Customers of the Future

Customers of the Future Technology & Net convergence research John Murphy & Steve Howard

Introduction • Who are we ? • What’s the problem ? • What are we doing about it ? Video!

Overview of the 2001 program • Stage 1 – Examine the current use of technology and propose a model of our understanding • Stage 2 – Validate our model for wireless devices using current latest technology • Stage 3 – Develop a method to predict the future

Stage 1 • Stage 1 – Examine the current use of technology and propose a model of our understanding • What were we trying to achieve? • How did we do it? • What did we find? • Stage 2 – Validate our model for wireless devices using current latest technology • Stage 3 – Develop a method to predict the future

The process of trying out a technology, adapting or shaping it to the individual’s or group’s needs and then incorporating it as a routine part of their lives Process of Appropriation Technology-in-use Technology-as-designed Stabilised technology embedded in young people’s everyday lives Technology as designed, developed and delivered to the market and users

Stage 1 - three possible options • We conjectured that, faced with a new technology, a user may take one of three options: • A lack of interest and thus Non-appropriation occurs. • Alternatively, users may perceive interesting possibilities and so they enter a Process of Appropriation where the technology is explored, evaluated and either: • Rejected and thus Disappropriation occurs or • Adopted and thus Appropriation occurs.

Dis Appropriation (reject after evaluation) Non Appropriation (reject before use) Process of Appropriation Appropriation (on-going use) Technology-as-designed Technology-in-use

Reinforcers Dis Appropriation (reject after evaluation) Non Appropriation (reject before use) Process of Appropriation Criteria X Criteria  Filter Attractors / repellants Appropriation (on-going use) Technology-as-designed Technology-in-use

Stage 1- attractors • Lifestyle rather than task-driven decisions • Convenience: “I like to speak to anyone else at any particular time I choose to” [Mobiles are] “convenient, easy to use and versatile” • Usefulness: “My mobile is my life, I would be lost without it. It is very convenient and useful” • “Mobiles are a necessity, not just for kids but for everyone.” • Fashion/style: “You want something that looks good.” • “I don’t want to be seen with a crap phone.”

Stage 1- appropriation criteria • Social management: “Meet here.” “It is the only way to contact friends.” • “A mobile phone builds friendships because you can talk to them more” • Lifestyle organiser: • “It’s my diary, I store everything in my phone.” • “I store all my numbers, reminders there and so it has become easier to make plans” • Critical mass: • “Everyone has one [a mobile phone].” • It is “a pre-requisite for a social life.”

Stage 1 - disappropriation criteria • Hidden cost: “You don’t realise how much SMS costs. You think it’s only 20 cents a message but it does cost a lot of money eventually.” “It’s addictive, like drugs” • Health: “If you use it too much, you’re exposed to radiation.” [Does it affect your use?] • “I should get off because I keep thinking that my ear’s getting warm but then, my conversation is too important.” • Reception: poor reception and problems with plans. • Difficulty of learning: “It’s easy, once you get the hang of it.” • Usability: size of buttons for SMS

Stage 1 – higher order reinforcers • Identity and a sense of belonging: • “I feel kind of naked without my phone.” • “It gives you an identity: this is who I am, this is my number.” • “It’s more personal because it is you being called not your home.” • Power over parents, teachers and other young people • “My Mum calls when I’m out drinking. Let it go and SMS her.” • “If you’re bored in class then you SMS across the room: “I’m really bored’.” • “People you don’t like, you can have a certain ring tone so you know as soon as it rings that you don’t want to answer it.” • Cohesion in the face of fragmentation:distinct work, educational, social & personal groups

Reinforcers identity power cohesion Dis Appropriation (reject after evaluation) Process of Appropriation Non Appropriation (reject before use) Criteria X hidden cost health reception ease of learning usability Criteria  contact social mgmt critical mass safety & security leisure Filter Attractors / repellants cost convenience usefulness fashion/style Appropriation (on-going use) adaptability familiarity ‘our stuff’ Technology-as-designed Technology-in-use

Stage 2 • Stage 1 – Examine the current use of technology and propose a model of our understanding • Stage 2 – Validate our model for wireless devices using current latest technology • What were we trying to achieve? • How did we do it? • What did we find? • Stage 3 – Develop a method to predict the future

Stage 2 – focus • Intention was to study and validate the adoption process not to test the phones • Studying short and medium term adoption of technology • Longitudinal study – more than a single snap shot • Not just self-reporting • Studying young people’s technology use in context

Stage 2 - method • Internet enabled phone to use for 1 month - donated by Kyocera and the airtime provided by Telstra • Research methods: • Focus Group • Co-discovery process using verbal protocol methods • Record the initial expectations • Participant observation • Diaries and itemised phone bills to study ongoing use • Focus Group at the end of Stage 2

