Conference Home   |   Program   |   Conference Info   |   Register   |   Travel   ||    FAQ    ||   

Monday, July 8th, 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM

Keywords:

Abstract:

Targeted Audience:

Length of Tutorial:

System, Product, or Project Focus:

Learning objectives:

1. Understand basic principles of an iterative approach to better working relationships
2. Understand six options for better working relationships
3. Be able to apply the basic principles and six options to actual workplace situations to develop specific, practical action plan for overcoming inter-personal challenges in the workplace.

   DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL COVERED BY TUTORIAL AND A SCHEDULE OF EVENTS WITH TIME ALLOCATION

   "We already know what the user wants"
   "We have a really tight budget"
   "Your ideas are very interesting. I don't have the authority to make any decision."
   "We'll take care of that when we do the next release."
   
   Implementing user-centered design is challenging. In the real world of software development, usability professionals contend with tight schedules and constrained budgets that leave no room for iterative design and usability testing. . Usability professionals respond to deadlines and financial constraints as well as lack of knowledge about the design process. They cope with colleagues who are skeptical, hostile, or focused upon personal agendas. To face these challenges successfully, we need to build effective working relationships to find creative solutions that integrate conflicting concerns and agendas.
   
   We need to respond in different ways depending upon the people involved and the circumstances: to be able to build trust, to speak and to listen, to be assertive and to be responsive, to give and to receive help, to lead and s to follow, and to be able to work collaboratively
   
   The tutorial includes presentations of theory, case examples, storytelling, and demonstrations. Participants will also have the opportunity, in small groups, to develop their skills working with situations drawn from personal experience. In demonstrations and small group sessions, we will deepen understanding and to practice new skills through discussion, role-play, and simulation. Our emphasis is on experiential learning: participants will be involved in highly interactive activities throughout the day. The tutorial will include two half-hour breaks and one hour for lunch.
   
   This is the fourth UPA conference in which this tutorial is being offered. This tutorial has received enthusiastic reviews: several participants cited this tutorial as one of their most positive experiences at UPA. Participants appreciated the power of a simple but sophisticated model that could be immediately useful in developing creative, new ideas for practical solutions to challenging situations. They liked the structure that allowed sufficient time for large and small-group interaction. They also responded favorably to the instructors' flexibility, their ability to spontaneously modify course content and format in response participants' concerns and questions. Consistent with our approach, this year's offering has been further refined and revised, both in content and format, based on participants' feedback, so as to more effectively and efficiently facilitate learning.

   Introductions and overview of the seminar (15 minutes)

   Participants will briefly introduce themselves. We will then review the overall structure and content of the day.

   Presentation: Basic principles of an iterative approach to better working relationships (30 minutes)

   1. Detailed observation in moment-to-moment interaction as a basis for
      • Assessment of underlying needs and concerns of each person on the team
      • Assessment of effectiveness of usability consultant's responses
   2. Brainstorming of possibilities for alternative responses by usability consultant
   3. Assessment of potential effectiveness, ease, and efficiency of each possibility
   4. Commitment to a specific action plan based on that assessment
   5. Ongoing observation and continued evaluation of responses

   Demonstration and group practice: practical application of principles for an iterative approach to better working relationships (60 minutes)

   Using volunteers from the group, we will enact a case example of a usability consultation and then apply the basic principles for an iterative approach to better working relationships. The case example will involve a meeting of a usability consultant with a product team. The team leader has convened a meeting to discuss implementation of recommendations by the usability consultant. The meeting includes the team leader and a software developer, as well as representatives from finance and marketing. The participants in the simulation will interact spontaneously based on information they are given that will define the concerns and needs of the specific role they have selected. Following the assessment, brainstorming, and development of an action plan, we will test effectiveness of the action plan, re-enacting the meeting with the usability consultant experimenting with the new response.

