International Journal of Sociotechnology and Knowledge Development

April-June 2014, Vol. 6, No. 2

Table of Contents SPECIAL ISSUE ON SOCIOTECHNOLOGY AND PERVASIVE HEALTH, PART 2 GUEST EDITORIAL PREFACE

iv Barbara Rita Barricelli, Department of Computer Science, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy10.4018/IJSKD.20140401PRE::1

Priya Davda, The Bayswater Institute, London, UK10.4018/IJSKD.20140401PRE::2

RESEARCH ARTICLES

110.4018/IJSKD.2014040101 Lessons Learnt from the Socio-Technical Design of Social TV Services with Elderly

Malek Alaoui, ICD, HETIC, Tech-CICO, Troyes University of Technology, UMR 6281, CNRS, Troyes, France10.4018/IJSKD.2014040101::1

Myriam Lewkowicz, ICD, HETIC, Tech-CICO, Troyes University of Technology, UMR 6281, CNRS, Troyes, France10.4018/IJSKD.2014040101::2

1710.4018/IJSKD.2014040102 A Collaborative Rapid Persona-Building Workshop: Creating Design Personas with Health Researchers

Irith Williams, Science and Engineering Faculty, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia10.4018/IJSKD.2014040102::1

Margot Brereton, Science and Engineering Faculty, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia10.4018/IJSKD.2014040102::2

Jared Donovan, Creative Industries Faculty, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia10.4018/IJSKD.2014040102::3 Karalyn McDonald, Department of Infectious Diseases, Faculty of Medicine Nursing and Health Science, Monash University,

Melbourne, VIC, Australia10.4018/IJSKD.2014040102::4 Tanya Millard, Department of Infectious Diseases, Faculty of Medicine Nursing and Health Science, Monash University,

Melbourne, VIC, Australia10.4018/IJSKD.2014040102::5

Alex Tam, Practice Fusion, Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA10.4018/IJSKD.2014040102::6 Julian H. Elliott, Department of Infectious Diseases, Faculty of Medicine Nursing and Health Science, Monash University

and Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, VIC, Australia10.4018/IJSKD.2014040102::7

3610.4018/IJSKD.2014040103 A Socio-Technical Approach to Evidence Generation in the Use of Video Conferencing in Care Delivery

Adam Hoare, Red Embedded Systems Ltd., Saltaire, UK10.4018/IJSKD.2014040103::1

Ken Eason, Loughborough Design School, Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK10.4018/IJSKD.2014040103::2

5310.4018/IJSKD.2014040104 Artifacts at Work: Internship, Learning and Technology

Thomas Winman, University West, Trollhättan, Sweden10.4018/IJSKD.2014040104::1

Copyright The International Journal of Sociotechnology and Knowledge Development (IJSKD) (ISSN 1941-6253; eISSN 1941-6261), Copyright © 2014 IGI Global. All rights, including translation into other languages reserved by the publisher. No part of this journal may be reproduced or used in any form or by any means without written permission from the publisher, except for noncommercial, educational use including classroom teaching purposes. Product or company names used in this journal are for identiﬁ cation purposes only. Inclusion of the names of the products or companies does not indicate a claim of ownership by IGI Global of the trademark or registered trademark. The views expressed in this journal are those of the authors but not necessarily of IGI Global.

The International Journal of Sociotechnology and Knowledge Development is indexed or listed in the following: Bacon’s Media Directory; Cabell’s Directories; DBLP; GetCited; Google Scholar; INSPEC; JournalTOCs; MediaFinder; SCOPUS; The Index of Information Systems Journals; The Standard Periodical Directory; Ulrich’s Periodicals Directory International Journal of Sociotechnology and Knowledge Development, 6(2), 17-35, April-June 2014 17

a collaborative rapid Persona- Building Workshop: creating design Personas with Health researchers

Irith Williams, Science and Engineering Faculty, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia Margot Brereton, Science and Engineering Faculty, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia Jared Donovan, Creative Industries Faculty, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia Karalyn McDonald, Department of Infectious Diseases, Faculty of Medicine Nursing and Health Science, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia Tanya Millard, Department of Infectious Diseases, Faculty of Medicine Nursing and Health Science, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia Alex Tam, Practice Fusion, Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA Julian H. Elliott, Department of Infectious Diseases, Faculty of Medicine Nursing and Health Science, Monash University and Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, VIC, Australia aBStract

In the HealthMap project for People With HIV, (PWHIV) designers employed a collaborative rapid ‘persona- building’ workshop with health researchers to develop patient personas that embodied patient-centred design goals and contextual awareness from a variety of qualitative and quantitative data. On reflection, this collaborative rapid workshop was a process for drawing together the divergent user research insights and expertise of stakeholders into focus for a chronic disease self-management design. This paper discusses, (i) an analysis of the transcript of the workshop and, (ii) interviews with five practising senior designers, in order to reflect on how the persona-building process was enacted and its role in the HealthMap design evolution. The collaborative rapid persona-building methodology supported: embedding user research insights, eliciting domain expertise, introducing design thinking, facilitating stakeholder collaboration and defining early design requirements. The contribution of this paper is to model the process of collaborative rapid persona-building and to introduce the collaborative rapid persona-building framework as a method to generate design priorities from domain expertise and user research data.

Keywords: Chronic Disease Self-Management, Health IT, Personas, User-Centred Design

DOI: 10.4018/ijskd.2014040102

Copyright © 2014, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited. 18 International Journal of Sociotechnology and Knowledge Development, 6(2), 17-35, April-June 2014

INtroductIoN cessful design and implementation. Any tool that can effectively integrate relevant knowledge of In the health care domain it is critical to in- patient experiences, attitudes and behaviours is volve the deep expertise of a variety of health worthy of investigation and dissemination. For and clinical experts in design conversations, HealthMap, building patient personas was the so that designs will be well grounded in the process that incorporated user research findings realities of healthcare provision. This paper and engaged health domain experts into forming is concerned with effective ways to involve the project design. domain experts in the design process and to The purpose of this paper is to reflect on effectively draw their deep expertise into the the use of the persona building workshop in design. Simonsen and Robertson (2012) have the context of the HealthMap project and to called for the development of processes and evaluate the efficacy of collaborative rapid tools that support an exchange of knowledge persona-building as a methodology, particularly and perspectives between designers and non- for the health design context. By offering this designer stakeholders. Similarly Brandt, Binder case-study the paper directly addresses the and Sanders (2013) suggest that being aware of lack of transparency into successful persona what is accomplished through the application of application. It also addresses Brereton and various tools and techniques, and ‘sensitivity to Buur’s (2008) call for a “move towards iterative, the coherence of making, telling and enacting’ experimental design explorations to provide… enables the development of procedures that understanding of today’s complex contexts and facilitate collaboration and co-ownership of practices” (Brereton and Buur, 2008, p.101). design (Brandt, Binder & Sanders, 2013, p. 147). By working as an exemplar of participatory The method that we focus upon in this paper design in a complex context, making a pragmatic is that of persona building and we explore its contribution to knowledge construction. This use in particular as a collaborative means to paper reflects on the workshop methodology engage health experts and elicit their knowledge in order to understand the ‘active ingredients’ in the service of design. Personas as a tool for that contributed to its productivity. design has a long and contentious history and many researchers and practitioners have firm the HealthMap Project prejudices, either positive or negative, regarding their value as a design tool. Miaskiewicz HealthMap is an Australian National Health and and Kozar (2011) call for research that can Medical Research Council funded technology lead to a more rigorous understanding of the project followed by a clinical trial to investigate personas method. how to support people living with HIV, PWHIV As we witness the evolution of technology in self-management of cardiovascular disease into a ubiquitous and pervasive phenomenon and the chronic diseases of ageing. HealthMap there are many unanswered questions around the explores the potential for mobile and Internet efficacy and desirability of a pervasive health based technologies to support people living with experience for many patient groups, especially HIV to support self-management of chronic highly stigmatized special user groups. Slavin disease. (2012) describes the current experiences of Technologies explored were: (i) a tablet stigma for PWHIV in Australia and points web application for use during the HIV health- out that the healthcare system continues to care provider consultation to enrich and support be a significant source of discriminatory and a collaborative patient/provider conversation stigmatizing experiences. Understanding the around chronic disease risk and lifestyle factors complex psychosocial factors that influence a and offer a chronic disease management plan, (ii) patient’s willingness to engage with healthcare an online service for PWHIV to introduce rich technologies is a vital ingredient for their suc- information, personal self-management plans

