7.2 Introduction to interactive management format
The methodology used was chosen carefully to serve the needs of the COST 219ter
Action. The authors have extensive experience in the method and have used it in
many other forums to facilitate organizational and social change (vide infra).
The specific objectives set for this workshop were:
1. To create a shared understanding regarding the obstacles that prevent the
exploitation of broadband technologies.
2. To build commitment within the COST 219ter community to an action
agenda for collaboratively addressing the ‘system of obstacles’, and
3. To serve as a model for other European networks working on analogous
problems, thus forging a ‘chain of interactions’ that will embrace the
variety of stakeholders to collaborate towards the development and the
implementation of an agenda to overcome the system of obstacles.
To achieve these objectives the Interactive Management (IM) methodology was
chosen [Banathy, 1996; Warfield & Cardenas, 1994]. This methodology has been
used extensively by Christakis and many of his associates to enlighten and
“structure” analogous situations [Christakis and Bausch, 2006, Broome, 1997,
Laouris, 2004; Hays & Michaelides, 2004]. IM is specifically designed to assist
inhomogeneous groups to deal with complex issues, in a reasonably limited
amount of time. It enables the integration of contributions from individuals with
diverse views, backgrounds and perspectives through a process that is structured,
281
7. What obstacles prevent practical broadband applications from
being produced and exploited?
inclusive and collaborative [Alexander, 2002; Christakis, 1973; Christakis &
Brahms, 2003]. A group of participants who are knowledgeable of the situation are
engaged in collectively developing a common framework of thinking based on
consensus and shared understanding of the current state of affairs. IM promotes
focused communication among the participants in the design process and their
ownership of and commitment in the outcome. IM seeks to appropriately balance
the behavioural demands of group work with technical assistance that makes it
possible to deal with the complexity of issues [Christakis, 1996]. It is designed to
prevent groups from prematurely focusing on decisions before they have
adequately defined the situation. The typical application of IM integrates the five
synergistic components of group decision-making summarized in table 7.1. The
right column of the table highlights the specifics in the case of our application.
Components of a typical IM application
Specifics of our
application of IM
1
A group of knowledgeable participants who represent
26 experts from 15
the variety of perspectives that need to be brought to
countries (21 are national
bear in dealing with the situation.
representatives within
COST 219ter).
2
Trained facilitators who are able to guide the group
The authors.
through the decision-making process.
3
A computer-assisted consensus-building methodology to
Interpretive Structural
help the group generate structure and select ideas.
Modelling.
4
An appropriate computer program to increase efficiency
The Cogniscope™
and productivity of group work.
software.
5
A specially designed physical environment that includes
Hotel conference rooms in
visual display space for ideas and structures promoting
Ayia Napa, Cyprus and
transparency and communication among the
Seville, Spain.
participants.
Table 7. 1 The five synergistic components of the group decision-making process as
applied in a typical IM workshop (left column) and the specific implementation
arrangements relevant to the application of the methodology in the context of the
COST 219ter workshops (right column).
282
7. What obstacles prevent practical broadband applications from
being produced and exploited?
Two different, but complimentary, scientific methods were exploited in the context
of two workshops, one in Ayia Napa, Cyprus (7 October, 2005) and one in Seville,
Spain (7-8 March, 2006): the Nominal Group Technique (NGT) and the Interpretive
Structural Modelling (ISM) technique. The NGT was chosen, because it allows
individual contributions to be captured and pooled effectively and is adequate for
situations in which uncertainty and disagreements may exist. Its application in our
case involved the following steps:
1. A triggering question was formulated one month before the first workshop
and was sent by email to all participants. The purpose was to stimulate the
participants’ creativity and encourage them to begin generating their ideas
before the actual meeting. It also served to reduce the time required to
explain the methodology at the onset of the workshop. The triggering
question was: “Considering the availability of powerful broadband
technologies and the development of relevant scenarios, what are the
obstacles that prevent us from producing practical applications?”
2. During the following weeks and until the day just before the workshop,
participants were allowed to forward their ideas in writing by email sent to
the authors.
3. All ideas were recorded by the authors, entered into the program (see
below) and a compilation mailed back to all participants before the actual
workshop.
4. The workshop took place in a spacious conference room equipped with
comfortable chairs, screen, computer, and beamer. The availability of space,
the surrounding walls (where messages can be posted) and the overall
structure and organization of the room is very important for the success of
an IM workshop.
5. At the beginning of the workshop all ideas already collected, printed on A4
pages (one per page), were posted on the surrounding walls. They were
also distributed in the form of a list to all participants. The author of each
idea was requested to provide a short explanation. No more than 1-2
minutes per author were allowed at this stage.
6. For the rest of the workshop, one of the facilitators was engaged in
facilitating the process of democratic idea generation, collection and
explanation and recorded them on flip-chart paper. The other facilitator
was responsible for recording the ideas with the help of the Cogniscope™
software, project them on the screen using a beamer for immediate
283
7. What obstacles prevent practical broadband applications from
being produced and exploited?
plenary control, print them on A4 pages and post them on the walls
surrounding the group. Whenever needed, participants were allowed to
discuss the current idea for clarification of its meaning.
