Customers of the FutureJane Peck & Jennie Carroll

Agenda

Introductions Novell - Cambridge Technology Partners The University of Melbourne

What & why The 2001 program What we have discovered How we went about it Questions

Novell

A leading provider of eBusiness Solutions and Net Services software

Novell acquired Cambridge Technology Partners in July 2001Cambridge is the global eServices subsidiary of Novell and

provides management consulting and system integration servicesOver 7000 employees worldwide in 43 countriesNovell Asia Pacific is comprised Australia, New Zealand and Asia including Singapore, Thailand and Hong Kong, head office in Sydney     

Australia’s leading research university awarded University of the Year 2001-2002

The Department of Information Systems at The University of Melbourne has research and consulting expertise in electronic commerce, enterprise systems and interaction design

Interaction Design Group Improving the fit between end users and ICTs, including mobile,

multimedia and web based systems.

Mixes information systems, human computer interaction, graphic and industrial design, software engineering, commerce, psychology and anthropology.

The University of Melbourne

What are we doing?

Finding out how young people currently use information & communication technology and, in particular, mobile phones

Looking for opportunities to innovate or create something new

Defining that innovation or creation…

Why are we doing it?

Learn to drive innovation and invention from user needs

Understanding the impact of technology on users

Findings to be used for other technologies

Envisioning the future !

Implications for industry

Telecommunications companies Can learn where young people’s use of mobile

technology is headed What features and functions should be designed Direction of research and development

IT industry New method to approach problems

2001 Program Stages

Stage 1 Information & Communication Technologies (complete)

Stage 2 Internet enabled mobile phones (complete)

Stage 3 Future technologies (in progress)

Stage 1 – Benchmarking

  First stage looked at ICTs in current use

Developed a model of appropriation Criteria which influence whether a technology is

taken up

3 important factors for ongoing use: Identity Power Fragmentation

Filter

Attractors / repellants

Non Appropriation(reject before use)

Dis Appropriation(reject after evaluation)

Technology-as-designed

Technology-in-use

Reinforcers

Appropriation(on-going use)

‘’ Positive Criteria

Appropriation

Process‘x’ NegativeCriteria

Stage 2

Testing the appropriation model Do the factors stand up when young people face

a new technology?

Stage 2: Appropriation of a new technology

Stage 2 – what we did

We gave young people a new WAP mobile phone to use for a month - free

Sydney & Melbourne 16 - 22 year olds Male & Female 30 subjects recruited professionally

What we discovered -“Who doesn’t want a free mobile

phone?”

Young people are discriminating users

Cost is not the only consideration

Young people will reject a mobile phone where appropriation criteria are not satisfied… Doesn’t add anything to their lives Social management – cannot SMS to other networks Usability – difficult to use

0

5

10

15

2025

30

35

40

45

50

F' 1 F' 2 F' 1 F' 2

Phone

0

50

100

150

200

250

F' 1 F' 2 F' 1 F' 2

Phone WAP

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

F' 1 F' 2 F' 1 F' 2

Phone WAP

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

F' 1 F' 2 F' 1 F' 2

Phone WAP

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

F' 1 F' 2 F' 1 F' 2

Phone WAP

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

F' 1 F' 2 F' 1 F' 2

Phone WAP

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

F' 1 F' 2 F' 1 F' 2

Phone WAP

010

20304050

607080

90100

F' 1 F' 2 F' 1 F' 2

Phone WAP

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

F' 1 F' 2 F' 1 F' 2

Phone WAP

020

406080

100

120140160

180200

F' 1 F' 2 F' 1 F' 2

Phone WAP

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

F' 1 F' 2 F' 1 F' 2

Phone WAP

0

1020

3040

50

6070

8090

100

F' 1 F' 2 F' 1 F' 2

Phone WAP

calls WAP

WAP

Technology as designed

Initial Attractors

Fashion – does it suit my lifestyle it? Convenience – will it do all I want? Familiarity – is this similar to what I already know? Usability – do I know how to use it effectively?

Pick up and play

Technology on trial

Each young person discovers different functions and features

Discoveries are usually shared between peers The technology is used and evaluated – an

iterative process Decisions made whether to adopt or change or

drop New and unexpected uses discovered –

speaker phone

Technology on trial (cont’)

Balancing appropriation criteria – all do not carry equal weight

All things equal – cost is important Remove the cost and other factors come into

play Social management, lifestyle, critical mass

Stage 2 - What we discovered WAP Misunderstood No critical mass Internet not particularly useful to their needs

Only used when better than alternative

Email disappointed in actuality versus anticipation

Personalised WAP site not of interest unless with peer group

Would not use most of the features if they had to pay for them

Stage 2 - What we discovered (cont’)

SMS Unable to text across other networks Alternative methods of contact not appropriate Failure in social contact Went back to old phones

Stage 2 – Focus

Intention was to study the adoption process not to test the phones

New and different device to their standard Needed something new in order to watch the adoption

process.

New network not compatible for SMS with all others: Looking at individual adoption and use Examining alternatives to SMS for communicating with peers

New service -WAP/Internet Security Internet setup – to see whether level of interest

would cause changes to the set up

Stage 2 – Focus (cont’)

Studying short and medium term adoption of technology

Using multiple research techniques – triangulation eg focus groups, co-discovery, observations

Longitudinal study – more than a single snap shot Not just self-reporting Studying young people’s technology use in context

Stage 2 - Overall conclusions

The study validated the model of appropriation

In general, the usage of the phone diminished over the month as they were gradually ‘dis-appropriated’

By studying in real life contexts, we discovered unexpected uses of features such as the speakerphone

Young people are critical users of technology: pragmatic, discriminating and thoughtful