Copyright © 2014, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited. International Journal of Sociotechnology and Knowledge Development, 6(2), 17-35, April-June 2014 19 and possibly opportunities for social interaction context, thereby refining our understanding of and phone-based health coaching, (iii) a patient the collaborative rapid persona-building process mobile application that offers opportunity to as a methodology. We are on a quest to discover explore health and wellbeing issues and ‘triage’ the ‘active ingredients’ of the HealthMap col- them for a scheduled consultation. laborative rapid persona-building workshop and These technology platforms emerged their potential for replication and application. from early qualitative data and preliminary One may ask, why another personas paper? design work that included a collaborative rapid Personas are of particular interest in their role persona-building workshop. as a ‘lightweight’ artefact for communicating This paper will describe the HealthMap ‘heavyweight’ insights. We agree with Mattel- design research participants and activities before mäki, Brandt and Vaajakallio’s (2011) point that the workshop, the participants and activities given thick user research reports are unlikely during the workshop and the impact of the to achieve much for the cause of stakeholder persona-building workshop on the subsequent engagement, and surely nothing in regards to design activities. co-analysis and co-design, designers are faced A transcript of the audio recording of the with the challenge of discovering the ‘learning persona-building workshop formed the basis potentials inherent in the ways in which we for analysis. A framework for understanding the choose to communicate and use results from collaborative persona discussion is introduced field studies in design’ (Mattelmäki, Brandt & and applied to the persona-building workshop Vaajakallio, 2011, p.92). transcript excerpts. The analysis findings are When looking at the history of HCI we then compared with current industry practice can see that user profiles and scenarios have and related literature. been used in software development since the The following sections will include: a mid-1980s, Pruitt and Grudin (2003). Personas literature review of the adoption of personas for design were introduced to HCI by Cooper in HCI and User-Centred Design practice, (1999) as a hypothetical archetype of an actual a description of the action research process user, describing that person’s goals, aptitudes for the HealthMap design research activities, and interests. The key role of personas is to al- analysis of the data derived from the workshop low data from user research and other sources transcripts, discussion of the analysis findings to shape design, rather than a designer’s own in the light of a framework for collaborative preferences and assumptions. In this way persona creation and against current industry personas can facilitate expressing design aims practice and then conclusions on the effective- and features that are defined by the end users’ ness of the collaborative rapid persona-building mental models and their behavior. workshop. Since Cooper, personas for design have undergone evolution: Chang, Lim and Stotlter- man (2008) observed that designers reflect on lIterature reVIeW and modify their techniques for creating and applying personas, that they adapt these ‘tools’ to Simonsen and Robertson (2012) call for the suit their own style of working. Nielsen (2012) development of processes and tools that support describes how although personas are a common an exchange of knowledge and perspectives design tool there is a lack of consensus among between designers and non-designer stakehold- design researchers about their definition and ers. This paper aims to reflect on the HealthMap application. Similarly, Floyd, Jones and Twidale experience with a view to evaluating the suit- (2008) point out that debates about the useful- ability of collaborative rapid persona-building ness of Persona Based Design often treat it as as a process particularly for the health design

Copyright © 2014, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited. 20 International Journal of Sociotechnology and Knowledge Development, 6(2), 17-35, April-June 2014 a single design method, whereas in fact there substitute for user research or for direct contact is a diversity of activity that is labelled Persona with users for testing and other investigations; Based Design in both research and practice. on the contrary, according to Grudin and Pruitt This diversity of practice notwithstanding (2002) successful personas should augment there are still some basic principles commonly existing User-Centred Design processes and described in persona literature that support enhance user focus. successful persona adoption and application: Despite the plethora of literature advocating for Personas as a UCD tool, Mathews, Judge and • Empirical evidence: The sources and types Whittaker (2012) point out that ‘We lack actual of empirical data can be various, but clearly data about how experienced UCD practitioners qualitative data plays an important role. The use personas as part of their jobs.’ (Mathews, quality and breadth of data will impact on Judge & Whittaker 2012, p.1219) This paper the quality of the persona. Pruitt and Adlin seeks to directly address that deficit by reveal- (2006) observe that the use of personas ing the workshop discussion and dynamics that failed when they were not seen as credible occurred in the HealthMap design. and associated with methodological rigor and data. Additionally, Moser, Fuchsberger, the criticisms of Personas Neureiter, Sellner and Tscheligi (2012) While it is not the purpose of this paper to re- suggest that personas based on different iterate existing debate on the value of personas data types, such as qualitative and quantita- it is clear that as a design tool personas have a tive and in different project contexts suit contentious history. We have already alluded to some projects better. While Sinha (2003) the diversity of practice that can lead to confu- advocated a ‘tighter coupling’ between sion and misunderstanding in the debate around user research and persona development by personas. Blomquist and Arvola (2002) recount using quantitative methods to identify in- case-studies where personas lacked efficacy formation needs. Faily and Flechais (2011) due to lack of exposure to user research and offer a framework for grounding persona designers’ lack of familiarity with personas as characteristics in data with verifiable links; a tool. Chapman and Milham (2006) allude to • Particularity: This is the level of detail a number of problems, from a lack of verifi- expressed to portray a single-person user, ability to political conflicts resistant to claims rather than an average representation. of empirical support. Particularity works by inducing empathy Mathews, Judge and Whittaker (2012) and stimulating thinking around specific summarize the criticism against personas as user characteristics and behaviour. It also follows: Abstration: “...Personas are abstract – supports design scoping by identifying con- it is hard to understand the abstraction process straints and opportunities (Cooper, 1999); from user data to persona, so personas come • Team-based persona building: Ideally across as lacking critical detail....” Impersonal: personas are built through the participation “...Personas are impersonal – the personifying of a core team, involving as wide a repre- details in personas fail to provide a sense of sentation as possible of stakeholders. Both empathy...”Misleading: “...Personifying details Pruitt and Adlin (2006) and Barlow-Busch mislead – it is difficult to select personal de- (2010) describe a number of benefits from tails that do not create false constraints on the a collaborative approach, not least of which design problem...” Distracting: “...Personifying is that ‘discussion and debate are critical details distract – personifying details make it activities’ in the persona creation process. hard to focus on the aspects of a persona that are critical...” (Mathews, Judge and Whittaker, It is also clear from the literature, and from 2012, p.1224) industry case studies, that personas are not a

