GAN-MVL Interview Study Results Silvia Gabrielli & Markus Hodapp

Agenda GAN MVL Interviews Interview sample Background of experience Attitudes Benefits Risks Measures supporting the implementation

Agenda GAN MVL Interviews Interview sample Background of experience Attitudes Benefits Risks Measures supporting the implementation

GAN MVL Interviews Further investigation of acceptance of the GAN-MVL tool Interviewees: Operators and Experts at GSI, DESY and INFN-Frascati Topics: Questions investigating the previous experiences in remote cooperation Interviewees were presented the two potential scenarios of GAN MVL: Attitudes Benefits Risks Measures supporting the implementation

Agenda GAN MVL Interviews Interview sample Background of experience Attitudes Benefits Risks Measures supporting the implementation

GAN MVL Interviews - Sample 15 Experts DESY: 6 GSI: 4 INFN: 5 14 Operators INFN: 4

Agenda Introduction Interview sample Background of experience Attitudes Benefits Risks Measures supporting the implementation

Background of experience 67% have reported previous experience with virtual cooperation  94% predominantly positive experiences Experienced facilitating factors Quality of relation with the colleagues Willingness of the people involved Experienced difficulty factors Familiarity and trust Characteristics of the technology

Background of experience Examples for facilitating factors Previous personal contact, bond of trust Motivation of the people involved Clear taken responsibilities Usability of the technology Examples for difficulty factors Misunderstandings and anonymity Insufficient motivation Insufficient practicality of the technology Lack of contextual knowledge

Agenda GAN MVL Interviews Interview sample Background of experience Attitudes Benefits Risks Measures supporting the implementation

Attitudes Expected differences to work with people in other locations Not knowing each other personally Need of the technology Reasons to work with colleagues in distant locations Exchange of knowledge, information and experience Decentralization of knowledge

Attitudes Mainly experienced advantages with technology-aided communication Speed and topicality of the communication Possibility of simultaneous attainment and information of several people Spatial independence (way, time, cost) Mainly experienced disadvantages Higher insecurity concerning comprehension, misunderstandings Lack of relation and body language, impersonality Lack of interaction

Attitudes  Consequences of the need of technology for communication Perceived Advantages: mainly technical factors Perceived Disadvantages: mainly relations to colleagues  no general negative attitude predicting acceptance problems with the GAN MVL tool  considering the named disadvantages the implementation can only succeed when the right measures are taken to prevent these

Agenda GAN MVL Interviews Interview sample Background of experience Attitudes Benefits Risks Measures supporting the implementation

Benefits Presentation of two scenarios describing the GAN MVL tool (mobile and fixed collaborative tools), then investigation of the perceived added value through the tools toward the expert operator cooperation.  both tools were considered to bring advantages to the existing work practices  mobile tool judged as more innovative and slightly more advantageous

Benefits Benefits Simultaneous sharing of the same displays Increase of efficiency (e.g. saving working hours, reducing cost) Support to achieve better understanding between experts and operators Disadvantages Increased strain for experts (contacted more often for assistance) Feeling of being controlled, no privacy Negative consequences for the professional development of the operators

Agenda GAN MVL Interviews Interview sample Background of experience Attitudes Benefits Risks Measures supporting the implementation

Risks Detailed investigation of the potential risks involved using the tools. Emotional problems related to the motivation Delegation of responsibility to others Through delegation possible negative effect on working skills and abilities Difficulties using the tool through insufficient technical training  need for developing an adequate framework of rules or procedures to accompany the introduction

Risks Main potential cause for failure of the introduction: Employees reluctance to use the tools extensively as support of their work practices Expected changes for the daily work: Little or moderate change expected Easier access to remote experts worldwide Work practices better supported Stronger intervention in one‘s privacy Control over employees More unexpected interruptions for experts

Risks A majority expected a change in the communication patterns: Increased anonymity of impersonal contact Less formal but more frequent communication between experts and operators More synthetic and functional communication style

Agenda GAN MVL Interviews Interview sample Background of experience Attitudes Benefits Risks Measures supporting the implementation

Measures supporting the implementation Specific support should be provided during the introduction period: to familiarize users with the new tools increase their acceptance of the potential change to reduce fears and inhibition barriers supporting trust among colleagues to get everyone on board  through adequate hands-on training on the use of the tools

Measures supporting the implementation Further reported measures that could be used: The adoption of stronger collaboration and participatory design of tools between designer teams and end users (experts-operators) Clear definition of responsibilities, work share and decision power Clear competence list of experts to be contacted and the definition of emergency service shifts Accurate planning of resources required for the implementation of the new system in the workplaces Adequate design of training activities for the initial phase of use (introduction) and on a regular basis