Adding Interaction to Decision Making Support Tools
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Adding interaction to decision making support tools What can be learned from the Capitalization Table Egi Shijaku Subject: Human-Computer Interaction Corresponds to: 30 hp Presented: VT 2016 Supervisor: Else Nygren Examiner: Annika Waern Department of Informatics and Media Sammanfattning Denna uppsats har som syfte att utöka kunskapen om stödverktyg för beslutsfattning. Detta är gjort genom design av ett så kallat ”Capitalization table”, ett system där företag hanterar ägarinformation. En användarcentrerad forskningsmetod, innefattande kvalitativa intervjuer, prototyper och användarbaserad utvärdering, används för att styra designprocessen. Detta är för att ta reda på om det nya systemet uppfattas som något som kan ge ett mervärde. Istället för den slutgiltiga produkten så är det kunskapen som kan fås från designprocessen som är det viktiga i den här uppsatsen; hur kunskapen kan motivera designval och hur dessa kan användas i liknande system för beslutsfattning. Slutsatsen är att ”safe simulation” och visuell support är två viktiga koncept som skapar mervärde för ett stödverktyg för belutsfattning. Nyckelord: stödverktyg för beslutsfattning, informationsvisualisering, användarcentrerad design, capitalization table. Abstract The capitalization table is the system that aids companies in keeping ownership data. The current norm is a simple spreadsheet that does not provide for all the needed functionalities. This thesis investigates how designing a new interactive capitalization table can add knowledge to the broader area of interactive decision making support tools. The iterative design process carried out in this thesis is user based, with qualitative interviews, prototyping and user testing as main methods. Rather than merely the final design, the crucial point in this thesis is the knowledge that can be obtained from the case in hand, the ways it can be used to motivate design choices and how these can be transferred to similar systems that aid decision making. It can be concluded that enabling safe simulation and adding visual support are two crucial paradigms that add value to a decision support system. Keywords: decision-making tools, information visualization, user-centered design, capitalization table. Acknowledgements This thesis was written as part of a two year Master Program, which was made possible by a scholarship from the Swedish Institute. I will be forever grateful for being given the chance to experience this once-in-a-life opportunity. Table of Contents Sammanfattning ............................................................................................................................................ 2 Abstract ......................................................................................................................................................... 2 Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................................... 3 1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 6 2. Background ............................................................................................................................................... 8 2.1. What is a startup and a capitalization table ...................................................................................... 8 2.2. Development of a capitalization table ............................................................................................... 9 2.3 Legal implications .............................................................................................................................. 10 2.4. When is a capitalization table used ................................................................................................. 10 2.5. Specific scenarios ............................................................................................................................. 11 2.6 Decision-making support tools ......................................................................................................... 13 2.7. Why a spreadsheet-based capitalization table is not the best alternative ..................................... 15 2.8. Space for a new tool ........................................................................................................................ 15 3. Previous Research ................................................................................................................................... 16 3.1. Capitalization- table related research .............................................................................................. 16 3.2. Interactive tools for decision making ............................................................................................... 16 3.3. The spreadsheet paradigm .............................................................................................................. 17 3.4. The gap in the research space ......................................................................................................... 18 4. Method ................................................................................................................................................... 18 4.1 Design research and theory .............................................................................................................. 18 4.2 User- centered design ....................................................................................................................... 19 5. Methodology ........................................................................................................................................... 20 5.1. Research Strategy: Design and Create ............................................................................................. 20 5.2 User studies: Qualitative Research ................................................................................................... 22 5.3 Issues in analyzing qualitative interviews ......................................................................................... 24 5.4 Analysis process ................................................................................................................................ 24 5.5. User testing and evaluation – the Think Aloud method .................................................................. 25 6. Design process and Reflections .............................................................................................................. 26 6.1 PACT analysis of the interview data .................................................................................................. 26 6.2. Outcomes from the interviews ........................................................................................................ 27 6.3 Implications for design ...................................................................................................................... 29 6.4. First design suggestion ..................................................................................................................... 30 6.5 Evaluation of the paper prototype ................................................................................................... 33 6.6 Second design suggestion ................................................................................................................. 34 6.7. Evaluation of the hifi prototype ....................................................................................................... 39 7. Results and discussion ............................................................................................................................ 40 7.1 Summary of the design results ......................................................................................................... 40 7.2 Limitations of the study .................................................................................................................... 41 7.3 Further work ..................................................................................................................................... 43 8. Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................. 43 Reference list .............................................................................................................................................. 45 Appendices .................................................................................................................................................. 49 1 Appendix 1. Interview Questions .................................................................................................... 49 1. Introduction Early stage companies, or startups, have been the center of disruptive innovation in the business world for the last couple of decades. While there are no set-in-stone rules for their success or failure, one thing is sure: if things go well, their owners may be in for a life- changing experience. But highly volatile as it is, the startup world is known for great disappointments, too. One infamous instance are the early shareholders of Facebook, who ended up with almost nothing while Mark Zuckerberg was on his way to build an empire (Crowne). Among other reasons, bad ownership management is maybe the most prevalent in cases where a person could have turned in a millionaire in a fortnight, but instead