Nielsen (2007a) identified an inherent Personas as a precursor to health design sce- tension in personas when she posed the ques- nario development are discussed a number of tion: ‘Personas: communication or process?’ studies (Calde, Goodwin, & Reimann, 2002; She questioned the emphasis on evaluating Kälviäinen, 2012; Lerouge, Ma, Sneha, & personas as documentation and observed that Tolle, 2011; Reeder & Turner, 2011; Schulz & much of the criticism personas attract is due to Fuglerud, 2012; Sutcliffe, 2010; van Velsen, the shortcomings in persona campaigns to com- van Gemert-Pijnen, Nijland, Beaujean, & van municate user research to internal and external Steenbergen, 2012; and in van Velsen, Wentzel, stakeholders. When a campaign audience has not & van Gemert-Pijnen, 2013). These studies also been exposed to the foundational user research report the value of personas as a tool for elicit- data, and the process of persona creation, they ing design requirements from early research often fail to adopt personas. data, (both qualitative and quantitative) and Nielsen (2007a) advocates valuing the per- for engaging stakeholders. Indeed, for health sona creation method as a process for moving design ‘engaging stakeholders’ takes on extra stakeholders towards a user-centred design and significance when project stakeholders include offers a 10 Step Process Model as a framework special user groups with vulnerable and sensi- for collaborative persona creation. How this tive characteristics. For this reason Moser et 10 Step Model may or may not apply to the al. (2012) employ a decision diagram to guide HealthMap experience of building personas is appropriate methodology to collect data when a point of interest and forms part of the reflec- building personas. Children, people living with tion and evaluation. disabilities, the elderly, the cognitively impaired and their carers have all engaged with design Personas in Health via personas (Wärnestål, Svedberg, & Nygren, 2014; Henry, 2007; Schulz & Fuglerud, 2012; For those working in design for healthcare and Kälviäinen, 2012; Wöckl et al., 2012). health information technology, the value of ev- Only a small number of papers offer ex- idence-based personas is often recognized. For amples on how to develop personas specifically example, Jones (2013) advocates for personas in the context of health IT. This paucity reflects because in the context of health the specificities the rarity of explicit personas methodology in of life’s complexities and life’s emotional issues the wider literature when discussing design determine people’s ability to engage with care personas. Lerouge et al (2011), Schulz and services. Personas have the potential to holisti- Fuglerud (2012), Nunes and Silva (2010) and cally capture the lived experiences of people, Moser et al (2012) offer methodological case not merely the ‘patient-needs’ at a particular studies. Of these Lerouge et al (2011) and Schulz juncture. They are an appropriate contribution and Fuglerud (2012) are notable for providing a to ‘a care-centred design orientation, that can detailed explanation of the mechanisms of the span the different needs of patient, professional persona creation process. Lerouge et al (2011) and service, and help us define priorities for collect data from field research and describe a intervention and redesign (Jones, 2013, p.15). formal data coding exercise to generate themes The number of studies directly relating to de- and key characteristics. These are then used veloping and employing design personas in a to create user profiles. These user profiles are health context is limited. subjected to research team revision before Personas are sometimes alluded to in pass- iterating to design personas. They provide the ing without much discussion or detail, because evidence trail used to support the example per- the focus of the enquiry is elsewhere (E.g. sonas in their appendices. Schulz and Fuglerud Henry (2007) and Nijlan (2011)). Personas are (2012) describe a persona development process often linked to a scenario-based methodology, that draws on fieldwork and also participatory in line with the original Cooperian approach. workshops with end users and domain ex-

Copyright © 2014, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited. 22 International Journal of Sociotechnology and Knowledge Development, 6(2), 17-35, April-June 2014 perts. Their focus is on recruitment, workshop data and artefacts that captured the HealthMap preparation and workshop inclusion of people project methodology and gathered additional with disabilities and domain experts in design data through interviews to inform our analysis of activities. Their description of a workshop to the HealthMap design methodology. As practis- create ‘persona skeletons’ most closely relates ing designers we employed lightweight, agile to the HealthMap collaborative rapid persona- methodologies: incorporating quick, tangible building workshop which is the focus taken in tools for data gathering, data analysis and idea this paper. generation. Affinity mapping with sticky notes, In the light of the related literature this paper sketched mapping on whiteboards and simple makes a contribution by offering a collaborative matrices for thematic grouping were employed rapid persona-building methodology as valu- to analyse data and synthesise insights. able to design distinct from the deployment of In this paper we explain the HealthMap personas in scenario building. It also supports design process as a whole and where in that the claim others have made of the personas process the collaborative rapid persona-building value to stakeholder engagement by giving workshop occurred. Next we analyze the in- more detailed insight into the dynamics of a ternal dynamics of the workshop via an audio collaborative workshop via the Framework for transcript of the 90-minute workshop, giving a Collaborative Persona-building Workshop. two excerpts as representative samples. These excerpts are analysed using the Framework for a Collaborative Persona-building Process. oBJectIVe We compare the HealthMap design experiences with contemporary design practice This paper reflects on the methodology for through semi-structured interviews with five the HealthMap personas and evaluates the experienced designers and against the related contribution to the HealthMap design that the literature. The interviewed designers were re- collaborative rapid persona-building process cruited through Designer 2’s network of industry made: specifically for understanding HIV pa- contacts. They are all principal partners of user tients, the team’s ability to design for patients’ experience design agencies and senior design- specificities, shaping research insights into ers with many years experience of engaging a product design framework and founding a stakeholders in practical design processes. Four cohesive, design-focused team. of the five designers had experience in building Therefore our aim is to reveal the persona- personas. One designer’s special field did not building workshop methodology with a view expose her to persona-building methodology but to understanding the elements that contributed as a senior figure in the Australian user experi- to its success. We then seek to understand the ence design community she had come across HealthMap persona-building experience in instances of persona deployment. Interviews the light of current design practice and re- took place in person or via skype. They were lated literature. In describing and evaluating between 30 and 60 minutes. Some interviews the collaborative persona-building workshop were followed up with questions via email. methodology we provide a model for further These results are then discussed against a testing and refinement. number of evaluative questions in the Discus- sion. reSearcH MetHod the Healthmap design Phases As action researchers we took a grounded theory approach when reflecting on the data generated Initially the HealthMap design team comprised: from our immersion as designers for HealthMap. a social researcher with many years experi- We informed our inquiry from the qualitative ence in HIV research, a hospital-based HIV

