Envisioning

A process
Designers must perform some level of envisioning to imagine a successful design. It is an exploration into the domain in question to understand the implications of a given system design. Envisioning involves integrating some new technology, system, or service into an environment. The envisioning process requires telling stories through an understanding of the burgeoning technology and the domain.

Physical and Functional plausibility
These stories must be both physically and functionally plausible. Physically they must be bound to the physical properties of the domain, making them believeable to real practitioners as a valid representation of their world. Functionally, these stories must demonstrate knowledge of the intracacies and subtleties of the domain which justify explorations of future situations. Practitioners must be able to understand and give credibility to stories which purport to define their future.

 



    Scenarios





  Effective ways of telling a story
Envisioning how storylines play out works well in the context of a scenario. Scenarios contain an accurate model of the world showing how behaviors continue to adapt to constraints and goals in the field of practice. These adaptations point to generic problems being manifested locally in the domain, and are crucial to understanding and envisioning future behaviors.

The gap between technologists and practitioners
To gain a glimpse about what might be a useful application of technology in some domain, you must have a thorough understanding of the cognitive challenges facing practitioners, and how those challenges would be assuaged (or exacerbated) by the introduction of new systems or technologies. This introduces the Practitioner / Technologist Gap. The practitioner is disabled because he is concerned with solving real problems, irrespective of techological advances. The technologist is disabled because she is focused on developing new products, largely irrespective of specific needs. This creates a situation where the technologist doesn't truly know how her products can help, and the practitioner doesn't truly know what the tecnology can do for him. The methods introduced here are intended to bridge this gap and provide a balance between the technologist and the practitioner to better understand how each can benefit the other.

How do you bridge the gap?
Bridging this gap requires a thorough understanding of the domain and what it means to be a practitioner in that domain. One trap is becomming too engrossed in the domain that you take on the perspective of an insider, and are thus incapable of truly objective viewpoints and innovations. This understanding must also be tempered with an understanding of the technology and how it is advancing. A thorough cognitive task analysis (CTA) can help gain an appreciation for the constraints faced by real practitioners and insight into how to successfully integrate new technology. Effective CTA should not simply list what happens in an environment, but provide direct insights which act as pointers for future design. For example, knowing there are significant casualties from RPG fire is not as insightful as knowing that these RPG attacks are occuring most frequently on military supply trucks as they move on certain highways between the hours of 2-5am.


Our scenario plays out in distinct divisions, as follows:

  • Evacuation decision - The decision is made to evacuate a city in a foreign country of all the American civilians.

  • Occupy / Security - The U.S. Embassy serves as the evacuation point and base of operations. Friendly forces assess nearby threats of militant groups.

  • Patrolling and Reconnaissance - U.S. forces actively search threat area for indications of impending conflict.

  • Evacuation - The evacuation itself takes place.
In addition to the scenario details we have identified episodes of potentially interesting interactions within the scenario. These are:
  1. Sensor monitoring around the embassy.

  2. Establishment and operation of a checkpoint.

  3. Reconnaissance in threat area.

  4. The Evacuation effort.