Part 2: for Socio-Technical Systems

. . .for Socio-Technical Systems

Jeremy PittDepartment of Electrical and Electronic Engineering

Imperial College London

FoCAS Summer SchoolUniversity of Crete, Crete, 23-27/06/2014

Jeremy Pitt . . . for Socio-Technical Systems 1 / 34

Framing the Problem (1)

Dear all,

Faculty members have received complaints by several peopleof very noisy and other unpleasant (smelly due to food)conditions in some of the working spaces (PhD and RArooms). In general, we do not like micromanaging and we letpeople resolve their small problems and annoyances amongthemselves through reasonable discussions that we assumethey are all capable of.

(Names removed to protect the innocent as well as the guilty)






Framing the Solution

Unpicking the problem

“complaints” ⇒ an adverse affective response and diminished‘quality of experience’ (QoE)“do not like micromanaging” ⇒ events at a low level ofsignificance except for those impacted“among themselves” ⇒ restoration and maintenance of ahomeostatic equilibrium based on decentralised collectivedecisionsembedded in the context of social interaction ⇒ representationand reasoning about norm-governed behaviour fordecision-support (i.e. social intelligence)

Collective Action problem

Actions which provision to and/or appropriate from a commonpoolShare a common resource with competing and conflictinginterestsActions with individual costs but group benefits


Setting the Goal

To create a generic socially-intelligent socio-technical systemfor enhanced QoE in shared physical spacesusing collective adaptive systemsover time, and space

Algorithmic self-governance: the structures, functions andprocesses by which an intelligent system embedded in ahuman techno-social environment can configure (andreconfigure) itself for improved QoE or other aspects ofqualitative human concern


Agenda

Motivation

Framing the problemFraming the solution

Background

PsychologySocial ScienceComputing

Experiments (Feasibility Studies)

Emotive EpisodeEnhanced QoE in Public CollectionsCuing Self- and Social-AwarenessSensor Networks for Offices

Socially-Intelligent Workplace System: Design and Evaluation

Summary and Conclusions


Background


Background – Psychology

The design of workplaces has a profound influence onwork-related issues, such as productivity and efficiency

Even an ideal physical arrangement of machines andworkstations is subject to:

the social and emotional intelligence of the people using thempersonnel churn, fast-paced turn-over in office occupancy, andmediation through high-tech, asynchronous communications

The result (potentially) is uncivil behaviour:

“low-intensity deviant behaviour with ambiguous intent toharm the target, in violation of workplace norms for mutualrespect. Uncivil behaviours are characteristically rude anddiscourteous, displaying a lack of regard for others.”

The prevailing and costly effects of workplace deviance areconsidered to be one of the most serious problems thatorganisations currently face


Affect and Affective Computing

Emotions play a critical role in cognitive processes in humans

Workplace interactions might be improved by leveraging theemotions of each of the individuals that are part of theworkplace, with technologyPsychophysiology

Classification of affective stateEkman and Friesman cross-culural study of facial recognitionidentified 6 basic emotionsPlutchik’s conic model with primary and secondary affectivestatesRussel’s emotional space, including positive and negativevalues of valence and arousal

Affective computingphysiological signals are an indicator of psychological (emotive)statesignal processing techniques can be used, in conjunction with atheory of emotion to infer that emotional state from recordedsignals


Illustration

Clockwise, from top

anger, fear, disgust,surprise, happines andsadnessPlutchik’s Wheel ofEmotionsRussel’s circumplexmodel


Forgiveness

Interaction between anonymous parties in one-off encounterssimplistic game-theoretic analysis suggests optimal strategy isdefectin iterated encounters, once defect is ‘played’, there is noredemptionyet this is not always the behaviour we observe

Encourage compliance by provision of cues, but:norm violation is a trust breakdownreputation management is a punishment mechanism, not areparation mechanismdoes not distinguish between intentional and unintentionalviolations

Inability to escape mutual ‘tit-for-tat’ exacerbated by lack ofcues

low self-awareness in certain settings hinders an offender’sexperience of shame, guilt or embarrassment;want instead to activate self-conscious emotions which in turnmotivate the cessation and reversal of offensive behaviour


Background (2) – Social science

From manager’s perspectiveFor an ‘office procedure’ to achieve its objectives it isnecessary to understand the impact on policy subject’s(subjects’) behaviourParticipatory adaptation for management of common poolresources (CPR)

From occupant’s perspectiveParticipatory adaptation for management of common poolresources (CPR)