Copyright © 2014, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited. International Journal of Sociotechnology and Knowledge Development, 6(2), 17-35, April-June 2014 23 treatment provider / clinical researcher and an Intensive in order to conduct a second phase of occupational therapy postgraduate researcher design preparation. with special interest in HIV and chronic dis- When Designer 2 joined the team she was ease self-management. This domain expertise immersed in the Phase 1 data and began the combined represents over 40 years of research process of internalizing an understanding of and work with people living with HIV. In addi- the domains of HIV and of chronic disease self- tion HealthMap has twelve chief investigators management. Designer 2’s role was to evaluate who receive reports and contribute to project what preparation was necessary to ensure the decisions. Three designers were engaged on Design Intensive could be productive and prop- the project at different times. Designer 1 pro- erly resourced. She investigated how to scope vided high-level design strategy advice but was the design focus by evaluating what data were not co-located with the team. Designer 1 is a available to inform the Design Intensive, and design researcher specializing in participatory by identifying gaps in data. This led to plan- design and interaction design and was known ning and implementing design activities with to the clinical researcher. Designer 2 was a user the HealthMap team to create as full a data set experience design practitioner employed by as possible to support the Design Intensive, the team; this was her first healthcare project. given the ethical and timetable constraints. Her Designer 3 is an interaction designer with over approach was to employ rapid and lean service ten years experience designing for healthcare design tools; these included team workshops to in the USA and was known to the clinical re- provide a PWHIV Existing Service Map and a searcher via shared health technology networks. HIV Clinician Empathy Map. Designer 2 also The HealthMap intervention will be evaluated created affinity maps for the existing chronic in a two year Cluster-randomised Trial that disease self-management programs, and a commenced July, 2014. PWHIV social journey map. She facilitated the technology-use survey creation and distri- Phase 1 bution and wrote ethics approval applications for forthcoming Design Intensive activities. During this early phase of the project the team She was also immersed in the PWHIV conducted a number of research activities to interview data by listening to the audio record- generate data in order to inform design. These ings. The interview questions addressed such were planned with input from Designer 1. These topics as: the impact of HIV, interactions with data were: a report from Concept Mapping healthcare providers, use of technology, ap- workshops conducted with people living with proaches to self-manangement of health and HIV and Key Informants, KI, e.g. peer sup- wellbeing and psychosocial factors. Designer port workers, practice nurses, transcripts from 2’s analysis was to identify themes emerging semi-structured interviews with 33 PWHIV and from these topics, especially with regards to 14 KIs, and a systematic review of literature motivation, behaviours and potential design for technology-based interventions to support touchpoints. chronic disease self-management. Project docu- The Phase 2 design research outcomes sug- ments such as the original NHMRC grant ap- gested that a set of personas would be useful and plication were later made available to designers. necessary to inform the Design Intensive. At the end of Phase 2 a 90-minute collaborative rapid Phase 2 persona-building workshop was conducted with The HealthMap technology design activities the HealthMap team, facilitated by Designer 1. were scheduled to commence with an eight Designer 2 drafted rough personas as an week Design Intensive mid-2012. Designer 2 exercise in initial data analysis from her data joined the team eight weeks prior to the Design immersion to prepare for the workshop. This be-

Copyright © 2014, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited. 24 International Journal of Sociotechnology and Knowledge Development, 6(2), 17-35, April-June 2014 gan a framework of understanding and to attain response to the emerging practical needs of the some clarity around the boundaries between the project. Designer 1 participated remotely and different patterns that were emerging from the co-located on a part-time basis. data. These outlines were not presented to the During the Design Intensive health research workshop but served as personal internalizing team members participated in design-led ac- of insights for Designer 2 and enabled her to tivities supporting idea generation and design participate in the workshop from a position of critiques. Designers synthesized the results of familiarity with the qualitative data. team activities into wireframes and concepts The 90 minute workshop was facilitated by that were then tested with patients and HIV Designer 1 with the intended outcome of the treatment providers. meeting defined as the ‘Who’ and the ‘Why’ of Direct participation from patients early in the design. It was posed that knowing the ‘Who’ the Design Intensive was problematic because of and the ‘Why’ would prepare for thinking about time constraints and ethics approval constraints. the ‘What’ in later design activities. There was Patients were recruited at the later stages of the a follow-up persona refinement and approval initial Design Intensive for concept critiquing. meeting several days later. Patients were also recruited for a round of us- The initial concept of personas was intro- ability testing twelve months later. duced to the stakeholders as a means to filter the body of data and their extensive domain results knowledge in order to reveal those characteristics, behaviours and contextual features that An early challenge for the HealthMap design- were most relevant to design. During the course ers was to harness the domain expertise of of the workshop the patterns identified from clinicians and health researchers directly into research were grouped into draft personas. Each design decisions and to build consensus for persona contained a set of user characteristics product development, particularly in regards that reflected the data that are relevant to design. to introducing academic and clinical research- The underlying assumption was that factors ers to design thinking and design activities. that influenced a person’s ability to improve Design practice is very different to formal their diet, exercise, self-care or self-efficacy research disciplines, the modes of discourse were relevant. In particular these were the and domain values are different, and thus it data for contextual and personal particularities can be a challenge for designers to demonstrate that shape HIV patients’ attitudes, knowledge methodological rigor to stakeholders unfamiliar and behavior towards chronic disease self- with design methodology and aims. Although management. all three designers agreed personas would be appropriate and useful the health researchers Phase 3 were initially uncomfortable with a technique that employed a fictitious and stereotypical Designer 3 led the Design Intensive. He was treatment of the carefully collected qualitative co-located with the team during the Design and other data. Intensive. The personas were drafted after the On reflection it became clear that the collab- workshop and then refined at the beginning of orative rapid persona-building workshop played the Design Intensive to allow Designer 3 to a key strategic role in bridging the domains of participate in their construction and to address health research and design practice, facilitating any remaining queries. During the Design In- the participation of key stakeholders and scoping tensive Designers 2 and 3 were immersed in the the HealthMap design. The persona-building design project as design practitioners and action workshop had a significant impact on stimu- researchers: exploring the domain and iterating lating health researchers’ engagement with the ideas for data gathering and idea generation in design process and translating the user research

Copyright © 2014, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited. International Journal of Sociotechnology and Knowledge Development, 6(2), 17-35, April-June 2014 25 insights into shared, co-created design priorities. C) She posits a hypothesis describing a set of It was particularly striking that the workshop patient characteristics. (D, F, G, H) This is to only took 90 minutes, yet it was very produc- check with domain experts if her individual tive, both for delivering collaboration between analysis is valid. (E, F, G) The domain experts health researchers and practising designers and recognize the type of patient she describes and for design project scoping. map it to their own understanding. (I, J, N, O) They validate and contribute to her description the collaborative rapid Persona- by sharing evidence that validates the patient Building Workshop transcript type and adds detail for motivation and behaviour. (G, H, I, J, L, M, N, O) When analysing the transcript data certain patterns were observed revealing the behaviour Excerpt 1 of workshop participants around individual ‘sense-making’ and collaborative group ‘sense- Designer 2, D2: From the interviews to me making’ between team members. Most of these there’s a persona who’s reaching retire- occurred synchronously during the workshop. ment age, say 60, recently diagnosed and These behaviours are presented in Table 1 as is not in that financial, hesitates is not poor, a Framework for a Collaborative Persona- because they’ve been working, or had their building Workshop. own business or something, they’ve built In the following discussion we will use up their capital, and they’re very high the Collaborative Persona-building Workshop functioning; framework to analyze the audio transcription Provider, P: That’s a bit like [persona] three, excerpts from the workshop. Framework iden- but just older; tifying letters will follow the descriptions that Social Researcher, SR: Yeah, yeah contain those behaviours. D2: Um, so they’re sort of still living the life Excerpt 1 below shows Designer 2 reflect- of a semi-retired businessman, but they ing on her understanding of the qualitative happen to be positive. But, need, because data and how it relates to a need for a change they haven’t been unwell and haven’t had in health priorities for a type of patient. (A, B,

Table 1. Framework for a collaborative persona-building workshop

Shared Team Sense-Making Individual Designer Sense-Making (Process of Design Thinking Alignment between Team (Process of Personal Design Thinking) Members A Pre-workshop analysis of qualitative data to prepare for personas G Discussing designers’ assumptions / inferences from data Pre-workshop analysis from tacit knowledge, from data B H Identifying priorities from the data immersion C Filtering data for design work I Compiling a shared understanding of the data D Synthesis from data and tacit knowledge J Articulating the shared understanding of the data E Exploring design scope K Capturing design values and priorities F Seeking further data / testing assumptions L Exploring the boundaries of knowledge and scope M Building a framework to guide future design work Probing assumptions, inferences and conclusions N collaboratively. Initiating project stakeholders to aspects of design O thinking.

