smartphones, tablets or similar devices Influence participant behavior with audiovisual components Assist users to perform certain tasks, e.g. with recommendations e.g. smartwatches to collect data and provide information Show additional data or provide explanations

A

Display & Stationary Computer Games

T

Internet of Things

T

Lights & Markers

A

T

Online Social Network & Social Software Persuasive Messages & Reminders Physical Tags

T T

Robotics Sensors

T

Smartphone & Mobile Device Speech, Sound & Video

A

T A T

Virtual Agent/Coach & Assistant Wearables

T

Website & Web-based

 14 13 6 37 39 4 15 27 63 4 8 41 64 12 40 11 51

4.4 Findings

65

  ( 11, marked with T ) or technologies that are rather on an application level ( 6, marked with A). This means that a technology at application level definitely requires another technology to be implemented. The most frequently identified technology platform is Smartphone & Mobile Device. This category also includes personal digital assistants (PDA) and handheld devices, which were mentioned in older publications. In recent publications, there are numerous smartphone applications, for example to increase motivation or in the health and fitness sector. Website & Web-based is also mentioned frequently. There is again a wide range of applications, from purely informative character to motivating websites and web-based coaching applications. Other frequently used technology platforms are Sensors and Display & Stationary Computer. The latter are used especially for comparison and dashboards. Other less frequently mentioned technologies also show cross-connections between each other, so that Wearables can partly be used analogously to sensors and smartphones. Internet of Things devices also contain sensor technology. Lights & Markers and Speech, Sound & Video are similar approaches to influence participant behavior without analytics, displays or messages. Robotics, Augmented & Virtual Reality, and Physical Tags are specialized technologies for certain applications. The most frequently identified technology platform at application level are Persuasive Messages & Reminders. These are used in combination with various other technologies, such as smartphones, social networks and websites. In the literature examined, SMS and e-mail are frequently used as a form of communication for persuasive messages and reminders. Widespread in the PT literature are also Virtual Agents/Coaches & Assistants. These are often used on websites and smartphones or in combination with Artificial Intelligence & Analytics. Games are likewise frequently applied, e.g. to enable gamified learning. Online Social Network & Social Software platforms introduce especially the social components of PTs, e.g. regarding interactions and knowledge sharing. Collaboration Software digitizes and virtualizes collaboration, existing implementations also combine it with social comparisons and instant feedback.

4.4.2

Artifact Description: Applications for Persuasive Technologies in Participatory Design

The identified technology platforms and examples from the selected papers were mapped to four dimensions (cf. Figure 4.3). For this purpose, the codes of the identified papers were marked with the dimensions, if matching criteria were present. These are based on the described tools, techniques and methods of Sanders (2013),

66

4

Study 2: Categorizing Persuasive Technology for Participatory Design

Sanders et al. (2010) as well as the results of Chapter 3, Jarvela and Jarvenoja (2011) and Woodman et al. (1993). The results contain application examples for the different PT platforms. Based on the existing examples in other application domains, application scenarios for PT in PD processes were derived. These examples were extended by suitable system features of PT and persuasive principles as described by Oinas-Kukkonen and Harjumaa (2008a, 2009). Each application scenario is mapped to or adapted from one of the existing tools, techniques and methods for PD (cf. Sanders 2013; Sanders et al. 2010) or the challenges and opportunities in creative and collaborative settings (cf. results of Chapter 3 and Jarvela and Jarvenoja (2011), Woodman et al. (1993)). The following subsections and Tables 4.2–4.5 describe the contents of the four dimensions of the navigator. The web-based instantiation of the artifact including additional data is available online3 .

4.4.2.1 Application Scenarios for Making Tangible Things Making is primarily focused on creating something with the hands, e.g. by creating physical artifacts (Sanders 2013). Table 4.2 lists the application scenarios for the making dimension. Augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR) applications can be used to add virtual and interactive mock-ups to physical or digital PD settings to improve prototyping possibilities. Collaboration software extends making activities in the digital world, e.g. by combining it with online expert communities. Displays are applicable in all categories of the underlying framework (cf. Figure 4.3). In making activities, the focus is on displaying the status of the tasks and by serving visual triggers, such as examples of creations and results of previous workshops. Classical prototyping methods can be extended by using internet of things (IoT) technology such as technology-focused prototyping toolkits. Same as displays, persuasive messages and reminders can be present in every category. In making activities these play especially the role of motivators and reminders. Finally, verbal triggers or explanatory videos can help to ensure that tasks are completed better. These items can e.g. explain prototyping methods or show examples of previous PD processes. Possible persuasive design principles (cf. Oinas-Kukkonen & Harjumaa 2009) originate primarily from the dialogue support and social support categories.

4.4.2.2 Application Scenarios for Acting, Enacting and Playing Acting, enacting and playing focuses on using the body to express ideas (Sanders 2013). Table 4.3 gives an overview about the application scenarios. AR can enhance

3 https://navigator.revolutionizing-workshops.de,

Annex C shows screenshots of the website.

Virtual 3-D mock-ups and tutorials Digitize making processes and facilitate knowledge sharing online Status display for goal setting, task structuring and visual triggers

Technology-focused prototyping with prototyping toolkits Supply triggers to motivate and remind participants

Provide verbal triggers or videos explaining or simulating tasks

Augmented & Virtual Reality Collaboration Software

Internet of Things

Speech, Sound & Video

Persuasive Messages & Reminders

Display & Stationary Computer

Application scenario

Technology Platform

e.g. social comparison, competition, recognition e.g. tailoring, cooperation

• Task status display to motivate users (cf. Niebuhr & Kerkow 2007)

e.g. simulation, reminders

e.g. praise, rewards, reminders, suggestion

e.g. simulation, social comparison e.g. reduction, social facilitation, cooperation

• Virtual bike tutorial (cf. Wunsch et al. 2015) • Virtual kitchen (cf. Barral et al. 2014) • Virtual best practice communities (cf. Torning 2008)

• Littlebits (cf. Bdeir 2009) • Prototyping tools that encourage co-creation (cf. Boukhris, Fritzsche, & Möslein 2016) • Push-notifications to reinforce behaviors (cf. Fraser, Yousuf, & Conlan 2019) • Email, text and pop-up messages to remind participants (cf. Daskalova et al. 2014) • Multimedia techniques to simulate risks of climate change (cf. Meijnders, Midden, & McCalley 2006)

Design principles

Existing example(s)

Table 4.2 Overview of PT platforms for making tangible things

4.4 Findings 67

Enhancing acting and enacting by displaying additional information

AI monitors participation and persuades passive people Display the state of different tasks to motivate and influence participation Influence users to participate, reflect opinions, or to enable learning Ambient lighting for influencing participant behavior Social media persuading people to enact Supply triggers to motivate and remind participants

Augmented & Virtual Reality

Artificial Intelligence & Analytics

Online Social Network & Social Software Persuasive Messages & Reminders

Lights & Markers

Games

e.g. tunneling, reminders

e.g. rewards, cooperation, competition

(Continued)

e.g. social learning, normative influence, social facilitation • Push-notifications to reinforce behaviors (cf. Fraser et al., e.g. tunneling, 2019) praise, reminders • Provide targeted interventions (cf. Anagnostopoulou, Bothos, Magoutas, Schrammel, & Mentzas 2018)

• Ambient lighting for energy-efficient behavior (cf. Lu, Ham, & Midden 2014) • Feedback through lighting (cf. Ham & Midden 2010) • Social influence through social networks (cf. Stibe, Oinas-Kukkonen, Berzina, & Pahnila 2011)

e.g. praise, suggestion

• Digitally augment a plate of food by showing information (cf. Ganesh, Marshall, Rogers, & O’Hara 2014) • Simulate experiences in VR (cf. Chittaro & Zangrando 2010) • Argumentation-based recommendation techniques (cf. Heras, Rodrìguez, Palanca, Duque, & Julián 2017) • Empower individuals, facilitate decision making (cf. Chow, Harrell, & Yan 2015) • LED displays for influencing crowds (cf. de Vries, Galetzka, & Gutteling 2014) • Show team performance on a large screen (cf. Krans et al. 2019) • Reflection for healthy eating through gaming (cf. Tikka, Laitinen, Manninen, & Oinas-Kukkonen 2018) • Persuasive learning (cf. Gram-Hansen & Ryberg 2015)

e.g. reduction, tunneling, tailoring, personalization, self-monitoring e.g. tunneling, reminders

Design principles

Existing example(s)

4

Display & Stationary Computer

Application scenario

Technology Platform

Table 4.3 Overview of PT platforms for acting, enacting and playing 68 Study 2: Categorizing Persuasive Technology for Participatory Design

Increase enactment by interacting with RFID chips or location based triggers (Humanoid) robot persuading people to enact Collect data on the activity of participants

Speech or video to encourage activity, e.g. via gestures

Assistant or coach engaging users or giving feedback

Measure activity with wearables and provide instructions

Augment offline playing or interactions with an online component

Physical Tags

Speech, Sound & Video

Virtual Agent/Coach & Assistant

Wearables

Website & Web-based

Sensors

Robotics

Application scenario

Technology Platform

Table 4.3 (Continued)

e.g. praise, suggestion

• QR codes to give additional information (cf. Basten, Ham, Midden, Gamberini, & Spagnolli 2015) • RFID chips controlling duration of activities (cf. Reitberger, Güldenpfennig, & Fitzpatrick 2012) • Social robot monitoring certain actions (cf. Nørskov 2017) • Education game (cf. Henkemans et al. 2017) • Measure motion, activities and other conditions (cf. Van Rompay, De Vries, & Damink 2015) • Detect movements (cf. Chen et al. 2014) • Engage learning activities via audio and video (cf. Revelle, Reardon, Green, Betancourt, & Kotler 2007) • Persuasive videos to encourage physical activity (cf. Clinkenbeard et al. 2014) • Embodied agent giving feedback on energy consumption (cf. Vossen, Ham, & Midden 2009) • 3-D avatar showing exercises (cf. Ahtinen, Lehtiö & Boberg 2019) • Activity tracker to measure movements (cf. Krans et al. 2019) • Wearable displays to motivate users (cf. Burns, Lueg, & Berkovsky 2013) • Online tool for learning and increasing energy awareness (cf. Hedin & Zapico 2017) • Online interactivity to empower users to carry out collective actions (cf. Schumann, Klein, & Douglas 2012) e.g. reminders, trustworthiness, expertise

e.g. self-monitoring, suggestion

e.g. suggestion, social role, expertise

e.g. simulation, reminders

e.g. self-monitoring

e.g. self-monitoring, cooperation

Design principles

Existing example(s)

4.4 Findings 69

70

4

Study 2: Categorizing Persuasive Technology for Participatory Design

enacting by introducing virtual environments that display additional information. Artificial intelligence (AI) and analytics in combination with sensors can collect data about participants, identify passive participants and motivate them individually. Wearables, which combine the previous categories in one technology, have similar characteristics. Displays can again be used to present the current state of tasks and also act as an overview about active and passive people. Games are already mentioned by Sanders et al. (2010) in their framework; existing games can be extended by persuasive strategies as it is already in use e.g. in learning scenarios. Different coloured lights can also influence the behavior of the participants. This can serve to convey feedback on current tasks or to activate or stop participants. Web and social networks can connect online and offline settings to improve collaboration inbetween and serve as a means to influence participants. Persuasive messages mainly propagate triggers to motivate and remind people of desired behaviors. RFID chips as an example for physical tags can be placed at different locations in a room and trigger certain behaviors in these places, e.g. by delivering specific tasks. Robots, virtual agents and assistants are capable of monitoring participants’ behavior to further influence or help passive or distracted participants to facilitate acting, enacting and playing. Especially in the enacting phase, videos can instruct certain movements or gestures that facilitate the processing of the task. Possible persuasive design principles (cf. Oinas-Kukkonen & Harjumaa 2009) originate from the primary task support, dialogue support and social support categories.

4.4.2.3 Application Scenarios for Talking, Telling and Explaining Talking, telling and explaining activities foster the verbal expression of participants (Sanders 2013). Table 4.4 shows the identified application scenarios. AR and VR can play a supporting role by putting participants directly in future scenarios. Collaboration tools, smartphones, social networks and websites can be used to digitize elements of the design process. This includes e.g. blogs, photos and wikis. More elaborate tools can also replace or extend paper spaces, cards and whiteboards. Furthermore, these technologies structure and organize conversations and can reduce barriers and persuade people to share their opinions. Displays can be used to start discussions, e.g. by displaying provoking sentences, photos or videos. Beyond that, audio and video files can describe situations to trigger participants to explain their own experiences. Lights can be used to signal speaking times or, especially in quiet group work, to alert speakers to their volume. Persuasive messages can act as reminders to perform certain actions or guide through conversations to improve the quality of the content. RFID tags or QR codes can again trigger location-based

Facilitate telling by putting participants in virtual or augmented scenarios Virtualize talking, telling and explaining methods, by using e.g. video conferences, collaborative blogs, wikis, etc. Show short text messages or explanatory sentences to start discussions Lights to symbolize volume and speaking time of participants

Augmented & Virtual Reality

Trigger location-based participation

Physical Tags

Persuasive Messages & Reminders

Motivate participants by virtualizing parts of the design process using a persuasive social network Structure and guide through conversations with persuasive messages

Online Social Network & Social Software

Display & Stationary Computer Lights & Markers

Collaboration Software

Application scenario

Technology Platform

e.g. praise, reminders, suggestion e.g. praise, reminders

• Slides with explanatory sentences (cf. Felfernig et al. 2007)

e.g. praise, suggestion (Continued)

e.g. social comparison, social facilitation, cooperation e.g. tunneling, praise, reminders

e.g. tunneling, simulation, rehearsal e.g. social facilitation, cooperation

• Simulated experiences in VR concerning awareness of personal fire safety issues (cf. Chittaro & Zangrando 2010) • Using ICT to approach cross-cultural communication (cf. O’Brien, Alfano, & Magnusson 2007)

• Lighting device giving feedback on touch and via speech (cf. McCalley & Mertens 2007) • Light bulbs to remind of activities (cf. Golsteijn et al. 2008) • Motivate users to generate and share feedback (cf. Stibe & Oinas-Kukkonen 2014b) • Persuasive Q&A social networks (cf. Adaji & Vassileva 2016) • Text messages to reduce electricity consumption (cf. Alharbi & Chatterjee 2015) • Auditory messages for influencing crowds (cf. de Vries et al. 2014) • QR codes on products to simplify purchase and to give additional information (cf. Basten et al. 2015)

Design principles

Existing example(s)

Table 4.4 Overview of PT platforms for talking, telling and explaining

4.4 Findings 71

Website & Web-based

Virtual Agent/Coach & Assistant

Speech, Sound & Video

Smartphone & Mobile Device

e.g. tailoring, social learning

e.g. praise, reminders, suggestion e.g. social role, expertise

e.g. personalization, self-monitoring, praise

e.g. tailoring, self-monitoring

e.g. self-monitoring, social role

Design principles 4

Sensors

• Social robot monitoring and recommending actions (cf. Nørskov 2017) • Robot assistant (cf. Hammer, Lugrin, Bogomolov, Janowski, & André 2016) Simplify e.g. timelines and • Monitor and guide activities and health self-observations condition (cf. Costa et al. 2017) • Track behavior via self-reporting (cf. Chow 2016) Digitizing various talking, • e-coaching system to support organizational telling and explaining activities processes and lifestyle changes (cf. Nooitgedagt, by using smartphone apps Beun, & Dignum 2017) • Collect information from users’ mobile phones (cf. Höök 2008) Audio or video describing • Short videos to start a process of exchange of situations to trigger participants’ life stories (cf. Knipscheer, participants’ own experiences Nieuwesteeg, & Oste 2006) Coach users to participate in • Persuasive conversional agent (cf. Narita & expressing their ideas Kitamura 2010) • Engage a user in a persuasive counseling dialogue (cf. Schulman & Bickmore 2009) Websites to structure and • Website to extend students’ conversations (cf. organize conversations Firpo, Kasemvilas, Ractham, & Zhang 2009)

(Humanoid) robot guiding through processes or assisting e.g. observations

Robotics

Existing example(s)

Application scenario

Technology Platform

Table 4.4 (Continued)

72 Study 2: Categorizing Persuasive Technology for Participatory Design

4.4 Findings

73

participation, when they are placed in a room where participants should perform certain discussions. Robots, smartphone apps and sensors can further support and simplify some of the existing tools, techniques and methods, e.g. documentaries, diaries, self-observations or timelines (cf. Sanders 2013). Virtual assistants can coach users in certain processes to help them expressing their ideas. Possible persuasive design principles (cf. Oinas-Kukkonen & Harjumaa 2009) originate primarily from the dialogue support and social support categories, a few also from primary task support.

4.4.2.4 Application Scenarios to Address General Challenges and Opportunities The fourth dimension (cf. Table 4.5) mainly deals with general challenges, e.g. motivation, work and communication, external constraints (Jarvela & Jarvenoja 2011), especially with detecting and involving passive participants. Furthermore, it also addresses motivational aspects (cf. Woodman et al. 1993) and the results of Chapter 3 with opportunities and potentials for PT (cf. Figure 3.7). AI in combination with sensors can be used to identify passive participants, to track the progress of a workshop and also to suggest following actions. Collaboration tools and social networks can link an offline to an online setting and include remote participants. Displays and stationary computers are able to avoid confusion and to guide concretely through the process and display explanations and reminders, which structures and simplifies the task. Serious games introduce a playful component and can be used to improve knowledge of the participants. Specialized IoT devices can integrate e.g. AI and sensors to monitor conditions and recommend actions. Wearables can as well detect if a participant is passive and smartwatches can e.g. display further instructions based on the sensor data. A virtual agent/coach or assistant can also provide instructions and motivate participants. As in the other categories, lights can be used to influence participants depending on the situation. Persuasive messages can involve passive people and encourage them to participate. Physical tags, like QR codes or RFID tags can increase activity and provide additional explanations and help e.g. in combination with smartphones, websites and social networks. Robots and smartphones can guide though processes, support time management and improve collaboration by supporting decision making and explaining tasks. Speech, sound and videos can be used to explain tasks and to provide examples how to fulfill the current task. Websites can additionally provide background information and explanations. Possible persuasive design principles (cf. Oinas-Kukkonen & Harjumaa 2009) originate from the primary task support, dialogue support and social support categories.

Application scenario

Monitor progress and suggest following actions

Bridge online offline gap and include remote participants

Guide through processes and show adaptive reminders

Serious games for improving knowledge

Integrated devices monitoring conditions and recommending actions

Ambient lighting for influencing participant behavior

Add online components to physical settings by interacting with social media

Involve passive people, provide triggers and reminders

Technology Platform

Artificial Intelligence & Analytics

Collaboration Software

Display & Stationary Computer

Games

Internet of Things

Lights & Markers

Online Social Network & Social Software

Persuasive Messages & Reminders

e.g. self-monitoring, suggestion e.g. social facilitation, cooperation e.g. tunneling, praise, reminders

e.g. simulation, rehearsal e.g. self-monitoring, reminders, suggestion e.g. praise, reminders e.g. social learning, social facilitation, cooperation e.g. tunneling, praise, reminders, suggestion

• Monitor health condition, connect users and recommend activities (cf. Costa et al. 2017) • Provide recommendations to improve quality (cf. Pribik & Felfernig 2012) • Use video conferences, collaborative blogs, wikis, forums and Google Docs (cf. O’Brien et al. 2007) • Adaptive reminders for safe work (cf. Hartwig, Scholl, Budde, & Windel 2015) • Feedback on participation levels during meetings (cf. DiMicco & Bender 2007) • Serious game for acquiring knowledge about personal safety (cf. Chittaro 2012) • Smart case with smartphone app that tracks and analyzes user behavior (cf. Chow 2016)

• Ambient display system to reduce sound levels (cf. Wozniak, Koczorowicz, Fjeld, & Romanowski 2014) • Feedback through lighting (cf. Ham & Midden 2010) • Use social media to interact with participants (cf. de Vries et al. 2014) • Motivate users to generate and share feedback (cf. Stibe & Oinas-Kukkonen 2014b) • Email, text and pop-up messages to remind participants (cf. Daskalova et al. 2014) • Push-notifications to reinforce behaviors (cf. Fraser et al. 2019)

4 (Continued)

Design principles

Existing example(s)

Table 4.5 Overview of PT platforms to address general challenges and opportunities in creative and collaborative settings, e.g. non-routine behavior, personal priorities, communication, teamwork, knowledge, external constraints

74 Study 2: Categorizing Persuasive Technology for Participatory Design

Application scenario

Enhance activity by including QR codes or RFID tags in the design process and e.g. displaying additional information

Robot guides through design process

Track activity data of participants

Improve collaboration by supporting decision making and explaining or recommending actions

Explain tasks or provide examples

Motivate people to change behavior

Measure activity with wearables and provide instructions

Show additional data or background information about certain items

Technology Platform

Physical Tags

Robotics

Sensors

Smartphone & Mobile Device

Speech, Sound & Video

Virtual Agent/Coach & Assistant

Wearables

Website & Web-based

Table 4.5 (Continued) Design principles e.g. praise, suggestion

e.g. tunneling, social role e.g. self-monitoring

e.g. reduction, tailoring, suggestion, trustworthiness e.g. tunneling, simulation, reminders e.g. suggestion, social role, expertise e.g. self-monitoring, suggestion e.g. trustworthiness, expertise

Existing example(s) • QR codes on products to simplify purchase and to provide additional information (cf. Basten et al. 2015)

• Robot assistant (cf. Hammer et al. 2016) • Robot guides through education game (cf. Henkemans et al. 2017) • Feedback on participation levels during meetings (cf. DiMicco & Bender 2007) • Measure motion, activities and other conditions (cf. Van Rompay et al. 2015) • Phone-based recommendation system (cf. Reddy et al. 2018) • Facilitate decision making (cf. Chow et al. 2015)

• Persuasive videos to encourage physical activity (cf. Clinkenbeard et al. 2014) • Engage learning activities via audio and video (cf. Revelle et al. 2007) • Computational agent helps to motivate people (cf. Creed 2006) • Computer agent engaging users (cf. Schulman & Bickmore 2009) • Smartwatch-based system for supporting group cohesion in physical activity (cf. Esakia, McCrickard, Harden, & Horning 2017) • Wearable display to motivate users (cf. Burns et al. 2013) • Online tool for learning and increasing energy awareness (cf. Hedin & Zapico 2017) • Dashboard providing information to motivate behavior changes (cf. Yun et al. 2013)

4.4 Findings 75

76

4.4.3

4

Study 2: Categorizing Persuasive Technology for Participatory Design

Evaluation

In this study, an application navigator was developed. Figure 4.4 gives an overview about the PT Navigator. It summarizes the contents of Tables 4.2–4.5. Beyond that an online implementation was created4 . Evaluation of the artifacts is an essential part of the design cycle in a DSR approach (Hevner 2007; Hevner & Chatterjee 2010). The evaluation ensures the relevance and rigor of the design artifact (Hevner & Chatterjee 2010). The purpose of an evaluation is to identify whether an artifact is useful and rigorous, and making a contribution towards a design theory and the application environment (Venable et al. 2012). Following the framework by Venable et al. (2016) a quick and simple strategy was selected for the evaluation, since the construction of the design is simple and with low technical and social risk. In the following an artificial and a naturalistic evaluation with real users in a real setting was conducted (cf. Venable et al. 2012). The artificial evaluation was conducted ex ante and ex post (Pries-Heje, Baskerville, & Venable 2008; Sonnenberg & vom Brocke 2012a). The naturalistic evaluation was conducted after the artifact was constructed (Pries-Heje et al. 2008) and instantiated (cf. Sonnenberg & vom Brocke 2012b). A combination of both evaluation methods contributes to a robust evaluation (Venable 2006; Venable et al. 2012). To demonstrate the usefulness of an artifact, it must be evaluated in regard to its validity, utility and efficacy (Gregor & Hevner 2013). Figure 4.5 gives an overview about the evaluation process of the described artifact. The stages of the evaluation are described in the following paragraphs. In an artificial ex ante evaluation, the identified technology platforms were assigned to the four dimensions of the navigator including suitable examples from the literature set. In order to evaluate the theoretical efficacy in the individual dimensions, a criteria-based analysis was conducted (Sonnenberg & vom Brocke 2012a). For each PT platform, the goal was to show the application in at least one of the four dimensions. Based on the selected examples, application scenarios in the respective dimensions were developed. These were evaluated with respect to their relation to the tools, techniques and methods in the activities of the underlying framework (Sanders 2013; Sanders et al. 2010), the challenge categories and motivation regulation strategies as described by Jarvela and Jarvenoja (2011) or the challenges and potentials for PT in creative processes within design workshops (cf. Chapter 3). The described application scenarios show theoretical efficacy in PD processes.

4 https://navigator.revolutionizing-workshops.de,

Annex C shows screenshots of the website.

4.4 Findings

77 Making tangible things M1 - Augmented & Virtual Reality Virtual 3-D mock-ups and tutorials M2 - Collaboration Software Digitize making processes and facilitate knowledge sharing online M3 - Display & Stationary Computer Status display for goal setting, task structuring and visual triggers M4 - Internet of Things Technology-focused prototyping with prototyping toolkits M5 - Persuasive Messages & Reminders Supply triggers to motivate and remind participants M6 - Speech, Sound & Video Provide verbal triggers or videos explaining or simulating tasks

Acting, enacting and playing

Talking, telling and explaining

E1 - Augmented & Virtual Reality Enhancing acting and enacting by

T1 - Augmented & Virtual Reality Facilitate telling by putting

displaying additional information

participants in virtual or augmented scenarios AI monitors participation and

T2 - Collaboration Software Virtualize talking, telling and explaining

persuades passive people

methods, by using e.g. video conferences, collaborative blogs, wikis, etc.

E3 - Display & Stationary Computer Display the state of different tasks

T3 - Display & Stationary Computer Show short text messages or explanatory sentences to start discussions

E4 - Games

T4 - Lights & Markers Lights to symbolize volume and speaking time of

learning

participants

E5 - Lights & Markers

T5 - Online Social Network & Social Software Motivate participants

behavior

by virtualizing parts of the design process using a persuasive social network

E6 - Online Social Network & Social Software Social media

T6 - Persuasive Messages & Reminders Structure and guide through

persuading people to enact

conversations with persuasive messages

E7 - Persuasive Messages & Reminders Supply triggers to motivate

T7 - Physical Tags Trigger location-based participation

and remind participants

T8 - Robotics (Humanoid) robot guiding through processes or assisting

E8 - Physical Tags Increase enactment by interacting with RFID chips or

e.g. observations

location based triggers

T9 - Sensors Simplify e.g. timelines and self observations

E9 - Robotics (Humanoid) robot persuading people to enact

T10 - Smartphone & Mobile Device Digitizing various talking, telling

E10 - Sensors Collect data on the activity of participants

and explaining activities by using smartphone apps

E11 - Speech, Sound & Video Speech or video to encourage activity, e.g.

T11 - Speech, Sound & Video Audio or video describing situations to

via gestures E12 - Virtual Agent/Coach & Assistant Assistant or coach engaging

T12 - Virtual Agent/Coach & Assistant Coach users to participate in

users or giving feedback

expressing their ideas

E13 - Wearables Measure activity with wearables and provide instructions

T13 - Website & Web-based Websites to structure and organize

E14 - Website & Web-based

conversations

with an online component General Challenges Monitor progress and suggest

G8 - Persuasive Messages & Reminders Involve passive people, provide

following actions

triggers and reminders

G2 - Collaboration Software

G9 - Physical Tags Enhance activity by including QR codes or RFID tags

participants

in the design process and e.g. displaying additional information

G3 - Display & Stationary Computer Guide through processes and show G10 - Robotics Robot guides through design process adaptive reminders

G11 - Sensors Track activity data of participants

G4 - Games Serious games for improving knowledge

G12 - Smartphone & Mobile Device Improve collaboration by

G5 - Internet of Things Integrated devices monitoring conditions and

supporting decision making and explaining or recommending actions

recommending actions

G13 - Speech, Sound & Video Explain tasks or provide examples

G6 - Lights & Markers

G14 - Virtual Agent/Coach & Assistant Motivate people to change

behavior

behavior

G7 - Online Social Network & Social Software Add online components G15 - Wearables Measure activity with wearables and provide instructions to physical settings by interacting with social media

G16 - Website & Web-based Show additional data or background information about certain items

Figure 4.4 Overview of the resulting PT Navigator

78

4

Study 2: Categorizing Persuasive Technology for Participatory Design

Chapter 4 Literature Review

Eval 1

Chapter 4 Structure of the Artifact Talking, telling and explaining A framework for organizing the tools and techniques of participatory design (a) Making tangible things

Challenges and opportunities in creative and collaborative settings (b)

Acting, enacting and playing

General challenges, e.g. non-routine behavior, personal priorities, communication, teamwork, knowledge, external constraints

Eval 2 Problem-centered interviews

ex ante - artificial

GOAL: Show the applicability for each technology platform in at least one dimension

Criteria-based analysis

Discussions

Initial Artifact Persuasive technology platforms mapped to four categories

GOAL: Validate the content and structure and show the applicability in the eightstep design process Problem-centered interviews Functionality, completeness, consistency, accuracy, and usability

Theoretical efficacy

Eval 3

Artifact PT Navigator

ex post - naturalistic

Online implementation of the evaluated artifact, including 49 application scenarios

GOAL: Show the applicability and usefulness of the online implementation

Evaluated Instantiation of the Artifact PT Navigator

ex post - artificial

Project meetings and feedback from the developers

Experiences from the application of the PT Navigator

Theoretical efficacy

Figure 4.5 Evaluation process of the PT Navigator following Sonnenberg and vom Brocke (2012b)

Afterwards, an ex post evaluation was performed. The evaluation was carried out regarding the functionality, completeness, consistency, accuracy, and usability of the artifact (Hevner et al. 2004). Four problem-centered interviews (Witzel & Reiter 2012) were conducted with researchers and professionals from different institutions working on PD or PT (cf. Table 4.6).

Table 4.6 Overview of interviewees ID

Description

Field

PI#1

Moderator of technology-based workshops Moderator of design workshops Technology and design expert Software developer

PD (Research/Practice)

PI#2 PI#3 PI#4

PD and PT (Research/Practice) PD (Research) PT (Practice)

4.4 Findings

79

The interview guideline followed steps 4–6 of Fogg’s eight-step design process (Fogg 2009b). The questions in each step were designed in order to evaluate the plausibility and applicability of the navigator, including the four dimensions, the technology platforms and the examples. The interviewees were provided with the online implementation of the navigator and the tables presented in this study. In sum, the interviews lasted approximately five hours and were documented in audio recording or writing and were afterwards systematically reviewed, structured and categorized. Furthermore, the contents and structure of the artifact was discussed at two scientific conferences with PT and design researchers. The overall feedback of the interviewees and the discussions underline the applicability of the navigator. In order to facilitate the selection of possible technology platforms, the clear presentation and usability were pointed out (PI#1, PI#3 and PI#4). PI#1 remarked that a subdivision into further dimensions could be helpful, such as, if the technology is addressing a single person or a group of participants or whether it can be used more in a goal- or process-oriented way. Regarding the identification of technology platforms to address the activities or challenges, all interviewees noted that they are familiar with the dimensions from their own experience and that the separation therefore seems reasonable. Beyond that, it was stated that there are overlaps and correlations between the dimensions, which could be clarified in the future (PI#1 and PI#2). PI#1 remarked that especially the use of smartphones could have a counter-productive effect on participants, as they might be distracted by e.g. push messages. For the third step, the identification and imitation of successful examples, the presentation and selection of the examples were regarded as comprehensible and helpful. For the future, PI#1, PI#3 and PI#4 noted that concrete implementation scenarios with more detailed and tested examples would further improve applicability. In addition, the focus on persuasive design principles could be increased (PI#2). One interviewee remarked that some of the technologies are not yet mature enough to be applied in real design processes, e.g. humanoid robots or AI, as required for virtual assistants (PI#1, PI#2 and PI#4). The online implementation of the navigator was initially perceived as overloaded in some places (PI#2 and PI#4), as a consequence of which the explanatory texts, the overall presentation and the relation to the eight-step design process were improved. Tables 4.2–4.5 and Figure 4.4 show the results after the ex ante and ex post evaluation. Afterwards a third evaluation round was undertaken. Evaluation in a real environment is an essential part of a DSR process (Sonnenberg & vom Brocke 2012a; Venable et al. 2012). Therefore, the online implementation of the artifact was

80

4

Study 2: Categorizing Persuasive Technology for Participatory Design

evaluated with developers who were developing a PT for PD. The third evaluation was conducted to assess the usefulness of the artifact, including validity, utility and efficacy as well as applicability and effectiveness (Gregor & Hevner 2013; Sonnenberg & vom Brocke 2012b). Five developers have used the PT Navigator artifact to develop prototypical PTs for design workshops. The developers have chosen at least one technology with an application scenario before starting to work. They were also asked to follow the eight-step design process (cf. Fogg 2009b) during the development. On average, three to four meetings were held with each developer during the development phase. Application scenarios from the categories enacting, telling and general were implemented. From a technological point of view, Display & Stationary Computer (general), Persuasive Messages & Reminders (enacting, general), Robotics (enacting, general), Physical Tags (enacting, telling, general), Smartphone & Mobile Device (enacting, telling, general) and Website & Web-based (general) were used. The developers used the application scenarios and examples to implement the technologies. Feedback was received during the meetings. Based on this, persuasive design principles have been added (cf. Oinas-Kukkonen 2013) to provide concrete principles that developers can use for guidance. In addition, the usability and utility of the artifact based on the feedback was improved. In the course of its application it has been shown that the PT Navigator is basically applicable as a selection tool for technologies and application scenarios. The same applies to the applicability in steps 4–6 of the eight-step design process (cf. Fogg 2009b). To create PTs for PD, a mere selection tool is not sufficient. It has been revealed that there is a need for a tool that takes a more holistic view of the development process and includes the persuasion context. The integration of the persuasive design principles has already made this partially possible. In the current version of PT Navigator, the review of possible technology platforms, the finding of technology platforms to address activities or challenges, as well as identify and imitate successful examples, has been implemented.

4.5

Discussion

This section discusses the results of the previous DSR study. First, the contribution of the literature review, the artifact to the knowledge base and the relation to existing research is described. Subsequently, the practical applicability and usage is discussed.