People do not comply/not-comply with regulations, they reactto incentives implied by the regulations

Agreed rules and well-defined procedures, and rules andprocedures for changing rules and proceduresWays of referring to, reasoning about, and interacting withothers concerning those rules and proceduresFormalise through roles and social constraints (power,permission, obligation)


Experiments (Feasibility Studies)


The Emotive Episode (with Farrer and Goulev)

Application of the AffectiveWare SystemIncluding devices for measuring physiological signals: rings andmouse

The experiment itself: two parts:The users held 4 pieces of iconic branded fashion garmentswhilst reading the company PR from the official web site. Thegalvanic skin response was measuredThe experiment part two. The users were shown the samepieces with a brief explanation of a sustainable issue in thepublic domain connected to each item relative to clothingsupply chains consumption and disposal. The galvanic skinresponse was measured

ResultsThere was a measurable physiological response to holdingiconic clothing itemsThe response was different if the subjects were readingcompany PR as opposed to factual information aboutsustainable issues while holding the item

If we cannot infer actual affective state, we can infer changeof stateJeremy Pitt . . . for Socio-Technical Systems 15 / 34

AffectiveWare

The affective rings which measure galvanic skin response usedin the experiment


QoE in Public Collections (with A. Bhusate)

Problem: public collections are under pressure to maintainvisitor numbers

Solution: enhance the Quality of Experience (QoE) in a visitto a museum

Leverage pervasive computing with visitors’ own devices

saturate (pervade) the environment, including the exhibits,with sensors and displaysdefine a policy language to allow customisation according tothe user (visitor)use ‘intelligent’ decision-making to adapt behaviour/displaybased on behaviour/data fusion with respect to the policystream material direct to the visitor’s device


Interactive Exhibit

Usability lab, with interactive exhibit loaded with sensors:touch sensors, micro-switches, compass, 3-axis x-y-zaccelerometer, bluetooth connection

Driver Door Open/ Close Sensor

Engine Touch Sensor

Boot Sensor

Driver Seat Touch Sensor

Honeywell HMC6352 Compass PIC16f690 Micro - processor

LIS3LV02DQ 3-Axis Accelerometer T9JRN41 Bluetooth Module

Gear Touch Sensor

Steering Wheel Touch Sensor

Bonnet Open/ Close Sensor


Experiments with Affect and Forgiveness in CMC (with A.Vasalou)

Experiment 1: Interface Cues to simulate self-awarenessUse interface mechanisms to activate self-conscious emotions,which in turn motivate the reversal of offensive behaviour

Avatars as one mechanismFor example, private self-awareness can be manipulated withevaluative cuesConcept built into an avatar which autonomously expressesvisible embarrassment/shame upon its owner’s offenceWhen expressing these emotions, the avatar changes in a stylewhich is reported as common for embarrassment and shame


Forgiveness Framework

Experiment 2: forgiveness intervention mechanism forrepairing unintentional violations

Decision Maker based on Fuzzy Inferenceeleven constituent signals underlying the four positivemotivationsa formula used to compute strength of each signalinput into fuzzy inference rules defining FIS2..FIS5

if severity is low and frequency is low and intent is highthen judgment of offence motivation is 0.4

Combined into a final decision by FIS1


Office Sensor Networks

Filming a workplace

Situations that upsetthe work stream.How people react tothose situations.

Cameras were placed in aworkplace and filmed itduring a work week

1 camera to film thewhole room;8 cameras to filmindividuals

Analysis of recordings +interviews of workplaceelements

Establishment of socialnorms for the workplace.


Observations from Feasibility Studies

Emotive episode suggests that we can detect change of useraffective state

Sensor networks can be used to detect user actions and relatethem to norms specified in a policy

Interface mechanisms can be used to promote self-awarenessfor compliant behaviour and reparations of unintentionalviolation

Offices can be electronically-saturated environments

Bring all this together to build a system to enhance QoE inworkplaces


Socially-Intelligent Workplace System


Open Plan Office Questionnaire

Target respondents: people who share or have shared aworkplaceResponse demographics

125 respondents, 37 females, 88 malesmostly from (85.6%) and working in (97.6%) Europeaged between 22 and 47 years old

Objective: to understandwhich behaviours are considered to be uncivil and harmful tothe good environment of the workplaceself-awareness (which self behaviours might be uncivil)personal techniques for dealing with others’ uncivil behavioursexisting social norms

Preliminary results:

noise seems to be the mostprevalent issueother uncivil behaviours: smellyfood, affecting environmentwithout asking, . . .