Copyright © 2014, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited. 26 International Journal of Sociotechnology and Knowledge Development, 6(2), 17-35, April-June 2014

all those co-morbidities, probably need participation and enquiry. (D, F, G, J, N, O) We to be thinking about exercising and what can see how the affective, social, storytelling they’re eating. mode of persona-building nurtures an open style P: You could, I don’t know if this comes of conversation. In other parts of the workshop, through, but thinking of that guy he can be humour and shared personal experiences of the a bit obsessive actually, he’s quite anxious participants built a rapport within the team. D2: OK? Building personas allowed the designers to P: Quite anxious, I think of someone like that share their inferences from qualitative data who’s actually been diagnosed for a fair and reveal to domain experts the designers’ while, but HIV’s not, maybe six or seven grasp of the complexities and realities of life years or something, but not fifteen or twenty for PWHIV. Through hypothesizing for persona D2: Yeah, yeah... types the designer’s empathic understanding SR: post HAART [Highly Active Anti Retroviral was revealed. This empathic understanding gave Treatment]... designers a level of credence that allowed them P: Yeah, the guy I’m thinking about broke up to enter ‘the domain’. This sharing of domain with his long term partner because his knowledge is also revealed by the designers’ partner just wouldn’t stop smoking comfort and familiarity with the informal ebb Occupational therapist, OT: Oh wow and flow of the conversation. Apart from the main substance of the conversation there are By exploring these data through the framework the small comments and affirmations that refine for a collaborative rapid persona-building work- the topic and help the team to reiterate together shop there is a process where highly relevant areas of agreement and the direction of deci- user characteristics: anxiety, high functioning, sions. This sharing of domain understanding disposable income, are able to position the de- is a critical component of the collaborative sign in relation to project priorities. This Excerpt dynamic in building a functional design team. 1 discussion evolved into the realization that, In Excerpt 2, the conversation is around from the point-of-view of design opportunity, how the characteristics, behaviours and motiva- this particular persona was a ‘low hanging fruit’ tions of users should be clustered and expressed for potential behaviour change. However he in the personas. became a design ‘anti-persona’ because he was likely to respond to existing health promotion Excerpt 2 information for lowering cardiovascular disease and the project goals were to reach those D2: I still think from the interviews there’s room patients less likely to engage with mainstream for another middle-aged to older [persona] health promotion. (K, M, N, O) P: Older? Excerpt 1 is an example of the collaborative D2: yeah, so, [persona] number Five, can we sense-making activities: discussing designers’ define his age a bit more? inferences from data, capturing, probing infer- OT: We said he has adult kids, he’s divorced, ences and making collaborative conclusions so he’d be again in his 60s and initiating stakeholders to design thinking. P: No, 50s (F, G, I, J, N, O) In Excerpt 1 we can see the D2: So before 65, [persona] Five is? So [per- domain experts naturally using storytelling sona] Four is 65, [persona] Five is? methods, sharing anecdotes to compare and P: 50 validate Designer 2’s suggested persona type. SR: 50? 55? The comments from the Social Researcher and P: or 50? I just think... Occupational Therapist support the discussion D2: So, kids, divorced, recently diagnosed, with affirmation and contribute more knowl- so this one here, what’s his mental health edge. The tone of the conversation invites and social?

P: Do you want us to give you a bit more on Social isolation is an example from Excerpt social through all of them? 2 illustrating how a psychosocial characteristic SR: So [persona] Three’s socially connected could impact a user’s access to technology. As P: Yeah a team the health researchers and HealthMap D2: Yeah designers understand that a simplistic solution SR: And at some point we need to separate like ‘let’s use Facebook’ is not going to be out the socially connected to community appropriate for users whose social isolation connected... includes an aversion to social media, because P:...Yeah but we haven’t defined, we haven’t they understand the complexity of stigmas described that in these personas...So and personal experiences that can cause such [persona] Four is um, I mean clearly aversion. This decision making about what [persona] Six is not socially connected technological features may not be acceptable don’t you think? to patients is another example of the persona SR: Hmm, yeah. building process as health researchers par- D2: Socially isolated. ticipating in design scoping and requirements gathering. This role of health researchers as The health researchers are fully engaged with design decision-makers is a key contribution the process of prioritizing and selecting which to constructive collaboration. examples are accurate and relevant. They are During the workshop Designer 1 and also directing the particularities and nuances Designer 2 were populating matrices drawn that are important and that distinguish one on whiteboards outlining the emerging pat- user type from another. E.g., in Excerpt 2 we terns and clusters into specific personas as see the importance attached to a patient’s age. directed by the participants. This gave a visual For those supporting the health of PWHIV, representation of the co-analysis and enabled age (and history of diagnosis) has a number of the co-creation of persona features, laying a connotations. It can suggest that a person may tangible foundation and creating a persistent have been an activist in the AIDS campaigns artefact for mutual understanding and trust of the 80s and 90s, it can suggest that they may between health researchers and designers in have had experiences of close ‘positive com- future design activities (See Figure 1). munity’ connections, it can suggest that they may have suffered bereavement, it can suggest Industry Experiences that they are entering a higher risk group for In evaluating the collaborative rapid persona- cardiovascular and other diseases, it can suggest building workshop as a successful and efficient increasing co-morbidities. (C, D, E, F, G, H, process for co-analysis and early co-design we I, J, K, L, M, N, O) By directly compiling the need to question how applicable this process personas health researchers are able to process is to other projects and other domains. Can the their knowledge into a conduit for design. This success for HealthMap be predicted for other is design scoping and requirements gathering projects? If so, which projects? Our interviews in action. The thinking that frames the persona with five senior practising designers enabled building is: ‘What is relevant to design?’ For us to compare the HealthMap experience HealthMap this was partly expressed by ‘Where with experiences of other design projects. The are the opportunities for change?’ When health designers we interviewed echoed the advice researchers apply the framework of building from current literature on the importance of personas, under the guidance of experienced stakeholder participation in initial user research designers, they are able to evolve their under- data collection and co-analysis. There were a standing of what impacts on design and what variety of approaches to using personas, but are the valuable characteristics of their target some points of unanimity. user group from a design point-of-view.

Copyright © 2014, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited. 28 International Journal of Sociotechnology and Knowledge Development, 6(2), 17-35, April-June 2014

Figure 1. Collaborative persona drafting

In particular opinions on ‘when not to use design work, although they were seen as useful personas’ were strongly held. These were cat- for eliciting stakeholder priorities. They kept egorized as not building personas where user stakeholders focused on the end users during research sample sizes were small enough for design activities. data analysis to be manageable, and also select- All designers developed some sort of arte- ing for the ‘type’ of stakeholder appropriate to fact to represent the target audience. These often persona building. This was defined as either used aspects of fictional character descriptions stakeholders who commonly have direct contact without comprising a ‘full-blown’ persona, for with end users, such as customer support staff, example, titles describing behaviour. Personas or stakeholders who had directly participated were seen as potentially most useful for proj- in user research or been exposed to the raw ects where a large body of research data was user research data. The stakeholder types for generated. whom persona-building is not appropriate were One designer who works on projects with stakeholders who have minimal contact with sensitive user-groups commonly used personas. end users and stakeholders who have not been She employs a very participatory approach to exposed to project user research. her practice and sometimes engages users in All designers interviewed were clear that building personas as a design provocation for personas were not a substitute for user research eliciting their descriptions of lived experiences or user testing, but rather a ‘container’ for cap- without it being framed as personal disclosure. turing and presenting the insights and priorities From these results HealthMap as a design achieved through research analysis. They were project appeared a likely candidate for success- described as more useful for stakeholder engage- ful persona building due to the volume of user ment and empathy building than for guiding research data and the complexities of designing

Copyright © 2014, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited. International Journal of Sociotechnology and Knowledge Development, 6(2), 17-35, April-June 2014 29 for chronic disease self-management for the HIV 4. How does the HealthMap experience of positive population and a cluster-randomized persona creation compare with experienced trial intervention. industry practitioners?