4.5 Discussion

4.5.1

81

Theoretical Contributions

The objective of this study was to provide an overview about types of PT platforms, to collect existing examples and to derive application scenarios for PT in PD. In this context, the application of PTs has been scarcely explored. Torning and Oinas-Kukkonen (2009) already identified knowledge work and collaboration as a challenging field. This study therefore contributes directly to this still little researched field of application for PT. There are already similar overviews from other fields of application, but these are either very specialized in one domain (e.g. Orji & Moffatt 2018) or focus little on the technologies themselves (e.g. Hamari, Koivisto, & Pakkanen 2014). By reviewing the proceedings of the PERSUASIVE conferences since 2006, 17 categories for PT platforms could be differentiated, which can be used as channels for the intervention (Fogg 2009b). The results of this study therefore contribute to the research on PT. On the one hand, it could be shown that the technology platforms that were used in previous studies are also reflected in current publications. On the other hand, a comprehensive overview of existing technologies was provided, including more specialized categories. So all the technologies of Fogg (2003) and technology contexts of Torning and Oinas-Kukkonen (2009) can be found in the 17 technology platforms. More recent studies also address technology platforms in PT research. For instance, Orji and Moffatt (2018) identified similar platforms and categorized PTs in seven different (six plus one category for others) platforms: mobile and handheld devices; game; web and social network; desktop; sensors and wearable devices; ambient and public display; and other specialized devices. As in this study, other authors list both core technologies and applications under the label PT. For example mobile phones (Fogg 2003), mobile and handheld devices, wearable devices and public display (Orji & Moffatt 2018) on a technological level; or web sites, desktop software (Fogg 2003), games, desktop applications and text messaging (Orji & Moffatt 2018) on an application level. Based on this previous research, the classification in this study was carried out in Table 4.1. Most of the frequently used technology platforms in this study are similar to the ones by Orji and Moffatt (2018). From the point of view of this study, it makes sense to list the application level technologies as independent technology platforms. Especially the persuasive messages, which can be found in all four categories, are frequently mentioned. Although of course they need a medium to be transmitted, e.g. a display or a smartphone, but a display itself can also act as a PT without using persuasive messages. Virtual agents and AI are as well frequently used PTs and can definitely add value in PD settings. Games and social networks are also widely employed. From a core technology point of view, smartphones and mobile devices

82

4

Study 2: Categorizing Persuasive Technology for Participatory Design

are the most frequently used technology platform. AR and VR are often used in the PT community to simulate (future) situations, which can also be useful in design workshops. The underlying data also show that technologies are often implemented in a web-based manner. In addition, displays and stationary computers are frequently used, as well as sensor technology. According to Fogg (2009b) it is a challenge to choose the right technology that is suitable for the target behavior. So far, however, there are no concrete approaches as to how this should be achieved in practice. For this purpose the PT Navigator contains descriptions, examples and persuasive principles for the respective technology platforms. The structure of the artifact is therefore also oriented on steps 4–6 of the eight-step design process (cf. Fogg 2009b). This study also contributes to complementing the process by providing support with concrete procedures. The use of the PT Navigator is currently limited to PD, but a generalization and broader use of the underlying data is imaginable in the future. The second part of the findings is embodied in the navigator artifact, which puts the findings from literature into a common context of practical application. Such a compilation has not yet been implemented in the community. PD is not much underpinned by technology so far, especially in workshop settings, so it offers an added value in this context. As the problem-centered interviews and the practical usage of the PT Navigator with five developers have confirmed, the navigator supports the steps find relevant examples of persuasive technology and imitate successful examples of Fogg’s eight-step design process (2009b). This simplifies the implementation of PT in PD. For three of the four dimensions, an accepted framework for practicing PD (Sanders 2013) was used. Most of the identified examples are fitted directly to one of the existing elements of this framework. Users can continue to select elements for their workshops or other processes as usual and replace or enhance them by one of the identified PTs. As in the original framework, less examples could be found for the category making tangible things. This might be caused by its focus on creating physical objects. Thus, mostly technologies that are suitable for reminding participants of behavior, explaining the procedure or tracking the progress of the task can be found in this category. Tools, techniques and methods of PD mostly consist of non-technical items (Sanders 2013; Sanders et al. 2010). Some studies also include e.g. audio or video files and low-tech prototyping (Muller 2007). The PT Navigator also contributes to PD research by offering application scenarios that can be directly integrated into existing PD processes. All examples are oriented towards current PD practices, as described e.g. by Muller (2007), Sanders (2013), Sanders et al. (2010). The fourth dimension of the artifact also offers clear added value as it addresses common problems from collaborative design processes (cf. Jarvela & Jarvenoja

4.5 Discussion

83

2011). PTs can be used to detect disruptions or guide through processes, and to provide support for the participants. Thus, the quality of the things to be designed can be increased. All success factors for engagement mentioned in Section 4.2.3 can be addressed by the PT Navigator, especially the motivation regulation strategies as described by Jarvela and Jarvenoja (2011): task structuring (e.g. Robotics, Virtual Agent/Coach & Assistant, Display & Stationary Computer), social reinforcing (e.g. Online Social Network & Social Software, Physical Tags, Smartphone & Mobile Device), efficacy management (e.g. Sensors, Wearables, Persuasive Messages & Reminders, Artificial Intelligence & Analytics), interest enhancement (e.g. Games, Augmented & Virtual Reality, Website & Web-based), socially shared goal-oriented talk (cf. Table 4.4) and handicapping of group function (cf. Tables 4.4 and 4.5). Furthermore, one major element in PT behavior research is motivation (Fogg 2009a). PTs are therefore suitable for improving the motivation of participants. The results of this study also provide new insights for the creativity-relevant foundations of the key concepts of this dissertation (cf. Figure 3.2). Motivation also plays a central role in creative processes (Amabile 1983; Woodman et al. 1993), which can also be found in PD (Sanders & Stappers 2008). Based on behavior models of PT, the study therefore provides new insights for increasing ability and motivation in creative processes. Motivation relevant scenarios are e.g. E3, E7, G14, M5, or T5 (cf. Figure 4.4). The results of this study reveal application scenarios for addressing cognitive abilities and knowledge, including domain- and creativity-relevant skills which are crucial in creative processes (Amabile 1983; Woodman et al. 1993). The application of the scenarios G3, G4, G12, G13, M1, or T12 (cf. Figure 4.4) can therefore provide new insights to increase cognitive abilities and knowledge. In addition, new findings regarding task and time constraints (Woodman et al. 1993) can also be generated, for example E10, G3, G8, G12, M3, T4, or T8 (cf. Figure 4.4). Thus, the PT Navigator facilitates the implementation of PT in creative processes. The following section refers to these practical contributions, before in the following Section 4.6 the concrete contribution of this study to the progress of this dissertation is provided.

4.5.2

Practical Contributions

The results of the study also have contributions for practitioners and managers. Creative processes and PD thrive on the participants and moderators. From a managerial perspective, workshops offer a good format for incorporating the opinions of customers and employees into design processes. The participants do not always show high intrinsic motivation, ability and knowledge. Also, the composition of

84

4

Study 2: Categorizing Persuasive Technology for Participatory Design

groups is not always ideal. These points are all potentials where PT can come into action, can have a supporting effect and can have a positive influence. To date, this field of research and application has received little attention. However, the use of current technologies can support existing workshops and make them more attractive. The results of this study thus also open up new possibilities for practitioners, such as decision-makers or workshop moderators, to design their creative processes and workshops. First, a comprehensive overview of 17 current PTs is provided. This enables the selection of a technology channel that fits the target group. Especially relevant for practitioners is the PT Navigator, which offers a variety of application scenarios that can serve as inspiration and help to directly implement them. This navigator should support workshop moderators and supervisors in the conception of creative, PD or collaborative innovation processes and show them possibilities how to enhance their workshops with PT. Following the eight-step design process (cf. Fogg 2009b), imitating an existing technology is a convenient way to develop a new PT. Precisely this step is supported by the PT Navigator with its four categories. Depending on the focus of the planned workshop, either an existing PD activity can be supported and/or identified problems in participant behavior can be addressed. The generic application scenarios are mainly used for guidance and inspiration, which shall be defined in following steps of the technology design process.

4.6

Conclusion and Implications

This chapter examined which different forms of PTs exist and how they can be categorized. Furthermore, application scenarios in PD for the identified technology platforms were developed. For this purpose, a literature review and a DSR approach were conducted. The results were assembled and categorized in an artifact—the PT Navigator. A total of 449 examples of PT were identified in the literature review. These were grouped into 17 technology platforms. Based on the examples, 49 application scenarios with overall 84 examples were derived. These scenarios were divided into four categories: making, telling, enacting and general. The resulting PT Navigator is designed for use in the eight-step design process of Fogg (2009b). The artifact was evaluated in three rounds. First artificial, then also in a real environment with developers of PTs. The results therefore contribute in particular to the knowledge base in the field of PT for PD, especially by providing meta-artifacts and a framework. Together with the results from Chapter 3, which mainly contributed to the environment and understanding of the application domain, the results from this chapter form a good basis for the design and evaluation of concrete artifacts to support participants in workshops.

4.6 Conclusion and Implications

85

The limitations of this study are mainly its quite conceptual nature and will have to be underpinned by concrete implementations in the future. In addition, the evaluation rounds revealed that the PT Navigator on its own can serve as a selection tool for finding existing technologies and, if necessary, suitable examples for imitation. However, the artifact leaves the context of the application unclear and provides limited guidance in this direction. Future work should therefore focus on the persuasion context and the concrete planned application. Chapter 5 of this dissertation takes up this issue and presents methods for designing PT and derives a reference model for creating PT for PD. The following sections describe the implications for the further progress of this dissertation by linking the results of this study to the results of Chapter 3. As a result of the previous study, potentials for PTs in creative processes within design workshops were identified. These can be divided into three subject areas: individual level, group level and general creative process level. The PT platforms and application scenarios can be assigned to the individual points identified for these subject areas.

Table 4.7 Integration of the results provided by the PT Navigator (cf. numbers in brackets with Figure 4.4) with application potentials for PT on individual level (cf. Figure 3.7) Individual level

Potentials and exemplary technology platforms and scenarios

Ability

• Make non-routine behavior more simple and reduce physical effort and brain cycles → Smartphone & Mobile Device (G12); Virtual Agent/Coach & Assistant (T12) • Structure and simplify the process → Robotics (G10); Wearables (E13) • Sparks or facilitators as triggers → Lights & Markers (G6); Persuasive Messages & Reminders (M5) • Present examples of what results might look like → Display & Stationary Computer (G3); Speech, Sound & Video (G13) • Increase knowledge about the tools used in the workshop → Augmented & Virtual Reality (M1); Games (G4) • Provide facilitating triggers, including examples, support and explanations → Persuasive Messages & Reminders (G8); Physical Tags (T7) • Introduce a playful component or modern technologies → Games (E4); Internet of Things (M4) • Track the progress of a workshop and show previous sub-results → Artificial Intelligence & Analytics (G1); Sensors (E10) • Increase thematic interest → Physical Tags (G9); Website & Web-based (G16)

Knowledge

Motivation

86

4

Study 2: Categorizing Persuasive Technology for Participatory Design

Table 4.7 refers to the potentials for the individual level from Figure 3.7. PT platforms with suitable application scenarios from the results of this study are listed for ability, knowledge and motivation with their respective sub-items. Table 4.8 refers to the potentials for the group level from Figure 3.7. PT platforms with suitable application scenarios from the results of this study are listed for composition, task and teamwork with their respective sub-items. No application scenario was assigned to the sub-item composition of the group as a success factor, since this point is rather a conclusion than a potential. Table 4.8 Integration of the results provided by the PT Navigator (cf. numbers in brackets with Figure 4.4) with application potentials for PT on group level (cf. Figure 3.7) Group level

Potentials and exemplary technology platforms and scenarios

Composition

• Composition of the group as a success factor → n/a • Conduct self-tests before dividing into groups → Display & Stationary Computer (G3); Smartphone & Mobile Device (T10) • Support the task by improving knowledge and ability → Collaboration Software (M2); Smartphone & Mobile Device (G12) • Better structuring or design of the task → Virtual Agent/Coach & Assistant (E12); Website & Web-based (T13) • Capture the behavior of the group, e.g. discussions or passive participants, intervene through triggers → Persuasive Messages & Reminders (G8); Sensors (G11) • Increase involvement by supporting thematic interest → Physical Tags (E8); Website & Web-based (E14) • Introduce playful components to activate passive participants → Games (E4); Online Social Network & Social Software (E6)

Task

Teamwork

Table 4.9 Integration of the results provided by the PT Navigator (cf. numbers in brackets with Figure 4.4) with application potentials for PT on a general process level (cf. Figure 3.7) General

Potentials and exemplary technology platforms and scenarios

Time management

• Support a clear time management → Display & Stationary Computer (M3); Robotics (T8) • Track speech times of participants → Lights & Markers (T4); Sensors (E10) • Simplification of the task and division into subtasks → Display & Stationary Computer (G3), Smartphone & Mobile Device (G12) • Guide through the task (tunneling) → Persuasive Messages & Reminders (G8); Virtual Agent/Coach & Assistant (G14) • Technology-supported documentation of the results → Smartphone & Mobile Device (T10) • Influence on the outcome of a creative process during the process and in the follow-up → Collaboration Software (G2)

Task structuring

Documentation

4.6 Conclusion and Implications

87

Table 4.9 refers to the potentials for the general process level from Figure 3.7. PT platforms with suitable application scenarios from the results of this study are listed for time management, task structuring and documentation with their respective sub-items. Also Chapter 4 provides new insights for Ronja Researcher and Fred Facilitator (cf. Figure 4.6). The integrated results of the Chapters 3 and 4 form the basis for the design of concrete artifacts for use in creative processes in workshops, such as in PD. Chapter 6 will include these results and describe the design and evaluation of prototypes based on them. The results also contribute to the derivation of design principles in Section 7.3. Limitations of this study and further research potentials are described in Section 7.4.

Ronja

Fred

Ronja is happy about the comprehen-

The online implementation of the PT

sive overview of existing PT platforms.

Navigator supports practitioners like

In addition, she is now more aware of

Fred. Thus, the scientific results are pre-

how PT can be combined with PD. The

pared in an easily accessible way. Espe-

focus of the examples on concrete be-

cially the examples help him to better

havioral patterns of users, which can

understand the application scenarios.

also be found in creativity research,

It is now clear to him how a PT can be

helps her with the scientific grounding.

applied in his workshops and how it

Due to the applicability of the PT Nav-

can influence the behavior of the par-

igator with the eight-step design pro-

ticipants. The concrete relationship to

cess, she also sees potential for practi-

PD and the previously identified chal-

cal application. However, it still lacks

lenges also support the applicability of

an approach to how the workshop can

the results for him. However, he still

be analyzed in order to design the tech-

has problems adapting the generic ap-

nology appropriately based on the ap-

plication scenarios to a concrete use

plication scenarios.

case.

Figure 4.6 Insights from Chapter 4 for Ronja and Fred

Study 3: Modelling and Creating Persuasive Technology for Participatory Design

5.1

Objectives and Structure

The previous chapter presented application scenarios for persuasive technology (PT) in different modes of participatory design (PD). These scenarios are as generic as possible and thus neglect the concrete application context. This chapter will therefore examine existing methods for creating PT and how they can be used and conceptualized for PD. The persuasion context and the concrete use case are also put into focus. Previous research focused extensively on integrating users in innovation, product or service development processes (e.g. Piller et al. 2010; Piller & Walcher 2006) or on innovation communities, toolkits and platforms (e.g. Antikainen & Vaataja 2010; Reichwald & Piller 2009). Technology is part of these existing studies, but often online in the manner of the mentioned platforms or toolkits and not as a part of a workshop. Furthermore, these studies do not consider how technologies can be designed for and integrated into these creative and collaborative processes. Previous research has created concepts, strategies and frameworks of motivational factors for collaboration. Also, the focus there is mainly on open innovation communities and less on the use of technology in workshops (e.g. Antikainen et al. 2010; West & Bogers 2014). As already described, the application of PT in PD processes offers new opportunities to increase the motivation and ability of the participants by achieving compChapter 5 of this dissertation builds upon and extends a conference contribution presented and discussed at the 29th CIRP Design Conference 2019 in Póvoa de Varzim, Portugal. This earlier version is published as Jalowski, Fritzsche, and Möslein (2019b). Reprinted from Procedia CIRP, Vol 84, Jalowski, M., Fritzsche, A., Möslein, K.M., Facilitating collaborative design: a toolkit for integrating persuasive technologies in design activities, 61–67, Copyright 2019, with permission from Elsevier. © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2021 M. Jalowski, Revolutionizing Workshops, Markt- und Unternehmensentwicklung Markets and Organisations, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-33312-6_5

89

5

90

Study 3: Modelling and Creating Persuasive Technology for Participatory Design

lying or behavior changes (cf. Chapter 3). So far, however, not much effort has been undertaken in this direction. During the last years, only a few authors researched the influence of technologies on motivation and design. Brereton and Buur (2008) analyzed how ubiquitous computing influences and changes PD. Other authors deduced important factors for virtual collaborative environments including social media technology (de Vreede et al. 2013). Schuh, Riesener, Mattern, Linnartz, and Basse (2018) created a method to measure collaboration productivity, but without considering the motivation of the participants. Another approach derives a model to describe knowledge sharing between producer and user, combining different collaborative concepts, but leaving the technology perspective aside (Wellsandt & Thoben 2016). Stibe and Oinas-Kukkonen (2014a) chose a socio-psychological perspective to research user engagement in collaborative interaction during public events. The proposed system can be beneficial in co-creative processes, since social influence principles are applied to facilitate user engagement to share feedback (Stibe & Oinas-Kukkonen 2014a, 2014b). A contribution from a more engineering-oriented perspective was provided by Boukhris, Fritzsche, and Möslein (2017), who present a method to integrate users in early stages of product-service systems development. None of the above-mentioned studies developed a structured concept or method how to create or integrate (persuasive) technology into PD. In order to fill the gap, the goal of this study is to propose a structured approach to facilitate the integration of PT in PD settings. The research question of this study is therefore: RQ3: How can the creation of persuasive technologies for participatory design be modelled and thus support the design of such technologies? The objective of this chapter is to collect and connect different approaches to create PT for PD. A reference model and toolkit should support the answering of critical questions and provide inspiration and support for the implementation of a certain PT for PD. This chapter therefore contributes to the knowledge base by aggregating existing design methods and frameworks (cf. Figure 1.2). Chapter 5 of this dissertation is structured as follows (cf. Figure 5.1): Section 5.2 presents further theoretical background for this chapter, especially focusing on toolkits and canvases for designing technology, reference modelling as well as approaches for creating PTs. Subsequently in Section 5.3 the different approaches are combined, starting with the theoretical-conceptual research approach, followed by the resulting reference model. Afterwards, the toolkit for integrating PTs in design processes and an exemplary application of the reference model is presented. Section 5.4 discusses the results and derives theoretical and practical contributions. This chapter closes with Section 5.5, which concludes the results and summarizes the implications of Chapter 5 for this dissertation.

5.2 Theoretical Background 0001 0001 Chapter Part I

1

Introduction: Motivation and Research Setting

0010 0010 Chapter Part II

0011 0011 Chapter Part III 3

2

Foundations: Conceptual Background

Study 1: Supporting Participants in Creative Processes with Persuasive T Technology

91 0100 0100 Chapter Part IV 4

Study 2: Categorizing Persuasive Technology for T Participatory Design

0101 0101 Chapter Part V

5 Study 3: Modelling and Creating Persuasive Technology for Participatory Design

0110 0110 Chapter Part VI 6

Study 4: Implementing Persuasive Technology in T Participatory Design

0111 0111 Chapter Part VII7

Summarizing Findings and Implications

Objectives and Structure

Motivation

Research Question

Structure

Theoretical Background

Toolkits and Canvases for Designing Technology

Reference Modelling

Approaches for Creating Persuasive Technology

Combining the Approaches

Reference Model for Creating Persuasive Technology for PD

Toolkit for Integrating Persuasive Technology in Design Processes

Application of the Reference Model

Discussion

Theoretical Contributions

Practical Contributions

Conclusion and Implications

Conclusion

Implications for this Dissertation

Figure 5.1 Structure of Chapter 5

5.2

Theoretical Background

Having described objectives and structure of this chapter in the previous section, this section presents further theoretical background. Chapter 2 has already laid out basic foundations for the whole dissertation. This section therefore provides supplementary theoretical background required for this chapter. It starts with toolkits in general and canvases for designing technology, followed by foundations on reference modelling. The section closes with describing existing approaches for creating PTs.

92

Study 3: Modelling and Creating Persuasive Technology for Participatory Design

5.2.1

Toolkits and Canvases for Designing Technology

Toolkits are widely used in research and application for user innovation (von Hippel 2001; von Hippel & Katz 2002). These enable companies to easily involve users in the development of products or services (Franke & Schreier 2002; Piller & Walcher 2006). Toolkits can also be used to simplify and support the design of products and thus also technologies (Franke & Piller 2004; von Hippel & Katz 2002). Canvases can play a similar role, although they are designed less for configuration than for the development of concepts. A widespread canvas is the Business Model Canvas, which serves to “draw” new or existing business models. This canvas should promote understanding, discussion, creativity and analysis of business models (Osterwalder & Pigneur 2010). A canvas is therefore also a creative tool that promotes cooperation and collaboration (Eppler, Hoffmann, & Bresciani 2011; Joyce & Paquin 2016). Such a canvas thus also represents a boundary object (Eppler et al. 2011; Hakanen & Murtonen 2015; Joyce & Paquin 2016). Star and Griesemer (1989) define a boundary object as a plastic object that might be interpreted differently by different groups. It can be used to describe information that is used by different communities; and they support to organize interactions between social worlds (Star 2010; Star & Griesemer 1989). Categories of boundary objects are e.g. repositories, standardized forms and methods and objects, models, and maps (Carlile 2002). An example for an existing canvas for designing technological systems is the PT design canvas by Harjumaa and Muuraiskangas (2014) in combination with the persuasive systems design model. This canvas should be applied in a co-creative session, where it should be placed on a large wall, so that the participants can discuss and develop a common understanding of the system to be developed. It consists of three blocks: analysis of the intention, design of the content, and design of the functionalities (Harjumaa & Muuraiskangas 2014).

5.2.2

Reference Modelling

A toolkit or canvas is a practice-oriented representation for the design of a technology. In order to illustrate relationships between components and a more abstract representation, it is possible to use reference models. Reference modelling has a longer tradition and different viewpoints and understandings. A technical example is the OSI reference model with its layered architecture for network communication (cf. Zimmermann 1980). In German information systems research, reference models are also understood as representations of business processes (Fettke & Loos 2004a; Vom

5.2 Theoretical Background

93

Brocke & Buddendick 2004), such as the ARIS model (cf. Scheer 1999). Reference models allow the reusage of the model, thus the creation of new models (Fettke & Loos 2004a; Vom Brocke & Buddendick 2004). Deductive reference models are constructed based on scientific theories and models (Fettke & Loos 2004a, 2004b). In general, they also serve the representation of dimensions, relationships and connections (Chatti, Dyckhoff, Schroeder, & Thüs 2012; MacKenzie, Laskey, McCabe, Brown, & Metz 2006; Vom Brocke & Buddendick 2004). MacKenzie et al. (2006) state that a “reference model consists of a minimal set of unifying concepts, axioms and relationships within a particular problem domain, and is independent of specific standards, technologies, implementations, or other concrete details” (p. 4). In this chapter the combination of different concepts, theoretical models and processes from existing scientific research is of particular relevance to derive a model for the creation and integration of PT in PD.

5.2.3

Designing Persuasive Technology

In the literature, various approaches to the design and implementation of PT exist. Harjumaa and Muuraiskangas (2014) give an overview of existing approaches. They list classic software development processes such as waterfall and agile software development methods. For a persuasive system, behavior theories should be included as well (Harjumaa & Muuraiskangas 2014). Therefore, a relation to the Fogg behavior model (cf. Fogg 2009a, and Table 2.3) often is made. Other authors also use established methods like design science research (DSR) (e.g. Oyibo 2016), PD (e.g. Davis 2010, 2012) or practice oriented design methods (e.g. Barnes Hofmeister & Stibe 2017) to develop PTs. However, two more specialized approaches have emerged in PT research. For the following sections, first the eight-step design process (Fogg 2009b) and then persuasive system design (Oinas-Kukkonen & Harjumaa 2008a, 2009; Torning & Oinas-Kukkonen 2009) and in this context also behavior change support systems (BCSS) (Oinas-Kukkonen 2010, 2013) are relevant (cf. Sections 5.3.1.1 and 5.3.1.2). In both approaches, the application or persuasion context is a central element, which is further defined in the following paragraphs. The application or persuasion context defines the context of the planned target or outcome for the PT. Fogg (2009a) proposes to choose a simple target behavior, the receptive audience and to analyze the prevention of the target behavior. The selection of a simple behavior is the most important aspect of the design process and should be done carefully. The audience should be familiar with the technology channel to be chosen and be open to the planned behavior change. To identify the

94

Study 3: Modelling and Creating Persuasive Technology for Participatory Design

reasons for prevention, designers should use the Fogg behavior model (cf. Fogg 2009b) and identify whether there is a lack of motivation, lack of ability or lack of a trigger (Fogg 2009a). Oinas-Kukkonen and Harjumaa (2009) describe that a careful analysis of the persuasion context is important to persuade effectively. They categorize the persuasion context in terms of intent, event and strategy. For the intent it should be determined who the persuader is. Furthermore, the desired change type should be specified: attitude or behavior change. First of all, the use context is important for the event, especially the special characteristics of the field of application. For the user context it should be analyzed how the respective users can be addressed, which information is relevant for them and what their goals are. Finally, technology-dependent features should be defined in the technology context. For the strategy, message and route should be analyzed and selected appropriately. Via the route, the user should be reachable either directly or indirectly, it should be selected so that the message reaches the user (Oinas-Kukkonen 2013; Oinas-Kukkonen & Harjumaa 2008a; 2009).

5.3

Combining the Approaches

This study is driven by theoretical and conceptual considerations. Gilson and Goldberg (2015) show in their work how a conceptual paper is constituted. Conceptual studies integrate existing constructs and show relationships between constructs that have not been considered before. An important role is assumed by the what’s new question, which should be approached in a problem-centered way. Conceptual papers link different theories and concepts in an interdisciplinary way to create frameworks, to generate added value by combining the approaches, or to identify future research needs (Gilson & Goldberg 2015). This section is again based on previous work on creativity at individual and group level (cf. Woodman et al. 1993, and Section 2.4). The additional theoretical background was already described in Section 5.2. The goal of this section is to combine different design methods, supplemented by the results of Chapters 3 and 4, to enable the conceptualization and creation of PT for PD. This is accomplished by a reference model, which can be transferred into a canvas, and a toolkit. For the construction of the model, the two most widely used design methods for the creation of PTs (cf. Section 5.2.3) will be analyzed in the sections below. Subsequently, a practice-oriented approach based on the frameworks of Sanders (2013), Sanders et al. (2010) and the work of Jarvela and Jarvenoja (2011) and Chapter 3 is proposed. Finally, these approaches are combined with the PT Navigator (cf. Figure 4.4) from Chapter 4. The PT Navigator, as described in the previous

5.3 Combining the Approaches

95

chapters, is only aligned to one sub-process for the creation of PTs. However, the application scenarios can also be combined with other approaches. The reference model therefore abstracts the underlying concepts and results to a more generally applicable model. The following sections describe the reference model for creating PT for PD, the toolkit and exemplary applications of the reference model.

5.3.1

Approaches towards a Reference Model

The following sections describe the individual approaches towards the reference model. It contains three approaches to create and integrate PTs in PD. The first one is based on the behavior model and eight-step design process by Fogg (2009a, 2009b). The second one is based on the research on BCSS (Oinas-Kukkonen 2013) and persuasive systems design (Oinas-Kukkonen and Harjumaa 2009). The third one is a more practice-oriented starting point, based on a framework that categorizes tools and techniques of PD (Sanders 2013; Sanders et al. 2010), on motivational factors in creative and collaborative processes (Jarvela & Jarvenoja 2011; Woodman et al. 1993) and potentials for supporting participants with PT (cf. Chapter 3). Sections 5.3.1.1 to 5.3.1.3 describe the three approaches in detail.

5.3.1.1 Approach 1: Eight-Step Design Process Fogg’s (2009b) eight-step design process should be seen as a best practice for the development of technologies which should lead to a behavior change. The eight steps represent a successive scheme. However, it does not always make sense to follow the sequence exactly. It can often be necessary in a project to follow the steps in a different order. It is also possible to take another step back and reconsider a previously made decision. Thus, the steps are not fixed linear instructions but define intermediate goals to be achieved in the course of development (Fogg 2009b). The eight steps are as follows: (1) choose a simple behavior to target, (2) choose a receptive audience, (3) find what prevents the target behavior, (4) choose a familiar technology channel, (5) find relevant examples of persuasive technology, (6) imitate successful examples, (7) test and iterate quickly, and (8) expand on success (Fogg 2009b). Figure 5.2 shows an overview of the eight steps and their relationships. The adapted version for the model consists of four steps, which are related to the eight steps (cf. Figure 5.3).

96

Study 3: Modelling and Creating Persuasive Technology for Participatory Design

Step 1 Choose a simple behavior to target

Step 2 Choose a receptive audience

Step 5 Find relevant examples of persuasive technology

Step 3 Find what prevents the target behavior

Step 6 Imitate successful examples

Step 7 Test and iterate quickly

Step 4 Choose a familiar technology channel

Step 8 Expand on success

Figure 5.2 The eight-step design process following Fogg (2009b) Creating persuasive technologies: an eight-step design process (a)

Steps 1-3

Relevant components for the reference model

on behavior, audience and target behavior

Step 4: Choose an appropriate technology channel

Choose one or more technologies from a set of 17 categories

Step 5: Find relevant examples of persuasive technology

Choose application example(s) using the chosen technology

Steps 6-8

Finalize details and implement the technology

Preconditions

System features

Implementation

Figure 5.3 Overview of the adapted eight-step design process, (a): Fogg (2009b)

In the first step, the user defines the preconditions for the PT by answering the following questions (cf. Fogg 2009b): • What is your target behavior? • What is your audience? • What is preventing the target behavior?

5.3 Combining the Approaches

97

Table 5.1 Overview of the 17 PT platforms identified in Section 4.4.1, (cf. Table 4.1 for descriptions and examples) Technology Platforms Artificial Intelligence & Analytics Augmented & Virtual Reality Collaboration Software Display & Stationary Computer Games Internet of Things Lights & Markers Online Social Network & Social Software Persuasive Messages & Reminders

Physical Tags Robotics Sensors Smartphone & Mobile Device Speech, Sound & Video Wearables Website & Web-based Virtual Agent/Coach & Assistant

These questions should help the user to get a clear understanding about the preconditions to include the technology in the users’ application case. From the point of view of generalizing the approaches, these three questions provide the basis for defining the use case. The eight-step design process focuses on behavior changes. The users of the model should therefore identify and define a certain behavior. It must then be clarified what the target group for behavior change looks like. This plays an important role in selecting the appropriate technology channel. Especially since technologies are rarely used in PD workshops, and the participants are not necessarily familiar with the technology to be used. The final step in defining the preconditions is the analysis of the factors that prevent the target behavior. Fogg (2009b) names three different causes: lack of motivation, lack of ability, and a missing trigger. Defining the preconditions can be done, for example, by using observation and conducting interviews with participants or other moderators. The second step is the first part of defining the system features, by selecting a suitable technology channel. This selection is supported by 17 different PT platforms for PD (cf. Table 5.1) as identified in Chapter 4. It is important to choose technologies that fit the conditions. For each of the 17 technologies, the model contains at least two application scenarios, which in turn can be used in different modes of participation in PD or to address general challenges in collaborative and creative processes. The model can therefore be used to select one or more suitable scenarios as the basis for implementation. The final step is to make adjustments and finalize details for the implementation of the technology. For this purpose, the features of the technology should be further defined, using existing examples as a basis such as those compiled in Tables 4.2–4.5. The results of applying this approach can be summarized in a

98

Study 3: Modelling and Creating Persuasive Technology for Participatory Design

canvas or by using the toolkit (cf. Section 5.3.3). This can serve as a basis for discussions, further developments or guidelines for implementation.

5.3.1.2 Approach 2: Persuasive System Design BCSS (Oinas-Kukkonen 2013) and persuasive systems design (Oinas-Kukkonen and Harjumaa 2009) provide another approach to designing PT. Its focus is on specifying the persuasion context. BCSS are a major research object in the context of persuasive systems design. In this research stream, the type of change is refined regarding outcome and change type. This point has already been considered in detail in Section 2.2. The second part of the model consists of 28 persuasive design principles in four categories: (1) primary task support, (2) dialogue support, (3) system credibility support, and (4) social support (cf. Oinas-Kukkonen and Harjumaa 2009, see also Table 5.2). Building on this work, Harjumaa and Muuraiskangas (2014) derived a PT design canvas with three building blocks: (1) analysis of the intention, (2) design of the content, and (3) design of the functionalities. In the work by Oinas-Kukkonen (2013) the persuasive systems design process contains three steps that aggregate the previously described components: (1) seven core postulates on persuasion, (2) persuasion context, including intent, event and strategy and (3) persuasive software features, including the 28 persuasive design principles in four categories (OinasKukkonen 2013). Figure 5.4 shows an overview of the persuasive systems design process, summarizing the above mentioned components.

Persuasion postulates

Persuasion context

Persuasive software features

Understanding key issues behind persuasive systems

Analyzing the persuasion context

Design of system qualities 28 persuasive design principles

The intent Intended outcome/change

Primary task support

7 core postulates

The event Use context/User context/ Technology context The strategy Message/route

Dialogue support System credibility support Social support

Figure 5.4 The persuasive systems design process following Oinas-Kukkonen (2013), Oinas-Kukkonen and Harjuma (2009)

This approach is adapted in the model with four steps (cf. Figure 5.5).

5.3 Combining the Approaches

99

Behavior change support systems (a) Persuasive system design (b)

Relevant components for the reference model

Persuasion context

Analyze the persuasion context: intent, event, strategy

Persuasive system features

Choose one or more of the 28 persuasive design principles

Preconditions

System features Choose application the requirements Implement selected Implementation

Software implementation context

Figure 5.5 Overview of the adapted persuasive system design process, (a): Oinas-Kukkonen (2013), (b): Oinas-Kukkonen and Harjumaa (2009)

In the first step, to set the preconditions, the user analyzes the persuasion context by answering the following questions (cf. Oinas-Kukkonen & Harjumaa 2009): • • • • •

What is the intent? (Who is the persuader?; What is the change type?) What is your use context? (e.g. domain dependent features) What is your user context? (e.g. goals, motivation, lifestyle) What is the technology context? (e.g. technology dependent features) How is the message delivered? (How can the user be reached?)