   Presentation: Six options for better working relationships (120 minutes)

   These options serve as a menu for brainstorming new possibilities for responding to crises. Each option will be described, illustrated with examples drawn from experiences of the facilitators as well as of the participants'. The options include the following:
   1. Building Trust (You ARE Me) - Good working relationships require that we develop basic rapport and mutual respect. We also need to share a common mission that creates a foundation for working together. Sometimes difficulties in working relationships are overcome by focusing on developing more connectedness and a shared vision.
   2. Communicating & Listening (You KNOW Me) - We also need to recognize that each person has a unique experience and a specialized area of expertise and focus. That unique perspective translates into a different understanding and interpretation of the facts, as well as unique concerns. We need to be able both to communicate our experience to colleagues, and to listen openly to others' perceptions. Sometimes conflicts develop because we have not been understood or have not accurately understood others: the capacity to communicate and listen can then help resolve difficulties.
   3. Asserting & Responding (You OR Me) -The differences in perspective and focus inevitably lead to conflict. Sometimes, we need to be assertive, to let others know what we need. We also need to recognize our power and know how to use it constructively. Sometimes, we need to be responsive to the needs and concerns of others, recognizing and accepting limits in our power or competence.
   4. Giving & Receiving Help (You FOR Me) - Some problems in working relationships can be resolved by recognizing that our colleagues need help, by clarifying the kind of help they need, by defining the extent and limits of what we can offer, and by exploring how to offer that help. In other situations, we need to acknowledge that we need help, to define what we need, to identify potential sources of support and to clarify how to approach those people.
   5. Leading & Following (You WITH Me) - Impasses in our working relationships are sometimes most effectively resolved by taking leadership to resolve problems, either formally or informally. We take the initiative to gather and integrate information so as to develop and implement a plan. In other situations, we can be most effective if we commit to following someone else's lead, making sure we provide feedback but also allowing ourselves to be guided in the process of finding solutions.
   6. Co-creating (You AND Me) - In collaborative working relationships, colleagues work together to find creative, win-win solutions rather than compromises in which each person gives up something. At this stage, there is recognition that each person's experience, feelings, and needs may be different. However, there is also a shared commitment to understand one another's needs and to search for a creative solution that addresses each person's needs. Power and competence are shared as a basis for a collaborative process of problem solving. Protagonists start with a conflict that appears to be a win-lose situation in which one person's needs will have to be satisfied and the other person's needs be sacrificed. We agree to put aside our rigid positions and work instead to understand one another's underlying concerns. As that becomes clearer, we define a goal that includes both people's underlying concerns. We then work together to brainstorm creative solutions that might help us achieve that goal until we find a true solution that can be translated into a practical plan

   Demonstration: Application of six options to a case example (60 minutes)

   Using a case example provided by a volunteer, we will enact a critical moment and brainstorm potential alternative responses by the usability consultant using the six options as a menu for possibilities. We will assess the possibilities, define an action plan, and test it by re-enacting the situation using the new response.

   Small group practice: Application of six options to case studies (45 minutes)

   Working with one or two partners, each participant will define a specific case example as a focus for application of principles for an iterative approach to better working relationships using the six options. Participants will select a situation, clarify a specific critical moment to study, enact that moment if they choose to do so, and clarify underlying needs and concerns of each person involved in the situation. They will then brainstorm potentially more effective responses using the six options as a menu for possibilities. Instructors will be available for guidance as needed.

   Summary and closure (30 minutes)

   Results of work in small groups will briefly be presented to the large group followed by review of principles for an iterative approach to better working relationships.

   DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS (HANDOUTS:)

   Participants will receive a booklet containing the slides presenting information on the (1) Basic principles of an iterative approach to better working relationships, and (2) Six options for better working relationships. A copy of sample pages from last year's tutorial is attached. Maximum number of participants 100

   Guidelines:

   Defining a Situation for Self-Study
   Case studies are used during the tutorial so that the theoretical framework can be applied to actual problems that occur in the workplace. Following are some guidelines for developing the case study:
   1. Identify a workplace dilemma for use as a case study - Select a situation in which inter-personal issues impede the HCI design process, a situation in which your strategies for resolving the problem have been unsatisfactory, a situation for which you want to discover some new strategies for resolving. It may be a current situation or one from the past. Select a situation that feels appropriate for use in a public forum.
   2. Background Statement - Use the following questions to define the context of this situation. (You may want to change or omit details to maintain confidentiality when sharing information with others):
      • What is the organizational setting?
      • What is the task?
      • Who are the people involved in the process?
      • How has the process been impeded by interpersonal issues?
      • What are the roots of the problem?
      • How did the conflict begin?
      • What were the outcomes?
      • What have you tried to do that has not worked to resolve the problem?
   3. Critical Moment - Identify a critical moment in which an impasse occurs, e.g., a phone conversation, a meeting, an email or memo. This moment should be one in which the inter-personal issues occur. It might be a typical experience, a moment when issues first emerge, or a time of crisis. Make note of the following:
      • When did this occur?
      • Who are the people involved?
      • What was the sequence of events?
      • What did you do? What worked and what didn't work?
      • What was the outcome?