MACS (M—’s Affective Conditioning System)

Provides a computer-mediated interaction between people in aworkplace

The defined social norms are mapped in the system through apolicy-based language

The violation of norms is reported by individuals anonymously,to avoid lack of participation caused by inhibition

There are decision-making tools to control the providedfeedback

Offenders have the opportunity to apologise and/or explaintheir actions

Analogy is with air conditioning system - restoration of ahomeostatic equilibrium


MACS Architecture


MACS Interface Functionality

Each computer in the workplace has a client interface of thesystem

Each person can use their instance of the system to:

Read the social norms of the workplaceCheck their own behaviour historyFlag a violation of social norms or an action that upsets thework streamWrite an explanation/apology for breaking the social norms (ifs/he broke the norms)Check redeeming inputs from offendersChange ‘opinion’ about offenders’ actions that were flagged bythem


MACS Interface – Social Norms

Those affected by provision and appropriation rules shouldparticipate in their selection


MACS Interface – Personal View

Worker’s view


MACS ‘Back Office’ Functionality

The main system is installed in a separate computer

The administrator interface shows a map of the workplace,with each person being represented by a chosen avatar

Provides an overview of all the events

What violations are flagged as offencesWho are the offendersWho flagged each offenceWhat feedback is provided to whom


MACS Interface – Administrator View

Administrator Interface


Evaluation Outcomes

Social connectedness evaluation

Evaluate feeling of belonging before and after the use of MACSQuestionnaire asking how well people know each other andhow much they feel they belong to the workplace

Quality of Experience evaluation

Open interviews about the effects of the introduction of theMACS in the workplaceStudy of workplace environment indicators (in MACS)

Evolution of number of reported offencesEvolution of the reputation of each person of the workplace

Aim to have something concrete on guidelines for use of ICTin workplace design to improve ‘sense of belonging’,participatory adaptation and enhanced QoE


Summary

Addressing a substantial problem in today’s knowledgeeconomy given specific social, cultural and organizationalpressures

Perspective: shared environment as a common-pool resource

Attempt to create socially-intelligent ICT convergingnormative+affective+pervasive+adaptive computing

Dispute resolution and conflict prevention using autonomicsocio-technical systems

Can we improve QoE and social-connectedness in workplaceenvironments? . . .

What do formal models of ‘empathy’ look like?

Visualisation of ‘moral’ design choices Longrightarrow designcontractualism

Can we build self-governing institutions for socio-technicalsystems? . . . (cf. ID3 and the Open Mustard Seed (OMS)project)


Bibliography

L. Andersson and C. Pearson, Tit for tat The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace, Acad. Manag.Rev., pp. 452-471, 1999.

R. Bennett and S. Robinson, The past, present, and future of workplace deviance research, Org. Behav.:State Sci. 2, pp. 247-281, 2003.

P. Ekman and W. Friesen. Unmasking the Face: A Guide to Recognizing Emotions from Facial Clues.Prentice-Hall, 1975

J. Farrer, P. Goulev, J. Pitt. The Emotive Episode: an investigation into user response to SustainableIssues in Fashion/Textiles and Affective Computing, Sustainable Innovation 06, Chicago, 2006

C. Hewitt. Offices Are Open Systems. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. 4(3): 271- 287, 1986

E. Ostrom. Governing the Commons: the Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. CUP, 1990

C. Pearson and C. Porath, On the nature, consequences and remedies of workplace incivility: no time fornice Think again, Acad. Manag. Exec. 19 (1), pp. 7-18, 2005.

R. Plutchik. Emotion: A psychoevolutionary synthesis. Harper & Row New York, 1980

J. Russell. A Circumplex Model of Affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(6):11611178,1980

A. Seidman and R. Seidman, ILTAM: Drafting Evidence-based Legislation for Democratic Social Change.Boston University Law Review 435, 2009.

A. Vasalou, A. Joinson, J. Pitt. Constructing my online self: avatars that increase self-focused attention.In proceedings of CHI 2007. CHI Notes. San Jose, USA, 2007

A. Vasalou, J. Pitt. Reinventing forgiveness: a formal investigation of moral facilitation. In proceedings ofthe iTrust Conference. Paris, France, 2005.


Date post:	05-Dec-2014
Category:	Technology
Upload:	focas-initiative
View:	219 times
Download:	2 times

Part 2: for Socio-Technical Systems

Technology