These questions should help to get a clear understanding about the persuasion context as a starting point. Similar to the questions in approach 1, these five questions serve to define the context in which the technology will be applied. The focus in this approach is more on the concrete behavior change. This starts with the definition of the intent. Here the question of who exactly the persuader is should be answered. Technologies are never neutral and act only in the way they were constructed1 . The 1 This

point is discussed among others in the seven postulates behind persuasive systems by Oinas-Kukkonen and Harjumaa (2009).

100

Study 3: Modelling and Creating Persuasive Technology for Participatory Design

change type is based on the matrix, which has already been described in Table 2.2. The following three questions deal with the event and are comparable to the steps in approach 1. Here, the application context is also defined and it is specified which target group is addressed and how. The technology context is again similar to step 4 of Fogg (2009b). The fifth question defines the transmission of the persuasive message, which should be designed in such a manner that the previously defined target group is also reached. The second step defines the system features more precisely. The technology context and the strategy from the previous step thereby form the basis. Approach 1 has a strong focus on the technology channel or platform without defining more precise guidelines for the persuasive strategies. Besides the detailed definition of the persuasion context, this is the reason for a second approach in the reference model. Oinas-Kukkonen and Harjumaa (2008a, 2009) list 28 persuasive design principles (see Table 5.2) for a more detailed description of the persuasive system features.

Table 5.2 Persuasive design principles by Oinas-Kukkonen and Harjumaa (2008a, 2009) Primary Task Support

Dialogue Support

System Credibility Support

Social Support

Reduction Tunneling Tailoring Personalization Self-monitoring Simulation

Praise Rewards Reminders Suggestion Similarity Liking

Social learning Social comparison Normative influence Social facilitation Cooperation Competition

Rehearsal

Social role

Trustworthiness Expertise Surface credibility Real-world feel Authority Third-party endorsements Verifiability

Recognition

To perform the third step, the approach is again combined with the PT Navigator from Chapter 4. The included application scenarios are each equipped with at least one suitable persuasive design principle to facilitate a starting point for the definition of a concrete PT. The reference model can therefore also be used to select exemplary application scenarios based on persuasive design principles. In the last step of the model, the concrete details of the technology to be implemented should again be defined based on these scenarios. Again, the Tables 4.2–4.5 serve as a starting point. The results of applying this approach can be summarized on a canvas or by using the toolkit (cf. Section 5.3.3). This can serve as a basis for discussions, further developments or guidelines for implementation.

5.3 Combining the Approaches

101

5.3.1.3 Approach 3: Participatory Design-oriented The approaches described above have a strong technology and persuasion focus. So far, the application or persuasion context has only been considered from these perspectives. For a better applicability of the model, a more application-oriented or design-oriented view is missing. In this approach, therefore, the preconditions are primarily considered from a design or application perspective. The design-oriented approach helps to collect information about elements of an existing PD activity such as a workshop and helps to categorize them. This approach is based on existing frameworks for PD (Sanders 2013; Sanders et al. 2010), challenges and opportunities in creative and collaborative settings (Jarvela and Jarvenoja 2011; Woodman et al. 1993) and the results from Chapter 3. It contains four steps (cf. Figure 5.6).

A framework for organizing the tools and techniques of participatory design (a)

Relevant components for the reference model

Talking, telling and explaining Describe or select elements from the current participatory design activity Making tangible things

Acting, enacting and playing

Preconditions

General challenges, e.g. non-routine behavior, personal priorities, communication, teamwork, knowledge, external constraints

Describe recent challenges in the participatory design activity

Challenges and opportunities in creative and collaborative settings (b)

Choose application System features requirements

Implement selected Implementation context

Figure 5.6 Overview of the design-oriented approach, (a): Sanders (2013), Sanders, Brandt, and Binder (2010), (b): Jarvela and Jarvenoja (2011), Woodman, Sawyer, and Griffin (1993), and results of Chapter 3

The first step should guide the user to describe keywords or elements of the workshop or other PD activity to be examined. This supports the definition of the use case and enables the direct replacement of previous tools, techniques or methods

102

Study 3: Modelling and Creating Persuasive Technology for Participatory Design

(cf. Sanders 2013; Sanders et al. 2010 ) by a technology-supported variant. Afterwards, similar to the question what is preventing the target behavior? of approach 1, the user should think about problems currently occurring in the workshop. The challenges identified by Jarvela and Jarvenoja (2011) can be used as a reference, e.g. regarding personal priorities, work, communication, teamwork, collaboration, external constraints. This also applies to components of the individual and group characteristics by Woodman et al. (1993): cognitive abilities, knowledge, intrinsic motivation, group composition, task and time constraints. With the help of these points, the application context and thus the conditions are collected in detail. If this approach is used standalone, the next step is a match-making with the application scenarios of the PT Navigator. This can be done manually by comparing it with the Tables 4.2–4.5. This approach can be simplified if it is supported by the toolkit (cf. Section 5.3.3), as it allows keyword and full-text searches. Otherwise, this approach serves in particular the combination with the other two approaches, to supplement the reference model with a design and practice-oriented view. After selecting suitable examples from the application scenarios, the system features must be defined in more detail. These can again be based on the PT Navigator, which in this approach should be adjusted especially to the defined preconditions. The results of applying this approach can be summarized on a canvas or by using the online implementation of the toolkit (cf. Section 5.3.3). This can serve as a basis for discussions, further developments or guidelines for implementation.

5.3.2

A Reference Model for Creating Persuasive Technology for Participatory Design

Based on the three approaches (cf. Sections 5.3.1.1, 5.3.1.2 and 5.3.1.3) and the underlying theoretical backgrounds, a reference model for creating PT for PD was derived. Figures 5.7 and 5.8 show the resulting reference model. The figures are structured in preconditions, systems features and implementation. On the left side (cf. Figure 5.7) are all points and concepts related to preconditions that should be analyzed and defined for planning a PT. It is structured in three categories: intent, application context and strategy. The basics for the intent originate from the work by Oinas-Kukkonen (2013), Oinas-Kukkonen and Harjumaa (2009). In this point it should be decided who is the persuader and what form of outcome and change is aimed towards. The next category—application context—combines various prior works. First the addressed PD activity should be defined; this can be done in this model using the work of Sanders (2013), Sanders et al. (2010). Subsequently, existing challenges and opportunities in creative and collaborative

5.3 Combining the Approaches

103

settings should be addressed. The model structures this input according to nine points, which were derived from work done by Fogg (2009a), Jarvela and Jarvenoja (2011), Woodman et al. (1993) and the results of Chapter 3 of this dissertation. The description of the PD activity influences the use context and the technology channel. The input on challenges and opportunities has an impact on the use context, user context and the technology channel. These three points originate from the work of Oinas-Kukkonen (2013), Oinas-Kukkonen and Harjumaa (2009) . Based on the previously made definitions, the respective questions can be answered. The last category of preconditions is the strategy (Oinas-Kukkonen 2013; Oinas-Kukkonen and Harjumaa 2009). Based on use, user and technology context, it has to be specified how the persuasive messages are transported, i.e. how the users are reached. The right side (cf. Figure 5.8) defines the system features and the implementation. For the system features there are three categories in this model. The PT platforms are extracted from Chapter 4 of this dissertation. The persuasive design principles are based on the work of Oinas-Kukkonen and Harjumaa (2008a, 2009). Both categories interact and relate to each other. Depending on the defined preconditions, the technology-centered approach, or the persuasive strategy approach should be chosen. The selection should be based on the strategy, i.e. the message and route, and the use, user and technology context. Based on the selection of suitable technologies and persuasive design principles, the selection of application scenarios serves as an example and orientation (cf. Fogg 2009b). The application scenarios are taken from Chapter 4 of this dissertation and are clustered according to the PD tools, challenges and opportunities of the preconditions. Detailed information about the application scenarios can be found in the Tables 4.2–4.5. By setting technology, persuasive design principles and application scenarios as examples and inspiration, the system features are sufficiently defined for the technology to be developed. For the implementation of the technology, three steps have to be followed. These are based on steps 6 and 7 of Fogg (2009b). First, the selected application scenario(s) must be adapted to the defined preconditions, i.e. the exact use case and the system features. This may be done interactively in the form of a workshop with the help of canvases, which can also serve as a boundary object. Two canvases and inspiration cards2 (cf. Section 5.3.3.1) have been developed for applying the model in practice. The modelled technology must then be implemented and tested. The final step is the use of PT in the defined PD activity. 2 An

inspiration card consists of an ID, a title, a description, an image and a comment field. A distinction is made between technology and domain cards. Technology cards describe a technology or an application of a technology. Domain cards describe situations, persons, settings or similar from an application domain. In combination, these cards can be used in inspiration card workshops (Halskov & Dalsgård 2006).

104

Study 3: Modelling and Creating Persuasive Technology for Participatory Design Preconditions Intent What is the intended outcome/change?

Who is the persuader?

5.3.1.1 5.3.1.2

Forming outcome

Act of complying

Altering outcome

Behavior change

Reinforcing outcome

Attitude change

Application context Challenges and opportunities in creative/collaborative settings

Participatory Design Tools 3.

Which tools do I use in my design process?

Talking, telling and explaining

5.3.1.3

Making tangible things

Acting, enacting and playing

Use context 5.3.1.2

What are the challenges and problems in my design process?

What are special characteristics

Ability

Motivation

Knowledge

Group composition

Teamwork

Communication

External constraints

Task structuring

Time management

Technology channel

User context How can the user be addressed?

What are familiar technology channels?

What is preventing the target behavior?

Strategy Message

Route

Figure 5.7 Left side (preconditions) of the resulting reference model, combining the approaches 1 to 3. Based on Fogg (2009a, 2009b), Jarvela and Jarvenoja (2011), Oinas-Kukkonen (2013), Oinas- Kukkonen and Harjumaa (2008a, 2009), Sanders (2013), Sanders, Brandt, and Binder (2010), Woodman, Sawyer, and Griffin (1993) and the results of Chapters 3 and 4

5.3.3

A Toolkit for Integrating Persuasive Technologies in Design Processes

The toolkit is an implementation of the reference model and guides the user step by step through the different elements. The toolkit consists of two variants: canvases for use in conception workshops and an online implementation, which makes the model accessible through three different paths.

5.3 Combining the Approaches

105

System features Persuasive design principles

Technology platforms & Analytics

Augmented & Virtual Reality

Collaboration Software

Display & Stationary Computer

Games

Internet of Things

Lights & Markers

Online Social Network & Social Software

Persuasive Messages & Reminders

Physical Tags

Robotics

Sensors

Smartphone & Mobile Device

Speech, Sound & Video

Wearables

Primary task support

4.

Reduction, Tunneling, Tailoring, Personalization, Self-monitoring, Simulation, Rehearsal 5.3.1.1

Dialogue support

Website & Web-based

Praise, Rewards, Reminders, Suggestion, Similarity, Liking, Social role 5.3.1.2

System credibility support Trustworthiness, Expertise, Surface credibility, Real-world feel, Authority, Third-

Social support Social learning, Social comparison, Normative

Virtual Agent/Coach & Assistant

Competition, Recognition

Application scenarios Making tangible things M1 - M2 - M3 - M4 - M5 - M6

Acting, enacting and playing

Talking, telling and explaining

E1 - E2 - E3 - E4 - E5 - E6 - E7 - E8 - E9 - E10 - E11 - E12 - E13 - E14

T1 - T2 - T3 - T4 - T5 - T6 - T7 - T8 - T9 - T10 - T11 - T12 - T13

4.

General Challenges G1 - G2 - G3 - G4 - G5 - G6 - G7 - G8 - G9 - G10 - G11 - G12 - G13 - G14 - G15 - G16

Implementation Adjust application scenario aligned to the preconditions and the system features

Test and adjust implementation

Apply technology

5.3.1.1

Figure 5.8 Right side (system features) of the resulting reference model, combining the approaches 1 to 3. Based on Fogg (2009a, 2009b), Jarvela and Jarvenoja (2011), OinasKukkonen (2013), Oinas-Kukkonen and Harjumaa (2008a, 2009), Sanders (2013), Sanders, Brandt, and Binder (2010), Woodman, Sawyer, and Griffin (1993) and the results of Chapters 3 and 4

5.3.3.1 Canvases for Applying the Model As an approach for using the model in practice, two canvases were developed which can be used similarly to existing canvases (cf. Section 5.2.1). The canvases can thus be used in conception workshops to create a PT for PD. Figure 5.9 shows a preview of the two canvases. The precondition canvas supports the definition of preconditions as described in the model. Each field of the canvas contains assistance and instructions, which should ease the processing. The system features canvas sup-

106

Study 3: Modelling and Creating Persuasive Technology for Participatory Design

Figure 5.9 Preview of the precondition canvas and the system features canvas for creating PT for PD, based on the reference model (cf. Figures 5.7 and 5.8). Annex D shows the two canvases in higher resolution

5.3 Combining the Approaches

107

ports the specification of the system features as described in the model. This canvas should be used in combination with inspiration cards. These facilitate the selection of technology platforms, persuasive design principles and application scenarios. For each application scenario an inspiration card was designed. Furthermore, technology cards were prepared for each of the 17 PT platforms. Figure 5.10 shows an example for an inspiration card (left) and a technology card (right). Refer to Annex D for all inspiration and technology cards. The canvases also serve as a boundary object (Eppler et al. 2011; Hakanen & Murtonen 2015; Joyce & Paquin 2016) so that the designers can develop a common understanding of the technology to be developed and discuss the concept. Annex D shows the two canvases in higher resolution and all inspiration cards.

Measure activity with wearables and provide instructions Website and Web-based Examples: Smartwatches for supporting group cohesion in physical activity

Show additional data or provide explanations

Wearable display to motivate users

Persuasive design principles: Self-monitoring Suggestion [Tec16] [G15]

Figure 5.10 Preview of one inspiration (left) and one technology (right) card, based on the application scenarios of the PT Navigator (cf. Figure 4.4). Annex D shows all inspiration and technology cards

5.3.3.2 Technical Implementation The PT Toolkit is a technical implementation of the reference model. It is implemented as a web-based application3 . To keep the applicability as straightforward as possible, it offers three starting points to create and integrate PTs in PD. The first path is based on the descriptions in Section 5.3.1.1. The second path is based on the descriptions in Section 5.3.1.2. The third path is a more practice-oriented starting point and based on the on the descriptions in Section 5.3.1.3. Figure 5.11 shows the main page of the toolkit with the initial selection of the three paths. Depending on the starting point of the toolkit, the user fills in different text fields or selects from different options. These options refer to the preconditions, mentioned in the reference model. The fields in the first and second path focus on the intent and 3 The

prototype is available at https://toolkit.revolutionizing-workshops.de.

108

Study 3: Modelling and Creating Persuasive Technology for Participatory Design

Figure 5.11 Screenshot of the toolkits’ main page

application. The fields in the third path follow the application context, especially PD tools and challenges in creative and collaborative settings. The toolkit interacts with the results from Chapter 4. Thus, the input from the fields is used to retrieve relevant technologies and examples from the PT Navigator. The toolkit presents application scenarios based on the entered data. The whole set of application scenarios is shown in Figure 4.4. The data is structured in four categories that are adapted from Jarvela and Jarvenoja (2011), Woodman et al. (1993) and Chapter 3 (general challenges) and Sanders (2013), Sanders et al. (2010) (making tangible things; acting, enacting and playing; talking, telling and explaining). Users of the toolkit can then start designing and implementing PTs based on the presented application scenarios. The following paragraphs highlight differences between these three approaches and show screenshots. Approaches 1 (cf. Section 5.3.1.1) and 2 (cf. Section 5.3.1.2) start similar. In both implementations the user answers central questions that define the context. In approach 1 regarding target behavior and audience. In approach 2 regarding use, user and technology context. In the following step, both approaches take different perspectives. Figure 5.12 and 5.13 shows screenshots to compare step 2 of approaches 1 and 2.

5.3 Combining the Approaches

Figure 5.12 Screenshot of step 2 of approach 1

Figure 5.13 Screenshot of step 2 of approach 2

109

110

Study 3: Modelling and Creating Persuasive Technology for Participatory Design

In approach 1 the user selects suitable technology platforms for the defined context. Depending on the selected technologies, the user receives suitable application examples, from which appropriate ones can be selected to obtain more detailed information. In approach 2 the user selects persuasive system features that have potential to address the previously defined persuasion context. Depending on the selected persuasive design principles, the user receives suitable application examples, from which appropriate ones can be selected to obtain more detailed information. Approach 3 (cf. Section 5.3.1.3) adopts a different perspective. Figure 5.14 shows a screenshot of step 1 of approach 3. In the first step, the user should describe keywords of elements of the existing PD activity. Each application scenario (cf. Figure 4.4) is indexed with a list of keywords. The user input in steps 1 and 2 is used to find application examples by its keywords and a full-text search in the contents of the PT Navigator. The user can then select application examples that could be valuable in the current design activity. In the last step, the results are presented. Since the selected application examples are mapped to the keywords entered by the user, the results can be used to directly replace or enhance elements of the current PD activity.

5.3.4

Application of the Reference Model

To show the applicability of the model and toolkit, the following section presents an exemplary case. The whole reference model and the canvases are applied in Chapter 6. Refer to Sections 6.4.1.2–6.4.1.5 for descriptions of the application. The output of the toolkit is a simplified version of the reference model including an overview about the specified preconditions and the selected application scenarios. Figure 5.15 shows an exemplary output of the eight-step design process (cf. Section 5.3.1.1). It always includes the preconditions, entered in the first step of each path and the selected application examples. The input of the first step serves to sharpen the focus of the user on the PD setting and the scope for the implementation. The application examples always contain a short description, one or more example implementations, a hyperlink to the original source and possible persuasive design principles (cf. Oinas-Kukkonen & Harjumaa 2008a, 2009) for the selected example. This output can serve as a means to discuss further steps and as guidance for implementing a PT in the specified PD setting.

5.4 Discussion

111

Figure 5.14 Screenshot of step 1 of approach 3

5.4

Discussion

This section discusses the results of the conceptual study that developed a reference model for creating PT for PD. First, the theoretical contribution of the reference model is described. Subsequently, the practical applicability of the reference model and toolkit is discussed.

5.4.1

Theoretical Contributions

The aim of this study was to connect popular theoretical approaches to create PT for PD. A reference model was developed for this purpose, which includes approaches of PT (cf. Fogg 2009a, 2009b, Oinas-Kukkonen 2013, Oinas-Kukkonen & Harjumaa 2008a, 2009), design and creativity research (cf. Jarvela and Jarvenoja 2011; Sanders 2013; Sanders et al. 2010; Woodman et al. 1993) combined with the results of

112

Study 3: Modelling and Creating Persuasive Technology for Participatory Design

Figure 5.15 Exemplary output of the toolkit with approach 1 (cf. Section 5.3.1.1) showing the preconditions on the top of the screenshot and the finally selected application examples on the bottom

5.4 Discussion

113

the previous Chapters 3 and 4. This chapter contributes to the knowledge base by building on existing approaches, methods and frameworks to propose an approach for the creation of PT for PD. A contribution based on the described approaches has not yet been researched. This study therefore provides insights for various research directions, but its main focus is on the creation of PTs. Here, the work of Fogg (2009a, 2009b), OinasKukkonen and Harjumaa (2008a, 2009) and Oinas-Kukkonen (2013) has formed an integral part of the existing research. These all have a slightly different focus, but can also be applied together, which is also incorporated in existing works. In particular, the persuasive design principles (cf. Oinas-Kukkonen & Harjumaa 2008a, 2009) are used to design PTs without adopting the other elements of persuasive systems design. The sole connection of the approaches on PT and BCSS initially shows no new contribution to research, the main contribution results from the application context. There are approaches to the design and classification of PT in the health sector (e.g. Lehto 2012; Orji & Moffatt 2018) or also to social influence concepts for collaborative interaction (Stibe & Oinas-Kukkonen 2014a). However, integrated concepts for the development of PT for PD approaches are missing. The reference model as a result of this study contextualizes the development of PT by including the frameworks, tools and techniques from PD in the analysis of the persuasion and application context (cf. Sanders 2013; Sanders et al. 2010). Furthermore, preliminary work in this dissertation (cf. Chapter 3) is combined with existing research on problems and success factors in creative and collaborative settings (Jarvela & Jarvenoja 2011; Woodman et al. 1993). The integration of these approaches allows a more detailed analysis of the persuasion context. The analysis of the PD tools used, substantiates the definition of the use context and the technology channel. The identification of challenges and problems makes the definition of the use context, the technology channel and the user context more concrete. The results thus contribute to a better contextualization of the work of Oinas-Kukkonen (2013), Oinas-Kukkonen and Harjumaa (2009) for application in PD. For the definition of the system features, the reference model is based on previous work by Fogg (2009b), Oinas-Kukkonen and Harjumaa (2008a, 2009). The former focus on the selection of a suitable technology. The latter focus on the persuasive features of the system to be developed. For the design of PT for PD, the selection of technology platforms was based on the preliminary work from Chapter 4. The contribution of this study is therefore based on the contributions of the preliminary work in order to integrate them into a systematic process or model for the definition and development of PTs. The concept of the reference model aims to use the application scenarios from Figure 4.4 and Tables 4.2 to 4.5 as a basis and to make them concrete for a PD activity based on the defined preconditions. Thus, this study

114

Study 3: Modelling and Creating Persuasive Technology for Participatory Design

extends the work from the previous chapters and specifies the application of these results. For the detailed design of the implementation of the PT, the reference model is based on the considerations of Fogg (2009b). Here again, the study provides a new application context. A further contribution is the conception of a reference model in a context that has been explored little so far. The model can be seen as a deductive model, which was created based on scientific approaches (Fettke & Loos 2004a, 2004b). The definition of MacKenzie et al. (2006) cannot be followed completely; the reference model is not completely independent of technologies in order not to abandon the concept of PTs. For the application of the reference model, canvases and inspiration cards were developed, which can be used in conception workshops to create a PT for PD. The study also substantiates previous work by Harjumaa and Muuraiskangas (2014), who presented a more generic canvas for the development of PTs. Such a canvas can also be seen as a boundary object (Eppler et al. 2011; Hakanen & Murtonen 2015; Joyce & Paquin 2016). The reference model also fulfills properties of a boundary object (Carlile 2002), so it provides objects, models and contexts that enable the instantiation of a PT in PD. In addition, a toolkit was developed, which provides a simple application and technical implementation of the concepts of the model (cf. Franke & Piller 2004; von Hippel & Katz 2002). The resulting toolkit in combination with the PT Navigator allows the application of PT in PD processes to address challenges and problems in the process, e.g. regarding ability, motivation, knowledge and external constraints. Extant literature has identified the need for strategies to integrate PT into collaborative processes (Torning & Oinas-Kukkonen 2009). The toolkit can help to systematically develop such processes, which is researched e.g. by Briggs, Kolfscholten, de Vrede, and Dean (2006). As there are already approaches to enable support by computers in collaborative projects (Kensing & Blomberg 1998), the toolkit can also provide added value in this area. In addition, it enables the integration into existing PD processes (Sanders 2013; Sanders et al. 2010) and it can be used to address motivation-related challenges (Algashami et al. 2017; Hagen & Robertson 2009; Jarvela & Jarvenoja 2011).

5.4.2

Practical Contributions

The results of this study also have practical contributions. The toolkit is intended for workshop moderators and supervisors of PD activities in using PT. It combines three different approaches that guide through the process of creating a PT. A core

5.5 Conclusion and Implications

115

component of the toolkit is the PT Navigator (cf. Figure 4.4) that supports the selection of existing application examples of PT. Three approaches for different user groups were created to make the content of the navigator accessible. Approach 1 (cf. Figure 5.3 and section 5.3.1.1) is suitable for users who plan to use a certain technology in their design process. If, for instance, a user has VR glasses and an (smartphone) app developer available, the user can then select these technologies to get suitable application examples. Approach 2 (cf. Figure 5.5 and section 5.3.1.2) is suitable for users who are more experienced with persuasive strategies. They can choose from 28 principles and will be suggested matching applications based on the selection. Approach 3 (cf. Figure 5.6 and section 5.3.1.3) is suitable for users who either want to use or who already do use concrete elements of PD in their workshops and extend them with technologies or who have identified problems concerning the behavior of their participants. The toolkit presents fitting application scenarios based on the input. In addition, the canvases and inspiration cards are also simple and practical tools designed to facilitate their use by practitioners. Canvases are already being used for a wide range of applications, particularly in the innovation domain. In this context, the design of business models (e.g. Osterwalder & Pigneur 2010) is common. The designs of the canvases of this study are based on other established ones. They also provide structure and questions that should facilitate the filling of the individual fields. The inspiration cards also help to select suitable technologies, persuasive design principles and application scenarios. These approaches should ensure that the reference model, which is driven by theoretical considerations, is also applicable for practitioners.

5.5

Conclusion and Implications

This chapter has meaningfully integrated three different scientific approaches from different research areas into one reference model. The reference model should structure the creation of PT for PD. Furthermore, this study takes a closer look at the application and persuasion context and integrates the results of Chapter 4. The model consists of three steps: definition of preconditions, system features and implementation roadmap. For the preconditions, first the intent is examined more closely, i.e. who is the persuader and what the intended outcome and change looks like. Then the application context is defined: first the PD tools used, then problems in the current design process. These two points form the basis for the concrete definition of use, user and technology context. The strategy can now be derived from this by defining the persuasive message and route. For the system features

116

Study 3: Modelling and Creating Persuasive Technology for Participatory Design

the results from Chapter 4 are integrated and supplemented by the definition of persuasive design principles. Based on the following pre-selection of technologies and principles, application scenarios (cf. Figure 4.4) can be used as a basis. These are then adapted more specifically to the application context and in the implementation step the roadmap is defined how the constructed technology can be implemented in the defined context. In order to make the theoretical model applicable in practice, two canvases with inspiration cards were designed in this chapter, which structure and simplify the construction process described above. In addition, there is an online implementation of the toolkit that allows the design of a technology using one of the three underlying approaches (cf. Sections 5.3.1.1 to 5.3.1.3). From an application perspective, the reference model, the canvases and the toolkit are still in an early stage, dominated by theoretical-conceptual considerations. It should now be validated by further practical applications and evaluated in real word settings. Chapter 6 of this dissertation takes up this issue and applies the reference model for creating prototypes of PTs for PD. This chapter also has implications for the further progress of this dissertation. On the one hand, it contributes directly to the knowledge base as shown in Section 1.2.2 and in Figure 1.2. It provides theories, frameworks and methods for the development of PT for PD. On the other hand, it integrates the results of the Chapters 3 and 4. The reference model thus shows how, with the input of previous work from existing research (i.e. Fogg 2009a, 2009b; Jarvela & Jarvenoja 2011; Oinas-Kukkonen 2013;

Figure 5.16 Links between the results of the Chapters 3, 4 and 5

5.5 Conclusion and Implications

117

Oinas-Kukkonen & Harjumaa 2008a, 2009; Sanders 2013; Sanders et al. 2010; Woodman et al., 1993), the interim results of this dissertation can be applied to design concrete PTs. Figure 5.16 visualizes these correlations. Chapter 3 contributes to the definition of challenges, opportunities and problems. Chapter 4 provides possible technology platforms and application scenarios. In the current chapter, the reference model is constructed using the results indicated above and previous work from existing research. In Chapter 6 the reference model is used in practice. This chapter, as well, provides new insights for Ronja Researcher and Fred Facilitator (cf. Figure 5.17).

Ronja Ronja has already collected existing ap-

Fred The reference model is too complicated

proaches on designing PT. She also no-

for Fred, but he is pleased that there are

ticed that persuasive systems design is

complementary approaches to make

often used to analyze the persuasion

the results applicable to him. He uses

context and to define system features.

the PT Toolkit to develop initial ideas

However, in her opinion, it still lacks a

for himself and get an overview of

structure how the persuasion context

possible implementations. Since he fre-

can be analyzed in PD or workshops

quently works with canvases in his

in general. The reference model helps

workshops, he takes up the concept

her by connecting relevant approaches

with the preconditions and system fea-

from research with the intermediate

tures canvas and inspiration cards. He

results of this dissertation. From her

uses it together with colleagues and

point of view it allows a more precise

potential participants to develop a PT

definition of the application context

for his specific problems and use case.

and necessary system features. She is

This also helps him to explain to his

now curious how the reference model

programmer how to develop the PT.

can be used to design and develop PTs.

Figure 5.17 Insights from Chapter 5 for Ronja and Fred

118

Study 3: Modelling and Creating Persuasive Technology for Participatory Design

In the following Chapter 6 four prototypes of PTs for PD are presented using the reference model. The results also contribute to the derivation of design principles in Section 7.3. Limitations of this study and further research potentials are described in Section 7.4.

6

Study 4: Implementing Persuasive Technology in Participatory Design

6.1

Objectives and Structure

The previous chapter created a reference model for persuasive technology (PT) in participatory design (PD). It combines approaches from existing research with the results of Chapters 3 and 4. It thus enables the modelling and creation of PT. This chapter is located in the design cycle of the overall research approach (cf. Figure 1.2). It will follow the design science research methodology (DSRM) (cf. Peffers et al. 2007) and apply the reference model to create four artifacts, i.e. four prototypes of PT for PD. Digitization is now an ubiquitous feature of personal and working life. With increasing access to smartphones, wearables and other technical devices, integration of these technologies also opens new possibilities for collaborative design processes. As one such application, creativity support tools can be used to increase users’ creativity during the design process (Shneiderman 2009). PD explores user participation in design processes (Kensing & Blomberg 1998). In the past, mainly user-centered approaches were researched, but today these approaches are shifting towards collective creativity (Sanders & Stappers 2008). In many cases, participants in these workshops are intrinsically motivated, which facilitates cooperation Chapter 6 of this dissertation builds upon and extends a conference contribution presented and discussed at the 15th International Conference on Persuasive Technology 2020 in Aalborg, Denmark. This earlier version is published as Jalowski (2020). Adapted by permission from Springer Nature Customer Service Centre GmbH: Jalowski M. (2020) Integrating Persuasive Technology in Participatory Design Workshops: Prototypes for Participant Support. In: Gram-Hansen S., Jonasen T., Midden C. (eds) Persuasive Technology. Designing for Future Change. PERSUASIVE 2020. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 12064. Springer, Cham © 2020. © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2021 M. Jalowski, Revolutionizing Workshops, Markt- und Unternehmensentwicklung Markets and Organisations, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-33312-6_6

119

120

6

Study 4: Implementing Persuasive Technology in Participatory Design

and overall user contribution to the design process (Adler & Chen 2011; Battistella & Nonino 2012). The use of technical tools to support creativity has been the subject of existing research (Frich et al. 2019; Gabriel et al. 2016) as a central success factor for design, along with addressing issues of distraction, motivation, and missing triggers (cf. Chapter 3). This opens up a new field of application for PTs that can change human behavior (Fogg 1998). Three factors are important for a successful behavior change: motivation, ability, and triggers (Fogg 2009a). As PD often involves non-professional designers, these issues are emerging, and PT offers new possibilities for addressing them. The previous chapters have already described the motivation for the research and research gap, but so far have only identified problems, opportunities, generic application scenarios, concepts and models for PT in PD. Research on creativity support tools has already developed systems that can support the creativity of users. However, these tools do not closely consider the behavior of participants, thus also do not have any persuasive features and are little or not at all targeted to design workshops. Focusing on the development of prototypes for applying PT in PD workshops, the present study addresses the following research question: RQ4: How can persuasive technologies be implemented to support participants’ knowledge, abilities and motivation in participatory design workshops? The objective of this chapter is to deliver four concrete prototypes of PT that can be applied in PD workshops. It builds on the contributions from the three other studies to the environment, the problems and opportunities from the application domain as well as the knowledge base. Thus, this chapter mainly focuses on the design of artifacts and is located in the design cycle, as shown in Figure 1.2. These artifacts build on the other contributions and should as well deliver examples for applying the reference model. Chapter 6 of this dissertation is structured as follows (cf. Figure 6.1): Section 6.2 presents further theoretical background for this chapter, especially focusing on the role of digital innovation, creativity support tools and the persuasion context in PD. Subsequently, Section 6.3 describes the research design including the DSR approach and the application of the DSRM to create the four artifacts. Afterwards, Section 6.4 explains the findings, first the detailed descriptions of the four artifacts and finally the evaluation of the artifacts. Section 6.5 discusses the results and derives theoretical and practical contributions. This chapter closes with Section 6.6, which concludes the results and summarizes the implications of Chapter 6 for this dissertation.

6.2 Theoretical Background 0001 Chapter 0001 p I Part

1

Introduction: Motivation and Research Setting

0010 Chapter 0010 p II Part

0011 Chapter 0011 Part III 3

2

Foundations: Conceptual Background

121 0100 Chapter 0100 Part IV 4

Study 1: Supporting Participants in Creative Processes with Persuasive T Technology

Study 2: Categorizing Persuasive Technology for T Participatory Design

0101 Chapter 0101 Part V

5 Study 3: Modelling and Creating Persuasive Technology for T Participatory Design

0110 Chapter 0110 Part VI 6

Study 4: Implementing Persuasive Technology in Participatory Design

0111 0111

Chapter Partp VII7

Summarizing Findings and Implications

Objectives and Structure

Motivation

Research Question

Structure

Theoretical Background

Digital Innovation

Creativity Support Tools

Analyzing the Persuasion Context

Research Design

Design Science Research: Build & Evaluate Artifacts

Design Science Research Methodology

Findings

Artifacts: Prototypes for Supporting Participants

Evaluation

Discussion

Theoretical Contributions

Practical Contributions

Conclusion and Implications

Conclusion

Implications for this Dissertation

Figure 6.1 Structure of Chapter 6

6.2

Theoretical Background

Having described objectives and structure of this chapter in the previous section, this section presents further theoretical background. Chapter 2 has already laid out basic foundations for the whole dissertation. This section therefore provides supplementary theoretical background required for this chapter. The artifacts to be developed

122

6

Study 4: Implementing Persuasive Technology in Participatory Design

should support design and promote the creativity of participants. These technologies are applied in design and innovation workshops. This section therefore starts with works on the use of technology in innovation processes: digital innovation, followed by creativity support tools, as a comparable approach. The section ends with complementary approaches to the analysis of the persuasion context in design workshops.

