Future Workspaces: Supporting Mobile Workers more

Future Workspaces: Supporting Mobile Workers Brian J. Pagán, Wil Rijnen, Zhihui Zhang, Ying Li, Nata Gredina User-System Interaction; Eindhoven University of Technology P.O. Box 513, Main Building (HG) 3.07, 3600MB Eindhoven, The Netherlands Telephone: +31 40 247 5230 e-mail: b.j.pagan@tue.nl web page: http://usi.id.tue.nl Abstract: Changing economies and globalization make it necessary for organizations and their members to be more mobile than ever. Our research reveals that such workers face two major challenges, i.e. disturbance in other time zones and communication fragmentation. The most critical derived user requirements are social acceptability, high ROI (return on investment) of use, and a gentle learning curve. Our concept, CommUnification, addresses these requirements by combining four main functions into a rich, integrated user experience. These are incoming call handling, unified messaging, subject attachment to voice calls, and one-touch contact information sharing. To illustrate the concept, use cases and a video prototype were created, which were also used to evaluate the concept. Evaluation revealed that the system is socially acceptable, but the use ROI and learning curve must be studied after further development. Keywords: Communication, unification, services, connectivity, business, nomadic 1. Introduction Work is changing. Phenomena like globalization and widespread shifts from product-based to service-based economies compel organizations and companies to become more flexible. New breeds of mobile workers have arisen from these organizational needs, and these workers in turn have their own special needs (Slagter, 2008). Needs simultaneously represent challenges and opportunities, and Novay (formerly Telematica Institute) in Enschede, the Netherlands, is approaching these head on with the Future Workspaces (FWS) project. Knowledge workers have necessarily become more entrepreneurial and flexible, even within the framework of an organization. They must be constantly available and remain hyper-connected while maintaining and expanding their social/professional networks, making them more mobile now than ever (Novay, 2009a). Technology already plays an important role in helping these mobile workers keep up with this work dynamic, and the FWS project team researches and innovates new technological solutions to these workers’ needs (Novay, 2009b). Their knowledge base serves as the theoretical basis for this project. The User-System Interaction (USI) program, part of the Eindhoven University of Technology’s Industrial Design department, provided an international and multidisciplinary team to work with the FWS project under Novay’s supervision. Being specialized in the field of user research and user-centered design, this team (the authors) was tasked with generating and evaluating a design concept within the framework of FWS. With FWS, Novay not only looks to the future to envision what knowledge work will be in light of change and development, but it also works to anticipate people’s needs in such a future and conceptualize products and services to satisfy them. Our goal was to gain insight into the contexts in which these mobile knowledge workers exist, compile a set of user and system requirements based on that insight, translate those into a concept design, and evaluate said design using the requirements as evaluation criteria. This article outlines the work of the university’s USI team for Novay’s FWS, showing the project’s theoretical basis, outlining the team’s research initiative, showcasing the resulting concept, explaining their evaluation research, and discussing the team’s conclusions. mGCI, Suite 10, 42 Brunswick Terrace, BN3 1HA Brighton & Hove, UK info@mgovernment.org www.mgovernment.org 2. Theoretical Basis While mobile workers may not yet be well understood, much research has been done to gain insight into their experiences and needs. Trends indicative of knowledge work’s new direction have been apparent for some years now, eliciting prophetic speculation from business scholars (Harrison & Mulconrey, 2006; Malone, 2004, 2005). More relevant to this project however, are studies that handle the specific issues mobile (knowledge) workers face (Gonzalez & Mark, 2004; Kakihare & Sørensen, 2002; Zeldes, Sward, & Louchheim, 2007). These sources, along with the extensive research done by the FWS team, have provided us with the “whom” and “what” for our research. Mobile workers can be classified into two categories, namely nomadic and highly-mobile workers (Slagter, 2008). A nomadic worker has no office and must rely on the resources available at remote locations. A highlymobile worker on the other hand does have an office, but only uses it for up to half of his/her working time. Such a worker has a stable pool of resources but limited access to them (Slagter, 2008). Mobile working is not just a matter of people traveling but about the way they perform their jobs and the ways they interact with colleagues and customers. Their mobility can be viewed in the context of three interrelated dimensions, namely spatial, temporal, and contextual mobility (Novay, 2009a). Spatial mobility is the freedom to move around while working, which is aided by the rise of portable devices, like laptops, palmtops, and mobile phones. Temporal mobility is the freedom to interact with people all over the world in synchronous or asynchronous ways, which is supported by technology like telephony, e-mail, and instant messaging. Contextual mobility represents the shift between different mental spheres. Juggling multiple activities and