7. Participants were given five stickers each and were asked to choose (while
still seated) the five most important ideas. This process of voting served to
choose those ideas which received the highest votes for further processing.
Figure 7.1 Set-up of the working space. The facilitator has easy eye contact with all
participants. The co-facilitator (not visible; sitting opposite of the first) documents on the
computer all contributions and manages projections using the beamer. Contributions are
printed and posted on the surrounding walls. Access to the walls is easy and comfortable.
Some Internet stations are available for participants to perform quick look ups of an issue
and access information necessary for them to make educated decisions.
The Interpretive Structural Modelling (ISM) and the Cogniscope™
The Interpretive Structural Modelling (ISM) is a computer-assisted method that
helps the group identify the relationship among ideas and impose structure on the
complexity of the issue. The ISM software utilizes mathematical algorithms that
minimize the number of queries necessary for exploring relationships among a set
of ideas. ISM can be used to develop several types of structures such as influence,
priority and categorization. The five steps of ISM are:
1. Identification and clarification of a set of ideas (using NGT).
2. Identification and clarification of a ‘relational question’ (e.g. does A
support B?).
284
7. What obstacles prevent practical broadband applications from
being produced and exploited?
3. Development of a structural map by using the relational question to
explore connections between pairs of ideas.
4. Display and discuss the map.
5. Amendment of the map by the group, if necessary.
For the purpose of this workshop we have used a license of the Cogniscope™
software kindly provided free of charge for usage in the context of the COST 219ter
workshops by Dr. Aleco Christakis from Leading Design International
(www.leadingdesign.org).
7.3 Results
The results presented in detail below stem from two workshops, one held in Ayia
Napa (Cyprus: 7 October, 2005) and one in Seville (Spain: 7-8 March, 2006). In the
Napa workshop 26 experts from 15 countries participated for 3.5 hours. In the
Seville workshop, which lasted for a total of 6 hours spread over two consecutive
days (7th and 8th of March, 2006), the number of participants increased to 32.
With the exception of 4 persons, all other participants were the same in both
workshops. During the first workshop, the NGT (see Methodology section) was
applied. Some (i.e., 5) of the participants had submitted their contributions to the
authors a few days before the Cyprus workshop. These were presented to all
participants at the beginning of the workshop and were used as examples in order
to accelerate the process and to reduce the need for lengthy explanations at
launch time of how the method actually works. After a 15 minute introduction to
the method and presentation of the first 12 contributions already submitted by
some of the participants it was time to move on to the phase of creative generation
of contributions. One facilitator served as the person communicating with the
participants, while the other served as the person recording their ideas and
entering them into the Cogniscope™ software. In total, the participants identified
64 obstacles. During the coffee break, a printout of each idea produced was posted
on the walls surrounding the seminar area. In the next step, one of the facilitators
projected one idea after the other on the screen, and pointing to each element, he
asked the person who proposed it to clarify to the group what did s/he mean by
that. After each item was clarified, the facilitator checked it of with a marker and
moved to the next item, until all contributions were clarified. The clarifications were
also recorded, entered in the Cogniscope™ software and a complete list of the
obstacles with their clarifications was produced and circulated to the participants.
The complete list of the factors is given in Table 7.2.
285
7. What obstacles prevent practical broadband applications from
being produced and exploited?
#
Factor
1
Absence of common standards
2
Difficulty in prioritising EU work is clear when country assignments are in focus
3
Difficulty to find small and efficient EU projects for all the big ones
4
Absence of practical interest
5
There are conflicting interests
6
Lack of personal character in the service
7
Lack of data protection information
8
Weakness of available videoconference systems on the internet
9
The lack of services in different countries
10
Too high communication costs
11
Lack of standards on content specification for diverse users
12
The absence of good technology transfer
13
Low awareness of technological solutions to functional limitations
14
Poor connection between statements of user needs and specific design requirements
15
Public sector disability programmes are too focused on assistive technology
16
The absence of human touch
17
The high-tech innovative image (look)
18
Weakness in advertising and marketing products for elderly people
19
The fear of the customers from the 'big brother' syndrome
20
The problem of conservatism
21
Lack of standardised services across the country
22
High communication costs
23
Lack of standardised communication
24
Authorities favour young adult user groups
25
The absence of a control authority against misuse
26
Low awareness of different user groups
27
Absence of an institution for permanent function control and maintenance
28
Low awareness how to reach the state if high tech
29
The absence of knowledge about the user needs of people with disabilities in mainstream
industry
30
The lack of money for programmes that include the need of users with disabilities in
mainstream products
31
The weaknesses of legislation and standards make it very difficult to motivate the
mainstream industry
32
The difficulty of the 'handicap community' to agree on and to define what accessible
products and services really mean
33
The absence of technologies that help you feel secure and safe
34
The absence of knowledge to prevent loneliness
35
Lack of understanding privacy issues
36
Applications requirements are becoming very complex
286
7. What obstacles prevent practical broadband applications from
being produced and exploited?