6.2.1

Digital Innovation

The widespread digitization enables new digital technologies, which reshape innovations and organizations (Yoo et al. 2012). Existing approaches to digital innovation often refer to process, product or service innovation (Hund, Drechsler, & Reibenspiess 2019; Yoo, Henfridsson, & Lyytinen 2010). Digital innovation requires the application of digital technologies (Yoo et al. 2010). For these, Yoo et al. (2010) present a layered architecture, which separates especially between device and service as well as between network and contents in order to enable reprogrammability and homogenization of data. Hund et al. (2019) have conducted a literature review on digital innovation and found that existing research sees digital innovation as either a process or an outcome. However, these two aspects can also overlap. The definition of Nambisan et al. (2017) aims in a similar direction. Digital innovation outcomes can be new products, platforms or services, insofar as their development has been supported by digitized technologies and processes. On the other hand, digital innovation also includes tools that enable innovation. Nambisan et al. (2017) mention 3-D printing and data analytics as examples. Finally, the outcomes can also have characteristics of digital platforms (Nambisan et al. 2017). Fichman, Dos Santos, and Zheng (2014) take another definition and describe digital innovation as “product, process, or business model that is perceived as new, requires some significant changes on the part of adopters, and is embodied in or enabled by IT” (Fichman et al. 2014, p. 330). Wiesböck (2019) identifies digital technologies, digital solutions and digital business concepts as constructs in digital product innovation. Here again, the use of digital technologies in the innovation process and digital technologies as an outcome are considered. Digital innovation also has an impact on creativity because it enables and connects people (Gauntlett 2013). Hackathons and idea hubs as collaborative and creative events or locations can change and digitize innovation processes (Briscoe & Mulligan 2014; Ciriello & Richter 2015). Digital innovation also plays a role in relation to DSR artifacts. Hevner, vom Brocke, and Maedche (2019) identify six roles of digital innovation in DSR. Four roles are directly

6.2 Theoretical Background

123

related to digital innovation artifacts: (1) design of a digital innovation artifact; (2) an artifact for deployment and use of a digital innovation artifact; (3) design of a socio-technical system that includes several digital innovation artifacts to address different problem contexts; and (4) the application of a digital innovation artifact as a creativity tool in a DSR process. Furthermore, DSR also plays a role in understanding the digital innovation problem space and developing design theories around one or more digital innovation artifacts (Hevner et al. 2019).

6.2.2

Creativity Support Tools

As just described, digital innovation artifacts can also play the role of creativity support tools. A PT can also be considered a digital innovation artifact. However, the support of design and creative processes has so far received little attention in research on PT. Previous studies either include persuasive components with a lower focus on design (e.g. Stibe & Oinas-Kukkonen 2014a; Stibe et al. 2013) or concentrate on design and creativity without taking a closer look at the behavior of the participants. One research stream that addresses these topics are creativity support tools (Frich et al. 2019; Gabriel et al. 2016; Shneiderman 2000, 2002). Such tools have a high potential for supporting creative processes (Greene 2002). These tools build on two assumptions that have been confirmed by previous research (Elam & Mead 1990): (1) creativity of individuals can be supported and (2) software can be helpful in this regard. Research in this field focuses on software and user interfaces that make users more innovative and productive (Shneiderman et al. 2006); this can happen at both individual and group level (Shneiderman 2007). Creativity support tools offer user interfaces for supporting innovation (Shneiderman 2000). Shneiderman (2000, 2002) describes a creativity framework with four activities relevant for supporting creativity with tools: collecting existing works, relating to other people in different stages, creating and evaluating possible solutions and donating via publishing the results. So far, however, research has focused primarily on collective creativity (Frich et al. 2018). Creativity support tools often intervene in the ideation and evaluation phase and support collaboration between users (Gabriel et al. 2016). These tools often deal with a combination of physical and digital components (Hartmann et al. 2010). Other studies compare the use of physical and digital components, e.g. sticky notes in the ideation phase (Jensen et al. 2018). Maxwell, Speed, Monsen, and Zamora (2015) introduced a tablet-based narrator that guided participants through a physical and digital environment, this

124

6

Study 4: Implementing Persuasive Technology in Participatory Design

served as the basis for a subsequent workshop. Some examples use mechanisms that include behavioral strategies (Rooij, Corr, & Jones 2017). In general, the timing of the intervention also plays an important role. If a wrong time is chosen, it can have a negative influence on the creative process (Thomas, Lee, & Danis 2002). According to Frich et al. (2019) a creativity support tool contains at least one creativity-focused feature and can positively influence the behavior of users. This applies to experienced as well as in-experienced users and can take place in different phases of the creative process. Research on creativity support tools has produced numerous examples in different categories (Cherry & Latulipe 2014; Frich et al. 2019). There are also approaches to quantify creative support of tools (Cherry & Latulipe 2014). Creativity also plays an important role in PD workshops (Sanders & Stappers 2008), which typically involve participants with differing expertise and experience (Sanders et al. 2010).

6.2.3

Analyzing the Persuasion Context

In order to implement a certain PT, the work from Chapter 5 (i.e. the reference model and the background in Section 5.2.3) still needs to be specified to analyze a persuasion context (cf. Section 2.2). To achieve a behavior change, the persuasion context must be fully understood (Oinas-Kukkonen & Harjumaa 2009). Building on the considerations of the reference model (cf. Section 5.3.2) this means in concrete terms the examination of the PD process and the challenges and opportunities arising there. Furthermore, understanding of the intent, event and strategy as well as the persuasion techniques (Oinas-Kukkonen & Harjumaa 2008b, 2009). Goal setting can be helpful in this regard. There it is considered who sets the goal; which goal properties and goal moderators exist; how the goals are determined; how monitoring and feedback is conducted; and how the deviation between desired and actual behavior can be addressed (Cham et al. 2019). Especially to address the event (cf. Oinas-Kukkonen & Harjumaa 2009), Alahäivälä, Oinas-Kukkonen, and Jokelainen (2013) provide an architecture to model the connections between use context, user context, technology context, message and route. They extend use and user context components by specifying and analyzing the user-system interaction, the social interaction and the system-mediated messages. Particularly the first two allow a more profound analysis. In the user-system interaction goals and means to accomplish them should be set. Social interaction is important in modern technological systems, so appropriate strategies should be chosen (Alahäivälä et al. 2013).

6.3 Research Design

125 Research Question How can persuasive technologies be implemented to support

Problem & Motivation Individual level

Group level

General

Objectives

Design & Development

O1: Guide the workshop process O2: Support time management O3: Enhance ability O4: Enable locationbased triggers O5: Provide in-depth explanations and assistance with tasks O6: Develop a personal assistant

A1: Tablet-based participant support A2: Bluetooth beacons for location-based triggers A3: QR codes for additional information A4: Humanoid robot assistant

Demonstration & Evaluation

Communication

workshops with 10-20 participants

publications and to practitioners

utility

project was presented and discussed at three

approach to assess

tation, application scenario, PD support, and persuasive design principles

knowledge base in persuasive technology, participatory design and creativity research

in workshop setting

Figure 6.2 Research design of Study 4, following the DSRM (cf. Peffers, Tuunanen, Rothenberger, & Chatterjee 2007)

6.3

Research Design

To answer research question RQ4, this study follows the DSRM (cf. Peffers et al. 2007) to create artifacts. Contribution to the knowledge base is an important element of DSR, and Gregor and Hevner (2013) describe different contribution types and example artifacts in terms of abstraction, completeness, and maturity. Based on their attempts to develop instances, constructs, and methods (Gregor & Hevner 2013) for applying PT in PD workshops, the present study adopts the problem-centered approach of the DSRM described by Peffers et al. (2007). Figure 6.2 summarizes the research design of this chapter. The goal of this chapter is the design and evaluation of concrete artifacts. In the overall research approach of this dissertation, this chapter is therefore located in the design cycle (cf. Figure 1.2 and Hevner 2007; Hevner et al. 2004). This chapter builds on the contributions from the three other chapters of this dissertation to the environment, the problems and opportunities from the application domain as well as the knowledge base. Based on the problem and motivation definitions and the objectives, this chapter designs and develops artifacts as a research contribution as well as a contribution in the application domain (Deng & Ji 2018; Gregor & Hevner 2013; Hevner 2007). Evaluation is an important part of a DSR process (Hevner et al. 2004). Therefore, four evaluation iterations were carried out. From the pragmatist viewpoint, these artifacts should be evaluated, especially regarding usefulness and utility (Goldkuhl 2012b; Iivari

126

6

Study 4: Implementing Persuasive Technology in Participatory Design

2007). The following sections describe the different phases of the DSRM process (cf. Figure 6.2).

6.3.1

Problem and Motivation

In the first step of the process, the problem has to be defined and the importance of the research has to be highlighted (Peffers et al. 2007). PD is working with non-professional designers (Sanders et al. 2010). Observations of workshops with PD elements and interviews with workshop moderators and participants revealed problems in the behavior of the participants (cf. Chapter 3 for more details). The results show challenges and potentials on the individual and group level, as well as in the creative process itself. Figure 3.7 describes these findings in detail. In Tables 4.7 to 4.9 the findings of Chapters 3 and 4 were combined. This combination builds the basis for describing the problems and objectives of this study. On the individual level, problems regarding the ability, knowledge and motivation of the participants could be identified. On the group level, problems regarding the composition and teamwork of the group and the task at hand were identified. Time management, task structuring and documentation of the results were challenges and opportunities on the creative process level itself. In several of these cases, triggers can be helpful to address the problems. Besides providing triggers, a PT can also increase motivation and ability (Fogg 2009a). In the existing literature there is so far a lack of material on the use of technologies and especially PTs in creative or design processes (cf. Section 6.2.2). Therefore, the implementation of PT in PD workshops is addressed.

6.3.2

Objectives

In the second step, the objectives of a solution should be specified, by defining what a better artifact could accomplish (Peffers et al. 2007). Based on the observations and previous work on the identification and application of PTs in design workshops (cf. Section 4.4), and on the systematic integration of these into workshops with elements of PD (cf. Section 5.3), the present study explores prototype solutions to enhance participants’ motivation and ability and to provide appropriate triggers, based on the following objectives: (O1) guide the workshop process (referencing to task, teamwork, group composition, task structuring and documentation); (O2) support time management (referencing to time

6.3 Research Design

127

management); (O3) enhance ability (referencing to ability and knowledge); (O4) enable location-based triggers (referencing to all categories that require triggers); (O5) introduce measures to provide in-depth explanations and assistance with tasks (referencing to ability and knowledge); and (O6) develop a personal assistant to answer participants’ questions about the process and tasks (referencing to ability, knowledge and motivation).

6.3.3

Design and Development

The third step focuses on the design and development of the artifacts and is based on the relevance and rigor cycles to ensure a scientific approach, as well as relevance in the application domain (Hevner & Chatterjee 2010; Hevner et al. 2004; Peffers et al. 2007). The design and development follows the considerations of the reference model, which was introduced in Chapter 5. In this phase, particular emphasis was placed on the persuasiveness of the artifacts to be developed. Incorporating persuasive system features and design principles (Oinas-Kukkonen & Harjumaa 2008a, 2009), these were based on Fogg’s eight-step design process (Fogg 2009b). As the specified objectives are diverse and cannot be represented in one artifact, four prototypes were developed. The development of the four prototypes is detailed in Section 6.4. All artifacts were first developed conceptually before prototypes were implemented, iteratively refined and tested in workshop settings.

6.3.4

Demonstration and Evaluation

The fourth step is to find a suitable context and to apply the artifacts. In the fifth step the artifacts are evaluated and further developed by returning to the design step (Peffers et al. 2007). Application of the artifacts should take place in PD workshops with 10 to 20 participants. The artifacts were first evaluated by the author together with developers at regular intervals with regard to the objectives. For this purpose, emphasis was placed on the artifacts’ functionality, completeness, consistency, accuracy, and usability (Hevner et al. 2004). The artifacts were also discussed regularly with workshop moderators and further developed on the basis of their input. Up to this point,

128

6

Study 4: Implementing Persuasive Technology in Participatory Design

artificial evaluation1 strategies (Venable et al. 2016) were applied. These were conducted ex ante, the third ex post (Pries-Heje et al. 2008; Sonnenberg & vom Brocke 2012a). A naturalistic evaluation2 was conducted after the construction and instantiation of the artifacts (cf. Pries-Heje et al. 2008; Sonnenberg & vom Brocke 2012b). During the workshop the participants were observed and a feedback session was conducted afterwards. Since evaluation plays an important role in DSR (cf. Hevner et al. 2004), the precise approach and evaluation of the artifacts is described in detail in Section 6.4.2.

6.3.5

Communication

The last step of the DSRM is the communication of the results to scholars and professionals (Peffers et al. 2007). The communication of results is achived through scientific publications and to practitioners and plays an important role in DSR (Gregor & Hevner 2013). Early work on the present project was presented and discussed at three scientific conferences. The results of the design and development of the artifacts was presented and discussed at the 15th International Conference on Persuasive Technology 2020 in Aalborg, Denmark. This study is published as Jalowski (2020). The preparatory work for this was presented at two other conferences: the 14th International Conference on Persuasive Technology 2019 in Limassol, Cyprus; the 29th CIRP Design Conference 2019 in Póvoa de Varzim, Portugal. This dissertation and a website containing the most important findings for practitioners3 communicate the overall results. The results contribute to the knowledge base on PT in design workshops and on the use of technologies in PD, as well as PT, PD and creativity research in general.

1 An

artificial evaluation is conducted in a non-real setting (Venable 2006), e.g. via experiments, simulations (Venable 2006), criteria-based analyses (Venable et al. 2016), demonstrations with prototypes or expert-interviews (Sonnenberg & vom Brocke 2012b). 2 A naturalistic evaluation is conducted in a real setting with real users and is always empirical (Venable et al. 2012; Venable et al. 2016). 3 https://revolutionizing-workshops.de

6.4 Findings

6.4

129

Findings

The following sections describe first the design and development of the artifacts and then their evaluation, including procedures and adjustments based on the evaluations.

6.4.1

Artifact Description: Prototypes for Supporting Participants

This section provides first a description of the PD workshop setting and afterwards conceptual descriptions of the four artifacts, along with their practical implementations. The conception of the artifacts is based on the results of Chapter 4. The development of the artifacts follows the reference model, introduced in Chapter 5 and parts of the eight-step design process (Fogg 2009b) as well as persuasive systems design: the artifacts contain system features and follow persuasive design principles (cf. Oinas-Kukkonen & Harjumaa 2008a, 2009). The artifacts are designed to enhance ability, knowledge and motivation of workshop participants and to trigger desired behaviors (Fogg 2009a) by adressing the challenges and opportunities identified in Chapter 3.

6.4.1.1 Workshop Setting For present purposes, a PD workshop is defined as a workshop containing elements of PD (cf. Chapter 4, Section 4.2.2 and Sanders 2013; Sanders et al. 2010), including e.g. LEGO bricks, design thinking or business model development using paper-based tools or canvases. These workshops typically involve 10 to 20 participants including non-professional designers working in groups at different stations. Depending on the specific topic, participants might also switch tables or stations to work on different tasks. The workshop setting is based on the workshop observations from Section 3.3.2. In the following sections, four artifacts are described that address challenges and opportunities identified in these workshops. The artifacts are designed in a manner that they can be used separately or in combination in different types of workshops since they are easily configurable. The persuasion context mostly includes improving ability and knowledge of the participants; and design principles are described in the respective sections.

6.4.1.2 Artifact 1: Tablet-based Participant Support This section describes the first artifact: a tablet-based application to address especially objectives 1 to 3 (guide the workshop process, support time management,

130

6

Study 4: Implementing Persuasive Technology in Participatory Design

and enhance ability). First, the reference model (cf. Figures 5.7 and 5.8) is used to analyze the preconditions and application context, and to define the system features. Then the design and development of the artifact is described. Application of the Reference Model for Artifact 1 Figure 6.3 shows the conception of Artifact 1 using the reference model from Chapter 5. The concept is based on the defined objectives O1, O2 and O3 (cf. Figure 6.2), as well as the observations from Chapter 3. The intent contains the workshop moderator and the organizer as persons who want to persuade. In the workshop setting, the main focus is on forming outcomes, as PD works with non-professional designers. In addition, an altering outcome should be sought in order to achieve the desired behavior. It is desired that the participants actively participate and work together. This can be achieved by an act of complying. Artifact 1 follows especially the observations from workshops WS#2, WS#4, WS#5 and WS#6 (cf. Section 3.3.2 for descriptions) to describe the application context. These workshops include LEGO bricks, canvases, paper-based tools and sticky notes as PD tools. Problems arose with regard to ability, motivation, knowledge, task structure and time management (cf. Chapter 3). These points form the basis for the persuasion context. The use context consists of a diverse group of participants with practitioners and researchers who often have domain knowledge, but no or limited design knowledge. Smartphones and tablets can be defined as familiar technology channels. The user should be reached in particular through guidance and instructions. In addition, they should be presented with examples and reminded of the desired behavior and tasks. The persuasive message is transported via reminders and instructions on the tablet or smartphone. To address the objectives, Display & Stationary Computer, Persuasive Messages & Reminders, Sensors, Smartphone & Mobile Device and Website & Web-based (cf. Table 4.1) were identified as suitable technology platforms. Persuasive design principles mostly originate from primary task support and dialogue support categories (cf. Oinas-Kukkonen & Harjumaa 2009). The following application scenarios serve as a basis for the implementation of the artifact (cf. Figure 4.4): • G8: Involve passive people, provide triggers and reminders • G12: Improve collaboration by supporting decision making and explaining or recommending actions • G16: Show additional data or background information about certain items • E3: Display the state of different tasks to motivate and influence participation • T3: Show short text messages or explanatory sentences to start discussions • M5: Supply triggers to motivate and remind participants

6.4 Findings

131

Figure 6.3 Application of the reference model (cf. Figures 5.7 and 5.8) for Artifact 1 by using the canvases (cf. Section 5.3.3.1)

132

6

Study 4: Implementing Persuasive Technology in Participatory Design

• E10: Collect data on the activity of participants • G11: Track activity data of participants These scenarios can be integrated into one device or application. Examples should be presented by using different media channels, e.g. photos and videos. The artifact will also be easily configurable so that changes to the instructions, structure, process or task do not require a change in programming. Implementation of Artifact 1 Design and development of the artifact follows the just presented considerations of the reference model and is thus based on established concepts for the creation of PTs (cf. Fogg 2009b; Oinas-Kukkonen 2013; Oinas-Kukkonen & Harjumaa 2009). The prototype is designed as a web-based application comprising a server and several clients and implemented in Python with Flask. The clients are tablets placed on participants’ tables; the workshop moderator also has a tablet to control the progress, send messages, and start or stop a timer. The server holds the status and ensures that all clients receive the same information as provided by the moderator. Figure 6.4 shows a schematic of Artifact 1 (left) and a screenshot of the prototype (right).

Table 1

Table 2 Table 3

Figure 6.4 Artifact 1: Tablet-based prototype. Adapted from Jalowski (2020); courtesy of ©Springer Nature Customer Service Centre GmbH 2020. All Rights Reserved

As this artifact mainly addresses general challenges that arise in design workshops, it can be used for making, telling, and enacting activities. The prototype primarily supports participants’ time management by displaying the remaining time for the current task. This information is supplemented by details of the current task (e.g., suggestions on how to approach the task (tunneling) or division into sub-steps

6.4 Findings

133

(reduction)). The moderator can also send triggers and reminders to the participants in the form of messages. Depending on the current task, different examples of task completion can be displayed. In terms of the Fogg behavior model (cf. Fogg 2009a), the artifact contributes primarily to ability and triggers. Functionalities such as feedback, questions, tracking of participants’ progress and documentation of the results can also be integrated. Since it is a web technology-based implementation, the artifact can also be accessed via displays and computers. Sensors can furthermore track the status or speaking times. A projector or status displays may provide an overview of the progress of the various groups or general instructions or questions and feedback.

6.4.1.3 Artifact 2: Bluetooth Beacons for Location-based Triggers This section describes the second artifact: Bluetooth beacons4 for location-based triggers. It addresses objectives 4 and 5 (enable location-based triggers; introduce measures to provide in-depth explanations and assistance with tasks) and consists of Bluetooth beacons and an associated app for smartphones and tablets. First, the reference model (cf. Figures 5.7 and 5.8) is used to analyze the preconditions and application context, and to define the system features. Then, the design and development of the artifact is described. Application of the Reference Model for Artifact 2 Figure 6.5 shows the conception of Artifact 2 using the reference model from Chapter 5. The concept is based on the defined objectives O4 and O5 (cf. Figure 6.2), as well as the observations from Chapter 3. The intent contains the workshop moderator and the organizer as persons that want to persuade. In the workshop setting, the focus is on an altering outcome to physically activate participants. Furthermore, a forming outcome is also desired since PD works with non-professional designers. The persuaders want to achieve an active cooperation between participants. So the planned type of change is an act of complying. Artifact 2 follows especially the observations from workshops WS#1, WS#2, and WS#3 (cf. Section 3.3.2 for descriptions) to describe the application context. PD tools in the given context include 2-D collages, 3-D mockups, role playing, canvases and sticky notes. Problems arose with regard to ability, motivation, knowledge, task structure and communication (cf. Chapter 3). These points form the basis for the persuasion context. The use context consists of a workshop with different stations in one room and a diverse group of participants with students, practitio4 In this context, a Bluetooth beacon is defined as a small Bluetooth module that can be placed

on or under tables or at workstations to enable localization of the participants.

134

6

Study 4: Implementing Persuasive Technology in Participatory Design

Figure 6.5 Application of the reference model (cf. Figures 5.7 and 5.8) for Artifact 2 by using the canvases (cf. Section 5.3.3.1)

6.4 Findings

135

ners and researchers who often have domain knowledge, but no design knowledge. Smartphones can be defined as familiar technology channels. The user should be reached in particular through triggers that provoke active participation including also examples and instructions. The persuasive message is transported via physical tags that deliver triggers based on the location of the participant in the room. These tags activate push messages on the participants’ smartphone providing instructions and examples. To address the objectives, Physical Tags, Persuasive Messages & Reminders, Smartphone & Mobile Device and Speech, Sound & Video (cf. Table 4.1) were identified as suitable technology platforms. Persuasive design principles mostly originate from primary task support and dialogue support categories (cf. OinasKukkonen & Harjumaa 2009). The following application scenarios serve as a basis for the implementation of the artifact (cf. Figure 4.4): • T7: Trigger location-based participation • E8: Increase enactment by interacting with RFID chips or location based triggers • G9: Enhance activity by including QR codes or RFID tags in the design process and e.g. displaying additional information • M6: Provide verbal triggers or videos explaining or simulating tasks • E7: Supply triggers to motivate and remind participants • G12: Improve collaboration by supporting decision making and explaining or recommending actions The physical tags scenarios will be implemented as Bluetooth beacons. A smartphone app will be implemented as counterpart that interacts with these beacons. Examples and instructions can be presented by using different media channels, e.g. audio, video and photos. The artifact will also be easily configurable so that changes to the instructions, structure, process or task do not require a change in programming. Implementation of Artifact 2 Design and development of the artifact follows the just presented considerations of the reference model and is thus based on established concepts for the creation of PTs (cf. Fogg 2009b; Oinas-Kukkonen 2013; Oinas-Kukkonen & Harjumaa 2009). On approach, a smartphone or tablet with the app installed can recognize and identify the Bluetooth module. The beacons are Arduino-based5 , with an attached HC-05 Bluetooth module. The app is running on Android devices. Figure 6.6 shows a 5 Arduino is an open source software and hardware platform, which supports prototyping with

electronic components (cf. https://www.arduino.cc/en/Guide/Introduction).

136

6

Study 4: Implementing Persuasive Technology in Participatory Design

schematic of Artifact 2 (left) and a photo of the beacon as well as a mockup of the application (right).

Table 1

1

Table 2

3 2

Table 3

Figure 6.6 Artifact 2: Bluetooth beacons. Adapted from Jalowski (2020); courtesy of ©Springer Nature Customer Service Centre GmbH 2020. All Rights Reserved

To use Artifact 2, each table is equipped with a Bluetooth beacon. Participants are either provided with tablets or can install the app on their own smartphone. Artifact 2 is designed mainly for use in workshops that involve steps performed at different workstations. When a participant approaches the next station, they receive a push notification about the next step, which can be viewed in the app. This activates participants according to their location, helping to improve the atmosphere and participants’ motivation. The push message also functions as a trigger, and ability can be enhanced by providing further information. These application scenarios relate mainly to location-based triggers and the display of additional data and background information. Examples related to the current task can also be displayed on the smartphone or tablet. The location-dependent triggers facilitate making or enacting activities, and the triggers should enhance participants’ motivation and ability. To integrate persuasiveness, reminders, suggestions, reduction, and tunneling can be implemented by sending messages and providing information.

6.4.1.4 Artifact 3: QR Codes for Additional Information This section describes the third artifact: QR codes for additional information. It addresses objective 5 (introduce measures to provide in-depth explanations and

6.4 Findings

137

assistance with tasks). First, the reference model (cf. Figures 5.7 and 5.8) is used to analyze the preconditions and application context, and to define the system features. Then the design and development of the artifact is described. Application of the Reference Model for Artifact 3 Figure 6.7 shows the conception of Artifact 3 using the reference model from Chapter 5. The concept is based on the defined objective O5 (cf. Figure 6.2), as well as the observations from Chapter 3. The intent contains the workshop moderator and the organizer as persons that want to persuade. In the workshop setting, the focus is on an altering outcome to physically activate participants. Furthermore, a forming outcome is also desired to increase knowledge and ability of the participants. The planned type of change is an act of complying. Artifact 3 follows particularly the observations from workshops WS#4, WS#5, and WS#6 (cf. Section 3.3.2 for descriptions) to describe the application context. PD tools in the given context include mostly paper-based tools and objects. Especially suitable are canvases, sticky notes, boards, cards and boxes. Problems arose with regard to ability, knowledge, and task structure (cf. Chapter 3). These points form the basis for the persuasion context. The use context consists of a workshop with diverese participants with limited design knowledge that work with canvases or other paperbased tools or physical objects. Smartphones can be defined as familiar technology channels. The user should be reached by providing examples and instructions as well as triggers that provoke activity. The persuasive message contains these instructions and examples. Participants have to actively scan a QR code to receive the message. This means that participants must be proactively made aware of the possibility and the added value of the stored information. To address the objectives, Physical Tags, Website & Web-based, Smartphone & Mobile Device and Speech, Sound & Video (cf. Table 4.1) were identified as suitable technology platforms. Persuasive design principles mostly originate from dialogue support and primary task support categories (cf. Oinas-Kukkonen & Harjumaa 2009). The following application scenarios serve as a basis for the implementation of the artifact (cf. Figure 4.4): • G9: Enhance activity by including QR codes or RFID tags in the design process and e.g. displaying additional information • E8: Increase enactment by interacting with RFID chips or location based triggers • G16: Show additional data or background information about certain items • G12: Improve collaboration by supporting decision making and explaining or recommending actions • G13: Explain tasks or provide examples

138

6

Study 4: Implementing Persuasive Technology in Participatory Design

Figure 6.7 Application of the reference model (cf. Figures 5.7 and 5.8) for Artifact 3 by using the canvases (cf. Section 5.3.3.1)

6.4 Findings

139

These examples are again based mostly on the physical tags scenarios in combination with websites and smartphones. In this case the physical tags are implemented as QR codes placed on other objects used in the workshop, e.g. on canvases. The website is used to deliver additional information on completing the task. This information can include e.g. questions, examples, or more detailed instructions. A smartphone or tablet is required to scan the QR codes. Examples and instructions can be presented by using different media channels, e.g. text, audio, video and images. Implementation of Artifact 3 Design and development of the artifact follows the just presented considerations of the reference model and is thus based on established concepts for the creation of PTs (cf. Fogg 2009b; Oinas-Kukkonen 2013; Oinas-Kukkonen & Harjumaa 2009). Artifact 3 is simple and easy to use. The workshop observations indicated that some participants find it difficult to ask the moderator for help, e.g. when using the Business Model Canvas by Osterwalder and Pigneur (2010) or similar tools. These canvases are usually attached in poster form to movable walls to be filled with sticky notes. QR codes are easily integrated and can be scanned by participants’ smartphones. Figure 6.8 shows an exemplary canvas with QR codes (left) and an example of a field including a QR code with additional information on the task (right).

Canvas data-based solution?

Figure 6.8 Artifact 3: Canvas with QR codes. Adapted from Jalowski (2020); courtesy of ©Springer Nature Customer Service Centre GmbH 2020. All Rights Reserved

140

6

Study 4: Implementing Persuasive Technology in Participatory Design

In the implementation described here, QR codes are applied to a canvas that supports the elaboration of business model components; in practice, QR codes can be applied to almost any object used in a given workshop. Participants can scan the codes to get further information (suggestion) and ask questions that will help them to fill in the respective fields (tunneling, reduction). The QR codes support praise, encourage increased activity, and simplify tasks. They can be used in almost all PD activities and mainly promote enacting and making.

6.4.1.5 Artifact 4: Humanoid Robot Assistant This section describes the fourth artifact: a humanoid robot assistant. It addresses objective 6 (develop a personal assistant to answer participants’ questions about the process and tasks) in combination with objectives 1 to 3. First, the reference model (cf. Figures 5.7 and 5.8) is used to analyze the preconditions and application context, and to define the system features. Then, the design and development of the artifact is described. Application of the Reference Model for Artifact 4 Figure 6.9 shows the conception of Artifact 4 using the reference model from Chapter 5. The concept is based on the defined objectives O6, O1, O2 and O3 (cf. Figure 6.2), as well as the observations from Chapter 3. The intent contains the workshop moderator and the organizer as persons who want to persuade. In the workshop setting, the main focus is on forming outcomes, as PD works with nonprofessional designers. In addition, an altering outcome should be sought in order to achieve the desired behavior. The change type act of complying should facilitate active participation and teamwork. Artifact 4 follows especially the observations from workshops WS#1, WS#2, and WS#5 (cf. Section 3.3.2 for descriptions) to describe the application context. These workshops include LEGO bricks, canvases, paper-based tools and sticky notes as PD tools. Problems arose with regard to ability, motivation, teamwork, communication, task structure and time management (cf. Chapter 3). These points form the basis for the persuasion context. The use context consists of a diverse group of participants including students, practitioners and researchers. Since a robot is not necessarily a familiar technology channel, the message is also included here. The robot communicates mainly verbally, therefore a focus should be set on the persuasive message. The user should be reached in particular through guidance and instructions. In addition, they should be presented with examples and reminded of the desired behavior and tasks. The persuasive message is transported verbally via the robot.

6.4 Findings

141

Figure 6.9 Application of the reference model (cf. Figures 5.7 and 5.8) for Artifact 4 by using the canvases (cf. Section 5.3.3.1)

142

6

Study 4: Implementing Persuasive Technology in Participatory Design

To address the objectives, Robotics, Speech, Sound & Video, Virtual Agent or Coach & Assistant and Persuasive Messages & Reminders (cf. Table 4.1) were identified as suitable technology platforms. Persuasive design principles mostly originate from primary task support, dialogue support and social support categories (cf. Oinas-Kukkonen & Harjumaa 2009). The following application scenarios serve as a basis for the implementation of the artifact (cf. Figure 4.4): • • • • • • •

G10: Robot guides through design process T8: (Humanoid) robot guiding through processes or assisting e.g. observations E9: (Humanoid) robot persuading people to enact E2: AI monitors participation and persuades passive people E12: Assistant or coach engaging users or giving feedback M6: Provide verbal triggers or videos explaining or simulating tasks G13: Explain tasks or provide examples

The robot scenarios will be implemented using a NAO robot. This robot incorporates various sensors and cameras to support monitoring of participants and thus to enable the involvement of passive participants or to support time management. The artifact will also be easily configurable so that changes to the instructions, structure, process or task do not require a change in programming. Existing examples have to be adapted to a verbal-only communication and explanation strategy. Implementation of Artifact 4 Design and development of the artifact follows the just presented considerations of the reference model and is thus based on established concepts for the creation of PTs (cf. Fogg 2009b; Oinas-Kukkonen 2013; Oinas-Kukkonen & Harjumaa 2009). In general, this humanoid robot serves as an assistant, answering questions and providing information. The implementation described here is a NAO robot of the NAO V5 generation produced by SoftBank Robotics. The robot’s humanoid construction enables it to move freely around the room from table to table. Although its features are similar to Artifact 1, the robots’ focus is on a verbal communication with participants and thus it introduces a social and more interactive component that the other artifacts do not serve. Figure 6.10 shows a schematic of Artifact 4 (left) and a photo of NAO (right). The robot is loaded with a configuration file before each workshop, including information on the process, tasks, and frequently asked questions. The NAO reacts to certain keywords and questions. By virtue of its social presence and humanoid appearance, it can play a persuasive role while leading work processes (tunneling) and even assisting. With further development, the NAO could also incorporate self-

6.4 Findings

143 How can I help you? For example, you can ask me questions about the topic and the task.

Table 1

Table 2

Table 3

Figure 6.10 Artifact 4: Humanoid robot. Adapted from Jalowski (2020); courtesy of ©Springer Nature Customer Service Centre GmbH 2020. All Rights Reserved

monitoring and cooperative elements such as recognizing and motivating inactive participants. In this way, the robot can contribute to improving participants’ motivation and ability. In terms of PD elements, it has wide application in make, tell, and enact activities.

6.4.2

Evaluation

In this study, four PT prototypes for supporting participants in PD workshops were developed (cf. Sections 6.4.1.2–6.4.1.5). In DSR, evaluation plays a crucial role in the design cycle (Hevner 2007; Hevner & Chatterjee 2010). Following the pragmatist view, artifacts should be evaluated regarding usefulness and utility (Goldkuhl 2012b; Iivari 2007). To demonstrate the usefulness of an artifact, it must be evaluated in regard to their validity, utility and efficacy (Gregor & Hevner 2013). Furthermore an evaluation ensures the relevance and rigor of the artifacts (Hevner & Chatterjee 2010). Following the framework by Venable et al. (2016) a technical risk and efficacy strategy was selected for the evaluation, since the central design risk is the technology itself. In addition, the goal of the artifacts is to support participants in design workshops, so the benefit of the artifacts depends largely on themselves. For evaluating the artifacts, three artificial and one naturalistic evaluation with real users

144

6

Study 4: Implementing Persuasive Technology in Participatory Design

in a real setting was conducted (cf. Venable et al. 2012). A combination of these two evaluation methods contributes to a robust evaluation (Venable 2006; Venable et al. 2012). The first two artifical evaluations were contucted ex ante, the third ex post (Pries-Heje et al. 2008 Sonnenberg & vom Brocke 2012a). The naturalistic evaluation was conducted after the construction and instantiation of the artifacts (cf. Pries-Heje et al. 2008; Sonnenberg & vom Brocke 2012b). Figure 6.11 gives an overview about the evaluation process of the four artifacts, described in Section 6.4.1. The four stages of the evaluation (Eval1–Eval4) are described in the following sections.