situations forces mobile workers to frequently cycle using different media types, communication devices, and communication channels. Knowledge workers, mobile across all three of these dimensions, represent the “whom” of our research project (Novay, 2009a). These and other knowledge workers strive for four working states that allow them to work most effectively, both on micro (immediate workflow) and macro (long-term workflow) levels. Mobile workers though, are confronted with additional difficulty in achieving these states, due to their mobile working styles. In sync refers to interchange and interaction between collaborative partners. When these partners know what the others are doing, where their input is needed, and what form the input should take, they are in sync. In touch is the affective component of in sync, meaning that collaborative partners have a subjective feeling of being connected, which can have repercussions for things like social trust and information exchange between them. In flow represents each worker’s ability to focus on tasks that require concentration and deep comprehension. Reaching this state requires time, and interruptions shatter it, requiring one to start over. When a worker reaches this state of concentration, he/she is said to be in flow. In control is the ability to handle the overall complexity of mobile working, characterized by multitasking, being interrupted, and continuously searching for resources in a rapid changing context. The first three states are outlined in Slagter (2008), and all four in Novay (2009a), and they represent the “what” of our research project. 2.1 Viewing it in Context Mobile workers employ various means and strategies to stay mobile and keep contact with collaborators. Telecommuting, a growing trend in Europe, is a work arrangement in which employees enjoy flexibility in working location and hours. In other words, commuting to a central place of work is supplemented via telecommunication technologies, allowing many to work from home, coffee shops, or myriad other locations (Van De Velder, 1999). Working from remote locations precludes face-to-face contact with colleagues as in a traditional office, and this in turn precludes staying in sync (Slagter, 2008). Informal communication in the workplace (coffee machine or water cooler interactions) fosters trust and subjective bonds between colleagues. Without it, mobile workers have difficulties remaining in touch with their colleagues (Slagter, 2008). In addition, many connectivity systems are integrated in mobile phones and laptop computers, which support a wide range of applications and services. The integration of all these functionalities helps mobile workers to e.g. find their way in new environments, communicate with colleagues, and arrange activities (Tollenboom, 1999). These connectivity systems can have a positive influence on staying in control, in sync, and in touch (Novay, 2009a). Blogs (weblogs) and IM (instant messaging) are used as surrogates of the coffee machine or water cooler, but these mGCI, Suite 10, 42 Brunswick Terrace, BN3 1HA Brighton & Hove, UK info@mgovernment.org www.mgovernment.org media do not foster the same feelings of trust and comradeship that face-to-face communication do (Novay, 2009a). Interruptions connected with travel and hyper-connectivity plague mobile workers and are obstacles to staying in flow (Slagter, 2008). 3. Research Initiative Looking at highly-mobile and nomadic workers, who experience three dimensions of mobility while trying to maintain four different work states, our research question started as a broad one. What do mobile workers need? To answer this question, we needed to glean broad insight into their activities, environments, and the contexts in which they work. To do this, we firstly conducted semi-structured interviews with mobile workers and analyzed the results using the affinity diagram method (Beyer & Holtzblatt, 1998). Once we had a rough sketch of the mobile working experience, we conducted a follow-up reflection study with our interviewees. This showed us how these workers make communication decisions and in which contexts they communicate with others, giving us insight into ways these workers can be supported by technology. 3.1 Interviews We interviewed seven mobile workers from four different countries, six of whom work in organizations, while one is an independent consultant. Most travel internationally three times a year or more for their work, but most of their travel is in-country. Most spend on average 50% of their time out of office for business travel, while the independent consultant is a true nomadic worker. Our semi-structured interviews consisted of three categories of questions, general questions, questions about the social issues faced as a mobile worker, and similar questions about technical and organizational issues. The general questions gave us some background information about each participant and helped to break the ice before going into the interview’s core. Questions covered the interviewee’s role in the company, reasons and modes of traveling, and the tools and resources the interviewee takes along. Social issues covered by the second part regard staying in touch and in sync. We asked interviewees about their feelings of closeness with colleagues, thoughts about professional trust, and whether or not they felt that they were part of a team when collaborating with others. The third category covered issues like local resource acquisition (e.g. internet or printer access at remote locations), organizational resources (e.g. access to human resources personnel at remote locations), and