   Sample Description of a Case Study

   Background Statement

   A large company wants to develop a new software product that will help customers get their work done faster. The product will have a component that interacts with a piece of software on their internet web site. Although this component is only one piece of the software, it is the gating factor in the schedule. A certain page on the web site is scheduled to go live in three months and the company will be well positioned if the new software is ready to work with the new page. The schedule is aggressive but doable. It relies on reusable software components that have been used and tested before. The user base is the same one that they have been selling to for the past two years. They have done some usability testing and collecting of HCI data in the past and feel that understand their customer. The software engineers feel that the schedule is quite aggressive, but they can do it if they don't have to spend much time integrating customer data (i.e. usability testing) and have a short quality assurance cycle. The management feels concerned about the schedule, but see in it an opportunity to become heroes and don't want to pass that up. The people who feel most concerned about the product are the HCI professionals who know that schedule will allow for only one round of usability testing. There will be insufficient time to integrating data so that the user's needs are not lost. The HCI professional has tried to be accommodating and not push too hard to get HCI in the process. She is willing to do anything they ask of her. She pushes a little to get more HCI done up front, and when the development team pushed back, she backs down. Unfortunately, this does not help her push the HCI issues forward.
   

   Critical Moment

   The team is at the weekly staff meeting at the development office. The entire team is gathered in the large conference room, around the conference table. The attendees are , the development managers, marketing (product) manager) two software developers, creative director for the web site, HCI professional, and quality assurance engineer. Everyone is reporting on his or her work of the week. As each member reports on their work, they are also reviewing their schedule and discussing their next deliverable. The marketing manager reports that the product must be ready for the trade show in 2 months. The development manager has just said that should be no problem, as long as they stick to the schedule he just presented. The HCI professional points out that the schedule does not allow for any usability testing. The marketing manager points out that this is a product geared for a known customer base with functionality that the company knows the customer wants. The HCI professionals say that the specific UI and work-flow has never been tested and it is not clear that the customer will find it usable. The creative director says that the graphics agency is very good and they have always delivered a usable, great looking product. The HCI professional reminds them that each product is different and if it doesn't meet the users needs, they won't buy it. The marketing manager says thank you for your help and we don't have money in the budget this time, but that the next release will certainly have usability testing at the very least. The HCI professional backs off, afraid to lose the little ground she has gained by being invited to the meeting.
   

   Option Six: You AND Me, Co-Creating

   Co-creative collaboration is possible when we are working with others who are fully able and willing to work together. In a collaborative relationship, each of us fully respects our own perspective while also committing ourselves to respond to concerns of others. The process begins with all parties making the commitment to forgo unilateral decisions in favor of consensus decisions. Each party also agrees to abandon rigid attachment to a particular position or demand. Instead, each person works with others to clarify important underlying needs and concerns. These individual perspectives are integrated to create a shared vision that incorporates all the needs. The various participants then brainstorm solutions that allow the vision to be achieved. When consensus is reached, a commitment is made to a win-win plan.
   
   Co-creation cannot occur if others are unwilling or unable to engage in this process. Not every conflict can be resolved with a win-win resolution. There are times when the differences cannot be resolved and we need to utilize other options. However, there are also times when we improperly jump to the conclusion that a solution is impossible without actually exploring the possibilities for a mutually satisfying resolution. Putting in the effort, it is often surprising to discover possibilities that actually resolve an impasse satisfactorily for everyone.
   