Figure 6.11 Evaluation process of the four artifacts following Sonnenberg and vom Brocke (2012b)

6.4.2.1 Eval1: Identify Problems In Eval1 the problem should be identified and formulated as a problem statement. This can, for example, be based on problems observed in practice (cf. Sonnenberg & vom Brocke 2012b). In this dissertation, problems and opportunities in the behavior of participants in design workshops were identified in Chapter 3. In addition, there

6.4 Findings

145

and in the Chapters 4 and 5 a research gap was elaborated. The aim of the Eval1 is to show the applicability, suitability, importance and novelty (Sonnenberg & vom Brocke 2012b). One of the results of Chapter 4, the PT Navigator (cf. Figure 4.4), forms the basis for that. In the form of a literature review, application scenarios were collected, showing how PT can support participants in PD. Its evaluation steps have already been described in Section 4.4.3. Within the artificial ex ante evaluation the applicability, suitability and feasibility could be shown. Based on existing technologies, application scenarios could be developed that can be used in PD. The importance and novelty of this solution is manifested in the theoretical background of this chapter (cf. Section 6.2) and in the results of Chapter 3. The results of the evaluation thus form the basis for design. The problem statement is described in Section 6.3.1, the research gap in Section 6.1, the objectives can be found in Section 6.3.2.

6.4.2.2 Eval2: Design of the Artifacts In Eval2 an artifact design is to be created which shows that the defined problem can be addressed by the artifact (Sonnenberg & vom Brocke 2012b). Since the artifact has not yet been instantiated, this step is still considered ex ante and artificial (Sonnenberg & vom Brocke 2012b; Venable et al. 2016). Eval2 validates the design, shows the understandability, clarity, simplicity, consistency and applicability of the solution (Sonnenberg & vom Brocke 2012b). This evaluation step was carried out as a criteria-based analysis (cf. Cronholm & Goldkuhl 2003; Sonnenberg & vom Brocke 2012a; Venable et al. 2016). The evaluation is based on the type 3—criteria-based evaluation of IT-systems as such and is carried out by the evaluator, its data-sources are the descriptions of the artifacts and descriptions of the criteria (Cronholm & Goldkuhl 2003). Table 6.1 lists criteria for the criteria-based analysis during Eval2. Once the criteria have been established, the functionality of the IT-systems should be defined more precisely (Cronholm & Goldkuhl 2003). In this study this is accomplished by applying the reference model from Chapter 5. Detailed designs were made for each of the four artifacts. Thereby preconditions were analyzed and determined and system features were defined. Figure 6.3 contains the specifications for Artifact 1; Figure 6.5 contains the specifications for Artifact 2; Figure 6.7 contains the specifications for Artifact 3; Figure 6.9 contains the specifications for Artifact 4. In this phase, the developers, who develop the artifacts together with the author, were also involved in the process. In these project meetings, the understandability and clarity of the concepts were agreed and further refined. Having defined the criteria and functionalities, the criteria-based analysis can be used to show simplicity, consistency, applicability and theoretical efficacy (cf. Cronholm & Goldkuhl 2003;

146

6

Study 4: Implementing Persuasive Technology in Participatory Design

Table 6.1 Criteria for the four artifacts in terms objective number, planned application scenarios (cf. Chapter 4), expected PD activity (Sanders 2013; Sanders et al. 2010), behavior model elements (Fogg 2009a), and persuasive design principles (Oinas-Kukkonen & Harjumaa 2008a, 2009). Adapted from Jalowski (2020); courtesy of ©Springer Nature Customer Service Centre GmbH 2020. All Rights Reserved Art.

Obj.

Application Scenarios

PD

Behavior Model

Persuasive Design Principles

A1

O1, O2, O3

Make, tell, enact

Ability, trigger

A2

O4, O5

Make, enact

Trigger, motivation, ability

A3

O5

Enact, make

Ability, trigger

Reduction, tunneling, suggestions, reminders, selfmonitoring, praise Reminders, suggestions, reduction, tunneling Praise, suggestions, tunneling, reduction

A4

O6, O1, O2, O3

• Support decision making and explain or recommend actions • Show additional data or background information (e.g. task, examples) • Time management • Location-based triggers • Show additional data or background information (e.g. task, examples) • Enhance activity by incorporating QR codes or RFID tags in the design process and displaying additional information • (Humanoid) robot persuading people to enact • (Humanoid) robot guiding processes or assisting

Make, tell, enact

Motivation, ability

Tunneling, social role, selfmonitoring, cooperation

Sonnenberg & vom Brocke 2012a; Venable et al. 2016). As a result, both the application scenarios and the support in the PD of the designed artifacts were more precisely defined than specified in the criteria. Figures 6.3, 6.5, 6.7 and 6.9 show the final results. These define the outputs of Eval2: the design specifications and requirements for the Artifacts 1–4. In addition, mock-ups were designed, which are included in this work as Figures 6.4, 6.6, 6.8 and 6.10.

6.4.2.3 Eval3: Validate Artifact Prototypes In Eval3 the ex ante and ex post settings are connected. It takes prototypes of artifacts as input and provides first steps to demonstrate their utility. The goal is to validate

6.4 Findings

147

the artifacts in an artificial setting to show feasibility, ease of use, effectiveness and fidelity with real world phenomena (Sonnenberg & vom Brocke 2012b). In this step the prototypes of the artifacts were developed based on the results of Eval2. Subsequently, the application of the artifacts was demonstrated in artificial settings and expert interviews were conducted. During the development process, the artifacts were regularly discussed with five different researchers and developers. During the project meetings, the next steps in the development process were agreed, and the artifacts were modified in line with the feedback provided. After certain iterations four expert interviews (Ex1–Ex4) were conducted to discuss the artifacts in detail. In addition, regular meetings and project reports from three developers (Dev1–Dev3) were included in this evaluation step. Table 6.2 gives an overview about the topics of the experts and developers.

Table 6.2 Overview of experts and developers ID

Description

Ex1 Ex2 Ex3 Ex4 Dev1 Dev2 Dev3

Organizer of workshops and design sprints Organizer of business model development workshops Design thinking coach Technology expert and workshop participant Developer working with web-based technologies Mobile application developer Developer working with robotic technologies

Artifact 1 Artifact 1 is very flexible and adaptable. The application scenarios were positively evaluated in all discussions and project meetings. Due to the tablet-based technology the artifact is in general feasible and easy to use. In technical terms, the artifact is a web page that is displayed on a tablet. This means that the artifact can be easily reprogrammed as requirements change. New functionalities that were not initially considered can also be implemented quickly. Ex3 mentions the possibility to support group formation or to use the artifact for data collection, for example in design thinking processes. Ex1 also sees potential in the application of the artifact for the holistic support of a design sprint including also documentation of the results. Ex2 states: “If I have a small workshop, for example, where there are three representatives from one company and two from a partner company or from the customer, then I think you can use that less well than if you have a larger workshop, where there are

148

6

Study 4: Implementing Persuasive Technology in Participatory Design

workshop groups again, where you divide the participants into four/five groups and then the groups work separately and then they all come together again, so if you divide the workshop, then it can be super helpful if you give each group a tablet like this for the structure, timing or also further information. But you can do much more with it, you can quickly make a video with a camera, for example to record a process, a customer experience and show it to the others later.” Dev1 sees a good application potential in workshops with several groups, especially through the timer function and the provision of information and examples. Due to its flexibility Artifact 1 has a high applicability to the real world phenomena identified in Chapter 3. The application of the artifact is straightforward. Both participants and moderators are normally familiar with the technology. The artifact is also configurable and easy to use. The interview partners note that the artifact is effective from their point of view, as it can actively support the participants with a wide range of information and assistance. Artifact 2 Artifact 2 is more specialized than Artifact 1. It integrates a playful component and provides the participants with information depending on their position in a room. Therefore, the artifact is only suitable for workshops in which the participants should work on different stations. Because push notifications should be sent to the participants’ smartphones, they must first install a dedicated app. The data retrieved by the app is available on a server and can be changed with a manageable amount of effort. Nevertheless, the effort is higher than with Artifact 1. This was also critically noted by one developer and the interview partners. The current implementation uses HM-05 Bluetooth modules. These cannot be used in combination with iPhones and iPads, which reduces the possible user base. Ex4 and Dev2 note that in the future Bluetooth LE-enabled modules should therefore be used to maintain compatibility with more devices. For Ex1 and their workshops the artifact is over-engineered: “It is nice, maybe it’s relevant in one context or another, if you have really complex things in a room, it can make sense.” Dev2 believes that the artifact can prevent questions from the participants, because it automatically provides necessary information and thus supports them. The applicability of the artifact suffers from the limitations described above. The feasibility is therefore also not trivial, some preparation is necessary. For the participant the artifact is relatively easy to use, for the organizer technical knowledge is inevitably required. The link to real world phenomena is also less than for Artifact 1, as the application range is substantially smaller and limited to workshops with different stations. By automatically sending instructions, reminders and examples, the artifact still has the potential to be effective and to actively support participants.

6.4 Findings

149

Artifact 3 Artifact 3 is very simple and easy to use. In the most basic implementation, the information is stored directly in the QR Code. To be able to offer different formats of help and examples, Artifact 3 is used in this project together with a web-server. This also allows for example a combination with Artifact 1. QR codes are widely used, so most participants should be familiar with the basic concept. Furthermore, the codes can be applied to almost all surfaces. In combination with canvases, the application is very practical, when QR codes are placed in the different fields. Ex4 notes that QR codes can potentially have security risks, because the user cannot see what is hidden behind the code. Ex1 considers QR codes to be easy to use, but is unsure whether they really offer added value. For Ex2 it depends again on the size of a workshop whether the application is really useful: “the bigger the workshop is or the more participants have to think about something individually or in groups and then need information, it is difficult to deal with individual questions of 25 people”. Artifact 3 has a high applicability, it can also address many points of the application domain, as described in Chapter 3. The artifact is also feasible and easy to use. One disadvantage is that the participants have to become proactive and scan the code, so it can only implicitly act as trigger or reminder. In general, Artifact 3 is regarded as effective because it is a low-threshold way of providing and transporting content and examples without the intervention or assistance of a moderator. Artifact 4 Artifact 4 is quite specialized, in the form of a humanoid robot. It can move freely in the room and communicate verbally with the participants. In order for the robot to be able to support, it must be loaded with a configuration file that contains all the information that the robot can provide during the workshop. Since the communication is done completely via speech, the robot’s speech recognition software must be provided with suitable keywords so that it can correctly recognize questions and provide answers to the participants. The use of the robot must be thoroughly prepared and tested and is therefore less flexible and more difficult to adapt than the other artifacts. For Ex1, the use of the NAO is not an option: “I say no. I don’t think the humanoid robot is advanced enough yet.” Ex2 describes an attracting effect, participants are often curious and may want to interact with the robot. However, he sees problems with the speech output, he thinks it is better if answers are also presented visually. Dev3 notes that the artifact has weaknesses, especially the free movement in the room causes problems for the NAO. Also, speech and face recognition does not always work properly. In theory, the use of a robot seems well suited, it can move freely in space and thus go from group to group. Since all movements and responses must be programmed in advance, Artifact 4 is relatively inflexible and

150

6

Study 4: Implementing Persuasive Technology in Participatory Design

must be adapted very precisely to a specific scenario. According to the experiences of the author and involved programmers, both speech recognition and motion patterns are not accurate enough for productive use. The applicability of the artifact is therefore not easy to implement. This is particularly due to difficulties in terms of feasibility and ease of use. Real-world phenomena, however, can again be well addressed, since the functions are similar to Artifact 1. The weaknesses of the points mentioned above also have a negative impact on effectiveness. The playful component, which arouses interest in the robot, could have a positive influence, but only if the functionality is otherwise satisfactory.

6.4.2.4 Eval4: Apply the Artifacts In Eval4 artifacts were applied in workshops. As Artifact 3 required less development, it was implemented for a workshop on a canvas for structuring the design thinking process. The tool was used by two of the three groups. Participants’ responses indicated that the explanations and questions should be formulated more concisely, and that the ability to scan QR codes should be more clearly highlighted. The Artifacts 1 and 3 were adapted to a specific setting in a workshop (AKGM). Artifact 4 was not included due to the technical disadvantages and the evaluations from Eval3. Artifact 2 is not suitable for the purpose of this task, as the workshop was virtual due to the limitations of the COVID-19 pandemic and did not include different stations. The topic of the workshop was AI-based business models. In three sessions, a total of 16 participants dealt with questions concerning challenges and potentials in the implementation of (AI) business models, the use of AI (in intelligent production) and the design of AI business models. As PD tools a virtual canvas and virtual sticky notes were used. The participants were mainly researchers and practitioners, no design experts. All participants were provided with the URL6 of Artifact 1 at the beginning of the workshop. Through the virtual execution of the workshop different web-based tools were used; Artifact 1 served in this context as a central place where all explanations, links to tools and material were brought together. The progress of the workshops was communicated via the agenda, the current agenda item was marked. The overview of the individual tasks was divided into subtasks also providing assistance. The current task was also marked. Additionally, there was the possibility to send messages and reminders to the participants. The header contains a timer that can be set flexibly. QR codes leading to further explanations were placed on the workspace. Figure 6.12 shows a screenshot of the landing page, including the time schedule, the current agenda item and a timer. Refer to Annex F for screenshots of different views of the artifact. 6 https://ak-gm.revolutionizing-workshops.de

6.4 Findings

151

Figure 6.12 Screenshot of the workshop schedule with marking of the current agenda item and a timer in the upper right corner

After the workshop, feedback from the participants was collected. 9 participants used the tool during the whole duration of the workshop. The structuring of the workshop with the support of Artifact 1 was well received. One participant noted: “It was very helpful to have an overview of the tools”. In physical as well as virtual workshops Artifact 1 is suitable to structure the workshop. Especially in virtual settings with different channels and webtools the overview is quickly lost, another participant remarks: “the tool is very helpful and practical and can really support the process”. Furthermore, the structuring of the tasks was noted in some places as not yet clear enough. The timer was evaluated as not noticeable enough. Therefore, the timer has been adjusted so that it shows elapsing time via color changes and is generally more highlighted. In summary, based on all evaluation iterations, especially Artifact 1’s applicability, usefulness and functionality can be assumed. With regard to completeness, further functionalities can be integrated in the future, as already mentioned. The usability of the artifact was particularly emphasized in the virtual workshop, although here, too, further adjustments were required. Artifact 3 offers an added value especially in physical workshops, as illustrated by Eval3. In workshops, moderators should point out the possibility of scanning QR codes in order to sensitize

152

6

Study 4: Implementing Persuasive Technology in Participatory Design

participants to their use. Artifacts 2 and 4 are more specific, but can also offer added value depending on the objectives of the workshop and the target group, as they particularly integrate playful components.

6.5

Discussion

This section discusses the results of this DSR study. First, the contribution of the artifacts to the knowledge base and the relation to existing research is described. Subsequently, the practical applicability and usage is discussed.

6.5.1

Theoretical Contributions

Based on the results of Chapters 3, 4 and 5, the objective of this chapter was to deliver four concrete prototypes of PT that can be applied in PD workshops. This study described four artifacts to support PD workshop participants by providing detailed task explanations and assistance, guiding the process, enhancing time management, and providing location-based triggers. This kind of technological support for design processes has rarely been researched. Although some work on creativity support tools is broadly comparable, this often focuses on internet-based collaboration (Frich et al. 2019) rather than workshops, with the exception of such tools as large interactive displays that are also used in offline settings (Hartmann et al. 2010). Relatively few studies in the PT literature relate to workshop support or creative processes, comparable works focus primarily on applications for sharing feedback (Stibe & Oinas-Kukkonen 2014a, 2014b), gamified learning (Challco, Mizoguchi, & Isotani 2016), or defining application scenarios (cf. Chapter 4 and Jalowski et al. 2019a). The influence of digital technologies on users’ creativity has also been explored in the context of digital innovation (cf. Gauntlett 2013). In this direction, the role of DSR artifacts as a creativity tool for digital innovation is also described (Hevner et al. 2019), but also rarely implemented. In order to address this research gap, four tangible artifacts were developed based on technologies and devices that are widely used both in PT research (cf. Section 4.2.1) and as creativity support tools (Frich et al. 2019). The results of Chapter 3 reveal that participants were often unfamiliar (nonroutine) or uncomfortable (pleasure/pain) with the materials, tools, or methods used. Artifacts 1, 3, and 4 in particular serve to enhance participants’ ability by providing task information, instructions and examples. This encourages participants to ask questions and provides uncomplicated help with their own devices (social-

6.5 Discussion

153

acceptance/rejection). Furthermore, as missing triggers lead to incorrect task solution, Artifacts 1, 2, and 4 were designed to serve as triggers if required. Along with ability and triggers, Fogg insisted that motivation is essential for a behavior change (Fogg 2009a), and this was supported here by interactivity and the novel use of new technologies. In particular, Artifacts 2 and 4 introduce a playful component to the workshops, which can have a positive influence on motivation (Algashami et al. 2017). In some workshops, time management was also a problem. To address this issue, Artifacts 1 and 4 can track the workshop’s progress and inform participants through messaging. Furthermore, Artifact 4 adds a gamified and social component that the previous artifacts do not incorporate. This study opens a under-researched area for PT (Torning & Oinas-Kukkonen 2009), i.e. the support of in-person collaboration utilizing the Fogg behavior model (Fogg 2009a) and persuasive design principles (Oinas-Kukkonen & Harjumaa 2009). The analysis of the persuasion context is an important step towards design and implementation of PTs (Oinas-Kukkonen & Harjumaa 2009). So far, preparatory work has been done in this area, particularly in the healthcare sector. Alahäivälä et al. (2013) for example analyze the connections between use context, user context, technology context, message and route in the health sector. In combination with the reference model from Chapter 5, this chapter thus provides initial approaches for the analysis of the persuasion context in the field of design workshops. In particular by means of the previous specification of the PD process as well as challenges and opportinuties in the creative setting. From a DSR perspective, the developed artifacts contribute as exaptation to the knowledge base (Gregor & Hevner 2013). They combine the concept of PT and BCSS with the support of individual and group creativity of participants in design workshops. PT is applied successfully especially in application fields, such as healthcare (e.g. Alahäivälä et al. 2013; Lehto 2012; Oinas-Kukkonen 2013; Orji & Moffatt 2018) and sustainability (e.g. Alharbi & Chatterjee 2015; Anagnostopoulou et al. 2018; Shevchuk, Degirmenci, & Oinas-Kukkonen 2019). In this study, these concepts of behavior change via technology are transferred as a solution to creative and innovation processes. From a digital innovation point of view in DSR, the developed artifacts are technical artifacts, i.e. digital technology (role 1), moreover they can also be used to support digital innovation as a creativity tool (role 5) (Hevner et al. 2019). The artifacts thus contribute to digital innovation by supporting such a process. They represent a digital innovation outcome on the one hand, and on the other hand the instantiations serve to support a digital innovation process (cf. Hund et al. 2019; Nambisan et al. 2017). Following the assumptions of Elam and Mead (1990), the application of persuasive design principles to creativity support tools can have a positive influence on

154

6

Study 4: Implementing Persuasive Technology in Participatory Design

participants—especially for inexperienced participants, who seem to benefit from better integration of creativity supporting tools (Frich et al. 2019). As their use is independent of creative process phases, the four artifacts align with basic features of creativity support tools (Frich et al. 2019). The artifacts contribute to research on creativity support tools by providing practical implementations with persuasive features. In both fields of research, intervention and its timing play a major role (cf. Fogg 2009b; Thomas et al. 2002). In particular, Artifact 1 aims for well-timed triggers, which should influence the behavior of participants in workshops. The other artifacts support the creative process mainly by supporting motivation, knowledge and ability. These are part of the individual characteristics which, according to the propositions of Woodman et al. (1993), have an influence on individual creativity, which in turn influences creativity in the group. All artifacts provide information and examples that support the participants’ skills and knowledge. Artifacts 1 and 4 also contribute to an increase in the motivation of participants via triggers, but in any case remind them of behavioral patterns. In relation to PD, this work contributes primarily to the integration of technologies into the design process. While this issue has been referred to in some earlier studies (Hagen & Robertson 2009; Kensing & Blomberg 1998), it has not been explored in detail or by the use of concrete artifacts. The present study demonstrates the use of PT to support PD through the systematic development of four artifacts, and the results contribute directly to the existing knowledge base (Hevner 2007). As discussed earlier, the use of PT in PD workshops remains relatively unexplored beyond the theoretical level. The work described here advances existing knowledge by implementing four prototypes: (1) a tablet-based support; (2) Bluetooth beacons for location-based triggers; (3) QR codes for providing additional information; and (4) a humanoid robot assistant. Each artifact incorporates persuasive strategies that can exert a positive influence on workshop participants’ behavior by enhancing motivation, ability and initiating triggers.

6.5.2

Practical Contributions

The results of this study are particularly relevant for workshop moderators and organizers. Nevertheless, its use in various collaborative and creative processes is conceivable. The artifacts developed in this study address real-world problems. In Chapter 3, design workshops were observed and interviews with moderators and participants were conducted. Problems were identified at individual and group level. Furthermore, general problems and opportunities regarding the structuring of the task, time management and documentation of the results were identifed. The artifacts

6.6 Conclusion and Implications

155

1 to 4 each address a number of these points, so they can be used directly to support participants in design workshops. To facilitate the transfer into practice, the artifacts are designed to be easily configurable. Annex E contains configuration examples. Artifacts 1 and 4 are each loaded with a configuration file in JSON 7 or CSV 8 format that contains all relevant information. Moderators and organizers of a workshop therefore only have to store relevant data regarding the structure of the workshop, time planning, tasks and frequently asked questions for these artifacts. They can then use the artifacts directly in a workshop. Artifact 1 is web-based, so only a web server and devices such as smartphones or tablets are required. Artifact 2 requires Android devices and suitable Bluetooth beacons. Each station can be uniquely identified via a Bluetooth address. The information provided to the participants is stored on a REST 9 server and can therefore be adapted and made available at any time. For the application of Artifact 3, the information can be encoded directly in the QR code or again be operated in combination with a web server, on which the information can then also be made available in multimedia format. Artifact 4 requires a NAO V5 robot. The evaluations confirm that the artifacts are relevant to practice. Especially Artifact 1 seems to have a good impact, not only in classical, but also in virtualized workshops. The spectrum of addressable problems is also large and flexible. In order to make the results as accessible as possible for practitioners, the following Chapter 7 provides design principles and a website with the key findings.

6.6

Conclusion and Implications

In this chapter, prototypes of PT for use in design workshops were developed in the course of a DSR approach. These are arranged as four artifacts: (1) a tablet-based support; (2) Bluetooth beacons for location-based triggers; (3) QR codes for providing additional information; and (4) a humanoid robot assistant. The development of the artifacts is based on the findings of the previous chapters. Thus, challenges from Chapter 3 are addressed by means of application scenarios from Chapter 4. The actual prototypes were conceptualized using the reference model from Chapter 5. The artifacts were evaluated artificially and naturalistic in four evaluation iterations. Based on the evaluation results, the respective artifacts were further refined. 7 JavaScript

object notation—a human readable standardized data format (cf. RFC 8259 – https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8259). 8 Comma-separated values; a file and data format. 9 Representational state transfer—an architectural style for web services as described by Fielding (2000).

156

6

Study 4: Implementing Persuasive Technology in Participatory Design

This chapter and its approach is therefore mainly located in the design cycle (cf. Figure 1.2) of this dissertation. By using the results of the previous chapters, the relevance and rigor of the artifacts is ensured. The artifacts therefore contribute to the knowledge base and environment in the field of PT for PD. Limitations of this study and further research potentials are described in Section 7.4. The present study represents a first step towards a more systematic use of PT in PD workshops. The artifacts therefore range between situated implementation and nascent design theory (cf. Gregor & Hevner 2013). Similar to Chapter 4, the results of this study are first linked to the results from Chapter 3, clustered in individual level, group level and general creative process level. Features that are technically feasible but not implemented in the prototypes are marked with Possible with Ax. Table 6.3 refers to the potentials for the individual level from Figure 3.7 and lists artifacts integrating the respective points.

Table 6.3 Integration of application potentials for PT in the artifacts on individual level (cf. Figure 3.7) Individual level

Potentials and artifact integrating the potential

Ability

• Make non-routine behavior more simple and reduce physical effort and brain cycles → A1, A2 and A3 • Structure and simplify the process → A1, A2, A3 and A4 • Sparks or facilitators as triggers → A1 and A4 • Present examples of what results might look like → A1, A2 and A3 • Increase knowledge about the tools used in the workshop → A1, A2, A3 and A4 • Provide facilitating triggers, including examples, support and explanations → A1 and A4 • Introduce a playful component or modern technologies → A2, A3 and A4 • Track the progress of a workshop and show previous sub-results → A1 • Increase thematic interest → A1, A2, A3 and A4

Knowledge

Motivation

Table 6.4 refers to the potentials for the group level from Figure 3.7 and lists artifacts integrating the respective points.

6.6 Conclusion and Implications

157

Table 6.4 Integration of application potentials for PT in the artifacts on group level (cf. Figure 3.7) Group level

Potentials and artifact integrating the potential

Composition

• Composition of the group as a success factor → Possible with A1 • Conduct self-tests before dividing into groups → Possible with A1 • Support the task by improving knowledge and ability → A1, A2, A3 and A4 • Better structuring or design of the task → A1, A2, A3 and A4 • Capture the behavior of the group, e.g. discussions or passive participants, intervene through triggers → Possible with A1 and A4 • Increase involvement by supporting thematic interest → Possible with A1, A2, A3 and A4 • Introduce playful components to activate passive participants → A2, A3 and A4

Task

Teamwork

Table 6.5 refers to the potentials for the general process level from Figure 3.7 and lists artifacts integrating the respective points.

Table 6.5 Integration of application potentials for PT in the artifacts on a general process level (cf. Figure 3.7) General

Potentials and artifact integrating the potential

Time management

• Support a clear time management → A1 and A4 • Track speech times of participants → Possible with A4 • Simplification of the task and division into subtasks → A1, A2, A3 and A4 • Guide through the task (tunneling) → A1, A2, A3 and A4 • Technology-supported documentation of the results → Possible with A1 • Influence on the outcome of a creative process during the process and in the follow-up → Possible with A1

Task structuring

Documentation

Ronja Researcher and Fred Facilitator also profit from the results from Chapter 6. Figure 6.13 presents their insights.

158

6

Study 4: Implementing Persuasive Technology in Participatory Design

Figure 6.13 Insights from Chapter 6 for Ronja and Fred

Based on these situated implementations and the results of the Chapters 3, 4 and 5, design principles can now be derived. These can be classified as knowledge as operational principles or architecture (Gregor & Hevner 2013). In Chapter 7 the essential results of the individual studies are therefore briefly summarized and then more generally applicable design principles for the use of PT in PD workshops are derived.

7

Summarizing Findings and Implications

7.1

Objectives and Structure

This chapter forms the conclusion of the dissertation. The overall goal of this dissertation is to explore how persuasive technology can be applied in participatory design workshops to support the individual and group creativity of participants. To this end, four studies were carried out, each of them examined partial aspects of the overarching question. In this chapter, the results are combined and design principles for the use of persuasive technology (PT) in participatory design (PD) workshops are derived. Chapter 7 is structured as follows (cf. Figure 7.1): First of all, the individual chapters are briefly summarized in Section 7.2. The results of the studies are then discussed in Section 7.3 and design principles are derived. Section 7.4 describes limitations and future research possibilities. This chapter and the dissertation close with the concluding remarks in Section 7.5.

7.2

Summary of Chapters 1–6

This section summarizes the most important aspects of each chapter of this dissertation. It sets the stage for the concluding discussion of the results in the following Section 7.3.

7.2.1

Summary of Chapter 1

The goal of Chapter 1 was to introduce the topic and to present the motivation and research setting. Section 1.1 clarified the title of this dissertation and © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2021 M. Jalowski, Revolutionizing Workshops, Markt- und Unternehmensentwicklung Markets and Organisations, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-33312-6_7

159

160

7

Summarizing Findings and Implications

Figure 7.1 Structure of Chapter 7

described how PT could revolutionize workshops. Workshops are often structured and supported by methods, concepts or tools (cf. Knapp et al. 2016; Osterwalder & Pigneur 2010; Satzger et al. 2018). They bring together participants from different domains, for example in PD (cf. Kensing & Blomberg 1998; Sanders & Stappers 2008). The design methods, such as design thinking, promote the creativity of the participants (Meinel et al. 2020). However, due to the diversity of the participants, they do not only consist of design experts (Sanders & Stappers 2008). This dissertation therefore proposes the use of PTs to support participants in workshops. A PT can be used to change user behavior (Fogg 1998, 2003), and increase motivation and ability or provide a trigger (cf. Fogg 2009a). This aspect has been barely or not at all

7.2 Summary of Chapters 1–6

161

considered, but it might be a form of revolution for workshops—technologies that consider the behavior of participants and support them in their ability and knowledge. Section 1.2 presented the overall research design and defined the following research questions: RQ1: How can persuasive technology and behavior change support systems help to change the creative behavior of design workshop participants? RQ2: How can persuasive technologies be applied to change behavior in participatory design processes? RQ3: How can the creation of persuasive technologies for participatory design be modelled and thus support the design of such technologies? RQ4: How can persuasive technologies be implemented to support participants’ knowledge, abilities and motivation in participatory design workshops? To address these research questions, a pragmatic design science research (DSR) approach was applied (Deng & Ji 2018; Gregor & Hevner 2013; Hevner 2007). The concluding Section 1.3 summarized the structure of this dissertation.

7.2.2

Summary of Chapter 2

The goal of Chapter 2 was to present relevant theoretical concepts for the subsequent studies. Section 2.1 gave an overview about the objectives and structure of this chapter. Afterwards, Section 2.2 presented extant work on PT and behavior change support systems (BCSS). PTs can change the attitude and behavior of a person (Fogg 1998), this happens without coercion or deception (Fogg 2003). BCSS are a sub-category of PT. In this research area, the type of change is specified in more detail (Oinas-Kukkonen 2013), furthermore common principles for designing persuasive systems are as well part of the ongoing research (Oinas-Kukkonen & Harjumaa 2009). For understanding human behavior, the Fogg behavior model contains three factors that should occur at the same time to achieve a successful behavior change: motivation, ability and trigger (Fogg 2009a). These three topics in particular form the basis for the description and design of technologies that are intended to influence the behavior of participants in workshops. Section 2.3 presented different approaches on collaborative design. This dissertation mostly builds on PD, which integrates non-designers in a co-design process (Sanders et al. 2010). In this

162

7

Summarizing Findings and Implications

research field, a variety of tools, techniques and methods exists, which can be used for the analysis and design of workshops (Sanders 2013). Afterwards, Section 2.4 presented research on creativity as a background to analyze the behavior of participants in workshops. In design processes, creativity plays an important role (Le Masson et al. 2009; Sanders & Stappers 2008). The work of Amabile (1983) as well as individual and group characteristics in creative processes (Woodman et al. 1993) is used as a lens for describing and analyzing the behavior of participants. Finally, Section 2.5 concluded the contents of Chapter 2 and presented implications for the remainder of this dissertation.

7.2.3

Summary of Chapter 3

The goal of Chapter 3 was to explore the behavior of participants in creative processes based on different theoretical concepts (i.e. PT, BCSS, PD and individual and group characteristics in creative processes). For this purpose an abductive embedded multiple-case study (cf. Dubois & Gadde 2002; Yin 2018) was conducted. This chapter helps to identify problems in environment and application domain and thus supports the relevance of the research and forms a basis for the further chapters (cf. Figure 1.2). Section 3.1 gave an overview about the objectives and structure. Section 3.2 presented further theoretical background by drawing relationships between the key concepts relevant to this chapter. In Section 3.3 the case study research approach and the case setting were presented. The setting consists of two perspectives: observation of six design workshops and nine interviews with moderators and participants of design workshops. The collected data were imported, organized and analyzed systematically using MAXQDA2018.2 software. Section 3.4 presented the findings: behavioral and organizational issues that can be addressed using PT. To that end, a combination of models and theories advanced by Amabile (1983), Fogg (2009a), Oinas-Kukkonen (2013), Woodman et al. (1993) was proposed to identify potentials and application scenarios, focusing in particular on improving ability through task simplification, knowledge and motivation. PTs often act as a trigger for desired behaviors by providing reminders or task-specific examples and information to simplify processes, as well as supporting group formation. Furthermore, PT can facilitate tracking of the progress of the creative process and documentation of the results. The following Section 3.5 discussed the implications of the findings for research and practice. The proposed combination of different theoretical perspectives is new in the literature, so it offers a variety of insights especially for PT, PD and creativity research. It identified patterns in the behavior of participants in design workshops that offer opportunities for PTs. This forms a concrete point of

7.2 Summary of Chapters 1–6

163

departure for the design and implementation of PTs for use in design workshops. Finally, Section 3.6 concluded the contents of Chapter 3 and presented implications for the remainder of this dissertation.

7.2.4

Summary of Chapter 4

The goal of Chapter 4 was first to provide an overview of types of PT and to accumulate existing examples. Second, to derive and categorize application scenarios for PT in PD. This chapter mainly contributes to the knowledge base and environment (cf. Figure 1.2). Section 4.1 gave an overview about the objectives and structure. Section 4.2 presented further theoretical background on different perspectives on the role of technology in PT research; on methods, toolkits and tools for PD; and on motivation of participants and other success factors. In Section 4.3 the research design was described including the approach of reviewing existing literature on technology in PT as well as the DSR approach to create the application navigator artifact. The literature review followed the suggestions by Webster and Watson (2002). The DSR approach followed the three cycle view by Hevner (2007), Hevner et al. (2004). Section 4.4 presented the findings: first 17 common PT platforms as the result of the literature review. Then, the artifact and its evaluation: 49 application scenarios with overall 84 examples. These scenarios were divided into four categories: making, telling, enacting and general. The resulting PT Navigator is designed for use in the eight-step design process of Fogg (2009b). The artifact was evaluated in three rounds. First artificial, then also in a real environment with developers of PTs. The following Section 4.5 discussed the implications of the findings for research and practice. This study mainly contributes to PT research by proposing application scenarios in an under-researched and challenging field: knowledge work and collaboration (Torning & Oinas-Kukkonen 2009). Futhermore, it presents strategies to motivate participants, which also plays a role in creativity research (Amabile 1983; Woodman et al. 1993). Technology support in PD is also less common, the scenarios are fitted directly to categories of PD tools (Sanders 2013; Sanders et al. 2010) or common problems from collaborative design processes (Jarvela & Jarvenoja 2011). Thus, the PT Navigator facilitates the implementation of PT in creative processes. Finally, Section 4.6 concluded the contents of Chapter 4 and presented implications for the remainder of this dissertation. The results of Chapter 4 and Chapter 3 were combined: the PT platforms and application scenarios were assigned to the potentials for PT in creative processes within design workshops.