practical considerations when working on the go (e.g. a laptop in the train or mobile phone in a car). These questions dealt with staying in control and in flow. 3.2 Affinity Diagrams To filter and prioritize our findings, we used affinity diagrams (Beyer & Holtzblatt, 1998) and reiterated the process several times. Concepts were extracted from the interview and literature notes and clustered under meaningful headings. After three iterations, we were left with the following eight issues (the word “issues” is used here, because these are not all necessarily problems). • Time zone disparity often hinders communication (in flow and in sync). • Fragmented communication can be difficult to track (in control). • The line becomes blurred between professional and private life while traveling (in flow). • A mobile worker typically does not leave home without a laptop and mobile phone. • Social networking holds professional importance to successful mobile workers. • Intranet access can be mission critical on the road. • Social, informal communication is the cornerstone of staying in touch. • Effective collaboration is near impossible without face-to-face communication (in touch and in flow). 3.3 Reflection study Having sifted our interview results to find eight main issues, we needed to learn more about the contexts in which mobile workers communicate with others, especially how they make decisions for communication. When do they use synchronous (e.g. telephone, VoIP) or asynchronous (e.g. e-mail, IM) communication methods? Do communication needs influence other decisions, or the other way around? Our first idea was to conduct a diary study with the participants from our interviews and have them record the circumstances of their communication mGCI, Suite 10, 42 Brunswick Terrace, BN3 1HA Brighton & Hove, UK info@mgovernment.org www.mgovernment.org for a week. We chose instead for a lighter adaptation of the method, which we dubbed a reflection study. We felt that it was necessary to approach the problem this way, because of our participants’ busy travel schedules and lack of extensive time for synchronous communication. We asked our participants (three of the original interviewees) to reflect about the contexts in which they communicate for the following three days and each time ask themselves why they were communicating, with whom, why they used the method they did, and what prompted the communication session. After the three days, we interviewed them again, asking about their experiences, ultimately garnering enough information to turn our results into use cases later. Because of the use of different communication methods, communication ends up spread across different channels like e-mail, voice communication (telephone), instant messaging, voicemail, and social networking sites. Mobile workers utilize different channels depending on which context it is in which they find themselves. For a mobile worker then, communication is necessarily fragmented. Furthermore, context is integral in the ways they employ these communication methods. For example, one participant reported that if he has mostly telephone calls to make, he will travel by car and use the afforded privacy to make the calls. On the other hand, if he has mostly computer work to do, he will take the train and use his laptop on the way. In addition, time zone disparity is not really seen as a problem for the mobile worker as an individual, but it leads to communication problems, more in particular to unwanted interruptions. Colleagues, friends, and family do not always know when the mobile worker is in another time zone, or maybe they just forget about it. Because the mobile worker cannot silence or deactivate his/her mobile phone to remain available for urgent communication, this frequently leads to unwelcome interruptions at night. Such phone calls are only a small part of a larger problem, namely the invisibility of the worker’s context. When mobile workers leave their native time zones, their schedules and availability statuses are obscured from colleagues and family. 3.4 User and System Requirements Having gathered information about mobile workers and their travel and communication habits, the next step was to articulate this knowledge into concrete user and system requirements. These requirements provide the basis for later evaluation of the concept and serve as the starting point for the design process. Concentrated primarily on communication fragmentation and time zone disparity as the most frequently-mentioned issues, we brainstormed and articulated the following requirements for a system to support mobile workers. From a usability perspective, the system should require minimal effort to use and learn. Mobile workers are busy people, and their success depends on them being able to balance many time- and resource-consuming things at once. This leaves them with little spare time to spend on using and learning new systems, let alone adapting their workflows to accommodate them. This question of costs and benefits is central to mobile workers’ adoption of any support technology. This is not to say that a support system has to be so simple that it is no longer useful; every added feature or interface design decision should be made with cost/benefit in mind. From a mobility perspective, the system should work on a mobile device and/or laptop. The decision was made early to spare mobile workers from having to lug around yet another item, just to adopt our system. Since they all carry a laptop and mobile phone anyway, these devices were considered fair game. Alongside that, seeing as these people are mostly on the go, the