   You AND Me resolution of conflicts
   - A collaborative resolution of a conflict is not a compromise in which each party gives up something of what they want and get something (You OR Me resolution), but rather a creative solution: everyone gets what they need though it may be something different than was originally thought. It is not a reciprocal trade (You FOR Me). Nor is it a resolution in which one person independently and unilaterally comes up with a creative resolution (You WITH Me resolution). In a You AND Me resolution, each of the parties to a conflict is committed to finding a mutually satisfying resolution and an active contributor to the process. In many respects, the You AND Me resolution resembles the You ARE Me option. However, in the You AND Me resolution, we have the capacity to recognize differences and work through conflicts so that we can recognize separateness as well as connectedness.

   Following are the steps in a collaborative solution:

   • Make a commitment to work together to create a collaborative win-win resolution - Team members need to understand and commit to the principles, values, and intent. They agree to surrender rigid positions of what they want, to respect both their own and other's perspectives. They agree to search for a solution that integrates everyone's concerns and to make decisions by consensus. They understand and agree to a process (as outlined below) for reaching consensus.
   • Clarify each person's underlying valid concerns and needs - Instead of discounting one another's concerns or attempting to convince one another to accept one's own concerns, the team works together to listen sympathetically to one another. They work together to clarify what is valid about each person's concerns and needs, understanding why each person may have taken a particular position. The task is complete only when the team and each person expressing their views agree that they now have a clear statement of the underlying needs and concerns.
   • Develop a statement of principles defining the parameters for a solution that will meet everyone's needs - After completing the process of clarifying all the varying needs, work to develop a statement of principles which describes the parameters for a mutually satisfactory resolution. Oftentimes, this statement may appear impractical or impossible. However, it is vital in creating a basis for the next step.
   • Brainstorm creative possibilities for a win-win resolution - In working to discover new possibilities, it is important to suspend practicality, to allow space for what appear to be unreasonable or even silly suggestions. It is also important to suspend evaluation. Oftentimes, even an impractical proposal contains a seed for an actual resolution. By encouraging creativity and imaginative thinking, we can usually discover new possibilities.
   • Develop and commit to a practical proposal for win-win resolution - After completing the brainstorming process, the ideas are evaluated. Positive elements are integrated so as to develop a practical, specific plan for resolving problems in a mutually satisfying manner.
   • Continue ongoing evaluation and refinement of the plan - As plans are developed, it is important not to stop the process, but rather to begin again, fine tuning the plan so that it better addresses the ever changing and always evolving needs and concerns.

   BACKGROUND OF PRESENTERS

   This tutorial, facilitated by the husband and wife team of an HCI manager at a large corporation and a psychologist,
   Elizabeth Rosenzweig, SMVS
   Research Scientist
   Eastman Kodak
   Voice: 617-244-6905
   Fax: 617-965-3932
   Email: eliz@ziffgroup.com
   
   Elizabeth is President of UPA and a Research Scientist at Eastman Kodak Company, where she has been working on new ways to make digital imaging easy to use. Elizabeth created and led Kodak's Boston Usability Group for 8 years and is now in Kodak's research labs investigating advanced user interface technologies in conjunction with research labs at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. With 17 years of industry experience, Elizabeth frequently presents at national conferences and has been a contributor to professional journals.
   
   Joel Ziff, Ed.D. Psychologist and Consultant
   Ziff Consulting Group
   Voice: 617-965-3932
   Fax: 617-965-3932
   Email: joel@ziffgroup.com
   
   Joel is a psychologist, trainer, and consultant with more then twenty years experience coaching individuals, working with groups, and consulting to organizations, who also teaches at Lesley College and Cambridge College in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Joel has presented workshops nationally and authored articles on multi-dimensional approaches to conflict resolution, collaboration, and stress management. This will be the fourth year in which Joel is presenting at the UPA conference.

Conference Home   |   Program   |   Conference Info   |   Register   |   Travel   | |      FAQ      | |   

UPA Conference Office

Prestige Accommodations
1518 Brookhollow Drive, Suite 23
Santa Ana CA  USA  92705
Phone: 1-800-321-6338 or 1-714-957-9100
registration@prestigeacc.com

UPA Business Office

Usability Professionals Association
230 East Ohio Street, Suite 400
Chicago IL  USA  60611-3265
Phone: 1-312-596-5298
Fax: 1-312-644-8557
office@upassoc.org

© 2002 Usability Professionals Association