164

7.2.5

7

Summarizing Findings and Implications

Summary of Chapter 5

The goal of Chapter 5 was to collect and combine different approaches to create PT for PD. For this purpose, a theoretical-conceptual study (Gilson, & Goldberg 2015) was conducted to create a reference model to enable the conceptualization and creation of PT for PD. This chapter therefore contributes to the knowledge base by aggregating existing design methods and frameworks (cf. Figure 1.2). Section 5.1 gave an overview about the objectives and structure. Section 5.2 presented further theoretical background on toolkits and canvases for designing technology; reference modelling; and approaches for creating PTs. Subsequently, in Section 5.3, three different approaches for deriving the reference model were presented: (1) the eight-step design process for creating PT (Fogg 2009b); (2) persuasive system design and BCSS (Oinas-Kukkonen 2013; Oinas-Kukkonen & Harjumaa 2009); and (3) a design-oriented approach, including the perspectives of Jarvela and Jarvenoja (2011), Sanders (2013), Sanders et al. (2010), Woodman et al. (1993). Afterwards, the reference model was derived (cf. Figures 5.7 and 5.8) combining the three approaches with the results of Chapters 3 and 4. To make the reference model more accessible, two canvases and an online tool were developed. The following Section 5.4 discussed the implications of the findings for research and practice. This study provides an integrated concept for the development of PT for PD. The model can be seen as a deductive model, which was created based on scientific approaches (Fettke & Loos 2004a, 2004b). Finally, Section 5.5 concluded the contents of Chapter 5 and presented implications for the remainder of this dissertation. Since the reference model combines the results of the previous studies, it builds the basis for designing PT for PD.

7.2.6

Summary of Chapter 6

The goal of Chapter 6 was to deliver four concrete prototypes of PT that can be applied in PD workshops. It builds on the contributions from the three other chapters to the environment, the problems and opportunities from the application domain as well as the knowledge base. This chapter therefore mainly focused on the design of artifacts and is located in the design cycle, as shown in Figure 1.2. Section 6.1 gave an overview about the objectives and structure. Section 6.2 presented further theoretical background on digital innovation; creativity support tools; and on analyzing the persuasion context. In Section 6.3 the research design was described. In this study a DSR approach was applied, following the DSR methodology by Peffers et al. (2007). Hence, this section also presented the underlying problem, motivation, objectives,

7.3 Combining the Results

165

design, development, evaluation and communication of the artifacts. Section 6.4 presented the findings: four artifacts of PT. Artifact 1: a tablet-based application; Artifact 2: Bluetooth beacons for location-based triggers; Artifact 3: QR codes for additional information; and Artifact 4: a humanoid robot assistant. Afterwards, the evaluation of the artifacts was described, following a technical risk and efficacy strategy (Venable et al. 2016) with four evaluation iterations. These iterations were conducted ex ante and ex post as well as artificial and naturalistic (Pries-Heje et al. 2008; Sonnenberg & vom Brocke 2012a, 2012b; Venable et al. 2012). The following Section 6.5 discussed the implications of the findings for research and practice. The results contribute to research on creativity support tools by providing prototypes of tools incorporating persuasive design principles that can support the creativity of participants. They also provide insights in analyzing the persuasion context in design processes by applying the reference model. From a DSR perspective, the developed artifacts contribute as exaptation to the knowledge base (Gregor & Hevner 2013). They combine the concept of PT and BCSS with the support of individual and group creativity of participants in design workshops. Furthermore, this study contributes to the integration of technologies into PD processes. The artifacts are easily configurable so they provide also added value for practitioners who want to support their workshops with PT. Finally, Section 6.6 concluded the contents of Chapter 6 and presented implications for deriving design principles in the following section.

7.3

Combining the Results

This section synthesizes the results of the four studies. The first section discusses the results of all studies. The following section derives design principles for PT in PD workshops.

7.3.1

Overall Discussion and Implications of the Results of Studies 1–4

The subproblems of the objectives of this dissertation are considered in different research areas. This includes research on PT, (participatory) design, creativity and creativity support tools. Especially the combination of design and creativity topics with PT is rather unexplored. So far, the behavior of participants in workshops has not been researched from a PT point of view. This opens up a new field of research for PT.

166

7

Summarizing Findings and Implications

First, the Fogg behavior model (Fogg 2009a) was therefore used to investigate the behavior of participants in workshops. This also provides new insights into the use of the model in a new application context. With regard to ability it was found that the tasks for the participants are often non-routine and require brain cycles. The analysis identified the various combinations of lack of motivation and ability as described by Fogg (2009a), thus revealing the application potential for PT. This can be utilized in the form of triggers, for example reminders, sparks, facilitators or signals. The analysis also revealed potential for improving domain-relevant skills as well as creativity-relevant skills if participants lack ability or knowledge (Amabile 1983; Woodman et al. 1993). Furthermore, the first study provides insights into the role of group composition (cf. Woodman et al. 1993) and possible change types (cf. OinasKukkonen 2013). The first partial results thus provide a contribution to workshoprelated fields of research such as PD. But also to information systems research by providing patterns of user behavior that can be targeted by PTs, i.e. information systems that can address and support user behavior. Since the application domain for PT is still new and knowledge work and collaboration has generally been identified as a challenging field (Torning & OinasKukkonen 2009), the second study first provided an overview of existing PTs. So far there are only overviews of domain-specific PTs, such as the overview of Orji and Moffatt (2018) for health applications. The results of this dissertation contribute in particular to technology platforms for PT. The identification of the right technology is not trivial (Fogg 2009b). Therefore the results were transferred into a navigator, which makes it easier to find a suitable technology. Furthermore, the PT Navigator contains application scenarios for PD based on the comprehensive collection of existing applications of PT. Although this reduces the generalizability of the results, it increases their applicability in PD workshops. Therefore the categories of the PT Navigator are based on the modes of participation of Sanders (2013), Sanders et al. (2010). Similarly, a category for general applications has been introduced, addressing in particular the opportunities from Chapter 3 and common problems in collaborative design processes (cf. Jarvela & Jarvenoja 2011). These problems and opportunities can be addressed with the application scenarios. For creativity research, this study provides insights in possibilities for increasing motivation, cognitive abilities and knowledge, including domain- and creativity-relevant skills which are crucial in creative processes (Amabile 1983; Woodman et al. 1993). Thus, the PT Navigator facilitates the implementation of PT in creative processes. The first two studies analyzed both the application domain and the technology channel. Furthermore, with the combination of eight-step design process (Fogg 2009b) and PT Navigator, first concepts for the integration of PT in PD exist. However, there are other approaches to developing technology, which do not take

7.3 Combining the Results

167

into account the application context: design workshops. A comprehensive reference model was therefore created in Study 3 as a systematic approach for designing PT for PD. This can be seen as deductive, since various existing scientific approaches were combined (cf. Fettke & Loos 2004a, 2004b). The reference model especially contributes to research by shaping the persuasion and application context. Therefore, the more generic works of Fogg (2009b), Oinas-Kukkonen (2013), Oinas-Kukkonen and Harjumaa (2009) are refined by integrating the works of Sanders (2013), Woodman et al. (1993) as well as the Chapters 3 and 4 for the PD workshop context. In order to increase the applicability of the reference model, it was transferred into two canvases, which itself also make a contribution to research by refining existing works (cf. Harjumaa & Muuraiskangas 2014). Now the foundations have been laid out, problems were identified, technology platforms extracted and application scenarios derived. In addition, a model for the development of PT was created. Study 4 builds on the overall findings and in particular produces design knowledge in the form of four digital innovation artifacts (Hevner et al. 2019; Yoo et al. 2012), which contribute to the knowledge base as exaptation (Gregor & Hevner 2013). To ensure relevance and rigor, the artifacts address the components of the Fogg behavior model (Fogg 2009b) and take into account the opportunities from Chapter 3. Moreover, the concepts for analyzing the persuasion context were applied in practice, so the results directly contribute to the establishment of the reference model; and it provides initial approaches for the analysis of the persuasion context in the field of design workshops. Furthermore, the artifacts contribute to research on creativity support tools, which examine the use of technical tools in creative processes, also to support individual and group creativity. This often only applies to an online collaboration level (Frich et al. 2019; Shneiderman 2007). Workshops are only rarely or marginally considered, e.g. in Hartmann et al. (2010). The artifacts contribute to research on creativity support tools by providing practical implementations with persuasive features. Comparable PTs so far focus only on applications for sharing feedback (Stibe & Oinas-Kukkonen 2014a, 2014b) or gamified learning (Algashami et al. 2017; Challco et al. 2016). For PD research, the artifacts primarily contribute to the integration of technology via the development of concrete technologies. Following the pragmatic design camp, the goal of this work was to deliver artifacts as a result of a DSR approach (Hevner 2007; Hevner et al. 2004; March & Smith 1995). The focus was placed on a synergy of relevance and rigor as suggested by Hevner (2007). In this dissertation therefore both descriptive knowledge () and prescriptive knowledge () were produced (Drechsler & Hevner 2018; Gregor & Hevner 2013).  knowledge was especially created by the Chapters 3 and 4. Problems and opportunities were identified from workshop observations and interviews

168

7

Summarizing Findings and Implications

with moderators and participants; and possible technology platforms were identified and application scenarios were derived.  knowledge was especially created by the Chapters 5 and 6. Constructions and models that systematize the previous results were delivered; and instantiations in the form of the four artifacts were implemented. In combination this leads to the derivation of design principles in the following section. This represents a step towards a design theory. Gregor and Hevner (2013) distinguish three different levels of DSR contribution types: level 3, a well-developed design theory; level 2, a nascent design theory; and level 1, a situated implementation of an artifact. Following this definition, the results of this dissertation lie at level 2—“Nascent design theory – knowledge as operational principles/architecture” (Gregor & Hevner 2013, p. 342). The following section describes these in form of nine design principles.

7.3.2

Design Principles for Persuasive Technology in Participatory Design Workshops

As just described, from the results of the Chapters 3 to 6 operational principles are to be derived as a step towards a design theory (cf. Gregor & Hevner 2013). It should be noted that revolutionizing workshops does not only include introducing a PT. The topic must be considered more holistically, as already described in Chapter 5, since the application context is essential for the development of the technology. In addition, the concept of the workshop, how the task is designed, how it is organized and which other tools are used are also important. These points are only marginally considered by the design principles. Table 7.1 provides an overview about the nine design principles. The first design principle provide functions to increase ability and knowledge is closely related to the conceptual foundations. Both points play an important role in creative processes as well as for changing behavior. This is also reflected in the results of Chapters 3 and 6. A PT should provide ways to convey information such as instructions, tasks and examples. The second design principle provide motivating triggers originates mainly from Chapter 3. PTs address the motivation of users and transmit a persuasive message. This can easily be realized by triggers, which remind the participants for example of subtasks or behavioral patterns. The third design principle consider the group composition refers to problems in group composition and originates from Chapter 3. Hierarchies in the group or different characteristics of the participants can negatively influence the output of a

7.3 Combining the Results

169

workshop. Workshop groups should therefore be composed according to appropriate criteria, which can also be supported by PTs. The fourth design principle support time management originates from Chapters 3 and 6. In the planning phase and for the success of tasks, the scheduling of workshops and time management play an important role. This is not always strictly observed in workshops. Time management is easy to implement and should be considered in a PT. The fifth design principle use a familiar technology channel is more technically oriented. In order to reach the participants and increase the acceptance of a PT, a familiar technology channel should be used (cf. Fogg 2009b). The overview from Chapter 4 provides first steps in this direction. The sixth design principle follow existing technologies and implementations draws on existing research on PT. Thus an overview of existing implementations should be provided in order to imitate successful examples (cf. Fogg 2009b). This step is supported by the PT Navigator from Chapter 4. The seventh design principle consider existing design principles and methods also builds on extant research. Existing design principles, such as those of OinasKukkonen and Harjumaa (2009) facilitate the development of a new technology. The reference model from Chapter 5 provides guidance and builds on established concepts to support this step. The eighth design principle build on mature technologies derives primarily from the evaluations in Chapter 6. Participants should not only be familiar with the technologies, the technologies should be sufficiently tested and mature enough. If there are fundamental problems with the technology, the persuasive effect gets lost. The ninth design principle consider building holistic tools relies on the evaluations and interviews from Chapters 6 and 3. Integrated solutions should not only support the process of the workshop itself; they can also facilitate planning and organization in the preparatory phase and facilitate documentation and communication of results afterwards. These nine design principles are based on the results of the four studies of this dissertation and each of them should facilitate the implementation of PT in PD. They are generic enough to be used in different PD processes and form a first step towards a design theory for PT for PD. To facilitate this step and also to reach a broader audience, the design principles and examples are available on a website1 .

1 https://revolutionizing-workshops.de/principles

170

7

Summarizing Findings and Implications

Table 7.1 Summary of design principles for workshops with PT #

Design principle

Description

Based on

1

Provide functions to increase ability and knowledge

Chapters 3, 6

2

Provide motivating triggers Consider the group composition

PT should provide clear instructions, images, examples about the tools used in the workshop Remind and motivate participants of tasks and schedule Consider competences and hierarchies; motivate participants to participate Use technologies that observe and support time management Participants must be familiar with the technologies in order to use them Existing examples of technologies serve as inspiration and facilitate the implementation Existing design principles make it easier to design a PT Immature technologies can minimize the acceptance or eliminate the effect of PT PT should support the whole process, before, during and after the workshop

Chapter 6

3

4 5

6

7

8

9

7.4

Support time management Use a familiar technology channel Follow existing technologies and implementations Consider existing design principles and methods Build on mature technologies Consider building holistic tools

Chapter 3 Chapter 3

Chapters 3, 6 Chapter 4

Chapter 4

Chapter 5

Chapters 6, 3

Limitations and Future Research

Having presented the results, their implications and design principles, this section shows limitations of the studies and future research needs. The overall limitations of this dissertation are based on the strong focus on PT. Existing work in this area shows its impact particularly in the health, wellbeing and sustainability sector. This work tries to show a path into a new field of application. Studies from other fields of research are also affected, but these do not take into account the behavior of the participants. The integration of this component often provides the novelty of research. In this work, the developed technologies were evaluated with moderators and

7.4 Limitations and Future Research

171

participants and used in workshops. However, the utility was only assessed qualitatively. These results should be validated in further applications also by objective testable criteria, e.g. in experiments. Furthermore, no special focus was placed on ethical issues (cf. Section 2.2). Future research should take a closer look at ethical issues of PT in design workshops. For example, which unwanted side effects could occur or how to design ethical PT in combination with the reference model. The following sections address the limitations of the individual studies. The limitations of Chapter 3 are primarily methodological. Case studies rely largely on the quality of the collected data. The observations of the workshops as well as the interviews are per se subjective to a certain extent. By following the case study approach and having two researchers code the data, this aspect is contained. In addition, the focus was strongly on the perspective of moderators; participants were only interviewed selectively. To increase the generalizability of the results, the number of cases can be further increased in future studies. Furthermore, the motivational aspect could be further examined; and self-assessment of the participants regarding their own skills and knowledge could be carried out. The limitations of Chapter 4 result mainly from the rather theoretical orientation. First, a literature review was carried out; due to the interdisciplinary research field and the relatively small community, the criteria for the literature review had to be adapted. In particular, the conference proceedings were evaluated. Limitations therefore exist here mainly in the selection of the papers. From the author’s point of view, this limitation does not play a fundamental role, since the aim was merely to collect a comprehensive overview of the technologies used. The application scenarios of the PT Navigator are also elaborated theory-based. The evaluations show that it is suitable as a selection tool for identifying and imitating existing technologies; however, it does not provide concrete instructions and details for implementation. Future work could therefore include additional publications in the selection of the papers and underpin the application scenarios with more concrete implementations. The limitations of Chapter 5 lie particularly in the choice of concepts. Established concepts were identified from the core areas of this dissertation and combined into a reference model. So far this has been based mainly on theoretical-conceptual considerations. The reference model was applied in Chapter 6 and thus the applicability was examined. Future research should focus on the further validation of the model. The limitations of Chapter 6 are based on the implementation of the individual artifacts. These were further refined in four evaluation iterations. It turns out that not all of the artifacts can be applied well in practice. Especially not mature technologies can have a counter-productive effect. Furthermore, the artifacts have only been tested

172

7

Summarizing Findings and Implications

Table 7.2 Summary of further research potential Based on Limitations Impact of PT

Ethics of PT in workshops Focus on the perspective of moderators Generalizability of the results Selection of papers Theory-based application scenarios Theoretical-conceptual considerations of the reference model Low number of workshops

User acceptance of PT Design principles Provide functions to increase ability and knowledge Provide motivating triggers Consider the group composition Support time management Use a familiar technology channel Consider existing design principles and methods

Further research potential

Identified in

→ Experimental or quantitative assessment of the impact on participants → Detailed consideration of ethical issues in design workshops → More comprehensive study with a stronger perspective on participants → Increase number of cases

All Chapters

All Chapters Chapter 3 Chapter 3

→ Further review with a stronger focus Chapter 4 on other research areas → Implementation and further Chapter 4 refinement of all application scenarios → Subsequent application and Chapter 5 verification of the reference model → Application of the artifacts in more workshops to generate further knowledge → Concepts for the assessment of the user acceptance

Chapter 6

→ Which functions are particularly suitable for increasing ability and knowledge? → How can such triggers be designed? → How can the participants’ characteristics be determined? → How does time management influence the results? → Concepts for the assessment of technology acceptance → Validate impact of existing design principles and methods in workshop settings

Chapters 3, 6

Chapter 6

Chapter 3 Chapter 3 Chapters 3, 6 Chapter 4 Chapter 5

7.5 Concluding Remarks

173

in a few workshops so far. More emphasis should be placed on user acceptance of PT. Table 7.2 summarizes the potentials for further research. This is either based on limitations or design principles. For the design principles follow existing technologies and implementations, build on mature technologies and consider building holistic tools no future research needs were identified. The first is closely connected to theory-based application scenarios, and the others are self-explanatory or specific to an application.

7.5

Concluding Remarks

This dissertation is entitled Revolutionizing Workshops and presents new approaches on how to support participants in workshops. In particular, it shows how persuasive technology can be applied in participatory design workshops to support the individual and group creativity of participants. This combination has not yet been explored. For this purpose, four studies were carried out. First, a case study was conducted to determine the potential for supporting participants. Subsequently, PTs for PD were categorized in a DSR study. Then, different approaches to the design of PTs were brought together in a reference model. And finally, four artifacts were implemented for application in workshops. The results show that investigating the behavior of participants in design workshops offers various application potentials for PT. The PT Navigator shows scenarios how established PTs can be used in PD. The reference model supports the design of a PT for PD. Finally, the four artifacts contribute to the generation of design knowledge. Following the pragmatic design camp, the goal of this work was to deliver artifacts as a result of a DSR approach. In this dissertation therefore both descriptive knowledge () and prescriptive knowledge () was produced. As a final result, design principles were derived to support future applications and research. This dissertation serves as a first step in researching the application of PT to support participants’ individual and group creativity in design workshops. The author hopes that the ideas and concepts of this work will be taken up to further define this nascent and promising research area2 . This dissertation closes with the concluding insights for Ronja Researcher and Fred Facilitator (cf. Figure 7.2).

2 To facilitate this step, the core results are available online: https://revolutionizing-workshops. de.

174

7

Ronja Ronja especially wanted to learn how

Summarizing Findings and Implications

Fred Fred was particularly interested in how

to examine the behavior of participants

he could address the problems of his

in workshops and how to further ex-

workshop participants with technology.

plore the use of PTs in her research. For

It is important to him that these are sci-

this purpose she can use the results of

entifically grounded. Via the presented

the individual studies. In her percep-

website, he benefits especially from the

tion, the nine design principles repre-

PT Navigator, PT Toolkit and the can-

sent a step towards a nascent design

vases related to the reference model.

theory. She is now very interested in

The four artifacts from Chapter 6 pro-

how these principles can be validated

vide him with initial approaches to

in further research. At the same time,

how PTs can look in practice. With the

she wants to take up the further re-

help of the design principles and tools

search potential and explore how the

from this dissertation, he now wants

user acceptance and impact of PT ac-

to have a specific PT developed for his

tually looks. This dissertation provides

workshops, which also considers the

the basis for her to advance this fasci-

process around it including time plan-

nating and still little researched topic.

ning and documentation.

Figure 7.2 Insights from this dissertation for Ronja and Fred

Author’s Work Relevant to this Dissertation

Conference contributions relevant to this dissertation are listed in chronological order below. The author of this dissertation was mainly responsible for the research design, data collection, data analysis and interpretation of the results. The co-authors have contributed in particular to the quality and further improvement of the contributions. This dissertation builds on and extends this work. This was made possible in particular also by feedback and discussions from researchers and practitioners at the conferences. Nevertheless, some parts of the work remain unchanged and verbatim. Jalowski, M., Fritzsche, A., & Möslein, K. M. (2019). Applications for Persuasive Technologies in Participatory Design Processes. In H. Oinas-Kukkonen, K. T. Win, E. Karapanos, P. Karppinen, & E. Kyza (Eds.), PERSUASIVE 2019. LNCS, vol 11433 (pp. 74–86). Cham: Springer. Jalowski, M., Fritzsche, A., & Möslein, K. M. (2019). Facilitating collaborative design: a toolkit for integrating persuasive technologies in design activities. Procedia CIRP, 84, 61–67. Jalowski, M. (2020). Integrating Persuasive Technology in Participatory Design Workshops: Prototypes for Participant Support. In S. B. Gram-Hansen, T. S. Jonasen, & C. Midden (Eds.), PERSUASIVE 2020. LNCS, vol 12064 (pp. 30– 42). Cham: Springer. Jalowski, M., Schymanietz, M., & Möslein, K. M. (2020). Supporting Participants in Creative Processes: Opportunities for Persuasive Technology in Participatory Design. In 20th European Academy of Management (EURAM) Conference 2020.

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2021 M. Jalowski, Revolutionizing Workshops, Markt- und Unternehmensentwicklung Markets and Organisations, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-33312-6

175

A

176

A

Author’s Work Relevant to this Dissertation

Jalowski, M., Schymanietz, M., & Möslein, K. M. (2020). Supporting Participants in Creative Processes: Opportunities for Persuasive Technology in Participatory Design. In Proceedings of the Forty-First International Conference on Information Systems, India 2020. Furthermore, results of this dissertation are included in the following book chapters: Jalowski, M. (2020). Facilitating Participatory Design in the Cyber-Physical Lab. In A. Fritzsche, J. M. Jonas, A. Roth, & K. M. Möslein (Eds.), Innovating in the Open Lab (pp. 287–300). Berlin: De Gruyter. Jalowski, M., Roth, A., Oks, S. J., & Wilga, M. (Forthcoming). Innovation KIbasierter Dienstleistungen für die industrielle Wertschöpfung – Ein artefaktzentrierter Ansatz. In M. Bruhn, & K. Hardwich (Eds.): Forum Dienstleistungsmanagement, Wiesbaden: Springer. Earlier stages of this dissertation have been presented and discussed in the following doctoral colloquia for external feedback and discussion: Jalowski, M. (2017). Exploring Persuasive Technologies for Collaboration. 12th Research colloquium “Innovation & Value Creation”, Hamburg, Germany. Jalowski, M. (2018). Applications for Persuasive Technologies in Participatory Design Processes. 13th Research colloquium “Innovation & Value Creation”, Chemnitz, Germany. Jalowski, M. (2019). Introducing Persuasive Technology for Participatory Design Workshops: Prototypes for Supporting Participants. 14th Research colloquium “Innovation & Value Creation”, Halle, Germany.

B

Code Structure of Study 1

(See Figure B.1)

Figure B.1 Code structure of Study 1 as described in Section 3.3.3 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2021 M. Jalowski, Revolutionizing Workshops, Markt- und Unternehmensentwicklung Markets and Organisations, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-33312-6

177

Screenshots of the Online Implementation of the PT Navigator

This annex contains screenshots of the PT Navigator webpage1 , as described in Section 4.4 (Figures C.1, C.2, C.3 and C.4).

Figure C.1 Screenshot of the top section of the artifact

1 https://navigator.revolutionizing-workshops.de

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2021 M. Jalowski, Revolutionizing Workshops, Markt- und Unternehmensentwicklung Markets and Organisations, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-33312-6

179

C

180

C

Screenshots of the Online Implementation of the PT Navigator

Figure C.2 Screenshot of the technology information section

C Screenshots of the Online Implementation of the PT Navigator

Figure C.3 Screenshot of the application scenario selection section

181

182

C

Screenshots of the Online Implementation of the PT Navigator

Figure C.4 Screenshot of an exemplary selection of application scenarios

D

Canvases for Creating Persuasive Technology for Participatory Design

Canvases and Inspiration Cards To use the canvases to design a persuasive technology for participatory design, you will need the following things2 : • The two canvases printed in large scale, e.g. DIN A0 (cf. Figures D.1 and D.2) • Inspiration cards (cf. Figures D.3, D.4, D.5, D.6, D.7, D.8 and D.9) • Technology cards (cf. Figures D.10 and D.11) • Voting dots for highlighting the mode of participation on the precondition canvas • Sticky notes to fill the fields on the canvases

2 The canvases, inspiration and technology cards are available online: https://revolutionizing-

workshops.de/model © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2021 M. Jalowski, Revolutionizing Workshops, Markt- und Unternehmensentwicklung Markets and Organisations, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-33312-6

183

Figure D.1 The precondition canvas for creating persuasive technology for participatory design, based on the reference model (cf. Figures 5.7 and 5.8)

184 D Canvases for Creating Persuasive Technology for Participatory Design

Figure D.2 The system features canvas for creating persuasive technology for participatory design, based on the reference model (cf. Figures 5.7 and 5.8)

D Canvases for Creating Persuasive Technology for Participatory Design 185

186

D Canvases for Creating Persuasive Technology for Participatory Design

Virtual 3-D mock-ups and tutorials

Digitize making processes and facilitate knowledge sharing online

Examples: Virtual bike tutorial Virtual kitchen

Example: Virtual best practice communities

Persuasive design principles: Simulation Social comparison

Persuasive design principles: Reduction Social facilitation Cooperation

[M1]

[M2]

Status display for goal setting,

Technology-focused prototyping

task structuring and visual triggers

with prototyping toolkits

Example: Task status display to motivate users

Examples: Littlebits Prototyping tools that encourage co-creation

Persuasive design principles: Social comparison Competition Recognition

Persuasive design principles: Tailoring Cooperation

[M4]

[M3]

Supply triggers to motivate

Provide verbal triggers or

and remind participants

videos explaining or simulating tasks

Examples:

Example: Multimedia techniques to simulate risks of climate change

Email, text and pop-up messages to remind participants

Persuasive design principles: Simulation

Persuasive design principles: Praise Rewards Reminders Suggestion [M5]

[M6]

Figure D.3 Inspiration cards for application scenarios for making tangible things

D Canvases for Creating Persuasive Technology for Participatory Design

Facilitate telling by putting participants in virtual or augmented scenarios

Virtualize talking, telling and explaining methods, by using e.g. video conferences, collaborative blogs, wikis, etc. Example: Using ICT to approach cross-cultural communication

Example:

Persuasive design principles: Social facilitation Cooperation

Persuasive design principles: Tunneling Simulation Rehearsal [T1]

[T2]

Show short text messages or explanatory sentences to start discussions

Lights to symbolize volume and speaking time of participants

Example: Slides with explanatory sentences

Examples: Lighting device giving feedback on touch and via spe Light bulbs to remind of activities

Persuasive design principles: Praise Reminders Suggestion

Persuasive design principles: Praise Reminders

[T3]

[T4]

Motivate participants by virtualizing parts of the design process using a persuasive social network Examples: Motivate users to generate and share feedback Persuasive Q and A social networks

Structure and guide through conversations with persuasive messages

Persuasive design principles: Social comparison Social facilitation Cooperation

Persuasive design principles: Tunneling Praise Reminders

[T5]

[T7]

187

Examples: Text messages to reduce electricity consumption

[T6]

Trigger location-based participation

(Humanoid) robot guiding through processes or assisting e.g. observations

Example: QR codes on products to simplify purchase and show

Examples: Social robot monitoring certain actions Robot assistant

Persuasive design principles: Praise Suggestion

Persuasive design principles: Self-monitoring Social role [T8]

Figure D.4 Inspiration cards for application scenarios for talking, telling and explaining (1/2)

188

D Canvases for Creating Persuasive Technology for Participatory Design

Simplify e.g. timelines and self-observations

Digitizing various talking, telling and explaining activities by using smartphone apps

Examples:

Examples:

Monitor activities and health condition

e-coaching system to support organizational processes & lifestyle chan

Track behavior via self-reporting

Collect information from users' mobile phones

Persuasive design principles: Tailoring Self-monitoring

Persuasive design principles: Personalization Self-monitoring Praise

[T9]

[T10]

Audio or video describing situations

Coach users to participate

to trigger participants' own experiences

in expressing their ideas

Example:

Examples:

Short videos to start a process of exchange of participants' life stories

Persuasive conversional agent Engage a user in a persuasive counseling dialogue

Persuasive design principles: Praise Reminders Suggestion [T11]

Persuasive design principles: Social role Expertise

[T12]

Websites to structure and organize conversations

Example: Website to extend students' conversations

Persuasive design principles: Tailoring Social learning

[T13]

Figure D.5 Inspiration cards for application scenarios for talking, telling and explaining (2/2)

D Canvases for Creating Persuasive Technology for Participatory Design

189

Enhancing acting and enacting by displaying additional information

AI monitors participation and persuades passive people

Examples: Digitally augment a plate of food by showing information Simulate experiences in VR

Examples: Argumentation-based recommendation techniques Empower individuals, facilitate decision making

Persuasive design principles: Praise Suggestion

Persuasive design principles: Reduction Tunneling Tailoring Personalization Self-monitoring

[E1]

[E2]

Display the state of different tasks

Examples:

Examples:

Show team performance on a large screen

Persuasive learning

Persuasive design principles: Tunneling Reminders

Persuasive design principles: Rewards Cooperation Competition [E4]

[E3]

Ambient lighting for

Social media persuading people to enact

Examples:

Example:

Feedback through lighting

Persuasive design principles: Tunneling Reminders [E5]

Persuasive design principles: Social learning Social facilitation [E6]

Supply triggers to motivate and remind participants

Increase enactment by interacting with RFID chips or location based triggers

Examples:

Examples: QR codes to give additional information RFID chips controlling duration of activities

Provide targeted interventions

Persuasive design principles: Praise Suggestion

Persuasive design principles: Tunneling Praise Reminders [E7]

[E8]

Figure D.6 Inspiration cards for application scenarios for acting, enacting and playing (1/2)

190

D Canvases for Creating Persuasive Technology for Participatory Design

(Humanoid) robot persuading people to enact

Collect data on the activity of participants

Examples: Social robot monitoring certain actions Education game

Examples: Measure motion, activities and other conditions Detect movements

Persuasive design principles: Self-monitoring Cooperation

Persuasive design principles: Self-monitoring

[E9]

[E10]

Speech or video to encourage activity,

Assistant or coach engaging

e.g. via gestures

users or giving feedback

Examples: Engage learning activities via audio and video Persuasive videos to encourage physical activity

Examples: Embodied agent giving feedback on energy consumption 3-D avatar showing exercises

Persuasive design principles: Simulation Reminders

Persuasive design principles: Suggestion Social role Expertise

[E11]

[E12]

Measure activity with wearables

[E13]

and provide instructions

interactions with an online component

Examples: Activity tracker to measure movements Wearable displays to motivate users

Examples: Online Tool for learning and increasing energy awareness Online interactivity to empower users to carry out collective actions

Persuasive design principles: Self-monitoring Suggestion

Persuasive design principles: Reminders Trustworthiness Expertise [E14]

Figure D.7 Inspiration cards for application scenarios for acting, enacting and playing (2/2)

D Canvases for Creating Persuasive Technology for Participatory Design

Monitor progress and suggest following actions

and include remote participants

Examples:

Example:

Monitor health condition, connect users and recommend activities

Use video conferences, collaborative blogs, wikis, forums & Google Docs

Provide recommendations to improve quality

Persuasive design principles: Self-monitoring Suggestion

[G1]

Persuasive design principles: Social facilitation Cooperation

[G2]

Guide trough processes and show adaptive reminders

Serious games for improving knowledge

Examples:

Example:

Adaptive reminders for safe work

Serious game for acquiring knowledge about personal safety

Feedback on participation levels during meetings

Persuasive design principles: Tunneling Praise Reminders

Persuasive design principles: Simulation Rehearsal

[G4]

[G3]

Integrated devices monitoring conditions and recommending actions

participant behavior

Example:

Examples:

Smart case with smartphone app that tracks and analyzes user behavior

Ambient display system to reduce sound levels Feedback through lighting

Persuasive design principles: Self-monitoring Reminders Suggestion [G5]

Persuasive design principles: Praise Reminders

[G6]

Add online components to physical settings by interacting with social media

Involve passive people, provide triggers and reminders

Examples:

Examples:

Use social media to interact with participants

Email, text and pop-up messages to remind participants

Motivate users to generate and share feedback

Persuasive design principles: Social learning Social facilitation Cooperation [G7]

191

Persuasive design principles: Tunneling Praise Reminders Suggestion [G8]

Figure D.8 Inspiration cards for application scenarios for general challenges (1/2)

192

D Canvases for Creating Persuasive Technology for Participatory Design

Enhance activity by including QR codes or RFID tags in the design process and e.g. displaying additional information

Robot guides through design process

Example:

Examples:

QR codes to simplify purchase and to provide additional information

Robot assistant Robot guides through education game

Persuasive design principles: Praise Suggestion

[G9]

[G10]

Track activity data of participants

Improve collaboration by supporting decision making and explaining or recommending actions

Examples:

Examples:

Feedback on participation levels during meetings

Phone-based recommendation system

Measure motion, activities and other conditions

Facilitate decision making

Persuasive design principles: Self-monitoring

Persuasive design principles: Reduction Tailoring Suggestion Trustworthiness

[G11]

[G12]

Explain tasks or provide examples

Motivate people to change behavior

Examples:

Examples:

Persuasive videos to encourage physical activity

Computational agent helps to motivate people

Engage learning activities via audio and video

Computer agent engaging users

Persuasive design principles: Tunneling Simulation Reminders

Persuasive design principles: Suggestion Social role Expertise

[G13]

[G15]

Persuasive design principles: Tunneling Social role

[G14]

Measure activity with wearables and provide instructions

Show additional data or background information about certain items

Examples:

Examples:

Smartwatch-based system for supporting group cohesion in physical activ

Online tool for learning and increasing energy awareness

Wearable display to motivate users

Dashboard providing information to motivate behavior changes

Persuasive design principles: Self-monitoring Suggestion

Persuasive design principles: Trustworthiness Expertise

[G16]