Table 2 is adapted from a poster explaining dIScuSSIoN Nielsen’s 10 Step Process: In evaluating the collaborative rapid persona- building workshop four questions will be asked: How does the HealthMap Process of Persona creation compare with Nielsen’s 10 Step 1. How does the HealthMap process of per- Persona creation Model? sona creation compare with Nielsen’s 10 Step persona creation model? In using Nielsen’s 10 Step Process as a guide 2. What were the workshop outcomes and it is apparent that much of the work covered impact? in the early steps occurred during Phase 1 and 3. How applicable is the collaborative rapid Phase 2 of the HealthMap design over several persona-building methodology to other months. It is also clear that these steps took projects and other contexts? place at times concurrently and at times were

Table 2. Nielsen’s 10 step process for persona creation

Questions Methods Documentation Step 1: Finding the Users Who? How many? Qualitative data collection Report Analysis, user grouping, What are the differences among Draft description of Step 2: Building a Hypothesis identifying, naming user users? target groups groups Likes/dislikes, inner needs, values, area of work, work Step 3: Verification conditions, work strategies and Qualitative data collection Report goals, information strategies and goals Does the initial grouping hold? Are there other groups Description of Step 4: Finding Patterns Categorisation to consider? Who are the most categories important? What are the needs and Description of Step 5: Constructing Personas Categorisation situations? categories Analysing data for situations Catalogue of needs and Step 6: Defining Situations Questions: Who? How many? and needs situations People who know of the Step 7: Validation and Buy-in Do you know someone like this? personas critique the - descriptions Step 8: Dissemination of How can we share the personas Posters, meetings, emails, - Knowledge with the organisation? events, campaigns In a given situation, with a given Scenarios, use Step 9: Creating Scenarios goal, what happens when the Narrative scenario cases, requirements persona uses the technology? specifications. Does new information alter the Usability tests, new data Foundation document, Step 10: Ongoing Development personas? collection, feedback reports from Steps 1-3 Adapted from Nielsen, (2007b) 10 Steps to Personas’ based on the method “Engaging Personas and Narrative Sce- narios” by Ph.D. Lene Nielsen. © Snitker & Co. 2007

Copyright © 2014, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited. 30 International Journal of Sociotechnology and Knowledge Development, 6(2), 17-35, April-June 2014 directly derived from HealthMap domain Step 9 was addressed by the HealthMap expertise and the intervention constraints. For team early in the Design Intensive. Idea example, interviews with PWHIV and KI and generating workshop activities identified key the concept mapping workshops with PWHIV opportunity areas and journey touchpoints for and KI incorporated steps 1, 2 and 3. For step PWHIV and healthcare providers. Persona arte- 6 the the evaluation points of the future cluster- facts were present during these workshops and randomised trial dictated groups with regards were referred to on an ad hoc basis, mainly by to age and cardiovascular disease risk factors. Designer 2, but were not central to discussions. This meant the design personas were going to Step 10, the personas themselves are not have to include gay men over 50 and include commonly employed as artefacts in HealthMap at least one smoker. Designer 2 employed lean discussions, especially as the design is built analysis methods to address the questions posed into a platform and usability testing becomes a in steps 2 – 6 for her workshop preparation. It priority. However they have proved a valuable is worth observing the value of listening to raw reference, described in ‘Workshop outcomes’ audio data rather than only reading reports or below. transcripts for data to impact a designer in a meaningful and evocative way. Thereby sup- What Were the Workshop porting the designer to internalize the experi- outcomes and Impact? ences they hear. The collaborative rapid persona-building The outcomes from the personas workshop were workshop included activities from steps 2-7. to build a shared understanding and agreement Two of the participants had been exposed to around the ‘Who’ and the ‘Why’ for HealthMap all the PWHIV audio data, the social researcher design. The ‘What’ was further explored later who conducted the interviews and Designer 2, in the Design Intensive. This ‘Who’ and ‘Why’ while Designer 1 sampled a small number of were captured in the personas where they con- the interview transcripts. The other participants tinue to provide a useful reminder of the patients’ were drawing on their own domain knowledge needs, desires, fears and barriers to successful derived from many years direct contact with chronic disease self-management. In this way PWHIV, insight into their lives and familiarity specific design requirements are founded on the with the medical and social research findings discussion and decisions employed to build per- in the field of HIV. sonas. This early evidence-based requirements The HealthMap stakeholders conducted capture is a very useful precursor to functional steps 7 and 8 during the workshop and in the requirements specifications. later persona-refining meeting. At times this The personas also provide an efficient took the form of Designer 2 posing hypotheses ‘short-hand’ for discussing further findings on user types and the participants testing and and nuances in user research, As user research refining those ideas, at other times participants evolves in the design team personas can provide discussed their views on boundaries between a reference point for ‘mapping’ new thoughts user types and authentic characteristics and and discoveries to existing knowledge and behaviours. As co-creators of the personas the priorities. E.g., new observations around the HealthMap design team internalized the founda- psychosocial effects of HIV on people over time. tional understanding and construction logic for This effect was expressed as ‘The Retreat’, a the personas. For the Design Intensive everyone phenomenon where small, incremental ‘dying relevant to design decisions had participated in off’ of connections and emotional engagement building personas. with the external world lead to a diminishing Importantly, for Step 8 the persona artefacts of trust, connectedness and quality of life. For were included in documentation supplied to ex- the designers it was clear that one persona in ternal vendors, but were not directly discussed. particular embodied this phenomenon, so while

Copyright © 2014, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited. International Journal of Sociotechnology and Knowledge Development, 6(2), 17-35, April-June 2014 31 we were reminded to place strong emphasis on The transformation from divergent to sensitivities around ‘The Retreat’ we knew from convergent understanding is well described in the original co-analysis during persona-building design research literature. The British Design that the design had prioritised how people Council, (n.d.) describes this as a process that experience this decline into social isolation. moves from discovery and definition to devel- See Figure 2 for a sample from a final persona. opment and delivery. We place the persona-building exercise in How applicable is the the ‘define’, ‘Who’ and ‘Why’ phase, which collaborative rapid Persona- would lead to the ‘develop’, ‘What’ phase. In Building Methodology to other reflecting on the workshop dialogue we use the Projects and other contexts? perspective of the designers’ role to describe emerging from the discovery phase, user re- In our evaluation of the activities and patterns search into the define phase. We pay particular of conversation that comprised the workshop attention to the transformation of distributed several themes became apparent: a broad pattern health researcher knowledge and designers’ of funnelling divergent, distributed information working assumptions into a shared set of explicit and knowledge into a consensus around the design values and decisions. ‘Who’ and the ‘Why’ for design; the emer- Kouprie and Visser’s (2009) four stages gence of project design values and principles; of empathy can also be applied to the persona- building rapport, relationships and consensus building workshop. They define the four which produced a team-based ‘ownership’ of stages as: discovery, immersion, connection the HealthMap design. and detachment. The original user research,