system must also work and be accessible anywhere. Mobile workers need geographical independence. Socially, the system should empower the user, rather than restricting him/her. When confronted with functional decisions where blocking a certain function or activity is involved, the system should provide an alternative or at least give the user a choice, rather than simply locking the feature. Perhaps most important to the system’s ultimate adoption and success is its social acceptability. It must be socially acceptable and not put the user in socially awkward situations. For example, forcing users to send work e-mail through a private e-mail address could be potentially awkward for someone with a professionally inappropriate private email address. Finally, the burden of change should lie completely with the primary user. A mobile worker’s contacts should not have to buy a special telephone to leave him/her a message on his/her answering service, for example. With these requirements, we could conceptualize and design a solution. mGCI, Suite 10, 42 Brunswick Terrace, BN3 1HA Brighton & Hove, UK info@mgovernment.org www.mgovernment.org 4. Design Concept CommUnification is a portmanteau of communication and unification, and it would comprise of a telecommunications service with an integrated online component and a mobile Smartphone application. It would feature four main functions, each representing different aspects of stakeholders’ needs. The system incorporates a unified message center, an incoming call handler, subject addition for voice calls, and one-touch contact information sharing. Figure 1: CommUnification Design Concept, Illustrated 4.1 Unified Message Center The first main function addresses the specific challenge identified in the initial interviews by our interviewees, communication fragmentation. Having to follow conversations across communication media forces a user to have to remember which communication channel was used to convey which piece of information and to/from whom. The unified message center addresses this challenge by integrating e-mail, instant messaging, short message service (SMS), social networking, and voice calls into one central archive. To facilitate and encourage searching and information retrieval, every item in the archive is taggable by the user. In order to fulfill the “accessible from anywhere” user requirement, this archive resides online, and is thus accessible via web browser or mobile phone application. To stay truly device independent, the web client is available in a fully functional e-mail-like interface but also in a light, mobile phone version. While the archive is accessible via the mobile web, it helps to include a Smartphone application, because an installed application can perform functions that are more powerful and provide a backup index of the archive, much like the Gmail mobile application. Our idea for this is to use data push technology to keep the application synchronized with the central, online archive. This is similar to the way TomTom uses data push over mobile networks to push up-to-date traffic information to SIM-card enabled personal navigation devices. Perhaps the most powerful but also the most risky function of this unified message center is the automatic transcription of voice calls. It is the most powerful, because it adds a new dimension to voice calling, namely the mGCI, Suite 10, 42 Brunswick Terrace, BN3 1HA Brighton & Hove, UK info@mgovernment.org www.mgovernment.org ability to access conversations after the fact, which is now impossible. This opens up possibilities that could potentially change the meaning of voice calling. 4.2 Incoming Call Handling To address our interviewees’ second main concern, namely managing interruptions (especially when in a different time zone), we added an incoming call handler. This is based on the user activating a “do not disturb” mode on his/her mobile phone. When it is activated, incoming calls are intercepted by the service provider, and a voice prompt informs callers that the recipient has indicated that he/she does not wish to be disturbed. After the aural warning, the caller is given the options to either go forward with the call anyway (press or say “one”), leave a voicemail message (press or say “two”), or cancel completely (hang up). The concept was generalized from only situations of geographical separation to any situation in which a nomadic or mobile worker would not want to be disturbed but remain available to urgent matters. Such disturbances keep one from remaining in flow. Turning a phone off or engaging silent mode (as alternatives) does give the use the luxury of not being disturbed, but urgent matters or important people are blocked. The biggest concern here however, was that the system tells the caller to basically leave the user alone and call back later. We were concerned that people may find that socially inappropriate. Since we know that social acceptability is a make-or-break adoption criterion, we wanted to ensure beyond any doubt that this aspect of the system would not lead to potential users rejecting the system for social reasons. This question was answered in three ways. First, the initial interviewees were asked as a follow-up if this would be socially unacceptable for them. Secondly, we asked our focus group participants the same question and thirdly our online questionnaire respondents. All sources agree that this is perfectly acceptable and that they would not feel social awkwardness with this working on their phones. 