Figure D.9 Inspiration cards for application scenarios for general challenges (2/2)

D Canvases for Creating Persuasive Technology for Participatory Design

193

Augmented and Virtual Reality Augment physical settings or show 3-D mock-ups

Monitor participants, analyse behavior and recommend actions

[Tec1]

[Tec2]

Collaboration Software

Display and Stationary Computer

e.g. tools, video conferences, collaborative blogs, wikis

Show information or interact with participants

[Tec3]

[Tec4]

Games

Internet of Things Devices with internet connection and sensors to improve activity

[Tec6]

[Tec5]

Lights and Markers

Online Social Network and Social Software Provide social components to increase interaction/activity

[Tec8]

[Tec7]

Persuasive Messages and Reminders

Physical Tags e.g. QR codes or RFID tags to enhance activity

[Tec9]

[Tec10]

Figure D.10 Technology cards with 17 PT platforms (1/2)

194

D Canvases for Creating Persuasive Technology for Participatory Design

Robotics

Sensors

e.g. (humanoid) robot assistant

Collect stationary sensor data, e.g. regarding activity of participants

[Tec11]

[Tec12]

Smartphone and Mobile Device

Speech, Sound and Video

Applications on smartphones, tablets or similar devices

[Tec14]

[Tec13]

Wearables

Website and Web-based

e.g. smartwatches to collect data and provide information

Show additional data or provide explanations

[Tec15]

[Tec16]

Virtual Agent/Coach and Assistant Assist users to perform certain tasks, e.g. with recommendations

[Tec17]

Figure D.11 Technology cards with 17 PT platforms (2/2)

Schema and Examples on the Configuration of Artifacts 1–4

This annex contains screenshots and configuration examples of the artifacts from Chapter 6. Artifact 1 Listing E.1 shows an exemplary configuration for two agenda items. It is possible to store the time, a name, a URL and a name for the location, a link if the moderator wants to share files with the participants and a reference to a task. Listing E.1 Configuration of two agenda items 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

11 12 13 14 15 16

agenda = [ { " time " : " 15:15 - 15:30 " , " name " : " E i n f ü h r u n g in den A r b e i t s k r e i s " , " place " : " Zoom " , " p l a c e _ l i n k " : zoom_link , " link " : BASE + " static /2020 -06 -25 _AK_GM . pdf " , " link_desc ": " Präsentation ", " task " : " " } , { " time " : " 15:30 - 16:20 " , " name " : " Sprint 1: H e r a u s f o r d e r u n g e n und P o t e n z i a l e in der I m p l e m e n t i e r u n g von ( KI ) Geschäftsmodellen ", " place " : " Zoom B r e a k o u t Room 1 " , " p l a c e _ l i n k " : zoom_link , " link " : " m u r a l _ l i n k _ 1 " , " link_desc ": " Mural öffnen " , " task " : " task1 " } ]

Listing E.2 shows an exemplary configuration for one task including two subtasks. A task is configured via description and a reference to subtasks. A subtask is configured via title, the timespan (in minutes) for working on (time_w) and © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2021 M. Jalowski, Revolutionizing Workshops, Markt- und Unternehmensentwicklung Markets and Organisations, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-33312-6

195

E

196

E

Schema and Examples on the Configuration of Artifacts 1–4

discussing (time_d) the task. Furthermore, it contains a description of the task (content), this field can contain HTML code to enable dynamic content including images or videos. Listing E.2 Configuration of a task including two subtasks 1 2 3

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

12 13 14 15

16 17

tasks = { ’ task1 ’: { ’ d e s c r i p t i o n ’ : " In d i e s e m S p r i n t s o l l e n H e r a u s f o r d e r u n g e n und P o t e n z i a l e in der I m p l e m e n t i e r u n g von ( KI -) Geschäftsmodellen ausgearbeitet werden . < br / > Der Sprint läuft nach dem t o g e t h e r alone P r i n z i p ab . Alle T e i l n e h m e r a r b e i t e n z u n ä c h s t für sich s e l b e r und s a m m e l n I d e e n . A n s c h l i e ß e n d w e r d e n die E r g e b n i s s e p r ä s e n t i e r t und kurz d i s k u t i e r t . Für die Z u s a m m e n a r b e i t k ö n n e n Sie das v e r l i n k t e M u r a l n u t z e n oder selbst auf P a p i e r a r b e i t e n . Wir e r g ä n z e n dann Ihre P u n k t e im gemeinsamen Dokument .", ’ s u b t a s k s ’: s u b t a s k s 1 } } subtasks1 = [ { " t i t l e " : " KI - S t r a t e g i e i h r e s U n t e r n e h m e n s " , " time_w ": 5, " time_d ": 5, " c o n t e n t " : " Wie w ü r d e n Sie die KI - S t r a t e g i e I h r e s U n t e r n e h m e n s b e s c h r e i b e n ? < br / > W e l c h e n s t r a t e g i s c h e n Z w e c k hat der E i n s a t z von KI in I h r e m U n t e r n e h m e n / E i n s a t z b e r e i c h ? ( Effizienz , Automatisierung , Augementation , E f f e k t i v i t ä t , D i f f e r e n z i e r u n g , etc .) " } , { " t i t l e " : " H e r a u s f o r d e r u n g e n und P o t e n z i a l e bei der E i n f ü h r u n g n e u e r G e s c h ä f t s m o d e l l e " , " t i m e _ w " : 10 , " time_d ": 5, " c o n t e n t " : " W e l c h e H e r a u s f o r d e r u n g e n und P o t e n z i a l e s e h e n Sie in B e z u g auf die E i n f ü h r u n g e i n e s oder m e h r e r e r n e u e r G e s c h ä f t s m o d e l l e in I h r e m U n t e r n e h m e n ? < br / > Im A l l g e m e i n e n : v e r f ü g b a r e R e s s o u r c e n , b e s t e h e n d e G e s c h ä f t s m o d e l l e , etc . " } ]

E

Schema and Examples on the Configuration of Artifacts 1–4

197

Artifact 2 Listing E.3 shows an exemplary configuration (stored on a REST server) for a Bluetooth beacon. The text contains HTML that will be displayed on the participants’ smartphones. Listing E.3 Configuration of a Bluetooth beacon { ’ id ’ : 1 , ’ m a c A d d r e s s ’: ’ 98: D3 :32: F5 : B5 :40 ’ , ’ text ’: ’ < h1 > Sie nähern sich S t a t i o n 1 < p > Dort a r b e i t e n Sie mit LEGO an der Aufgabenstellung " Welche Dienstleistungen e r w a r t e n Sie als S t a k e h o l d e r von e i n e m Ö k o s y s t e m zum T h e m a K ü n s t l i c h e I n t e l l i g e n z ?" < p > W e i t e r e I n f o r m a t i o n e n und B e i s p i e l e f i n d e n Sie < a href =" https :// bt . r e v o l u t i o n i z i n g - w o r k s h o p s . de /1" > hier ’ , ’ i m a g e U r l ’ : ’ h t t p s :// bt . r e v o l u t i o n i z i n g w o r k s h o p s . de / img /1 ’ }

1 2 3

4

Artifact 3 Listing E.4 shows two configuration examples h1 and h2 for QR codes. The information is stored on a server and QR codes are generated containing a URL. Scanning the QR code will show the information, that is stored in the fields title, image and description. Refer to Figure F.5 for a screenshot of the information stored in field h2. Listing E.4 Configurations for two QR codes 1 2 3 4 5

6 7

8 9

help = { ’ h1 ’ : { ’ t i t l e ’ : " \" T o g e t h e r a l o n e \" - P r i n z i p " , ’ image ’: "" , ’ d e s c r i p t i o n ’ : " Alle T e i l n e h m e r a r b e i t e n z u n ä c h s t für sich selber und s a m m e l n I d e e n . A n s c h l i e ß e n d w e r d e n die E r g e b n i s s e p r ä s e n t i e r t und kurz diskutiert ."}, ’ h2 ’ : { ’ t i t l e ’ : " H e r a u s f o r d e r u n g e n und P o t e n z i a l e bei der E i n f ü h r u n g n e u e r Geschäftsmodelle ", ’ image ’: "" , ’ d e s c r i p t i o n ’ : " In d i e s e m P u n k t s o l l e n Sie z u n ä c h s t die H e r a u s f o r d e r u n g e n zur Einführung eines neuen Geschäftsmodells

198

E

Schema and Examples on the Configuration of Artifacts 1–4

in i h r e m U n t e r n e h m e n e r a r b e i t e n . A n s c h l i e ß e n d die Potenziale , die neue G e s c h ä f t s m o d e l l e für ihr U n t e r n e h m e n bieten . Herausforderungen wären beispielsweise verfügbare Ressourcen , b e s t e h e n d e G e s c h ä f t s m o d e l l e , etc . " } , 10

}

Artifact 4 Artifact 4 can be loaded with three different configuration files (in .csv-format). Listing E.5 shows configurations for the agenda. Listing E.5 Configuration for an agenda 1 2 3

start , ende , thema , a u f g a b e 15:15 , 15:30 , E i n f ü h r u n g in den A r b e i t s k r e i s , 0 15:30 , 16:20 , S p r i n t 1: H e r a u s f o r d e r u n g e n und P o t e n z i a l e in der I m p l e m e n t i e r u n g von ( KI ) Geschäftsmodellen , 1

Listing E.6 shows configurations for task explanations. The field nr defines the tasks’ number, phase identifies the subtask, aufgabe specifies the (sub-)taks and erklaerung contains more detailed information on the task. Listing E.6 Configuration for task explanations 1 2

3

nr , phase , aufgabe , e r k l a e r u n g 1 ,0 , " S p r i n t 1: H e r a u s f o r d e r u n g e n und P o t e n z i a l e in der I m p l e m e n t i e r u n g von ( KI ) G e s c h ä f t s m o d e l l e n " , " In d i e s e m S p r i n t s o l l e n H e r a u s f o r d e r u n g e n und P o t e n z i a l e in der I m p l e m e n t i e r u n g von ( KI -) Geschäftsmodellen ausgearbeitet werden ." 1 ,1 , " KI - S t r a t e g i e i h r e s U n t e r n e h m e n s " , " Wie w ü r d e n Sie die KI - S t r a t e g i e I h r e s U n t e r n e h m e n s b e s c h r e i b e n ? W e l c h e n s t r a t e g i s c h e n Z w e c k hat der E i n s a t z von KI in I h r e m U n t e r n e h m e n / Einsatzbereich ?"

Listing E.7 shows configurations for questions that the NAO robot can answer. The robot listens to the values defined in frage and stichworte. If it recognized a word, it speaks the sentence specified in antwort. Listing E.7 Configuration for frequently asked questions 1 2

nr , frage , antwort , s t i c h w o r t e 1 , " Wie wird das T e m p l a t e a u s g e f ü l l t ? " , " S c h r e i b e d e i n e Id e e n auf Post - Its und k l e b e sie in die p a s s e n d e n F e l d e r " , " template , canvas , a u s f ü l l e n "

E

Schema and Examples on the Configuration of Artifacts 1–4

199

3

2 , " Wie s o l l e n die Post - Its b e s c h r i f t e t w e r d e n ? " , " S c h r e i b e i m m e r nur eine Idee auf ein Post - It " ," post - it , b e s c h r i f t e n , b e s c h r e i b e n , i d e e "

F

Screenshots of the Artifact for Eval4-Workshop

This annex contains screenshots of the artifact3 used in the workshop of Eval4 (cf. Section 6.4.2.4) (Figure F.1, F.2, F.3, F.4 and F.5).

Figure F.1 Screenshot of the workshop schedule with marking of the current agenda item and a timer in the upper right corner

3 https://ak-gm.revolutionizing-workshops.de

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2021 M. Jalowski, Revolutionizing Workshops, Markt- und Unternehmensentwicklung Markets and Organisations, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-33312-6

201

202

F

Screenshots of the Artifact for Eval4-Workshop

Figure F.2 Screenshot of the current task description Figure F.3 Screenshot of a trigger that reminds the user of the remaining time

Figure F.4 Screenshot of a trigger, which reminds the user of concepts of the workshop

F Screenshots of the Artifact for Eval4-Workshop Figure F.5 Screenshot of an explanation of the current task (link behind a QR code)

203

References

Adaji, I., & Vassileva, J. (2016). Persuasive Patterns in Q&A Social Networks. In A. Meschtscherjakov, B. De Ruyter, V. Fuchsberger, M. Murer, & M. Tscheligi (Eds.), PERSUASIVE 2016. LNCS, vol 9638 (pp. 189–196). Cham: Springer. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3319-31510-2_16 Adler, P. S., & Chen, C. X. (2011). Combining creativity and control: Understanding individual motivation in large-scale collaborative creativity. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 36(2), 63–85. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2011.02.002 Ahtinen, A., Lehtiö, A., & Boberg, M. (2019). Long-Term User Experience and Persuasion on 3DFysio, A Mobile Rehabilitation Application. In H. Oinas-Kukkonen, K. T. Win, E. Karapanos, P. Karppinen, & E. Kyza (Eds.), PERSUASIVE 2019. LNCS, vol 11433 (pp. 177–188). Cham: Springer. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17287-9_15 Alahäivälä, T., Oinas-Kukkonen, H., & Jokelainen, T. (2013). Software Architecture Design for Health BCSS: Case Onnikka. In S. Berkovsky & J. Freyne (Eds.), PERSUASIVE 2013. LNCS, vol 7822 (pp. 3–14). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/9783-642-37157-8_3 Algashami, A., Shahri, A., Mcalaney, J., Taylor, J., Phalp, K., & Ali, R. (2017). Strategies and Design Principles to Minimize Negative Side-Effects of Digital Motivation on Teamwork. In P. W. de Vries, H. Oinas-Kukkonen, L. Siemons, N. Beerlagede Jong, & L. van Gemert-Pijnen (Eds.), PERSUASIVE 2017. LNCS, vol 10171 (pp. 267–278). Cham: Springer. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55134-0 Alharbi, O., & Chatterjee, S. (2015). BrightDark: A Smartphone App Utilizing efotonovela and Text Messages to Increase Energy Conservation Awareness. In T. MacTavish & S. Basapur (Eds.), PERSUASIVE 2015. LNCS, vol 9072 (pp. 95–106). Cham: Springer. doi: https:// doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20306-5_9 Amabile, T. M. (1983). The Social Psychology of Creativity. New York, NY: Springer. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-5533-8 Amabile, T. M. (1997). Motivating Creativity in Organizations: On Doing What You Love and Loving What You Do. California Management Review, 40(1), 39–58. doi: https://doi. org/10.2307/41165921

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2021 M. Jalowski, Revolutionizing Workshops, Markt- und Unternehmensentwicklung Markets and Organisations, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-33312-6

205

206

References

Anagnostopoulou, E., Bothos, E., Magoutas, B., Schrammel, J., & Mentzas, G. (2018). Persuasive Interventions for Sustainable Travel Choices Leveraging Users’ Personality and Mobility Type. In J. Ham, E. Karapanos, P. P. Morita, & C. M. Burns (Eds.), PERSUASIVE 2018. LNCS, vol 10809 (pp. 229–241). Cham: Springer. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/9783-319-78978-1_19 Anderson, C. (2010). Presenting and Evaluating Qualitative Research. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 74(8). doi: https://doi.org/10.5688/aj7408141 Antikainen, M., Mäkipää, M., & Ahonen, M. (2010). Motivating and supporting collaboration in open innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management, 13(1), 100–119. doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/14601061011013258 Antikainen, M., & Vaataja, H. K. (2010). Rewarding in open innovation communities – How to motivate members? International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 11(4), 440–456. doi: https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEIM.2010.032267 Barnes Hofmeister, T., & Stibe, A. (2017). Living mobility transitions towards bicycling. Designing practices through co-creation and socially influencing systems. The Design Journal, 20(sup1), S3305–S3316. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2017.1352834 Barral, O., Aranyi, G., Kouider, S., Lindsay, A., Prins, H., Ahmed, I., ... Cavazza, M. (2014). Covert Persuasive Technologies: Bringing Subliminal Cues to Human-Computer Interaction. In A. Spagnolli, L. Chittaro, & Luciano Gamberini (Eds.), PERSUASIVE 2014. LNCS, vol 8462 (pp. 1–12). Cham: Springer. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07127-5_1 Basten, F., Ham, J., Midden, C., Gamberini, L., & Spagnolli, A. (2015). Does Trigger Location Matter? The Influence of Localization and Motivation on the Persuasiveness of Mobile Purchase Recommendations. In T. MacTavish & S. Basapur (Eds.), PERSUASIVE 2015. LNCS, vol 9072 (pp. 121–132). Cham: Springer. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-31920306-5_11 Battistella, C., & Nonino, F. (2012). Open innovation web-based platforms: The impact of different forms of motivation on collaboration. Innovation: Management, Policy and Practice, 14(4), 557–575. doi: https://doi.org/10.5172/impp.2012.14.4.557 Bdeir, A. (2009). Electronics as material. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction – TEI ’09, 397. doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/1517664. 1517743 Benbasat, I., Goldstein, D. K., & Mead, M. (1987). The Case Research Strategy in Studies of Information Systems. MIS Quarterly, 11(3), 369–386. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/248684 Berdichevsky, D., & Neuenschwander, E. (1999). Toward an ethics of persuasive technology. Communications of the ACM, 42(5), 51–58. doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/301353.301410 Bjögvinsson, E., Ehn, P., & Hillgren, P.-A. (2012). Design things and design thinking: Contemporary participatory design challenges. Design Issues, 28(3), 101–116. doi: https://doi. org/10.1162/DESI_a_00165 Björgvinsson, E., Ehn, P., & Hillgren, P.-A. (2010). Participatory design and “democratizing innovation”. In PDC ’10: Proceedings of the 11th Biennial Participatory Design Conference (pp. 41–50). doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/1900441.1900448 Borgefalk, G., & de Leon, N. (2019). The Ethics of Persuasive Technologies in Pervasive Industry Platforms: The Need for a Robust Management and Governance Framework. In H. Oinas-Kukkonen, K. T. Win, E. Karapanos, P. Karppinen, & E. Kyza (Eds.), PERSUASIVE 2019. LNCS, vol 11433 (pp. 156–167). Cham: Springer. doi: https://doi.org/10. 1007/978-3-030-17287-9_13

References

207

Boukhris, A., Fritzsche, A., & Möslein, K. M. (2016). Towards the design of a persuasive technology for encouraging collaborative prototyping. In R. Orji, M. Reisinger, M. Busch, A. Dijkstra, A. Stibe, & M. Tscheligi (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Workshop on Personalization in Persuasive Technology co-located with the 11th International Conference on Persuasive Technology (PT 2016) (pp. 126–131). Boukhris, A., Fritzsche, A., & Möslein, K. M. (2017). Co-creation in the Early Stage of Product-service System Development. Procedia CIRP, 63, 27–32. doi: https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.procir.2017.03.316 Brandt, E., Binder, T., & Sanders, E. B. (2012). Tools and techniques: ways to engage telling, making and enacting. In J. Simonsen & T. Robertson (Eds.), Routledge International Handbook of Participatory Design (pp. 145–181). New York, NY: Routledge. doi: https:// doi.org/10.4324/9780203108543.ch7 Brereton, M., & Buur, J. (2008). New challenges for design participation in the era of ubiquitous computing. CoDesign, 4(2), 101–113. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/ 15710880802098099 Briggs, R. O., Kolfscholten, G., de Vrede, G. J., & Dean, D. (2006). Defining Key Concepts for Collaboration Engineering. In Proceedings of the Twelfth Americas Conference on Information Systems (pp. 121–128). Briscoe, G., & Mulligan, C. (2014). Digital Innovation: The Hackathon Phenomenon. Creativeworks London Working Paper No. 6, 1–13. Brown, J., & Isaacs, D. (2005). The World Café. Shaping Our Futures Through Conversations That Matter. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Brown, T. (2008). Design Thinking. Harvard Business Review, June 2008, 85–92. Burns, P., Lueg, C., & Berkovsky, S. (2013). Colours That Move You: Persuasive Ambient Activity Displays. In S. Berkovsky & J. Freyne (Eds.), PERSUASIVE 2013. LNCS, vol 7822 (pp. 27–32). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-371578_5 Carlile, P. R. (2002). A Pragmatic View of Knowledge and Boundaries: Boundary Objects in New Product Development. Organization Science, 13(4), 442–455. doi: https://doi.org/10. 1287/orsc.13.4.442.2953 Carlsson, S. A. (2005). Developing information systems design knowledge: A critical realist perspective. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 3(2), 93–102. Challco, G. C., Mizoguchi, R., & Isotani, S. (2016). An Ontology Framework to Apply Gamification in CSCL Scenarios as Persuasive Technology. Revista Brasileira de Informática na Educação, 24(2), 67–76. doi: https://doi.org/10.5753/rbie.2016.24.02.67 Cham, S., Algashami, A., McAlaney, J., Stefanidis, A., Phalp, K., & Ali, R. (2019). Goal Setting for Persuasive Information Systems: Five Reference Checklists. In H. Oinas-Kukkonen, K. T. Win, E. Karapanos, P. Karppinen, & E. Kyza (Eds.), PERSUASIVE 2019. LNCS, vol 11433 (pp. 237–253). Cham: Springer. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17287-9_ 20 Chatti, M. A., Dyckhoff, A. L., Schroeder, U., & Thüs, H. (2012). A reference model for learning analytics. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 4(5-6), 318– 331. doi: https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTEL.2012.051815 Chen, Y.-X., Chiang, S.-S., Chih, S.-Y., Liao, W.-C., Lin, S.-Y., Yang, S.-H., ... Hung, Y.-P. (2014). Opportunities for Persuasive Technology to Motivate Heavy Computer Users for Stretching Exercise. In A. Spagnolli, L. Chittaro, & L. Gamberini (Eds.), PERSUASIVE

208

References

2014. LNCS, vol 8462 (pp. 25–30). Cham: Springer. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3319-07127-5_3 Cherry, E., & Latulipe, C. (2014). Quantifying the Creativity Support of Digital Tools through the Creativity Support Index. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 21(4), 1–25. doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/2617588 Cherryholmes, C. H. (1992). Notes on Pragmatism and Scientific Realism. Educational Researcher, 21(6), 13–17. doi: https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X021006013 Chittaro, L. (2012). Passengers’ Safety in Aircraft Evacuations: Employing Serious Games to Educate and Persuade. In M. Bang & E. L. Ragnemalm (Eds.), PERSUASIVE 2012. LNCS, vol 7284 (pp. 215–226). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3642-31037-9_19 Chittaro, L., & Zangrando, N. (2010). The Persuasive Power of Virtual Reality: Effects of Simulated Human Distress on Attitudes towards Fire Safety. In T. Ploug, P. Hasle, & H. Oinas-Kukkonen (Eds.), PERSUASIVE 2010. LNCS, vol 6137 (pp. 58–69). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-13226-1_8 Chow, K. K. (2016). Lock Up the Lighter: Experience Prototyping of a Lively Reflective Design for Smoking Habit Control. In A. Meschtscherjakov, B. De Ruyter, V. Fuchsberger, M. Murer, & M. Tscheligi (Eds.), PERSUASIVE 2016. LNCS, vol 9638 (pp. 352–364). Cham: Springer. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31510-2_30 Chow, K. K., Harrell, D. F., & Yan, W. K. (2015). Designing and Analyzing Swing Compass: A Lively Interactive System Provoking Imagination and Affect for Persuasion. In T. MacTavish & S. Basapur (Eds.), PERSUASIVE 2015. LNCS, vol 9072 (pp. 107–120). Cham: Springer. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20306-5_10 Cirella, S. (2016). Organizational Variables for Developing Collective Creativity in Business: A Case from an Italian Fashion Design Company. Creativity and Innovation Management, 25(3), 331–343. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12189 Ciriello, R. F., & Richter, A. (2015). Idea Hubs as Nexus of Collective Creativity in Digital Innovation. In 36th International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 2015). doi: https://doi.org/10.5167/uzh-120056 Clinkenbeard, D., Clinkenbeard, J., Faddoul, G., Kang, H., Mayes, S., Toygar, A., & Chatterjee, S. (2014). What’s Your 2 %? A Pilot Study for Encouraging Physical Activity Using Persuasive Video and Social Media. In A. Spagnolli, L. Chittaro, & L. Gamberini (Eds.), PERSUASIVE 2014. LNCS, vol 8462 (pp. 43–55). Cham: Springer. doi: https://doi.org/10. 1007/978-3-319-07127-5_5 Costa, A., Heras, S., Palanca, J., Jordán, J., Novais, P., & Julián, V. (2017). Argumentation Schemes for Events Suggestion in an e-Health Platform. In P. W. de Vries, H. OinasKukkonen, L. Siemons, N. Beerlage-de Jong, & L. van Gemert-Pijnen (Eds.), PERSUASIVE 2017. LNCS, vol 10171 (pp. 17–30). Cham: Springer. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3319-55134-0_2 Creed, C. (2006). Using Computational Agents to Motivate Diet Change. In W. IJsselsteijn, Y. de Kort, C. Midden, B. Eggen, & E. van den Hoven (Eds.), PERSUASIVE 2006. LNCS, vol 396 (pp. 100–103). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/11755494_ 14 Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research Design Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (5th ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, Inc.

References

209

Cronholm, S., & Goldkuhl, G. (2003). Strategies for Information Systems Evaluation-Six Generic Types. Electronic Journal of Information Systems Evaluation, 6(2), 65–74. Daskalova, N., Ford, N., Hu, A., Moorehead, K., Wagnon, B., & Davis, J. (2014). Informing Design of Suggestion and Self-Monitoring Tools through Participatory Experience Prototypes. In A. Spagnolli, L. Chittaro, & L. Gamberini (Eds.), PERSUASIVE 2014. LNCS, vol 8462 (pp. 68–79). Cham: Springer. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07127-5_7 Davis, J. (2010). Generating Directions for Persuasive Technology Design with the Inspiration Card Workshop. In PERSUASIVE 2010. LNCS, vol 6137 (pp. 262–273). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-13226-1_26 Davis, J. (2012). Early Experiences with Participation in Persuasive Technology Design. In PDC ’12: Proceedings of the 12th Participatory Design Conference (pp. 119–128). doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/2347635.2347653 de Vreede, T., Nguyen, C., de Vreede, G.-J., Boughzala, I., Oh, O., & Reiter-Palmon, R. (2013). A Theoretical Model of User Engagement in Crowdsourcing. In P. Antunes, M. Gerosa, A. Sylvester, J. Vassileva, & G. de Vreede (Eds.), Collaboration and Technology. CRIWG 2013. LNCS, vol 8224 (pp. 94–109). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. doi: https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-642-41347-6_8 de Vries, P., Galetzka, M., & Gutteling, J. (2014). Persuasion in theWild: Communication, Technology, and Event Safety. In A. Spagnolli, L. Chittaro, & L. Gamberini (Eds.), PERSUASIVE 2014. LNCS, vol 8462 (pp. 80–91). Cham: Springer. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-319-07127-5_8 Deng, Q., & Ji, S. (2018). A Review of Design Science Research in Information Systems: Concept, Process, Outcome, and Evaluation. Pacific Asia Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 10(1), 1–36. doi: https://doi.org/10.17705/1pais.10101 DiMicco, J. M., & Bender, W. (2007). Group Reactions to Visual Feedback Tools. In Y. de Kort, W. IJsselsteijn, C. Midden, B. Eggen, & B. Fogg (Eds.), PERSUASIVE 2007. LNCS, vol 4744 (pp. 132–143). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3540-77006-0_18 Dorst, K. (2011). The core of ‘design thinking’ and its application. Design Studies, 32(6), 521–532. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2011.07.006 Drechsler, A., & Hevner, A. R. (2018). Utilizing, Producing, and Contributing Design Knowledge in DSR Projects. In S. Chatterjee, K. Dutta, & R. Sundarraj (Eds.), Designing for a Digital and Globalized World. DESRIST 2018. LNCS, vol 10844 (pp. 82–97). Cham: Springer. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91800-6_6 Dubois, A., & Gadde, L.-E. (2002). Systematic combining: an abductive approach to case research. Journal of Business Research, 55(7), 553–560. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S01482963(00)00195-8 Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550. doi: https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4308385 Elam, J. J., & Mead, M. (1990). Can Software Influence Creativity? Information Systems Research, 1(1), 1–22. doi: https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1.1.1 Eppler, M. J., Hoffmann, F., & Bresciani, S. (2011). New business models through collaborative idea generation. International Journal of Innovation Management, 15(6), 1323–1341. doi: https://doi.org/10.1142/S1363919611003751 Esakia, A., McCrickard, D. S., Harden, S. M., & Horning, M. (2017). FitAware: Channeling group dynamics strategies with smartwatches in a physical activity intervention. In Procee-

210

References

dings of the 2017 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 2551–2559). New York, NY: ACM. doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/3027063. 3053249 Felfernig, A., Friedrich, G., Gula, B., Hitz, M., Kruggel, T., Leitner, G., ... Vitouch, O. (2007). Persuasive Recommendation: Serial Position Effects in Knowledge-Based Recommender Systems. In Y. de Kort, W. IJsselsteijn, C. Midden, B. Egge, & B. Fogg (Eds.), PERSUASIVE 2007. LNCS, vol 4744 (pp. 283–294). Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer. doi: https:// doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-77006-0_34 Felin, T., Foss, N. J., Heimeriks, K. H., & Madsen, T. L. (2012). Microfoundations of Routines and Capabilities: Individuals, Processes, and Structure. Journal of Management Studies, 49(8), 1351–1374. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01052.x Felin, T., Foss, N. J., & Ployhart, R. E. (2015). The Microfoundations Movement in Strategy and Organization Theory. Academy of Management Annals, 9(1), 575–632. doi: https://doi. org/10.1080/19416520.2015.1007651 Fettke, P., & Loos, P. (2004a). Referenzmodellierungsforschung. Wirtschaftsinformatik, 46(5), 331–340. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03250947 Fettke, P., & Loos, P. (2004b). Referenzmodellierungsforschung – Langfassung eines Aufsatzes. Working Papers of the Research Group Information Systems & Management, Paper 16. Fichman, R. G., Dos Santos, B. L., & Zheng, Z. (2014). Digital Innovation as a Fundamental and Powerful Concept in the Information Systems Curriculum. MIS Quarterly, 38(2), 329– 354. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/26634929 Fielding, R. T. (2000). Architectural Styles and the Design of Network-based Software Architectures (Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Irvine). Firpo, D., Kasemvilas, S., Ractham, P., & Zhang, X. (2009). Generating a Sense of Community in a Graduate Educational Setting through Persuasive Technology. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Persuasive Technology, New York, NY: ACM. doi: https:// doi.org/10.1145/1541948.1542000 Fogg, B. (1997). Captology: the study of computers as persuasive technologies. In CHI ’97 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, New York, New York, USA: ACM Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/1120212.1120301 Fogg, B. (1998). Persuasive computers. In CHI ’98: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 225–232). doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/274644. 274677 Fogg, B. (2003). Persuasive Technology: Using Computers to Change What We Think and Do. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers. Fogg, B. (2009a). A behavior model for persuasive design. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Persuasive Technology. doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/1541948.1541999 Fogg, B. (2009b). Creating Persuasive Technologies: An Eight-Step Design Process. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Persuasive Technology. doi: https://doi.org/ 10.1145/1541948.1542005 Franke, N., & Piller, F. T. (2004). Value Creation by Toolkits for User Innovation and Design: The Case of the Watch Market. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 21(6), 401– 415. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0737-6782.2004.00094.x

References

211

Franke, N., & Schreier, M. (2002). Entrepreneurial opportunities with toolkits for user innovation and design. International Journal on Media Management, 4(4), 225–234. doi: https:// doi.org/10.1080/14241270209390004 Fraser, K., Yousuf, B., & Conlan, O. (2019). Scrutable and Persuasive Push-Notifications. In H. Oinas-Kukkonen, K. T. Win, E. Karapanos, P. Karppinen, & E. Kyza (Eds.), PERSUASIVE 2019. LNCS, vol 11433 (pp. 67–73). Cham: Springer. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3030-17287-9_6 Frauenberger, C., Good, J., Fitzpatrick, G., & Iversen, O. S. (2015). In pursuit of rigour and accountability in participatory design. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 74, 93–106. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2014.09.004 Frich, J., MacDonald Vermeulen, L., Remy, C., Biskjaer, M. M., & Dalsgaard, P. (2019). Mapping the Landscape of Creativity Support Tools in HCI. In CHI ’19: Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–18). Glasgow. doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300619 Frich, J., Mose Biskjaer, M., & Dalsgaard, P. (2018). Twenty Years of Creativity Research in Human-Computer Interaction. In DIS ’18: Proceedings of the 2018 Designing Interactive Systems Conference (pp. 1235–1257). doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/3196709.3196732 Gabriel, A., Monticolo, D., Camargo, M., & Bourgault, M. (2016). Creativity support systems: A systematic mapping study. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 21, 109–122. doi: https://doi. org/10.1016/j.tsc.2016.05.009 Gall, M. D., & Gillett, M. (1980). The Discussion Method in Classroom Teaching. Theory Into Practice, 19(2), 98–103. Ganesh, S., Marshall, P., Rogers, Y., & O’Hara, K. (2014). FoodWorks: Tackling Fussy Eating by Digitally Augmenting Children’s Meals. Proceedings of the 8th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction Fun, Fast, Foundational – NordiCHI ’14, 147–156. doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/2639189.2639225 Gauntlett, D. (2013). Creativity and digital innovation. In G. Youngs (Ed.), Digital World: Connectivity, Creativity and Rights (pp. 77–90). Abingdon: Routledge. Gawer, A. (2014). Bridging differing perspectives on technological platforms: Toward an integrative framework. Research Policy, 43(7), 1239–1249. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. respol.2014.03.006 Gilson, L. L., & Goldberg, C. B. (2015). Editors’ Comment: So, What Is a Conceptual Paper? Group & Organization Management, 40(2), 127–130. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1059601115576425 Goldkuhl, G. (2008). What kind of pragmatism in information systems research? In AIS SIG Prag Inaugural meeting, Paris. Goldkuhl, G. (2012a). Design Research in Search for a Paradigm: Pragmatism Is the Answer. In M. Helfert & B. Donnellan (Eds.), Practical Aspects of Design Science. EDSS 2011. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 286 (pp. 84–95). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33681-2_8 Goldkuhl, G. (2012b). Pragmatism vs interpretivism in qualitative information systems research. European Journal of Information Systems, 21(2), 135–146. doi: https://doi.org/10. 1057/ejis.2011.54 Golsteijn, C., van den Hoven, E., Geurts, S., Eichenbrenner, M., van Leest, C., van den Hurk, S., & Ling, Y. S. (2008). BLB: A Persuasive and Interactive Installation Designed to Improve Well-Being. In H. Oinas-Kukkonen, P. Hasle, M. Harjumaa, K. Segerståhl, & P. Øhrstrøm

