It design for Amateur Communities Cristian Bogdan Stockholm 2003 Doctoral Dissertation Royal Institute of Technology Department of Numerical Analysis and Computer Science
Participatory design for Non-Profit and Volunteer Work
Download 0.67 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- 4.2.2Other specifics of PD in non-profit settings
4.2Participatory design for Non-Profit and Volunteer Work4.2.1Differences from PD for employed workWhile the basic principles of PD in volunteer settings are perceived to be the same as in any work setting (reciprocal learning between users and designers, hands-on learning and design) the accounts of PD in the non-profit sector have specific differences. We will review these differences by looking especially at the work of Trigg (2000) in the Global Fund for Women (GFW) and McPhail et al. (1998) at the CAVEAT organisation, aimed at reforming the Canadian judiciary system. It will also be pointed out whether the respective aspect is present in BEST. Before going on with the review it is important to note that they are not meant to be prescriptive, i.e. that there are many non-profit PD instances where few or none of the differences appear. First, the tensions between stakeholders in the design process are likely not expected to be pronounced in the “third sector”. McPhail et al. report “a strong sense of shared purpose” among the setting members, making even the personal likes and dislikes to be less evident. In comparison, the ever-present conflict between management and employees is affecting most PD experiences reported. The “shared purpose” is very similar to a challenge in the sense developed in Chapters 2 and 3 (for example, fighting for the rights of victims of judiciary abuse, as in the case of McPhail et al) but, as we saw there, challenge conflicts do exist and they do affect design. However, their duration and intensity is not comparable with the ‘class struggle’ aspects of PD for employed work. Setting up design workshops is a problem in employment-setting PD due e.g. to the necessity of convincing management of their usefulness, the need to arrange that the time of the involved workers is compensated for, etc. For similar reasons, involving management in design is also a problem in employment settings. Both issues are less evident in working with volunteers since the time of volunteers is more flexible, and material compensation for participating in ‘extra’ activities such as PD workshops is not needed. However, lack of time is reported by Bentson (1990): the volunteers are so busy with their work that they have little time and see little motivation to participate in design sessions (which is likely to happen in professional settings too). Trigg (2000) develops an entire strategy of ‘catching’ GFW members for simple design questions and for arranging more elaborate design sessions. At CAVEAT, organising a PD ‘future workshop’ lead to application of previous knowledge that members had from what they called the “ICA workshop”. In a similar manner, as it will be described in more detail, holding a PD session in BEST was organised over the “working group” ‘institution’ that BEST was practicing for a long time for all sorts of discussions in international meetings. In the GFW and CAVEAT accounts, non-profit management plays an important role in the design, and are open to participation. In BEST, several organisation leaders (members of the Board) ended up as long term members of the Feature Design Group after their Board mandate finished. Design groups are more variable in non-profit settings. In the employment-based setting the design group might become a formal ‘institution’ due to the need to take workers away from their normal duties, so often a clear membership list exists. In the non-profit sector (at both CAVEAT and GFW, but possibly in employment-based settings too), members join the sessions or are caught between two tasks on a more ad-hoc basis. In BEST, members join working groups on a certain topic in a meeting, and can join a group on a completely different topic (i.e. not software design) in the next. Variability of groups can be seen as positive for getting more design perspectives, on the other hand, it appears negative for the acquisition of design skill, since members are focused on design for short periods. Empowerment of workers with knowledge of technology, a classical employment-PD issue is less problematic at CAVEAT and GWF. In fact, both projects represented continuations of projects already started by members of the setting, for use by their colleagues. In summary, many of the obstacles that need to be overcome by the PD practitioner in the employment-based settings tend not to be present in the “third sector”, at least those presented in the available studies. Reasons for this can be the absence of accountability for employed work, the absence of class struggle, the openness to learn software design and technology, etc. This does not imply that PD is a much easier thing to do in non-profits: the practitioner has to address other issues like the lack of time of the members, variability of the groups, as well as other issues suggested in the next section. 4.2.2Other specifics of PD in non-profit settingsIt is important to note that in many non-profit settings such as the three described in Chapter 3 (including BEST) and the CAVEAT and GFW settings development is done from within, by members of the association, in most cases volunteers. Trigg (himself a volunteer up to a moment) mentions that initial versions of the software were made by some consultants, but the organisation did not follow up with them, and wanted to make sure that at least one member “would always have an understanding of any new tool added to the database”. Indeed, many non-profits are not likely to be able to invest in external IT development resources over the long term. Although at GFW this has happened for a short time, development from within is preferred later on. As long as the software development needs are not too complex, IT-oriented members of the organisation are able to do the job. Customisation of existing software is often a way of proceeding in developing new features (both at CAVEAT and GFW), and is likely to require less effort and skill from the member-developers. On the same token, in all non-profits considered, many designers are members, often volunteers. Even when design becomes a very conscious and specialised activity (such as PD), a non-profit rarely has the possibility to employ design consultancy from outside. This suggests that the mission of a PD practitioner in such a setting is not only to make the organisation trust PD so next time when they need it, they can employ outside help (which, as argued here, they are not likely to), but to try to propose PD as a long-term, self-sustainable practice within the setting. Members being designers also constitute an advantage: there is more trust between users and designers, and there are smaller needs for translation between the user language and the designer language (like in e.g. Williams and Begg, 1993). Design from within and development from within have a common cause that affects PD in other ways as well: the lack of material resources that often affects non-profits that ‘live from’ donations and sponsoring. In their CAVEAT account, McPhail et al. describe how “less than adequate” display equipment affected design decisions. While this is a direct effect of poor conditions for design, other effects such as the technological heterogeneity of equipment (usually donated, or, in student organisations ‘borrowed’ from universities) are likely to affect design as well (like e.g. at CAVEAT). Another important factor affecting design, as suggested by McPhail et al. is that volunteers are (most frequently) not chosen to fill a position according to a minimum set of hiring conditions, as it happens in professional settings. As a result, people come from all sorts of educational backgrounds, professions and inclinations. According to McPhail et al., this creates a “microcosm of the computer user universe” among the setting members, from very experienced to “I’m not a computer person”. Unlike in professional settings, this issue of heterogeneous IT skill becomes “a central consideration in design”. This form of heterogeneity, as well as others, will be discussed later on. An interesting common aspect of the CAVEAT and GFW experiences, which will also be encountered in BEST, is that the PD projects were re-design projects that combined old systems (usually done in a spontaneous fashion by IT-inclined members) into a common, more coherent one. This suggests an increasingly conscious approach that such non-profits take towards software design. Software and data reorganisations are also occasions for re-thinking the internals of the software.
Download 0.67 Mb. Share with your friends:
|