4.3 Subject for Voice Calls Almost as a natural consequence to the idea of having all communications unified in one central location is the discussion of how to group them. After extensive research and discussion, we decided to group the messages by subject (by default), but allow users to choose alternate grouping dimensions. Grouping by subject is a simple form of conversation-based grouping, but the inherent problem with that in this system is that voice calls do not have subjects, so they must be added by the user. Adding a subject to a phone call before calling allows the subject to be sent along with the caller’s number to help the caller decide whether to answer the phone. This can be helpful in situations where one may not know why someone is calling but know who is calling. When the recipient does not know to whom the displayed number belongs, this becomes more important. The workflow disturbance and the incompatibility with landline phones associated with textual input prompted us to consider using a voice interface, since the system already incorporates speech-to-text technology. The voice interface would have the user add his/her call subject only after initiating the call (pressing the green button). The system would ask the caller to say or press one to add a subject or to press two or say no to continue without one. This way, a caller could dial a number or select a contact, initiate the call, and not have to touch the phone again until hanging up, as it is now. 4.4 One-Touch Contact Sharing After generating the first three function concepts we wanted simpler, subtle concepts like the subject for voice calls function. This way of thinking gave birth to the one-touch contact info sharing function. Our inspiration came from services like Poken and E, which endeavor to integrate social networking presences and contact information into a central manager. They both require a special connector to work (E for Everybody, 2009; Poken, 2009). Since one of our user requirements is to not force a user to buy/acquire new hardware, we decided to integrate this functionality into a mobile device. When two CommUnification-enabled phones come into Bluetooth range, they automatically request each other’s contact information. Nothing is exchanged until the user chooses which profile information to share. Sending contact information over Bluetooth is already possible with vCard and other mobile phone protocols. However, sending the information is a lengthy process. For example, sending a vCard from a Symbian handset over Bluetooth requires no less than nine steps, within which there is a mGCI, Suite 10, 42 Brunswick Terrace, BN3 1HA Brighton & Hove, UK info@mgovernment.org www.mgovernment.org waiting period while the phone scans for other Bluetooth contacts in range. We feel that shortening the process to a single tap (for touchscreen phones) or possibly two to three button presses to select a profile from a scrolling menu (non-touchscreen phone) would reduce the social friction that could come from lengthy “toying” with mobile phones, especially in business contexts. One could make the argument that exchanging traditional business cards is already socially acceptable, but the information on them must still be manually entered into a contact list. Furthermore, people forget business cards more frequently than they do mobile phones. 5. Evaluation Every design concept must be evaluated, and to do so with CommUnification, a video prototype was made. The reflection studies gave us insight into mobile workers’ communication contexts, which helped us generate our use cases. The video showcases the concept of CommUnification and its four underlying features, and it is viewable online on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymkKZ4sylIU (Pagán, Zhang, Li, & Rijnen, 2008). The video prototype was used as a tool to convey the concept’s key elements and ideas to others for evaluation. Using it, we conducted a focus group with mobile workers for general feedback and an impression of the system and deployed an online survey to answer specific questions about perceived usefulness and perceived social acceptability. For qualitative feedback, we felt the focus group would allow us to reach the most people in the most intimate and interactive environment, whereas the online survey allowed us to reach a larger, geographically-separated participant base. 5.1 Focus Group Four mobile workers joined our focus group in Leuven, Belgium. They all work in organizations, and they travel between 10 and 40 percent of their work time. We showed them our video prototype and led an in-depth feedback discussion. The unified message center was well received, but participants worried that it might be a bit messy to group all messages together. This problem could be solved, if all messages can be grouped by different criteria, like communication channels, subjects, etc. They also suggested more grouping ways. In this way, users have more freedom to customize. The feasibility of recording and transcribing phone calls seemed to some participants to be doubtful. They mentioned that transcription accuracy of less than 80% would be unacceptable. In addition, they were adamant about privacy issues, often repeating that mutual consent would have to be required for conversation recording. They also mentioned it would be too much to transcribe long phone call conversation; they would like the voice to be partly recorded and partly transcribed. Furthermore, they preferred to use voice commands to interact with the transcription and recording functions. Also, it would be useful to transcribe when something was missed acoustically during a phone conversation. Tagging, labeling, and searching messages were all perceived to be useful features, and