212

References

(Eds.), PERSUASIVE 2008. LNCS, vol 5033 (pp. 262–265). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-68504-3_27 Goos, M., Galbraith, P., & Renshaw, P. (2002). Socially mediated metacognition: Creating collaborative zones of proximal development in small group problem solving. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 49, 193–223. doi: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016209010120 Gottschalg, O., & Zollo, M. (2006). Motivation and the Theory of the Firm. HEC Research Papers Series 833, HEC Paris. Gram-Hansen, S. B., & Ryberg, T. (2015). Acttention – Influencing Communities of Practice with Persuasive Learning Designs. In T. MacTavish & S. Basapur (Eds.), PERSUASIVE 2015. LNCS, vol 9072 (pp. 184–195). Cham: Springer. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3319-20306-5_17 Greene, S. L. (2002). Characteristics of Applications that Support Creativity. Communications of the ACM, 45(10), 100–104. doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/570907.570941 Gregor, S., & Hevner, A. R. (2013). Positioning and Presenting Design Science Research for Maximum Impact. MIS Quarterly, 37(2), 337–355. doi: https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS07421222240302 Gregor, S., & Jones, D. (2007). The anatomy of a design theory. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8(5), 312–335. doi: https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00129 Grigoriou, K., & Rothaermel, F. T. (2014). Structural Microfoundations of Innovation. Journal of Management, 40(2), 586–615. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206313513612 Hacker, J., & Bodendorf, F. (2017). Conceptualising and understanding user behaviour in enterprise social networks: A qualitative analysis. In Proceedings of the 28th Australasian Conference on Information Systems, ACIS 2017. Hagen, P., & Robertson, T. (2009). Dissolving boundaries: social technologies and participation in design. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual Conference of the Australian ComputerHuman Interaction Special Interest Group on Design: Open 24/7 – OZCHI ’09 (pp. 129– 136). doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/1738826.1738848 Hakanen, T., & Murtonen, M. (2015). Service Business Model Canvas: A Boundary Object Operating as a Business Development Tool. International Journal of Industrial and Systems Engineering, 9(8), 2687–2692. doi: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1108914 Halskov, K., & Dalsgård, P. (2006). Inspiration card workshops. In Proceedings of the 6th ACM conference on Designing Interactive systems – DIS ’06 (pp. 2–11). New York, New York, USA: ACM Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/1142405.1142409 Ham, J., & Midden, C. (2010). Ambient Persuasive Technology Needs Little Cognitive Effort: The Differential Effects of Cognitive Load on Lighting Feedback versus Factual Feedback. In T. Ploug, P. Hasle, & H. Oinas-Kukkonen (Eds.), PERSUASIVE 2010. LNCS, vol 6137 (pp. 132–142). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-64213226-1_14 Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., & Pakkanen, T. (2014). Do persuasive technologies persuade? – A review of empirical studies. In A. Spagnolli, L. Chittaro, & L. Gamberini (Eds.), PERSUASIVE 2014. LNCS, vol 8462 (pp. 118–136). Cham: Springer. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-319-07127-5_11 Hammer, S., Lugrin, B., Bogomolov, S., Janowski, K., & André, E. (2016). Investigating Politeness Strategies and Their Persuasiveness for a Robotic Elderly Assistant. In A. Meschtscherjakov, B. De Ruyter, V. Fuchsberger, M. Murer, & M. Tscheligi (Eds.), PERSUASIVE

References

213

2016. LNCS, vol 9638 (pp. 315–326). Cham: Springer. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3319-31510-2_27 Hanzl, M. (2007). Information technology as a tool for public participation in urban planning: a review of experiments and potentials. Design Studies, 28(3), 289–307. doi: https://doi. org/10.1016/j.destud.2007.02.003 Harjumaa, M., & Muuraiskangas, S. (2014). Building Persuasiveness into Information Systems. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems Evaluation, 17(1), 23–35. Hartmann, B., Ringel Morris, M., Benko, H., & Wilson, A. D. (2010). Pictionaire – Supporting Collaborative Design Work by Integrating Physical and Digital Artifacts. Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW’10), 421–424. doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/1718918.1718989 Hartwig, M., Scholl, P., Budde, V., & Windel, A. (2015). Adaptive Reminders for Safe Work. In T. MacTavish & S. Basapur (Eds.), PERSUASIVE 2015. LNCS, vol 9072 (pp. 135–140). Cham: Springer. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20306-5_12 Hedin, B., & Zapico, J. (2017). Kilowh.at – Increasing Energy Awareness Using an Interactive Energy Comparison Tool. In P. W. de Vries, H. Oinas-Kukkonen, L. Siemons, N. Beerlagede Jong, & L. van Gemert-Pijnen (Eds.), PERSUASIVE 2017. LNCS, vol 10171 (pp. 175– 185). Cham: Springer. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55134-0_14 Henkemans, O. A. B., Bierman, B. P., Janssen, J., Looije, R., Neerincx, M. A., van Dooren, M. M., ... Huisman, S. D. (2017). Design and evaluation of a personal robot playing a self-management education game with children with diabetes type 1. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 106, 63–76. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2017.06.001 Hennessey, B. A. (2019). Motivation and Creativity. In J. Kaufman & R. Sternberg (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity (pp. 374–395). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316979839.020 Heras, S., Rodrìguez, P., Palanca, J., Duque, N., & Julián, V. (2017). Using Argumentation to Persuade Students in an Educational Recommender System. In P. W. de Vries, H. OinasKukkonen, L. Siemons, N. Beerlage-de Jong, & L. van Gemert-Pijnen (Eds.), PERSUASIVE 2017. LNCS, vol 10171 (pp. 227–239). Cham: Springer. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/9783-319-55134-0_18 Hevner, A. R. (2007). A Three Cycle View of Design Science Research. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 19(2), 87–92. Hevner, A. R., & Chatterjee, S. (2010). Design Science Research in Information Systems. In Design Research in Information Systems. Integrated Series in Information Systems, vol 22 (pp. 9–22). Boston, MA: Springer. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-5653-8_2 Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design Science in Information Systems Research. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 75–105. doi: https://doi.org/10.5555/2017212. 2017217 Hevner, A. R., vom Brocke, J., & Maedche, A. (2019). Roles of Digital Innovation in Design Science Research. Business and Information Systems Engineering, 61(1), 3–8. doi: https:// doi.org/10.1007/s12599-018-0571-z Höök, K. (2008). Affective Loop Experiences – What Are They? In H. Oinas-Kukkonen, P. Hasle, M. Harjumaa, K. Segerståhl, & P. Øhrstrøm (Eds.), PERSUASIVE 2008. LNCS, vol 5033 (pp. 1–12). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-54068504-3_1

214

References

Hund, A., Drechsler, K., & Reibenspiess, V. A. (2019). The Current State and Future Opportunities of Digital Innovation: A Literature Review. In Proceedings of the 27th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS). Iivari, J. (2007). Nothing is as Clear as Unclear. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 19(2), 111–117. Jalowski, M. (2020). Integrating Persuasive Technology in Participatory Design Workshops: Prototypes for Participant Support. In S. B. Gram-Hansen, T. S. Jonasen, & C. Midden (Eds.), PERSUASIVE 2020. LNCS, vol 12064 (pp. 30–42). Cham: Springer. doi: https:// doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45712-9_3 Jalowski, M., Fritzsche, A., & Möslein, K. M. (2019a). Applications for Persuasive Technologies in Participatory Design Processes. In H. Oinas-Kukkonen, K. T. Win, E. Karapanos, P. Karppinen, & E. Kyza (Eds.), PERSUASIVE 2019. LNCS, vol 11433 (pp. 74–86). Cham: Springer. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17287-9_7 Jalowski, M., Fritzsche, A., & Möslein, K. M. (2019b). Facilitating collaborative design: a toolkit for integrating persuasive technologies in design activities. Procedia CIRP, 84, 61–67. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2019.04.290 Jalowski, M., Schymanietz, M., & Möslein, K. M. (2020). Supporting Participants in Creative Processes: Opportunities for Persuasive Technology in Participatory Design. In Proceedings of the Forty-First International Conference on Information Systems, India 2020. Jarvela, S., & Jarvenoja, H. (2011). Socially Constructed Self-Regulated Learning and Motivation Regulation in Collaborative Learning Groups. Teachers College Record, 113(2), 350–374. Jensen, M. M., Thiel, S. K., Hoggan, E., & Bødker, S. (2018). Physical Versus Digital Sticky Notes in Collaborative Ideation. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 27, 609–645. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-018-9325-1 Joyce, A., & Paquin, R. L. (2016). The triple layered business model canvas: A tool to design more sustainable business models. Journal of Cleaner Production, 135(1), 1474–1486. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.067 Kensing, F., & Blomberg, J. (1998). Participatory Design: Issues and Concerns. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 7, 167–185. doi: https://doi.org/10.1023/A: 1008689307411 Kight, R., & Gram-Hansen, S. B. (2019). Do Ethics Matter in Persuasive Technology? In H. Oinas-Kukkonen, K. T. Win, E. Karapanos, P. Karppinen, & E. Kyza (Eds.), PERSUASIVE 2019. LNCS, vol 11433 (pp. 143–155). Cham: Springer. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/9783-030-17287-9_12 Knapp, J., Zeratsky, J., & Kowitz, B. (2016). Sprint: How to Solve Big Problems and Test New Ideas in Just Five Days. Simon & Schuster. Knipscheer, K., Nieuwesteeg, J., & Oste, J. (2006). Persuasive Story Table: Promoting Exchange of Life History Stories Among Elderly in Institutions. In W. IJsselsteijn, Y. de Kort, C. Midden, B. Eggen, & E. van den Hoven (Eds.), PERSUASIVE 2006. LNCS, vol 396 (pp. 191–194). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/11755494_ 28 Krans, M., van de Wiele, L., Bullen, N., Diamond, M., van Dantzig, S., de Ruyter, B., & van der Lans, A. (2019). A Group Intervention to Improve Physical Activity at the Workplace. In H. Oinas-Kukkonen, K. T. Win, E. Karapanos, P. Karppinen, & E. Kyza (Eds.), PERSUASIVE

References

215

2019. LNCS, vol 11433 (pp. 322–333). Cham: Springer. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/9783-030-17287-9_26 Le Masson, P., Hatchuel, A., & Weil, B. (2009). Design Theory and Collective Creativity: A Theoretical Framework to Evaluate KCP Process. In M. Norell Bergendahl, M. Grimheden, L. Leifer, P. Skogstad, & U. Lindemann (Eds.), Proceedings of ICED 09, the 17th International Conference on Engineering Design, Vol. 6 (pp. 277–288). Lee, Y. (2008). Design participation tactics: the challenges and new roles for designers in the co-design process. CoDesign, 4(1), 31–50. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/ 15710880701875613 Lehto, T. (2012). Designing Persuasive Health Behavior Change Interventions. In Critical Issues for the Development of Sustainable E-health Solutions (pp. 163–181). Boston, MA: Springer US. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-1536-7_11 Lu, S., Ham, J., & Midden, C. J. (2014). Using Ambient Lighting in Persuasive Communication: The Role of Pre-existing Color Associations. In A. Spagnolli, L. Chittaro, & Luciano Gamberini (Eds.), PERSUASIVE 2014. LNCS, vol 8462 (pp. 167–178). Cham: Springer. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07127-5_15 Lüthje, C., & Herstatt, C. (2004). The Lead User method: An outline of empirical findings and issues for future research. R&D Management, 34(5), 553–568. doi: https://doi.org/10. 1111/j.1467-9310.2004.00362.x MacKenzie, C. M., Laskey, K., McCabe, F., Brown, P. F., & Metz, R. (2006). Reference Model for Service Oriented Architecture 1.0, OASIS Standard, 12 October 2006 Document. Retrieved from http://docs.oasis-open.org/soa-rm/v1.0/ March, S. T., & Smith, G. F. (1995). Design and natural science research on information technology. Decision Support Systems, 15(4), 251–266. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/01679236(94)00041-2 Maxwell, D., Speed, C., Monsen, K., & Zamora, D. (2015). Creating a Collaborative Space for Creativity through a Pervasive User Experience. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM SIGCHI Conference on Creativity and Cognition – C&C ’15 (pp. 255–264). Glasgow. doi: https:// doi.org/10.1145/2757226.2757234 Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative Content Analysis. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(2), Art (20). Mayring, P. (2014). Einführung in die qualitative Solzialforschung (6th ed.). Weinheim, Basel: Beltz. McCalley, T., & Mertens, A. (2007). The Pet Plant: Developing an Inanimate Emotionally Interactive Tool for the Elderly. In Y. de Kort, W. IJsselsteijn, C. Midden, B. Egge, & B. Fogg (Eds.), PERSUASIVE 2007. LNCS, vol 4744 (pp. 68–79). Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-77006-0_9 Meijnders, A., Midden, C., & McCalley, T. (2006). The Persuasive Power of Mediated Risk Experiences. In W. IJsselsteijn, Y. de Kort, C. Midden, B. Eggen, & E. van den Hoven (Eds.), PERSUASIVE 2006. LNCS, vol 3962 (pp. 50–54). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/11755494_8 Meinel, M., Eismann, T. T., Baccarella, C. V., Fixson, S. K., & Voigt, K. I. (2020). Does applying design thinking result in better new product concepts than a traditional innovation approach? An experimental comparison study. European Management Journal. doi: https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2020.02.002

216

References

Muller, M. (2007). Participatory Design: The Third Space in HCI. In A. Sears & J. A. Jacko (Eds.), The Human-Computer Interaction Handbook (pp. 1061–1081). New York, New York, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. doi: https://doi.org/10.1201/9781410615862. ch54 Muller, M., Wildman, D. M., & White, E. A. (1993). Taxonomy of PD practices: A brief practitioner’s guide. Communications of the ACM, 36(6), 24–28. doi: https://doi.org/10. 1145/153571.255960 Nambisan, S., Lyytinen, K., Majchrzak, A., & Song, M. (2017). Digital Innovation Management: Reinventing Innovation Management Research in a Digital World. MIS Quarterly, 41(1), 223–238. doi: https://doi.org/10.5555/3177663.3177675 Narita, T., & Kitamura, Y. (2010). Persuasive Conversational Agent with Persuasion Tactics. In T. Ploug, P. Hasle, & H. Oinas-Kukkonen (Eds.), PERSUASIVE 2010. LNCS, vol 6137 (pp. 15–26). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-132261_4 Niebuhr, S., & Kerkow, D. (2007). Captivating Patterns – A First Validation. In Y. de Kort, W. IJsselsteijn, C. Midden, B. Egge, & B. Fogg (Eds.), PERSUASIVE 2007. LNCS, vol 4744 (pp. 48–54). Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3540-77006-0_6 Nooitgedagt, A., Beun, R. J., & Dignum, F. (2017). e-Coaching for Intensive Cardiac Rehabilitation. In P. W. de Vries, H. Oinas-Kukkonen, L. Siemons, N. Beerlage-de Jong, & L. van Gemert-Pijnen (Eds.), PERSUASIVE 2017. LNCS, vol 10171 (pp. 31–42). Cham: Springer. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55134-0_3 Nørskov, M. (2017). Social Robots, Boundaries, Potential, Challenges (1st ed.). London: Routledge. O’Brien, A. J., Alfano, C., & Magnusson, E. (2007). Improving Cross-Cultural Communication Through Collaborative Technologies. In Y. de Kort, W. IJsselsteijn, C. Midden, B. Eggen, & B. Fogg (Eds.), PERSUASIVE 2007. LNCS, vol 4744 (pp. 125–131). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-77006-0_17 O’Hern, M., & Rindfleisch, A. (2010). Customer co-creation. Review of Marketing Research, 6, 84–106. doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/S1548-6435(2009)0000006008 Oinas-Kukkonen, H. (2010). Behavior Change Support Systems: A Research Model and Agenda. In T. Ploug, P. Hasle, & H. Oinas-Kukkonen (Eds.), PERSUASIVE 2010. LNCS, vol 6137 (pp. 4–14). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-64213226-1_3 Oinas-Kukkonen, H. (2013). A foundation for the study of behavior change support systems. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 17(6), 1223–1235. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/ s00779-012-0591-5 Oinas-Kukkonen, H., & Harjumaa, M. (2008a). A Systematic Framework for Designing and Evaluating Persuasive Systems. In H. Oinas-Kukkonen, P. Hasle, M. Harjumaa, K. Segerståhl, & P. Øhrstrøm (Eds.), PERSUASIVE 2008. LNCS, vol 5033 (pp. 164–176). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-68504-3_15 Oinas-Kukkonen, H., & Harjumaa, M. (2008b). Towards Deeper Understanding of Persuasion in Software and Information Systems. In First International Conference on Advances in Computer-Human Interaction (pp. 200–205). doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/ACHI.2008.31

References

217

Oinas-Kukkonen, H., & Harjumaa, M. (2009). Persuasive Systems Design: Key Issues, Process Model, and System Features. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 24, 485–500. doi: https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.02428 Orji, R., & Moffatt, K. (2018). Persuasive technology for health and wellness: State-oftheart and emerging trends. Health Informatics Journal, 24(1), 66–91. doi: https://doi.org/10. 1177/1460458216650979 Osterwalder, A., & Pigneur, Y. (2010). Business model generation: a handbook for visionaries, game changers, and challengers. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. Oyibo, K. (2016). Designing culture-based persuasive technology to promote physical activity among university students. UMAP 2016 – Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on User Modeling Adaptation and Personalization, 321–324. doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/2930238. 2930372 Patton, E., & Appelbaum, S. H. (2003). The case for case studies in management research. Management Research News, 26(5), 60–71. doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/ 01409170310783484 Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M. A., & Chatterjee, S. (2007). A Design Science Research Methodology for Information Systems Research. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(3), 45–78. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00979227 Persuasive Technology. (2006). Persuasive Technology. In W. A. IJsselsteijn, Y. A. W. de Kort, C. Midden, B. Eggen, & E. van den Hoven (Eds.), First International Conference on Persuasive Technology for Human Well-Being, PERSUASIVE 2006 Eindhoven, The Netherlands, May 18-19, 2006. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3962, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/11755494 Persuasive Technology. (2019). Persuasive Technology: Development of Persuasive and Behavior Change Support Systems. In H. Oinas-Kukkonen, K. T. Win, E. Karapanos, P. Karppinen, & E. Kyza (Eds.), 14th International Conference, PERSUASIVE 2019 Limassol, Cyprus, April 9-11, 2019. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 11433, Cham: Springer. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17287-9 Piller, F. T., Ihl, C., & Vossen, A. (2010). A Typology of Customer Co-Creation in the Innovation Process. SSRN Electronic Journal. doi: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1732127 Piller, F. T., Schubert, P., Koch, M., & Möslein, K. M. (2005). Overcoming mass confusion: Collaborative customer co-design in online communities. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(4). doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2005.tb00271.x Piller, F. T., & Walcher, D. (2006). Toolkits for idea competitions: a novel method to integrate users in new product development. R&D Management, 36(3), 307–318. doi: https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2006.00432.x Prahalad, C., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). Co-creation experiences: The next practice in value creation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(3), 5–14. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/dir. 20015 Pribik, I., & Felfernig, A. (2012). Towards Persuasive Technology for Software Development Environments: An Empirical Study. In M. Bang & E. L. Ragnemalm (Eds.), PERSUASIVE 2012. LNCS, vol 7284 (pp. 227–238). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. doi: https://doi.org/10. 1007/978-3-642-31037-9_20 Pries-Heje, J., Baskerville, R., & Venable, J. R. (2008). Strategies for Design Science Research Evaluation. European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2008), Paper 87. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1933719108329095

218

References

Ranjan, K. R., & Read, S. (2016). Value co-creation: concept and measurement. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44(3), 290–315. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747014-0397-2 Reddy, V., Bushree, B., Chong, M., Law, M., Thirani, M., Yan, M., ... Joshi, A. (2018). Influencing Participant Behavior Through a Notification-Based Recommendation System. In J. Ham, E. Karapanos, P. P. Morita, & C. M. Burns (Eds.), PERSUASIVE 2018. LNCS, vol 10809 (pp. 113–119). Cham: Springer. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-789781_9 Reichwald, R., & Piller, F. T. (2009). Interaktive Wertschöpfung (2nd ed.). Wiesbaden: Gabler. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-8349-9440-0 Reitberger, W., Güldenpfennig, F., & Fitzpatrick, G. (2012). Persuasive Technology Considered Harmful? An Exploration of Design Concerns through the TV Companion. In M. Bang & E. L. Ragnemalm (Eds.), PERSUASIVE 2012. LNCS, vol 7284 (pp. 239–250). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31037-9_21 Revelle, G., Reardon, E., Green, M. M., Betancourt, J., & Kotler, J. (2007). The Use of Mobile Phones to Support Children’s Literacy Learning. In Y. de Kort, W. IJsselsteijn, C. Midden, B. Eggen, & B. Fogg (Eds.), PERSUASIVE 2007. LNCS, vol 4744 (pp. 253–258). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-77006-0_31 Rooij, A. D., Corr, P. J., & Jones, S. (2017). Creativity and Emotion: Enhancing Creative Thinking by the Manipulation of Computational Feedback to Determine Emotional. In C&C ’17: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCHI Conference on Creativity and Cognition (pp. 148–157). doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/3059454.3059469 Royakkers, L., Timmer, J., Kool, L., & van Est, R. (2018). Societal and ethical issues of digitization. Ethics and Information Technology, 20(2), 127–142. doi: https://doi.org/10. 1007/s10676-018-9452-x Sanders, E. B.-N. (2002). From user-centered to participatory design approaches. In J. Frascara (Ed.), Design and the Social Sciences Making connections (pp. 1–8). London: CRC Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.1201/9780203301302 Sanders, E. B.-N. (2013). Perspectives on Participation in Design. In C. Mareis, M. Held, & G. Joost (Eds.), Wer Gestaltet die Gestaltung? Praxis, Theorie und Geschichte des Partizipatorischen Designs (pp. 65–78). Bielefeld: transcript Verlag. doi: https://doi.org/10. 14361/transcript.9783839420386.65 Sanders, E. B.-N., Brandt, E., & Binder, T. (2010). A framework for organizing the tools and techniques of participatory design. In Proceedings of the 11th Biennial Participatory Design Conference on – PDC ’10 (pp. 195–198). New York, New York, USA: ACM Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/1900441.1900476 Sanders, E. B.-N., & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign, 4(1), 5–18. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880701875068 Sanders, E. B.-N., & Stappers, P. J. (2014). Probes, toolkits and prototypes: Three approaches to making in codesigning. CoDesign, 10(1), 5–14. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882. 2014.888183 Satzger, G., Möslein, K. M., & Böhmann, T. (2018). Geschäftsmodelle 4.0 – Baukasten zur Entwicklung datenbasierter Geschäftsmodelle. Retrieved from http://ksri.link/ bigdiemobuch Scheer, A.-W. (1999). “ARIS – House of Business Engineering”: Konzept zur Beschreibung und Ausführung von Referenzmodellen. In J. Becker, M. Rosemann, & R. Schütte

References

219

(Eds.), Referenzmodellierung (pp. 2–21). Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag. doi: https://doi.org/ 10.1007/978-3-642-58670-5_1 Schuh, G., Riesener, M., Mattern, C., Linnartz, M., & Basse, F. (2018). Evaluating collaboration productivity in interdisciplinary product development. Procedia CIRP, 70, 211–216. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2018.02.024 Schulman, D., & Bickmore, T. (2009). Persuading Users through Counseling Dialogue with a Conversational Agent. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Persuasive Technology. doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/1541948.1541983 Schumann, S., Klein, O., & Douglas, K. (2012). Talk to Act: How Internet Use Empowers Users to Participate in Collective Actions Offline. In M. Bang & E. L. Ragnemalm (Eds.), PERSUASIVE 2012. LNCS, vol 7284 (pp. 79–89). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. doi: https:// doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31037-9_7 Shevchuk, N., Degirmenci, K., & Oinas-Kukkonen, H. (2019). Adoption of Gamified Persuasive Systems to Encourage Sustainable Behaviors: Interplay between Perceived Persuasiveness and Cognitive Absorption. Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS). Shneiderman, B. (2000). Creating Creativity: User Interfaces for Supporting Innovation. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 7(1), 114–138. doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/ 344949.345077 Shneiderman, B. (2002). Creativity support tools. Communications of the ACM, 45(10), 116– 120. doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/570907.570945 Shneiderman, B. (2007). Creativity Support Tools: Accelerating Discovery and Innovation. Communications of the ACM, 50(12), 20–32. doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/1323688. 1323689 Shneiderman, B. (2009). Creativity Support Tools: A Grand Challenge for HCI Researchers. In M. Redondo, C. Bravo, & M. Ortega (Eds.), Engineering the User Interface (pp. 1–9). London: Springer. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84800-136-7_1 Shneiderman, B., Fischer, G., Czerwinski, M., Resnick, M., Myers, B., Candy, L., ... Terry, M. (2006). Creativity Support Tools: Report From a U.S. National Science Foundation Sponsored Workshop. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 20(2), 61– 77. doi: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327590ijhc2002_1 Sonnenberg, C., & vom Brocke, J. (2012a). Evaluation Patterns for Design Science Research Artefacts. In M. Helfert & B. Donnellan (Eds.), Practical Aspects of Design Science. EDSS 2011. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 286 (pp. 71–83). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33681-2_7 Sonnenberg, C., & vom Brocke, J. (2012b). Evaluations in the Science of the Artificial – Reconsidering the Build-Evaluate Pattern in Design Science Research. In K. Peffers, M. Rothenberger, & B. Kuechler (Eds.), Design Science Research in Information Systems. Advances in Theory and Practice. DESRIST 2012. LNCS, vol 7286 (pp. 381–397). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29863-9_28 Star, S. L. (2010). This is Not a Boundary Object: Reflections on the Origin of a Concept. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 35(5), 601–617. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0162243910377624 Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional Ecology, ‘Translations’ and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoo-

220

References

logy, 1907–39. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387–420. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/ 030631289019003001 Steen, M., Manschot, M., & Koning, N. D. (2011). Benefits of Co-design in Service Design Projects. International Journal of Design, 5(2), 53–60. Stibe, A., & Oinas-Kukkonen, H. (2014a). Designing Persuasive Systems for User Engagement in Collaborative Interaction. Proceedings of the European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS) 2014. Stibe, A., & Oinas-Kukkonen, H. (2014b). Using Social Influence for Motivating Customers to Generate and Share Feedback. In A. Spagnolli, L. Chittaro, & L. Gamberini (Eds.), PERSUASIVE 2014. LNCS, vol 8462 (pp. 224–235). Cham: Springer. doi: https://doi.org/ 10.1007/978-3-319-07127-5_19 Stibe, A., Oinas-Kukkonen, H., Berzina, I., & Pahnila, S. (2011). Incremental Persuasion through Microblogging: A Survey of Twitter Users in Latvia. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Persuasive Technology. doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/2467803. 2467811 Stibe, A., Oinas-Kukkonen, H., & Lehto, T. (2013). Exploring Social Influence on Customer Engagement: A Pilot Study on the Effects of Social Learning, Social Comparison, and Normative Influence. 46th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2735– 2744. doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2013.222 Thomas, G. (2010). Doing Case Study: Abduction Not Induction, Phronesis Not Theory. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(7), 575–582. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410372601 Thomas, J. C., Lee, A., & Danis, C. (2002). Enhancing creative design via software tools. Communications of the ACM, 45(10). doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/570907.570944 Tikka, P., Laitinen, M., Manninen, I., & Oinas-Kukkonen, H. (2018). Reflection Through Gaming: Reinforcing Health Message Response Through Gamified Rehearsal. In J. Ham, E. Karapanos, P. P. Morita, & C. M. Burns (Eds.), PERSUASIVE 2018. LNCS, vol 10809 (pp. 200–212). Cham: Springer. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78978-1_17 Torning, K. (2008). Persuasive Technology Design – A Rhetorical Approach. In H. OinasKukkonen, P. Hasle, M. Harjumaa, K. Segerståhl, & P. Øhrstrøm (Eds.), PERSUASIVE 2008. LNCS, vol 5033 (pp. 83–93). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. doi: https://doi.org/10. 1007/978-3-540-68504-3_8 Torning, K., & Oinas-Kukkonen, H. (2009). Persuasive System Design: State of the Art and Future Directions. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Persuasive Technology. doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/1541948.1541989 Van Rompay, T. J., De Vries, P. W., & Damink, M. T. (2015). “For Your Safety” Effects of Camera Surveillance on Safety Impressions, Situation Construal and Attributed Intent. In T. MacTavish & S. Basapur (Eds.), PERSUASIVE 2015. LNCS, vol 9072 (pp. 141–146). Cham: Springer. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20306-5_13 van Rijn, H., & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Expressions of ownership: motivating users in a codesign process. In PDC ’08: Proceedings of the Tenth Anniversary Conference on Participatory Design 2008 (pp. 178–181). doi: https://doi.org/10.5555/1795234.1795266 Venable, J. (2006). A Framework for Design Science Research Activities. In Proceedings of the 2006 Information Resource Management Association Conference (CD). Venable, J., Pries-Heje, J., & Baskerville, R. (2012). A Comprehensive Framework for Designing Evaluation in DSR. In K. Peffers, M. Rothenberger, & B. Kuechler (Eds.), Design Science Research in Information Systems. Advances in Theory and Practice. DESRIST

References

221

2012. LNCS, vol 7286 (pp. 423–438). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. doi: https://doi.org/10. 1007/978-3-642-29863-9_31 Venable, J., Pries-Heje, J., & Baskerville, R. (2016). FEDS: a Framework for Evaluation in Design Science Research. European Journal of Information Systems, 25(1), 77–89. doi: https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2014.36 Verbeek, P.-P. (2017). Designing the Morality of Things: The Ethics of Behaviour-Guiding Technology. In J. van den Hoven, S. Miller, & T. Pogge (Eds.), Designing in Ethics (2013, pp. 78–94). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/ 9780511844317.005 Vines, J., Clarke, R., Wright, P., McCarthy, J., & Olivier, P. (2013). Configuring Participation: On How We Involve People In Design. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems – CHI ’13 (Vol. 23, 2, p. 429). New York, New York, USA: ACM Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/2470654.2470716 Vom Brocke, J., & Buddendick, C. (2004). Organisationsformen in der Referenzmodellierung – Forschungsbedarf und Gestaltungsempfehlungen auf Basis der Transaktionskostentheorie. Wirtschaftsinformatik, 46(5), 341–352. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03250948 von Hippel, E. (2001). User toolkits for innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 18(4), 247–257. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5885.1840247 von Hippel, E. (2005). Democratizing innovation. Cambridge, London: The MIT Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/08956308.2016.1136980 von Hippel, E., & Katz, R. (2002). Shifting Innovation to Users via Toolkits. Management Science, 48(7), 821–833. doi: https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.48.7.821.2817 Vossen, S., Ham, J., & Midden, C. (2009). Social Influence of a Persuasive Agent: the Role of Agent Embodiment and Evaluative Feedback. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Persuasive Technology. doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/1541948.1542007 Wang, H.-C., Cosley, D., & Fussell, S. R. (2010). Idea expander: supporting group brainstorming with conversationally triggered visual thinking stimuli. In CSCW ’10: Proceedings of the 2010 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work (pp. 103–106). New York, New York, USA: ACM Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/1718918.1718938 Webster, J., & Watson, R. T. (2002). Analyzing the Past to Prepare for the Future: Writing a Literature Review. MIS Quarterly, 26(2), xiii–xxiii. Wellsandt, S., & Thoben, K. D. (2016). Approach to Describe Knowledge Sharing between Producer and User. Procedia CIRP, 50, 20–25. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2016. 04.193 West, J., & Bogers, M. (2014). Leveraging external sources of innovation: A review of research on open innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(4), 814–831. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12125 Wiesböck, F. (2019). Innovating in a Digital World – The Role of Digital Product Innovation Capabilities. In Proceedings of the 27th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS). Witzel, A., & Reiter, H. (2012). The problem-centred interview. London: SAGE Publications, Inc. Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward a Theory of Organizational Creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18(2), 293–321. doi: https://doi.org/10.5465/ amr.1993.3997517

222

References

Wozniak, P., Koczorowicz, B., Fjeld, M., & Romanowski, A. (2014). SubRosa: Supporting a Proper Learning Atmosphere through Subtle Cues with Immediate Feedback. In A. Spagnolli, L. Chittaro, & L. Gamberini (Eds.), PERSUASIVE 2014. LNCS, vol 8462 (pp. 279–290). Cham: Springer. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07127-5_25 Wunsch, M., Stibe, A., Millonig, A., Seer, S., Dai, C., Schechtner, K., & Chin, R. C. C. (2015). What Makes You Bike? Exploring Persuasive Strategies to Encourage Low-Energy Mobility. In T. MacTavish & S. Basapur (Eds.), PERSUASIVE 2015. LNCS, vol 9072 (pp. 53–64). Cham: Springer. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20306-5_5 Yetim, F. (2019). Supporting and understanding reflection on persuasive technology through a reflection schema. In H. Oinas-Kukkonen, K. T. Win, E. Karapanos, P. Karppinen, & E. Kyza (Eds.), PERSUASIVE 2019. LNCS, vol 11433 (pp. 43–51). Cham: Springer. doi: https:// doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17287-9_4 Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: design and methods (6th ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, Inc. Yoo, Y., Boland, R. J., Lyytinen, K., & Majchrzak, A. (2012). Organizing for Innovation in the Digitized World. Organization Science, 23(5), 1398–1408. doi: https://doi.org/10.1287/ orsc.1120.0771 Yoo, Y., Henfridsson, O., & Lyytinen, K. (2010). Research Commentary: The New Organizing Logic of Digital Innovation: An Agenda for Information Systems Research. Information Systems Research, 21(4), 724–735. doi: https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1100.0322 Yun, R., Lasternas, B., Aziz, A., Loftness, V., Scupelli, P., Rowe, A., ... Zhao, J. (2013). Toward the Design of a Dashboard to Promote Environmentally Sustainable Behavior among Office Workers. In S. Berkovsky & J. Freyne (Eds.), PERSUASIVE 2013. LNCS, vol 7822 (pp. 246– 252). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-37157-8_29 Zhu, Y. Q., Gardner, D. G., & Chen, H. G. (2018). Relationships Between Work Team Climate, Individual Motivation, and Creativity. Journal of Management, 44(5), 2094–2115. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316638161 Zimmermann, H. (1980). OSI reference model-the ISO model of architecture for open systems interconnection. IEEE Transactions on Communications, 28(4), 425–432. doi: https://doi. org/10.1109/TCOM.1980.1094702