Figure 2. HealthMap persona extract

Copyright © 2014, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited. 32 International Journal of Sociotechnology and Knowledge Development, 6(2), 17-35, April-June 2014 data gathering and analysis comprise the first of the two designers. The collaborative rapid three stages with ‘detachment’ matching the persona-building workshop will need reiterating reflective and idea generating activities of the and testing by the HealthMap designers with persona-building workshop. other domain experts to validate its methods. The Framework for a Collaborative Persona creation has been described as Persona-building Workshop derived from the more art than science (Schulz & Fuglerud, workshop transcript data captures the dynam- 2012). Like all design tools it is only as sound ics of the workshop. This framework and the as the maturity and skills of the designers observations made from the transcript excerpts employing it. Personas therefore are vulner- echo Faily and Flechais’ (2011) Persona Cases able to flimsy construction and inappropriate Technique based on Grounded Theory. Their as- deployment. It is recommended that small scale sertion that collaborative argument is the tool by practice of persona building be exercised before which validity of personas is tested and verified attempting to implement them in large projects. is demonstrated in the HealthMap experience. This also applies to the process of collaborative rapid persona-building. How does the Healthmap experience of Persona creation recommendations compare with experienced Industry Practitioners? We recommend further exploration of collaborative rapid persona building as a methodology It was clear that the HealthMap design project for early, foundational stages of health design did not equate to the ‘typical’ design project usu- projects distinct from the later dissemination of ally tackled by small to medium-sized user ex- persona artefacts in scenarios and stakeholder perience design agencies. The volume of highly communication. complex data, the highly specialized domain and the requirement to build an intervention for a cluster-randomized trial were distinguishing coNcluSIoN factors that set HealthMap apart from many It is evident that the HealthMap design ben- design projects. However it was also clear that efitted greatly from the processes and discus- the large volume of data, the highly specialized sions that comprised the collaborative rapid domain and the need to induct health researchers persona-building workshop. This methodology into design practice were project elements that provided an efficient and comprehensive vehicle suggested building personas was an appropri- for reaching an agreed understanding around ate and effective design tool. In particular the the details and experiences that directly affect suitability of the HealthMap health researchers’ PWHIV with regards to their ability to manage close and lengthy relationships with the PWHIV the chronic diseases of ageing. population made them suitable persona-building The workshop also allowed the team to workshop participants. collaborate on setting the design scope and early It is not clear from these comparisons design goals, creating shared values around how how the collaborative rapid persona-building the design was envisioned to support patients workshop would have performed with a larger and establishing a collaborative and productive and more heterogeneous design team. team dynamic. limitations Several factors known to be necessary for successful personas were at play: specifically HealthMap is only one case-study, the workshop the volume and richness of the user research success may have been a product of successful data and the ‘assumption testing’ nature of personal dynamics, the small number of partici- the workshop conversation. Health researcher pants, the volume of user data and the skills level

Copyright © 2014, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited. International Journal of Sociotechnology and Knowledge Development, 6(2), 17-35, April-June 2014 33 engagement was supported through the story- British Design Council. (n.d.). How designers work. telling nature of the workshop conversation. Retrieved November, 2013 from http://www.design- As industry and research practice move council.org.uk/about-design/how-designers-work/ the-design-process/ towards low fidelity ‘lean’ and ‘agile’ methodologies we suggest collaborative rapid Calde, S., Goodwin, K., & Reimann, R. (2002). SHS persona-building as an appropriate process for Orcas: The first integrated information system for long-term healthcare facility management. Case user research analysis and design collaboration. studies of the CHI2002|AIGA Experience Design As healthcare systems seek to harness broad FORUM (CHI ‘02). ACM, New York, NY. doi: sociotechnological ecosystems in delivering 10.1145/507752.507753 healthcare, and as we seek to support patient and Chang, Y., Lim, Y., & Stolterman, E. (2008). Personas: healthcare staff engagement, reliable processes from theory to practices. In Proceedings of the 5th are needed to identify and address potential Nordic conference on Human-Computer Interaction: barriers and opportunities. Building Bridges, Lund, Sweden (pp. 439–442). New More case-studies are needed to understand York, NY: ACM. doi: 10.1145/1463160.1463214 how feasible this methodology is and how it Chapman, C. N., & Milham, R. P. (2006). The per- can be adapted by designers to fit with their sona’s new clothes: methodological and practical chosen tools. arguments against a popular method. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 50th Annual Meeting (pp. 634–636). Retrieved from acKNoWledGMeNt http://cnchapman.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/ chapman-milham-personas-hfes2006-0139-0330. The authors wish to thank all the study partici- pdf, Retrieved 29/3/14 pants for contributing to this research, funded Cooper, A. (1999). The inmates are running the asy- by the Queensland University of Technology, lum: Why high-tech products drive us crazy and how Science and Engineering Faculty. to restore the sanity. Indiana, IN: Sams Publishing. ISBN 0672326140 06 Faily, S., & Flechais, I. (2011) Persona cases: A refereNceS technique for grounding personas. In Proc. CHI 2011 (pp. 2267-2270). New York, NY: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/1978942.1979274 Barlow-Busch, R. (2010). Case 11 a case study in personas. In C. Righi, & J. James (Eds.), User-centered Floyd, I. R., Jones, M. C., & Twidale, M. B. design stories: Real-world UCD case studies (pp. (2008). Resolving incommensurable debates: A 209–240). Elsevier Science. ISBN: 9780080481555 preliminary identification of persona kinds, at- Retrieved from http://www.eblib.com tributes, and characteristics. Artefact, 2(1), 12–26. doi:10.1080/17493460802276836 Blomquist, Å., & Arvola, M. (2002). Personas in action: Ethnography in an interaction design team. Grudin, J., & Pruitt, J. (2002, June 23-25). Personas. In proceedings of NordiCHI October 19-23, 2002, Participatory design and product development: An in- Arhus, Denmark (pp.197–200) ACM, New York, NY. frastructure for engagement. In T. Binder, J. Gregory, I. Wagner, (Eds.), Proceedings of the Participatory Brandt, E., Binder, T., & Sanders, E. B. N. (2013). Design Conference (PDC 02), Malmo, Sweden. Palo Tools and techniques: Ways to engage telling, making Alto, CA: CPSR. ISBN 0-9667818-2-1 and enacting. In J. Simonsen & T. Robertson (Eds.), Routledge international handbook of participatory Henry, S. L. (2007). Just ask: Integrating accessibility design. Routledge; http://QUT.eblib.com.au/patron/ throughout design (1st ed.). Retrieved 26 May, 2014 FullRecord.aspx?p=1047068, Retrieved November from http://www.uiaccess.com/accessucd/ 13, 2013. Jones, P. H. (2013). Design for care: Innovating Brereton, M., & Buur, J. (2008). New challenges healthcare experience. Rosenfeld Media. for design participation in the era of ubiquitous computing. CoDesign: International Journal of CoCreation in Design and the Arts, 4(2), 101–113. doi:10.1080/15710880802098099

Copyright © 2014, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited. 34 International Journal of Sociotechnology and Knowledge Development, 6(2), 17-35, April-June 2014