37
There is a lack of funding in application oriented programmes
38
Teams are not stable enough for continued sustained growth
39
Insufficient consideration of human factors in application
40
Difficulty for users to understand the concept behind the smart home technology
41
Lack of awareness about Ambient Intelligence
42
Difficulty to cope with privacy and security aspects
43
Difficulty to address diverse needs simultaneously
44
Difficulty to determine what is appreciated intervention
45
The lack of incentives for the industry
46
The absence of development tools to support the real life application of Design for All
47
There is a need for more effective standardisation
48
Lack of good market incentives or business models
49
Lack of skills of 'accessibility for all' principles within companies
50
Lack of understanding of the market potential
51
The absence of finances or subsidies
52
Absence of appropriate portals / easy to use services
53
Inability to integrate a range of technologies in a seamless user experience
54
The absence of commercial drivers
55
The difficulty of forecasting take-up and use
56
The lack of fully appropriate user data
57
The weakness of other supporting evidence
58
The absence of special needs awareness
59
The lack of low cost availability of broad-band
60
The weakness of broad thinking from the disability lobbies
61
The difficulty to obtain disability related marketing information
62
Difficulty to identify real user needs
63
Unawareness of accessibility for all principles within companies
64
Lack of ability to engage with mechanisms that will bring specialist products or services to
market
Table 7.2 List of all “obstacles” generated by the participants of the Cyprus (Ayia Napa,
7th October 2005) workshop in response to the triggering question: “Considering the
availability of powerful broadband technologies and the development of relevant
scenarios, what are the obstacles that prevent us from producing practical applications?”
Participants have generated a total of 64 factors.
Time was then devoted to an open discussion and negotiation among participants
to cluster the factors into different categories. At the end of this process 10
clusters were created. These are summarized in Tables 7.3 to 7.12.
287
7. What obstacles prevent practical broadband applications from
being produced and exploited?
1
Absence of common standards
12
The absence of good technology transfer
18
Weakness in advertising and marketing products for elderly people
27
Absence of an institution for permanent function control and maintenance
30
The lack of money for programmes that include the need of users with disabilities in
mainstream products
31
The weaknesses of legislation and standards make it very difficult to motivate the
mainstream industry
37
There is a lack of funding in application oriented programmes
45
The lack of incentives for the industry
48
Lack of good market incentives or business models
50
Lack of understanding of the market potential
54
The absence of commercial drivers
64
Lack of ability to engage with mechanisms that will bring specialist products or services to
market
Table 7.3 Cluster 1 Lack of financial incentives to deliver (commercial).
The participants grouped 12 factors under this category.
15
Public sector disability programmes are too focused on assistive technology
22
High communication costs
30
The lack of money for programmes that include the need of users with disabilities in
mainstream products
Table 7.4 Cluster 2 Lack of financial incentives (public sector).
The participants grouped 3 factors under this category.
7
Lack of data protection information
25
The absence of a control authority against misuse
35
Lack of understanding privacy issues
42
Difficulty to cope with privacy and security aspects
Table 7.5 Cluster 3 Concerns over privacy / data protection. The participants
grouped 4 factors under this category.
13
Low awareness of technological solutions to functional limitations
16
The absence of human touch
17
The high-tech innovative image (look)
19
The fear of the customers from the 'big brother' syndrome
20
The problem of conservatism
28
Low awareness how to reach the state if high tech
40
Difficulty for users to understand the concept behind the smart home technology
41
Lack of awareness about Ambient Intelligence
Table 7.6 Cluster 4 Low user appreciation of technology. The participants
grouped 8 factors under this category.
288
7. What obstacles prevent practical broadband applications from
being produced and exploited?
1
Absence of common standards
11
Lack of standards on content specification for diverse users
31
The weaknesses of legislation and standards make it very difficult to motivate the
mainstream industry
32
The difficulty of the 'handicap community' to agree on and to define what accessible
products and services really mean
47
There is a need for more effective standardisation
63
Unawareness of accessibility for all principles within companies
Table 7.7 Cluster 5 Lack of formal standards. The participants grouped
6 factors under this category.
49
Lack of skills of 'accessibility for all' principles within companies
55
The difficulty of forecasting take-up and use
57
The weakness of other supporting evidence
61
The difficulty to obtain disability related marketing information
Table 7.8 Cluster 6 Lack of interest or priority for technology transfer.
The participants grouped 4 factors under this category.
2
Difficulty in prioritising EU work is clear when country assignments are in focus
3
Difficulty to find small and efficient EU projects for all the big ones
38
Teams are not stable enough for continued sustained growth
46
The absence of development tools to support the real life application of Design for All
Table 7.9 Cluster 7 Lack of support for continuing R & D. The participants
grouped 4 factors under this category.
4
Absence of practical interest
5
There are conflicting interests
6
Lack of personal character in the service
14
Poor connection between statements of user needs and specific design requirements
26
Low awareness of different user groups
29
The absence of knowledge about the user needs of people with disabilities in mainstream
industry
32
The difficulty of the 'handicap community' to agree on and to define what accessible
products and