3.2 Phase 1: Contextualising the Framework
3.2.1 Step 1: Map Organisation
Since the framework aims to find the most appropriate presentation formats to use when presenting information to the organisation’s employees, it seems ap- propriate to start by reviewing both the employee clusters and the information presentation capabilities of the organisation.
3.2.1.1 Step 1.1: Create Employee Clusters
Purpose: To identify attributes which can be used to create employee clus- ters. This step will enable designers to ensure that only the preferences of the target audience are used when creating reports. It will serve as the basis for Step 10 (see Section 3.5.3).
Theoretical grounding: Literature in Section 2.1.6 shows that informa- tion presentation preferences differ among people. Recall that Allen and Kim (2001) found that an individual’s quest for information is likely to evolve as the interaction between the context and the individual’s characteristics pro- gresses. Although demographic characteristics cannot be used to predict the preferences of individuals, if groups of people are exposed to similar infor- mation on a regular basis, they will likely have had to perform similar tasks with the data. Employees working in different levels in an organisation (from executive managers to lower level employees) are rarely exposed to the same reports. Even employees that are on the same level, but who work in different departments, rarely see and use the same information.
Schramm’s model of communication in Section2.2.2best explains the rea- son for this step. Schramm(1954) concluded that communication can only be effective if it falls within the fields of experience of both the sender and the receiver. This step aims to find characteristics which can be used to narrow down the number of employees whose fields of experience need to be taken into consideration when reporting information.
By identifying clusters of employees who are typically exposed to similar reports, designers of new reports will be capable of isolating the presentation preferences of the target audience from those of the rest of the employees. This will ensure that each report is only tailored to the preferences of its target audience and not that of the whole population of employees. Because of the variability in preferences among people, reducing the number of people whose needs the report has to satisfy will reduce the preferences that need to be considered.
Artefact/Example: This step does not have a specific artefact which can be reused in future, but an example of how attributes can be used to isolate clusters of employees is shown in Table 3.1. The department, managerial level in the organisation and security clearance level of nine employees are shown.
Even though the attributes used in identifying clusters might be static, the clusters themselves can be dynamic. In Table 3.1, all of the employees in the Human resources (HR) department have been highlighted to form a cluster. However, by collecting multiple attributes of employees (such as level in organisation, department and security clearance), report designers will be able to isolate, for example, the middle managers in the HR department with security clearance of two or higher. Using the employees in Table 3.1 as an example, only Employee C and Employee D satisfy this criteria. As a result, only the presentation preferences of those two employees need to be considered when designing the report. By using dynamic filtering of multiple attributes,
Table 3.1: Example of creating clusters of employees based on attributes.
Employee Name Department Level Clearance Level
Employee A Asset management Top 3
Employee B Legal department Top 3
Employee C Human resources (HR) Middle 3
Employee D Human resources (HR) Middle 3
Employee E Project management Middle 2
Employee F Asset management Middle 2
Employee G Human resources (HR) Middle 2
Employee H Logistic department Low 2
Employee I Human resources (HR) Low 1
clusters can be manipulated to suit the needs of the designer. In order to allow designers maximum freedom when isolating clusters, the attributes measured should be organisation-specific to enable the isolation of very small groups of employees. This information can also be supplemented by attributes of employees that are procedurally collected by the HR department.
Value proposition: This step enables the identification and isolation of preferences of the target audience by the framework. As a result of this step, the presentation formats recommended by the framework will only consider the needs of the individuals who a report is created for.
3.2.1.2 Step 1.2: Determine Data Presentation Capabilities
Purpose: To ensure that all of the preferences tested by the framework can be created by the designer of the report. Additionally, to ensure that data presentation formats used by the organisation, which are not mentioned in Section 2.7, are added to the framework.
Theoretical grounding: The purpose of the framework is to guide report designers when deciding on a data presentation format which satisfies the needs of the majority of the target audience. However, before an ideal format can be selected, a list of all the formats that the organisation’s reporting tool or software is capable of generating needs to be created. Section 2.5 explains that different representational formats have varying strengths and weaknesses which make them more suitable for some tasks than others. Nevertheless, it is essential that the organisation is able to reproduce all of the formats that are presented as options to the users when determining their presentation preferences in Section3.3.1. Furthermore, it is equally important that any pre-
sentation formats not mentioned in the framework, but which can be produced by the organisation, are included as presentation options in the framework.
All of the graphs (with the exception of box and whisker graphs) discussed in Section2.7 can be created using templates in Microsoft ExcelTM - a popular data analysis and presentation tool. Although there is not a template for it in Microsoft ExcelTM, box and whisker graphs can be created using alternative steps. The list of graphs in Section 2.7 can be used as a starting point, but it should not be considered to be an exhaustive list or all-inclusive. Once a new list is created, it can be used to test the preferences of the employees in Section 3.3.1.
Recall that, in Section 2.5, it was explained that representations contain- ing the same information are labelled as informationally equivalent. As the framework is intended to aid in the selection of a presentation format out of a variety of alternative formats which convey approximately the same infor- mation, it has been decided that neither single nor multiple pie graphs will be included as alternatives in the generic version of the framework. Table 2.9
in Section 2.7.6 outlines the advantages and disadvantages of pie graphs. Pie graphs only show the value of each data element as a proportion of the whole without providing the user with the option of retrieving the actual values of the data elements. In other words, the information of a single data element is only provided in relation to the other data elements in the set and thus it would be unreasonable to provide it as an alternative to the other formats in the framework. Although not all of the other formats in the framework are informationally equivalent, they provide substantially more information than pie graphs.
Artefact/Example: The artefact for this step is a check list similar to the one illustrated in Figure3.2. All of the presentation formats used in the generic framework are listed on the left with empty lines which the user can fill with presentation formats not listed in the framework. On the right of each presen- tation format listed, the user is required to indicate whether the organisation is capable of reproducing that particular format or not.
Figure 3.2 has been filled in for illustrative purposes only. It shows that a hypothetical organisation is not capable of reproducing box and whisker plots, line (area) graphs and the point graphs (dot plots) discussed in the generic list of formats in the framework. Furthermore, the hypothetical organisation is able to produce heat maps, bubble plots and pictographs - all of which are formats not discussed in the framework.
Presentation format Reproducible? Bar Graph (Grouped) Yes
Bar Graph (Simple) Yes
Bar Graph (Stacked) Yes
Box and Whisker No
Column Graph (Grouped) Yes
Column Graph (Simple) Yes
Column Graph (Stacked) Yes
Histogram Yes
Histogram (Multiple) Yes
Line (Area) Graph No
Line Graph Yes
Point Graph (Dot Plot) No
Radar Graph Yes
Table Yes
Heat maps Yes
Bubble plots Yes
Pictographs Yes
Figure 3.2: Example of a check list which can be used to determine all reproducible presentation formats.
Value proposition: This step verifies that the list of presentation format options being tested in Step 4 (see Section 3.3.1) can be reproduced by the organisation. In addition, this step also ensures that the list of presentation formats contains all formats which do not form part of the generic framework, but which can be produced by the organisation.