as one of our interviewees pointed out, he could finally use voice communication as a valid remote collaboration method and to make concrete agreements, activities that he now finds unreasonable due to the necessity of taking notes. This aspect becomes especially important when considered in context of where many mobile and nomadic workers use voice communication, namely while driving. All participants perceived the “subject line” as a good concept. In specific situations, it can be very useful to have this extra information in advance, in order to make a well-considered decision to pick up or not, or to call back later. In particular, we think of unknown number calls or a second line coming in. As the way of adding a subject line, they all prefer using voice, instead of typing text. They said when they decide to call; it already means that they want to avoid typing. In addition, using voice to add a subject, offers a solution for those who use fixed line office phones. Furthermore, after having introduced this concept in the focus group, the consensus was swift; typing is annoying and should be avoided, so there is no need for the text-input interface for subject line input. The concept of “incoming call handling,” in the video prototype also referred to as “do not disturb,” also got positive feedback. Some people wanted to customize who can disturb and who cannot, because they thought some people might still want to disturb even in “do not disturb” mode. They also gave the suggestion that a meeting mGCI, Suite 10, 42 Brunswick Terrace, BN3 1HA Brighton & Hove, UK info@mgovernment.org www.mgovernment.org chairperson can remind other meeting attendees to switch their phone status to “do not disturb.” Besides, they thought the integration of “do not disturb” into an electronic calendar is a very good idea and they do not mind a small “beep” when “do not disturb” model is activated. Of course, the system should allow them to customize the audio (visual) notification or to set the tone to silent. Also, suggesting alternative communication ways when in “do not disturb” mode, was perceived as unnecessary. All participants said that the option to leave a voice mail message is sufficient. One gem of knowledge we gleaned from the focus group is that people find it useful to be able to exempt certain contacts or contact groups from the call interception. The wish for such a feature was also echoed in the online questionnaire and from casual consultation with others. They also all appreciated the function’s integration with Microsoft Outlook. When a user makes an appointment in Outlook or his/her mobile phone’s calendar, the “do not disturb” mode can be activated automatically for the duration of the appointment, using a binary input method (checkbox, toggle, or two-option dropdown menu). This goes back to the requirement that the system must empower users, not restrict them. One-touch contact information sharing was also well-received. Touching mobile phones to send electronic contact card was perceived more positive, because it is more similar to exchanging paper business cards to show respect in the real world. Next to this, they preferred to send different, customized cards to different groups, like business contacts, friends, and family members. Participants also remarked that this would also have the consequence of reducing the time a user has his/her eyes on the screen, freeing them for eye contact with the new social contact person. This helps foster human connections between people and keeps technology in the place of supporter and helper, rather than controller. 5.2 Online Survey In order to get a better picture of how useful each feature is perceived to be, we attached the video prototype to an online survey. We also asked respondents if they felt that the incoming call handling feature was socially acceptable. According to respondents’ usefulness ratings, the four features are “ranked” in this order, starting with the one perceived to be the most useful. 1. Subject for voice calls 2. Unified message center 3. Incoming call handling 4. One-touch contact sharing The questionnaire’s quantitative part evaluated how useful people thought the “subject line” and the “unified message center” are on a scale of negative three (completely useless) to three (completely useful). What the survey shows is that the respondents viewed the “subject line” feature as more useful than the “unified communication center” (n=10; =1.6 vs. =1.4, respectively). Quantitative results were of course taken with a grain of salt, given the highly subjective line of questioning and small number of respondents. More important in considering a rank order among the concepts however, are the free-text comments the respondents gave on each feature. The “subject line” had the strongest positive feedback, judged by the comments’ enthusiasm and argumentation. While the “unified message center” received the most positive comments, they were less enthusiastically phrased and contained less argumentation. The last two concepts cascaded along this pattern, thus providing qualitative support for our initial conclusions. When we created the survey, we did not intend explicitly to generate a rank order among the concepts. However, there were some specific questions we wanted to answer based on its feedback. Firstly, there was some doubt in the focus group that voice transcription (speech to text) functionality should be included in the “unified message center” concept. This was also gauged on the same negative three to three scale used for the concepts, and only one respondent gave it a mark below zero (-2). The rest