Kälviäinen, M. (2012, May 24-26). Elderly as content Nielsen, L. (2012). Personas. In M. Soegaard, & providers in their everyday life supporting services, R. F. Dam (Eds.), The encyclopedia of human- 1–15. In Proceedings of the Cumullus Helsinki computer interaction (2nd ed.). Aarhus, Denmark: Conference. Retrieved 26 May, 2014 from http:// The Interaction Design Foundation. Retrieved from cumulushelsinki2012.org/cumulushelsinki2012. at; http://www.interaction-design.org/encyclopedia/ org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Elderly-as-con- personas.html tent-providers-in-their-everyday-life-supporting- services.pdf Nijland, N. (2011). Grounding ehealth. Thesis, Uni- versity of Twente, Netherlands, ISBN: 978-90-365- Kouprie, M., & Visser, F. S. (2009). A framework 3133-7 Retrieved from http://doc.utwente.nl/75576/ for empathy in design: Stepping into and out of the user’s life. Journal of Engineering Design, 20(5), Nunes, F., & Silva, P. A. (2010, June 23-25). Human- 437–448. doi:10.1080/09544820902875033 computer interaction and the older adult: An example using user research and personas. In Proceedings of Lerouge, C., Ma, J., Sneha, S., & Tolle, K. (2011). the PETRA’10, Samos, Greece. ACM ISBN 978-1- User profiles and personas in the design and develop- 4503-0071-1/10/06 doi:10.1145/1839294.1839353 ment of consumer health technologies. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 1–18. doi:10.1016/j. Pruitt, J., & Adlin, T. (2006). The Persona lifecycle: ijmedinf.2011.03.006 PMID:21481635 Keeping people in mind throughout product design. Morgan Kaufmann. Accessed November 1, 2013, Mattelmäki, T., Brandt, E., & Vaajakallio, K. (2011). from http://site.ebrary.com/id/10138281?ppg=3 On designing open-ended interpretations for collaborative design exploration. CoDesign, 7(2), 79–93. Pruitt, J., & Grudin, J. (2003) Personas: Practice and doi:10.1080/15710882.2011.609891 theory. In Proceedings of the 2003 Conference on De- signing for User Experiences (DUX ‘03) (pp. 1-15). Matthews, T., Judge, T. K., & Whittaker, S. (2012). New York, NY: ACM. doi:10.1145/997078.997089 How do designers and user experience profes- sionals actually perceive and use personas? In Reeder, B., & Turner, A. M. (2011). Scenario-based Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Hu- design: A method for connecting information system man Factors in Computing Systems, Austin, Texas design with public health operations and emergency (CHI ‘12) (pp. 1219–1228). New York, NY: ACM. management. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, doi:10.1145/2207676.2208573 44(6), 978–988. doi: doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2011.07.004 PMID:21807120 Miaskiewicz, T., & Kozar, K. A. (2011). Personas and user-centered design: How can personas benefit Schulz, T., & Fuglerud, K. S. (2012). Creating perso- product design processes? Design Studies, 32(5), nas with disabilities. In K. Miesenberger et al. (Eds.), 417–430. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2011.03.003 ICCHP 2012, Part II, LNCS 7383 (pp. 145–152). Springer-Verlag. Moser, C., Fuchsberger, V., Neureiter, K., Sellner, W., & Tscheligi, M. (2012) Revisiting personas: the Simonsen, J., & Robertson, T. (2012). Routledge making-of for special user groups. In Proceedings international handbook of participatory design. of the Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Taylor and Francis. Retrieved November 13, 2013, Computing Systems (CHI ‘12) (pp. 453-468). New from http://QUT.eblib.com.au/patron/FullRecord. York, NY: ACM. doi:10.1145/2212776.2212822 aspx?p=1047068 Nielsen, L. (2007a, November 22). Personas – Com- Sinha, R. (2003). Persona development for informa- munication or process? In Proceedings of the Seventh tion-rich domains. In CHI ‘03 Extended Abstracts Danish HCI Research Symposium, IT University of on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark (pp. 25-26). EA ‘03) (pp. 830–831). New York, NY: ACM. doi:10.1145/765891.766017 Nielsen, L. (2007b). 10 steps to personas based on “engaging personas and narrative scenarios” by Ph.D. Slavin, S. (2012) Results from the stigma audit: A Lene Nielsen. Snitker & Co. Retrieved 30 March, survey on HIV stigma in Australia [online]. HIV 2014 from http://personas.dk/?page_id=196 Australia, 10(1), 27-28. ISSN: 1446-0319. Retrieved from http://search.informit.com.au/documentSumm ary;dn=642100431762582;res=IELHEA

Van Velsen, L., Wentzel, J., & Van Gemert-Pijnen, J. Wärnestål, P., Svedberg, P., & Nygren, J. (2014, April E. (2013). Designing eHealth that matters via a mul- 26-May 1). Co-constructing child personas for health tidisciplinary requirements development approach. - Promoting services with vulnerable children. In JMIR Research Protocols, 2(1), e21. doi:10.2196/ Proceedings of the CHI 2014, Toronto, ON, Canada. resprot.2547 PMID:23796508 ACM. ACM 978-1-4503-2473-1/14/04. Retrieved from doi:10.1145/2556288.2557115 Velsen, L. v., Gemert-Pijnen, L. v., Nijland, N., Beau- jean, D. v., & Steenbergen, J. v. (2012). Personas: Wöckl, B., Yildizoglu, U., Buber, I., Aparicio, B., The linking pin in holistic design for ehealth, c. In Ernst, D., & Tscheligi, M. (2012, October 22–24). Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference Basic senior personas: A representative design on eHealth, Telemedicine, and Social Medicine tool covering the spectrum of European older (eTELEMED 2012) (pp. 128–133). ISBN: 978-1- adults. In Proceedings of the ASSETS’12, Boulder, 61208-179-3 CO (pp.25–32). ACM 978-1-4503-1321-6/12/10 doi:10.1145/2384916.2384922

Copyright © 2014, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited. CALL FOR ARTICLES International Journal of Sociotechnology and Knowledge Development An ofﬁ cial publication of the Information Resources Management Association

MISSION: The overall mission of the International Journal of Sociotechnology and Knowledge Development (IJSKD) is to provide a practical and comprehensive forum for exchanging research ideas and down-to-earth practices which bridge the social and technical gap within organizations and society at large. At the same time it will provide a forum for considering the ethical issues linked to organizational change and development. It will encourage inter- disciplinary texts that discuss current practices as well as demonstrating how the advances of - and changes within - technology affect the growth of society (and vice versa). The aim of the journal is to bring together the expertise of people who have worked practically in a changing society across the world for people in the field of organizational development and technology studies including information systems development and implementation.

COVERAGE/MAJOR TOPICS: • Applied ergonomic • Knowledge • Computer-supported cooperative work communication ISSN 1941-6253 • Critical success factors (and key performance • Knowledge manage- eISSN 1941-6261 indicators) for organizations and technological ment systems Published quarterly implementation • Knowledge Sharing • Culture and trust within organizations and their • Learning relevance to technological artifacts organizations • Design and technology development issues including • Managing organizational knowledge as a strategic requirements and stakeholder participation asset • E-government and democracy as affected by tech- • Organizational Change nological change • Performance and quality of working life • Empowerment and team development • Quality assessment of computer information systems • HRM issues for innovation and knowledge sharing • Relevance of the worker’s perspective • Human-Computer Interaction • Social aspects of automation • Humanistic redesign and technological politics in • Sociotechnical systems organizations • Systems failures • Implementation issues of change and technology • Technological forecasting and social change • Influence of human factors on operational efficiency • Technology and its role in society and organizations • Information systems development • Technology in society • Innovation • Using knowledge management principles to solve • Internet studies organizational performance problems

All inquiries regarding IJSKD should be directed to the attention of: Constance Kampf, Editor-in-Chief [email protected] All manuscript submissions to IJSKD should be sent through the online submission system: http://www.igi-global.com/authorseditors/titlesubmission/newproject.aspx

Ideas for Special theme Issues may be submitted to the editor-in-chief. Please recommend this publication to your librarian. For a convenient easy- to-use library recommendation form, please visit: http://www.igi-global.com/IJSKD