Embed Doc
Copy Link
Readcast
Collections

CommentGo Back

Download

DESIGN PHILOSOPHY:Helping Mobile Workers Stay In Sync and In Touch

Jennifer S. CurtisNovayEnschede, the NetherlandsUser-System InteractionEindhoven University of TechnologyEindhoven, the NetherlandsJuly, 2009

Design Philosophy - 2CURTIS 2009

Background

The incidence of geographically distributed project teams is on the rise. As a consequence,individuals working within these teams must embrace the notion of mobility in order to adapt.Mobility, according to Kakihara & Sorensen (2002), “is not just a matter of people traveling, but,far more importantly, related to the [types of] interactions they perform.” In other words,working within the context of a geographically distributed team forces individuals who areseparated by distance, time, and context to collaborate. Knowledge workers who are embeddedin such teams – particularly those working for large companies – are forced to adapt on twolevels.1.

First, they must find a way to stay up-to-date (i.e., in sync) and connected (i.e., in touch)with their occasionally geographically removed project-level colleagues.

Based on interviews with a subset of mobile workers, it is possible to define thisgoal as a primary need; Some examples:



One woman I interviewed said that she drove each Wednesday to work with her project team in a distant city. Her reason for doing so was that she felt things did not “go as well” as when she failed to spend time this timewith her team, face-to-face.



Another individual that I interviewed said that each evening, on his way home, he called his team to get updates on the end-of-the day activities and to see if any issues had arisen. He was in phone contact with his geographically distant team several times a day, and claimed to rarely useemail.

Secondly, they must find a way to stay up-to-date (i.e., in sync) and connected (i.e., intouch) with their oftentimes geographically removed departmental colleagues.

Based on interviews with a subset of mobile workers, it is possible to define thisgoal as a secondary need; Some examples:



One mobile worker that I interviewed said that she “had no idea” what some of the people were working on within her department.



She also said that one major problem was that despite the fact that her department scheduled periodic (e.g., monthly) meetings and events in theevenings, attendance was inconsistent because her colleagues wereworking on projects in different areas of the country – thus making it difficult to return to the home office at times.

I began to characterize most of the knowledge workers who I initially interviewed as

Traditionalists

because – although they were mobile workers – their use of communication toolsand practices more closely resembled traditional, co-located office workers.

That is to say, mostco-located colleagues prefer face-to-face and email methods of interaction with their colleagues (Krautet al, 1990) -- and, so did these individuals, as well

Moreover, they were comparatively moreconservative in their practices and attitudes towards staying in sync and in touch with theirprofessional contacts than a second group of knowledge workers that I interviewed.

Problem

In their characteristic use of communication tools and practices, the Traditionalists expressedsatisfaction in their ability to stay in sync and in touch with those in their project teams [first level, as described in the previous section]. However, they complained of an inability to stay insync and in touch with their departmental colleagues [second level].

Many of these individuals (6 of the 10 interviewed) said that they would also use a contact’s chat client statusprior to phoning him or her.

Design Philosophy - 3CURTIS 2009

Problem analysis:

•

First, in doing primarily off-site project work, the number of opportunities to interact face-to-face with their departmental/organizational colleagues are few.

•

Secondly, their primary needs deal principally with the activities that support theircurrent project work and team -- thus making anything that falls outside (includinginteractions at the departmental or organizational level) of this narrow focus secondary.

•

The favored tools for staying in sync and in touch at the project level include the phone,face-to-face meetings, and email (and occasionally chat clients, which are primarily tocheck availability).

•

Finally, breakdowns occur when the preferred tools for staying in sync and in touch at the project level are also used for interactions at the more highly-distributeddepartmental level (and, in the context of the organization, beyond).

Problem Implications

Stated differently, the problem for the Traditionalists occurs when they try to use the same toolsand practices for staying in sync and in touch with their project-level colleagues to stay in syncand in touch with colleagues at the departmental-level. The consequences which arise out of this problem include:

Direct implications:

The direct effects of having a breakdown in one’s ability to stay insync and in touch with one’s departmental colleagues are:

Difficulty making new contacts within the department

Not knowing what departmental colleagues are either currently working on orhave worked on in the past



On the flip side, a lack of personal visibility to one’s departmentalcolleagues; An example:

•

Several individuals that I spoke to said that they made a pointed effort to work in the main office when they could. They felt thisapproach was necessary to nurture relationships with colleaguesand maintain good rapport with support staff. The problem withthis tactic, however, was that departmental colleagues were alsooftentimes away, working on their own projects and they could not count on particular individuals to also be in on any given day.

It is noteworthy to mention that all of these above factors are symptomatic of professional isolation (e.g., Cooper & Kurland, 2002; Golden, 2006).

Indirect implications:

The indirect effects of having a breakdown in one’s ability to stayin sync and in touch with one’s departmental colleagues are:

Increased risk of not receiving information – either in a timely manner or at all –that has implications for one’s project work (e.g., pertinent developments inrelated projects, the outcome of budget decisions, etc.); For example:



One man that I interviewed tried to piece together a network of individualswho would keep him informed of potentially pertinent developments that might impact his main project. Oftentimes, however, he found himself insituations in which he learned of an issue only once it was “too late”. Inthese cases, he would track down someone in the information loop and ask them to keep him informed of any new developments in the future. Heconceded that this was not most effective system, but the best strategy hecould come up with, given the circumstances. He said there was no system