was positive, and it actually received a higher score than the concepts (n=10, m=1.9). This leads us to conclude that voice transcription is indeed seen as a useful function. Secondly, there were some doubts as to the social acceptability of a user telling a caller that he or she does not wish to be disturbed. This was done on a negative three (completely inappropriate) to three (completely appropriate) scale. All respondents answered positively (n=10, m=1.7), except for one who marked zero (neither appropriate nor inappropriate). These results support our initial conclusions of the rank order and lend support to mGCI, Suite 10, 42 Brunswick Terrace, BN3 1HA Brighton & Hove, UK info@mgovernment.org www.mgovernment.org the notions that people find voice transcription to be useful and find our incoming call handling strategy to be socially appropriate. 6. Conclusion While the feasibility of voice call transcription has been cast in doubt, there are now services that provide that very function, most famously Google Voice (Google, 2009). In addition, the initial research and subsequent evaluation were conducted on a small scale, with few participants. We recognize this as a shortcoming, but contend that with mostly qualitative research such as this, the richness and depth of responses is more important than quantity or statistical validity. We gained valuable insights into the ways mobile workers communicate and heard rich, valuable feedback on how the system could be developed into a pleasurable and effective product. Having ideated the concept and answered many important questions about it, the next step is to develop it further. Once the concepts are worked out to a more concrete level, interaction-level research can be done to evaluate the time and effort required to both learn and use the system. This will allow designers at later stages to more effectively handle the tradeoff of simplicity and functionality in general and generate more effective interface solution specifically. To realize the concept’s further development and evaluation, cooperative liaisons must be forged with telecom service providers to determine the concept’s feasibility on both a technological and a business level. Firstly, it is imperative to determine whether existing or horizon technologies can support the concept’s system and functional requirements. Secondly, even with a developed use case, a business case must be generated to determine where profits can be made with the system. This could be done directly (charging for some aspect(s) of the service), indirectly (using some aspect(s) of the service for competitive advantage), or both. This project embarked on a journey to identify and address the needs of mobile workers. It has resulted in a fourpart design concept and valuable user requirements for further development. Only time will tell, but it is this project team’s belief that while communication is good, CommUnification is better. 7. Acknowledgements We would like to thank the Future Workspaces project, especially Ruud Janssen (our illustrious project coach) for sharing their wealth of expertise and welcoming our involvement in their project. Furthermore, we would like to thank Maddy Janse, Mia Jelsma, Lucille Zirkzee, Panos Markopoulos, and all the folks at User-System Interaction for giving us this opportunity. 8. References Beyer, H., & Holtzblatt, K. (1998). Contextual Design: Defining Customer-Centered Systems: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers. E for Everybody (2009). Tour - My Name is E. Retrieved 7 May, 2009, from http://www.mynameise.com/tour Gonzalez, V., & Mark, G. (2004). Constant, constant, multi-tasking craziness: managing multiple working spheres. Paper presented at the CHI 2004. Google (2009). Google Voice. Retrieved 7 May, 2009, from https://www.google.com/voice/about Harrison, J. J., & Mulconrey, B. (2006). Four Futures for Personal Information Management: 2007-2012: Keystone Equities Group. mGCI, Suite 10, 42 Brunswick Terrace, BN3 1HA Brighton & Hove, UK info@mgovernment.org www.mgovernment.org Kakihare, M., & Sørensen, C. (2002). Mobility: an extended perspective. Paper presented at the 35th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Malone, T. W. (2004). The Future of Work: How the New Order of Business Will Shape Your Organization, Your Management Style, and Your Life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Publishing. Malone, T. W. (2005). The New World of Work. Cambridge, MA: MIT Leadership Center. Novay (2009a). Four challenges: For knowledge workers - Effects of working anytime, anywhere, Future Workspaces. Enschede. Novay (2009b). Future Workspaces http://www.futureworkspaces.nl [Project Website]. Retrieved 14 July, 2009, from Pagán, B. J., Zhang, Z., Li, Y., & Rijnen, W. (2008). CommUnification [YouTube Video]. Retrieved 14 July, 2009, from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymkKZ4sylIU Poken (2009). Welcome to Poken. Retrieved 7 http://www.doyoupoken.com/PokenWeb/corporate/howdoesitworks.jsf May, 2009, from Slagter, R. (2008). Challenges for the nomadic worker: Part 0: In Sync, In Touch, In Flow. Retrieved 7 May, 2009, from http://www.futureworkspaces.nl/2008/09/01/challenges-for-the-nomadic-worker-part-0-insync-in-touch-in-flow/ Tollenboom, T. (1999). MINTO: mobiel en bereikbaar. Artesis Hogeschool, Antwerpen. Van De Velder, D. (1999). Tele-desk. Artesis Hogeschool, Antwerpen. Zeldes, N., Sward, D., & Louchheim, S. (2007). Infomania: Why We Cannot Afford to Ignore it Any Longer. First Monday, 12(8). mGCI, Suite 10, 42 Brunswick Terrace, BN3 1HA Brighton & Hove, UK info@mgovernment.org www.mgovernment.org