Stage 2 - what we discovered, or“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

250 200 150 100 50 0 F' 1 F' 2 F' 1 F' 2 Phone WAP calls WAP 300 70 60 60 50 250 50 40 200 40 30 150 30 20 100 20 10 50 10 0 0 0 F' 1 F' 2 F' 1 F' 2 F' 1 F' 2 F' 1 F' 2 F' 1 F' 2 F' 1 F' 2 Phone WAP Phone WAP Phone WAP 160 140 140 120 120 100 100 80 80 60 60 40 40 20 20 0 0 F' 1 F' 2 F' 1 F' 2 F' 1 F' 2 F' 1 F' 2 Phone WAP Phone WAP 50 45 100 80 40 90 70 35 80 60 30 70 25 50 60 20 50 40 15 40 30 10 30 5 20 20 0 10 10 F' 2 F' 1 F' 2 F' 1 0 0 F' 1 F' 2 F' 1 F' 2 F' 1 F' 2 F' 1 F' 2 Phone WAP Phone WAP Phone WAP 100 100 200 90 180 90 80 80 160 70 140 70 60 120 60 50 100 50 40 80 40 30 60 30 20 40 20 10 20 10 0 0 0 F' 1 F' 2 F' 1 F' 2 F' 1 F' 2 F' 1 F' 2 F' 1 F' 2 F' 1 F' 2 Phone WAP Phone WAP Phone WAP

Stage 2 – initial ‘pick up & play’ Filter Attractors / repellants cost convenience usefulness fashion/style adaptability familiarity ‘our stuff’ Technology-as-designed

Stage 2 - appropriation Process of Appropriation Criteria  contact social mgmt critical mass safety & security leisure Criteria X hidden cost health reception ease of learning usability

Stage 2 – specific discoveries • 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 • SMS • Unable to text across other networks • Alternative methods of contact not appropriate • Failure in social contact • Went back to old phones • Would not use most of the features if they had to pay for them

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

Stage 3 • Stage 1 – Examine the current use of technology and propose a model of our understanding • Stage 2 – Validate our model for wireless devices using current latest technology • Stage 3 – Develop a method to predict the future • What were we trying to achieve? • How did we do it? • What did we find?

Stage 3 – theoretical background • Inspired by and seek to extend the ongoing work of the GO project at Helsinki University of Technology • Exploring a wireless infrastructure in the campus area of Helsinki University of Technology. This infrastructure provides a test bed for investigating mobile (‘nomadic’) Internet use of the future. • Blending ethnographically oriented observations with active user participation (Iacucci et al, 2000). • ‘Role Playing’ and ‘Situated and Participative Enactment of Scenarios’ (SPES)

Stage 3 – theoretical background (2) • GO researchers used surrogate users as actors in the enactment sessions and recognised that this was problematic. • The form factors chosen arbitrarily and frequently users were asked to imagine • Implements (e.g. IT enhanced pens), • Accessories (e.g. rings, clothing, broaches) • Handhelds (e.g. palm devices, mobile phones) • Tablets (e.g. wireless A4 size LCD displays). • The GO project is yet to articulate its enactment process

Orienting Theme Prop What with? Primary actor Who? Reflection Heuristic Setting Where? Primary Plot How and When? Global Purpose Why? Secondary actors Who else? Secondary Plot How and When? Stage 3 – scenario development

Stage 3 – example scenario • Safe transit late at night while retaining a sense of security. • Ali has been raging at Goo nightclub in the city. She has left the club and her friends early in order to arrive home in a suitable state to complete her Psychology test at 9am tomorrow morning. • There are no taxis in the street so Ali starts walking down to Flinders Street station. The streets are pretty much deserted apart from the occasional drunk. Then, in the distance, Ali hears raised and angry male voices. The voices are moving closer and she feels very uncomfortable and alone. • Suddenly, a group of 7 or 8 males turn into the street at the end of the block. There is much pushing, shoving and yelling..

Stage 3 – ‘props’

Stage 3 – in the ‘studio’

Stage 3 – in the ‘field’

Outputs & Next Steps • Main outputs • Increased understanding of young people’s attitudes to and adoption and on-going use of technology • Expressed in various academic & industry papers and presentations • Australia, Hawaii, UK*, Norway* • Novell – study of converging technology in line with ‘One Net’ philosophy • University of Melbourne – real world problems of interaction with technology and novel design • Next Steps • Program for 2002 being planned • Focus on young people to be maintained • Focus on technology and envisioning the future to be maintained • Looking to create a package to assist companies to solve their technology problems and envision future technology requirements • Looking to broaden the application of the appropriation model * Currently being written & submitted

Customers of the Future